Did the Pats go too far in garbage time?

[Rainy-Day Patriot]

Granted, they did not drive up the score, because there was no scoring in the fourth quarter, but did the Pats somehow rub it in?

On defense, they beat the crap out of their back-up, Bollinger. Think about the three sacks in a row.

On offense, Tom Brady kept on throwing the rock late, late into the game. Think about that long pass on fourth down that was called back. Cassel could have come in a series or two earlier.

Hey, I think you play football for sixty minutes. Yes, you don't go for garbage points, but if they give them to you, then you've got to take them. They didn't give us any, and we didn't take any. I don't see a big problem, but if any of you have insightful points, either way, they would be well taken.

Besides my sixty-minute truism, I would add that Brady is still getting used to his receivers so every game rep is valuable.

Thanks,
Sean

[Just to add a little context: My friend is a Minni fan, and she thought they crossed the line of poor sportsmanship. Minni's back-ups were in, and we kept on battering away with our starters. She's not dead set on villifying the Pats. She generally like the franchise. I told her I would ask here to see if there were other interesting angles.]

 

[Kdo5]

Pfff...big frigging deal. The Colts do this all the time. Remember that stupid sideline reporter talked to BB and he said "He will stick with the game plan all game long."

He was serious about it, to the very last minute. Embarass Brad Childress? Apparently BB and Childress dislike each other, am I correct?

 

[MrBigglesWorth]

Granted, they did not drive up the score, because there was no scoring in the fourth quarter, but did the Pats somehow rub it in?

On defense, they beat the crap out of their back-up, Bollinger. Think about the three sacks in a row.

On offense, Tom Brady kept on throwing the rock late, late into the game. Think about that long pass on fourth down that was called back. Cassel could have come in a series or two earlier.

Hey, I think you play football for sixty minutes. Yes, you don't go for garbage points, but if they give them to you, then you've got to take them. They didn't give us any, and we didn't take any. I don't see a big problem, but if any of you have insightful points, either way, they would be well taken.

Besides my sixty-minute truism, I would add that Brady is still getting used to his receivers so every game rep is valuable.

Thanks,
Sean

[Just to add a little context: My friend is a Minni fan, and she thought they crossed the line of poor sportsmanship. Minni's back-ups were in, and we kept on battering away with our starters. She's not dead set on villifying the Pats. She generally like the franchise. I told her I would ask here to see if there were other interesting angles.]

No way. There was still a ton of time left. I was surprised Minni gave up so early and yanked Johnson. I think it was a statement game and if anything I think Belichik was wary of having his kicker kick a long field goal at the end so he went for it on 4th down. I don't think you go from 5 wide outs to a running game when you didn't even do it in the game just to ease off the peddle. You don't want to destroy any momentum and yoou want to strong on a positive strong note to carry into next week.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I think that you should explain to your friend that there is a line between running up the score and giving up. As it turned out (and this had mostly to do with the alignment of the Minnesota defense) to switch from a passing to a running game would have led to the Pats going three and out. There isn't an obligation to do that.

That said, I think I can say this with a clear conscience -- I defended Indianapolis on this board a couple of weeks ago. All of those who objected then to Indianapolis continuing to play hard into the fourth quarter have less ground to stand on.

 

[zippo59]

They couldn't run out the clock by running it. They had to keep passing if they wanted first downs.

 

[zippo59]

It was somewhat uncharacteristic but the situation called for it.

 

[LasVegasPatsFan]

Absolutely not!!! I finally give BB some props for continuing his game plan well into the 4th quarter. I hope you all enjoyed it because I doubt he will do that more often. Normally when we have a substacial lead, BB changes his game plan to a more run oriented. Did the Colts last year change their game plan when they put up 40 points on us? No!. We have a big game next week against the Colts. This was a perfect opportunity to continue to perfect their game plan for next week. Smart move and hope to see this type of game plan more often.

Finally, I dont believe in garbage points. This is a professional sport where everyone makes six and seven figure salaries. If you loose by 1 point or by 50, it is still a lose. I like the idea of racking up points. This is what they play for.

 

[SVN]

i also think its because the vikings and colts play the same tampa 2 defense ..so it was kinda practice...that being said, if brady had got hurt on that sack on 4th and 5 like last week happened to hasselbeck..it would have been disastrous..

 

[Urgent]

In terms of play calling and strategy, you can't go away from what you practiced for the game. The Pats had decided that they wouldn't run if they weren't effective -- and Dillon and Maroney combining for 39 yards on 11 carries says they weren't effective.

However, I would like to have seen Cassel at least one series earlier, and would have been happy with a few more defensive back-ups. Maybe let Alexander get some time at LB, or Andrews at DB. Both to protect the starters and to gain some experience for the back-ups.

 

[Kdo5]

I was just dissapointed the C-Jack long catch got ruled back :'(

 

[BelichickFan]

I was just dissapointed the C-Jack long catch got ruled back :'(

I didn't care that it didn't count, it was just good to see him making the catch, getting the rep and the penalty was irrelevant to the catch.

Personally I thought they'd have pulled in the reigns a little sooner than they did.

 

[onegameatatime]

My theory is that BB did not want to show anything more to Indy about the running game or get his RBs dinged up. But I was surprised by the 5 wide. But if the running game was not working, why not stick with it. it's not like they racked up the points in Q4.

 

[mgteich]

Why go three an out a few times with the running game and get people beat up for no reason?

I agree 100% with going with the game plan throughout the game (and I also agree when it is the colts). It was the pass game that was going to run out the clock.

HOWEVER, IMHO, Brady should have been pulled much earlier. Why risk injury to Brady, who has a sore shoulder for two years ?

 

[Urgent]

Maybe let Alexander get some time at LB, or Andrews at DB. Both to protect the starters and to gain some experience for the back-ups.

umm, watched a couple replays. It was Eric Alexander who whiffed on the long screen play at the end. Maybe that's why they aren't playing some of those guys earlier. Maybe the coaches know better than us...

 

[edgecy]

The passing game probably needed tweaking for next week since it was presumed a weak point of our offense. Also since the running game is already a strong point for us, there was no reason to wear our backs out for next week when they're gonna be huge against that Colts' rushing D.

My suggestion to your friend, instead of worrying why we were running up the points, she should worry about why Brad Childress decided to call it quit early in the 4th quarter by pulling Brad Johnson out. Showed no desire to fight at all by putting in Bollinger.

 

[Box_O_Rocks]

Pulling Brad Johnson was an acknowledgment that your 38 year old QB is already overwhelmed and you might as well try the younger guy and spare the old one who has been winning for you. Hard to call that quiting as much as managing your players.

BB used reserves, Brady getting sacked was Wesly Britt playing at RT for additional game experience. Keeping Tommy in may have been to keep the defense off the field as much as possible to rest the unit with the most age (Linebackers and reserve DBs). Additionally, Cassel, Davey, none of BB's reserve QBs went in for a full quarter that I can recall (Miami last year is an exception), Brad Johnson was on a Tampa team that lost to last minute heroics from next weeks QB and "his" team (four TDs in four minutes wasn't it?). BB leaving Brady in should have told Vikings' fans the best coach in the NFL was taking them seriously despite the substantial lead - he wasn't taking any chance that either Johnson or Bollinger might hit a long ball - Taylor had a 95 yd TD run the week before against a Superbowl team, Moore had already broken a PR for a 71 yd TD, Bethel Johnson has made big plays on occasion, the Vikings were dangerous to the end.

Killing the clock does you no good if you can't get a new set of downs, running against Minnesota didn't get any easier with the lopsided lead.

 

[BTTA]

Only thing that concerned me was that Brady could have been pulled on series sooner, and the celebrating after the sacks of Bollinger felt a bit over the top.

 

[Fogbuster]

Pulling Brad Johnson was an acknowledgment that your 38 year old QB is already overwhelmed and you might as well try the younger guy and spare the old one who has been winning for you. Hard to call that quiting as much as managing your players.

BB used reserves, Brady getting sacked was Wesly Britt playing at RT for additional game experience. Keeping Tommy in may have been to keep the defense off the field as much as possible to rest the unit with the most age (Linebackers and reserve DBs). Additionally, Cassel, Davey, none of BB's reserve QBs went in for a full quarter that I can recall (Miami last year is an exception), Brad Johnson was on a Tampa team that lost to last minute heroics from next weeks QB and "his" team (four TDs in four minutes wasn't it?). BB leaving Brady in should have told Vikings' fans the best coach in the NFL was taking them seriously despite the substantial lead - he wasn't taking any chance that either Johnson or Bollinger might hit a long ball - Taylor had a 95 yd TD run the week before against a Superbowl team, Moore had already broken a PR for a 71 yd TD, Bethel Johnson has made big plays on occasion, the Vikings were dangerous to the end.

Killing the clock does you no good if you can't get a new set of downs, running against Minnesota didn't get any easier with the lopsided lead.

Sums it up pretty well, Box. Good job.

I think it was good the passing game got some extra quality time in game situations. Gives rooks, like Chad, a chance to get some real world work. Gives the O-line some added experience protecting Tom. Gives the Colts something extra to think about. Gives the running backs relief from the pounding the Viking D dishes out on its run attack.

Heck, it was almost like the good ol' days of dink and dunk!!

Onward!!




//

 

[brady2brown]

My theory is that BB did not want to show anything more to Indy about the running game or get his RBs dinged up. But I was surprised by the 5 wide. But if the running game was not working, why not stick with it. it's not like they racked up the points in Q4.

I think you have it. Why give Indy game film? Besides, we've all been yapping for weeks that Brady needs time to get used to the receivers. SO here he is, in a game situation, not only gettting used to receivers, but doing so against the same type defense the Colts use.

What could be better?

I would have liked to see a few more backups in on defense, though.

 

[zoostation]

I was just dissapointed the C-Jack long catch got ruled back :'(

That catch would have put TB close to 400 yards passing (if not over). Play to the end!