PatsFaninAZ
In the Starting Line-Up
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2006
- Messages
- 4,091
- Reaction score
- 0
So, not all turnovers are created equal.
On its face, Cromartie's pick on third down seemed huge, bucause it took 3 points off the board. But was it? What does that game look like if he just bats it down?
Patriots kick the field goal and are up by 5. Chargers get the ball back on a kick off. A good kick off return gets them up past the 30, but let's assume they end up around the 25 or so. They're down one score, not in the shadow their own end zone, and with 18 minute left.
Instead, they take over deep in their own territory. They make a first down, but even so end up having to punt from their 20, Pats get good field position, several minutes have run off the clock, the Chargers defense has to come right back out, and the Pats put together the game winning drive.
In some senses, kicking a field goal sometimes just bails your opponent out from a bad field position situation when it's losing. Chargers putting together a 96 yard drive at that point was unlikely.
If the pick had been on first down or something, it's a big deal. But on 3d down, I'm not sure that, at the end of the day, batting the ball down doesn't give your team a better chance to win in that circumstance. Hard to convince anyone of that, but I think it worked out that way.
Everyone is going to point to the red zone effeciency as the story of the game, and that's right. But the reality is that not all turnovers are created equal. (Just as another example, the Pats second pick of Rivers turned out to be a positive for the Chargers by giving them the ball back in good shape and a chance to close out the half with points and to leave no time left on the clock for us.) The Chargers turnovers stopped drives, to be sure. But otherwise, they weren't very expensive. The Asante pick, on the other hand, was the play of the game.
Now, if Cromartie just takes a knee in the end zone instead of attempting the dumbest play in football (the int return out of the middle of the end zone) it's a whole different can of cabbage.
On its face, Cromartie's pick on third down seemed huge, bucause it took 3 points off the board. But was it? What does that game look like if he just bats it down?
Patriots kick the field goal and are up by 5. Chargers get the ball back on a kick off. A good kick off return gets them up past the 30, but let's assume they end up around the 25 or so. They're down one score, not in the shadow their own end zone, and with 18 minute left.
Instead, they take over deep in their own territory. They make a first down, but even so end up having to punt from their 20, Pats get good field position, several minutes have run off the clock, the Chargers defense has to come right back out, and the Pats put together the game winning drive.
In some senses, kicking a field goal sometimes just bails your opponent out from a bad field position situation when it's losing. Chargers putting together a 96 yard drive at that point was unlikely.
If the pick had been on first down or something, it's a big deal. But on 3d down, I'm not sure that, at the end of the day, batting the ball down doesn't give your team a better chance to win in that circumstance. Hard to convince anyone of that, but I think it worked out that way.
Everyone is going to point to the red zone effeciency as the story of the game, and that's right. But the reality is that not all turnovers are created equal. (Just as another example, the Pats second pick of Rivers turned out to be a positive for the Chargers by giving them the ball back in good shape and a chance to close out the half with points and to leave no time left on the clock for us.) The Chargers turnovers stopped drives, to be sure. But otherwise, they weren't very expensive. The Asante pick, on the other hand, was the play of the game.
Now, if Cromartie just takes a knee in the end zone instead of attempting the dumbest play in football (the int return out of the middle of the end zone) it's a whole different can of cabbage.
Last edited:
