Welcome to PatsFans.com

Patriots too passive before the first Half?

Discussion in 'PatsFans.com - Patriots Fan Forum' started by TinhWoodhead, Jan 14, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TinhWoodhead

    TinhWoodhead Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Messages:
    215
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I don't know if this was discussed but with over a minute and 2 timeouts left before the half, they decided to run out the clock and of course it didn't quite worked out. I heard the commentators explanation but I thought it was too conservative. Anyone had/have a problem with this?
  2. signbabybrady

    signbabybrady On the Roster

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2007
    Messages:
    8,968
    Likes Received:
    102
    Ratings:
    +167 / 1 / -1

    #24 Jersey

    Sorry cant resist but generally it is a good idea to wait until the game tarts to be agressive. :D


    But seriously I dont really have a problem with either being agressive or running out the clock there but they seemed to get caught in the middle and wound up neither advancing the ball or really killing any clock. It clearly was poor management of the situation and worse execution of the plan for the situation but not the worst mistake ever.
    Last edited: Jan 14, 2013
  3. chasa

    chasa Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2012
    Messages:
    1,831
    Likes Received:
    90
    Ratings:
    +290 / 9 / -2

    #87 Jersey

    it ended up being the right call, they went three and out and gave the ball back with half a minute to go, had they been more agressive and not killed as much time it would have resulted in another legitimate chance four houston.
  4. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,546
    Likes Received:
    178
    Ratings:
    +425 / 10 / -11

    #24 Jersey

    Yeah, they were caught in the middle. Simultaneously too aggressive and too passive within the horrible "series".
  5. upstater1

    upstater1 Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2005
    Messages:
    13,027
    Likes Received:
    29
    Ratings:
    +43 / 4 / -3

    When the Patriots made that decision, it told me the coaches were highly confident that halftime adjustments would put the game away so there was no reason to risk anything.

    It could have backfired, but I think this was a sign of the coach's confidence in the 2nd half.
  6. the Patriot

    the Patriot Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2007
    Messages:
    447
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I don't think our running attack is passive anymore. You get a few first downs running the ball, you still control the clock, and you're a couple plays away from field goal range. It just didn't work out this time.
  7. PatsFanSince74

    PatsFanSince74 PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    9,953
    Likes Received:
    47
    Ratings:
    +94 / 3 / -1

    No. No problem at all. They were getting the ball back to begin the second half. They were in "no man's land" in terms of the time on the clock. They didn't want to give the ball back to Houston with time to score again, so they ran the clock down to 31 seconds and relied on Special Teams to salt the half away.

    Unfortunately, Special Teams, which arguably helped lose the SF game and nearly lost this one from the opening KO, once again blew it with a magnificent 32 yard punt giving Houston the ball on their 38 yard line instead of inside the 20, allowing them to get in position to get a FG.

    This is supposed to be a team effort engaging all three phases of the game. If Belichick makes the strategic decision to punt with 31 seconds left in the Half, he expects Special Teams to do its job and not hand the other guys silly field position.

    So, the clock management wasn't the problem
  8. PATSYLICIOUS

    PATSYLICIOUS Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2007
    Messages:
    11,047
    Likes Received:
    19
    Ratings:
    +73 / 0 / -1

    #12 Jersey

    The other issue in that sequence was not using a timeout when the Texans ran the ball after the 2 minute warning. You have a chance to give Brady close to 2 minutes, should've done it. Our clock management has been very iffy multiple times this season it's a bit concerning.

    The main problem though is the indecisiveness, you either go for it or you don't. They really screwed up there and got the worst case scenario letting the Texans score again. Hope it doesn't happen again. I personally would have went for the score, with the way Brady was playing. In a game where our offense is shaky and defense is carrying us I'd have sat on it. But yesterday, definitely felt they should've gone for it in that situation and should have given themselves more time to do it with better usage of TO's. Like I said I wouldn't have a major issue with sitting on it, but choosing middle of the road will typically burn you the worst, and it did.
  9. PatsDeb

    PatsDeb PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,006
    Likes Received:
    31
    Ratings:
    +49 / 0 / -1

    I thought there were two problems in the game (which I hate to complain after such a good win), the kick-off coverage (WTF happened there?) and clock management at the end of the half. I could not understand why we did not try to get the ball downfield into FG range with 1:15 on the clock and holding 2 time outs. There was too much time left to do what they did, which is try to run out the clock, only to fail to do so by not running the ball each time. What happened to trying to score to end the half and then open with another one? The only thing I could think of at the time is that Gost seemed to injure himself on the horse collar tackle, so maybe they did not want to chance a long kick. However, he kicked fine in the 2nd half, so who knows? Thought that was a poor coaching moment that could have come back to bite us (but thankfully did not).
  10. borg

    borg Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2004
    Messages:
    3,902
    Likes Received:
    66
    Ratings:
    +146 / 8 / -13

    Way too passive. Teams will throw the bend/no break D in this situation so it would pay to be more aggressive. Look at how Os just marched down the field at the end of halfs ...Atl using two plays to kick a FG and Houston doing the same to NE right after their punt. Bill took his foot off the pedal (despite his no digging fox holes speech mid week) and the team got burned.
  11. BKBroiler

    BKBroiler Rookie

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2008
    Messages:
    253
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    To me it wasn't the play calling being passive, but rather they were put in a tough situation and didn't execute when they had the opportunity.

    As some noted, they were in a tough spot on that drive. Be too aggressive and leave the potential to give the ball back to Houston with just under a minute left (and Houston having time outs remaining - I believe 3).


    Here was the play by play:


    1-10-NE 26 (1:09) (Shotgun) 34-S.Vereen left guard to NE 30 for 4 yards (94-A.Smith).
    2-6-NE 30 :)40) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass incomplete short right to 81-A.Hernandez.
    3-6-NE 30 :)36) (Shotgun) 12-T.Brady pass incomplete short left to 81-A.Hernandez [98-C.Barwin].
    4-6-NE 30 :)31) 14-Z.Mesko punts 32 yards to HOU 38, Center-48-D.Aiken, out of bounds.


    I think running on first down was absolutely the right call because it got the clock moving, the run game was working pretty, and the Pats still had two timeouts. The only criticism I could see with this drive was on third down (to rush and force Houston to blow a TO instead), but that would be a bit of a stretch.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>