In case you didn't know bb is a genuis!

[Texxx]

Texxx it was genius. Your just some angry person that doesn't like to give credit where it was due. And it worked

No,it didn't work. the Pats gave up the ball like three times and for all we know the broncos would have scored on that last drive it weren't for the special teams turnover. The Pats won due to the special teams. It clearly had nothing to do with the offense or the defense in the 2nd half. They created a turnover in scoring position and the game was over.

 

[JMC00]

No,it didn't work. the Pats gave up the ball like three times and for all we know the broncos would have scored on that last drive it weren't for the special teams turnover. The Pats won due to the special teams. It clearly had nothing to do with the offense or the defense in the 2nd half. They created a turnover in scoring position and the game was over.

So much fail in your post.

It clearly had nothing to do with the offense or the defense in the 2nd half.

It had everything to do with offense and defense in the 2nd half. Patriots scored 31 points while holding the so called best offense ever to 7 points.

 

[Archeryaddict12]

No,it didn't work. the Pats gave up the ball like three times and for all we know the broncos would have scored on that last drive it weren't for the special teams turnover. The Pats won due to the special teams. It clearly had nothing to do with the offense or the defense in the 2nd half. They created a turnover in scoring position and the game was over.

Texx; the offense got us in the game, and the defense kept us ahead/tied. It was genius and worked.

Texx, I suggest getting sober and try again, because clearly you can't think straight.

 

[ausbacker]

No,it didn't work. the Pats gave up the ball like three times and for all we know the broncos would have scored on that last drive it weren't for the special teams turnover. The Pats won due to the special teams. It clearly had nothing to do with the offense or the defense in the 2nd half. They created a turnover in scoring position and the game was over.

The Patriots beat the Broncos. Whatever they did, worked.

 

[RayClay]

Genius? The Patriots gave the ball back to the Broncos like 3 times after that. If they had lost, then the same OP would probably be cursing BB. There was nothing genius at all about that. You should always take the ball especially if you're playing Manning who had just scored a TD on the previous drive. It was a bad call. They Pats just ended up winning any way. This is one thing I hate about football fans which is the difference in what they say after a game depending on whether the team wins or loses. The outcome shouldn't ever gloss over mistakes or poor decisions. The Patriots did end up winning though which was a great win either way. Calling a decision like that "Genius" is ridiculous though. That word gets tossed around so loosely by newb football fans.

I don't use that word either, he's no Norman Einstein.

Isn't it amazing how often we get lucky when we make the wrong call though.

 

[Bobsyouruncle]

No,it didn't work. the Pats gave up the ball like three times and for all we know the broncos would have scored on that last drive it weren't for the special teams turnover. The Pats won due to the special teams. It clearly had nothing to do with the offense or the defense in the 2nd half. They created a turnover in scoring position and the game was over.

This is debatable. As I recall the Broncos got to around the 35 on their first drive, close enough for a 50 yard field goal. A field goal their kicker probably could have made with the wind but not against it.

 

[pherein]

yep we know

 

[Robdude]

No,it didn't work. the Pats gave up the ball like three times and for all we know the broncos would have scored on that last drive it weren't for the special teams turnover. The Pats won due to the special teams. It clearly had nothing to do with the offense or the defense in the 2nd half. They created a turnover in scoring position and the game was over.

I am not sure what would qualify as success for you. The first Bronco drive stalled with a throw that died in the air. Seems like the wind affected it. Another drive went into NE territory without a field goal attempt.

If you want to say it didn't seem to help the offense that is fine. But, it did help the defense. The top offense in the NFL was stopped 3 times in a row. The wind was part of why they were stopped.

You could definitely argue now that we have seen the game that if we had the ball first we still might have been stopped and they would have had a better chance to win.

 

[Ivan]

No,it didn't work. the Pats gave up the ball like three times and for all we know the broncos would have scored on that last drive it weren't for the special teams turnover. The Pats won due to the special teams. It clearly had nothing to do with the offense or the defense in the 2nd half. They created a turnover in scoring position and the game was over.

Can't argue with this, the Patriots got 350 yards and 3 TD's from their ST unit. Pretty sure Brady is going to be named AFC ST Player of the Month, and he deserves it.

 

[Ivan]

Can i ask you a question TEXXXXX?


Do you actually run the Texans?

Because looking at it from the outside it would appear that someone with your obvious expertise is calling the shots there.

 

[Ivan]

I am not sure what would qualify as success for you.

I think it is getting the first pick overall.

 

[scout]

No,it didn't work. the Pats gave up the ball like three times and for all we know the broncos would have scored on that last drive it weren't for the special teams turnover. The Pats won due to the special teams. It clearly had nothing to do with the offense or the defense in the 2nd half. They created a turnover in scoring position and the game was over.

Are you saying the Patriots should have taken the ball? Manning had little success all night into the wind. Yet, "for all we know the broncos would have scored on the last drive". The Patriots "gave up the ball three times" with the wind, and you would have given the wind to Peyton?
As far as the genius label, Steve B put that to rest a few years back.

 

[JMarr]

Can i ask you a question TEXXXXX?


Do you actually run the Texans?

Because looking at it from the outside it would appear that someone with your obvious expertise is calling the shots there.

Now you're the one letting emotions play into your analysis. BB is hands down the best coach in the NFL but, as the old cliche goes, just because it worked doesn't mean it was the right call. The fact that 4th and 2 failed against INDY doesn't make that the wrong call.

As you know, now it is sudden death only if the first team to possess the ball scores a TD. To me, this is even more damning regarding BB's decision to give Peyton the ball. That first possession in OT is the most crucial, regardless of anything else.

And if you look at BB's Monday conference call, the last part of his explanation really makes no sense:

“I felt like there was about a 20-yard difference in field position [on opposite sides of the field] to just attempt a field goal, let’s put it that way. I felt like that was a big enough advantage to try to keep the wind.”

Meaning that Denver (or the Pats) would have a hard time kicking a field goal into the wind. Scoring a touchdown? Not so much. A field goal by the Doinks in that situation really would have been almost meaningless given the fact that the Pats would have gotten the ball back and could win it with a TD. And the the wind had not been bothering TB in the least all night long.

 

[50-yard-line]

Best part about that decision is what it does to the defense going forward. Think about it, he put a defense with:

2 UFA rookie DTs
A 2nd year DE
A rookie LB who has hardly played
Another LB whose seen very limited snaps in his two years
A rookie safety
A rookie CB
A 2nd year CB

out there in a situation where surrendering a touchdown to the Number 1 offense in the NFL with Peyton Manning QB'ing would mean a loss and a howling Boston media.

Talk about a confidence booster.

 

[Ivan]

Now you're the one letting emotions play into your analysis. BB is hands down the best coach in the NFL but, as the old cliche goes, just because it worked doesn't mean it was the right call. The fact that 4th and 2 failed against INDY doesn't make that the wrong call.

As you know, now it is sudden death only if the first team to possess the ball scores a TD. To me, this is even more damning regarding BB's decision to give Peyton the ball. That first possession in OT is the most crucial, regardless of anything else.

And if you look at BB's Monday conference call, the last part of his explanation really makes no sense:

“I felt like there was about a 20-yard difference in field position [on opposite sides of the field] to just attempt a field goal, let’s put it that way. I felt like that was a big enough advantage to try to keep the wind.”

Meaning that Denver (or the Pats) would have a hard time kicking a field goal into the wind. Scoring a touchdown? Not so much. A field goal by the Doinks in that situation really would have been almost meaningless given the fact that the Pats would have gotten the ball back and could win it with a TD. And the the wind had not been bothering TB in the least all night long.

I think you responded to the wrong post.


And Belichick was right on 4th and 2 and they actually got it.

 

[PlainOldEd]

No,it didn't work. the Pats gave up the ball like three times and for all we know the broncos would have scored on that last drive it weren't for the special teams turnover. The Pats won due to the special teams. It clearly had nothing to do with the offense or the defense in the 2nd half. They created a turnover in scoring position and the game was over.

As soon as Denver failed to score a touchdown on their first drive it worked, regardless of what happened after that. Even if the Bronco's had successfully fielded the punt and managed to score on the last drive of OT it still would have been the right call. The Pats had the wind at their back and therefore the better chance to kick a field-goal for the entire overtime period. The fact that they didn't manage to do it until the end of the period is irrelevant.

 

[RayClay]

Responding to no one in particular...The Broncos could have kicked a field goal meaning the Pats would have to tie it or win on the next possession.

So, it certainly would give the Broncos the advantage, but not the game, to kick a field goal. Making that more difficult leaves the length of the field TD, difficult under any circumstances.

However, without the wind, he likely doesn't give Manning the chance to gain the advantage with a relatively easy march to a field goal, with TD possibility.

BTW, I like this new rule (for a change). Gives nice checks and balances to end a game, even if it's a bit complicated.

 

[terabthia2]

Watch--I guarantee you that others will be making the same decision now too. Belichick doesn't get the credit that he deserves sometimes, but I honestly believe that he is the greatest coach in many, many years. We've seen many other coaches kind of "copy" off of BB's choices, and I'd imagine that him having the balls to make this call will make it easier for them too also.

The one thing I've noticed most about other coaches now "copying" something that BB seemed to start is deciding to defer when they win the toss at the beginning of the game. I don't know if it's watching so many games with BB now, but I seemed to remember before he came to the Pats and started doing this that it was pretty much a given that ANY coin toss win at the beginning of the game and the team was going to receive. It was just a given. Now it's almost passing the 60-40 mark (and maybe even more now) that teams are deferring at the beginning to get the ball in the 2nd half. Anyone else noticed this trend?

Well, you know what they say about imitation and flattery, Bill!

 

[Bella*chick]

The one thing I've noticed most about other coaches now "copying" something that BB seemed to start is deciding to defer when they win the toss at the beginning of the game. I don't know if it's watching so many games with BB now, but I seemed to remember before he came to the Pats and started doing this that it was pretty much a given that ANY coin toss win at the beginning of the game and the team was going to receive. It was just a given. Now it's almost passing the 60-40 mark (and maybe even more now) that teams are deferring at the beginning to get the ball in the 2nd half. Anyone else noticed this trend?

Well, you know what they say about imitation and flattery, Bill!

I most definitely agree with this. Deferring is now something I see all the time but before BB started doing it I never recall seeing it. That's not to say it didn't happen (I certainly didn't watch every NFL game ever played) but it seemed far more common after he started doing it all the time.

 

[Ring 6]

Now you're the one letting emotions play into your analysis. BB is hands down the best coach in the NFL but, as the old cliche goes, just because it worked doesn't mean it was the right call. The fact that 4th and 2 failed against INDY doesn't make that the wrong call.

As you know, now it is sudden death only if the first team to possess the ball scores a TD. To me, this is even more damning regarding BB's decision to give Peyton the ball. That first possession in OT is the most crucial, regardless of anything else.

And if you look at BB's Monday conference call, the last part of his explanation really makes no sense:

“I felt like there was about a 20-yard difference in field position [on opposite sides of the field] to just attempt a field goal, let’s put it that way. I felt like that was a big enough advantage to try to keep the wind.”

Meaning that Denver (or the Pats) would have a hard time kicking a field goal into the wind. Scoring a touchdown? Not so much. A field goal by the Doinks in that situation really would have been almost meaningless given the fact that the Pats would have gotten the ball back and could win it with a TD. And the the wind had not been bothering TB in the least all night long.

A FG is huge on the first possession of OT.