Should Bill have punted on that 4th down?

[Leave No Doubt]

I think the question turns not just on risk but also reward. If the Patriots had made it yesterday, what is the reward? Chargers had all 3 time outs. So, even if the Patriots convert, they can't run the clock out. They still need another first down. If they run three plays and get stopped, the Chargers have the ball back with about 1:00 to play. They may even have more time, or more time outs, if the Patriots throw an incomplete pass or go out of bounds.

Seems to me that if the play can win the game and put you in victory formation, it's an easier call. That wasn't the case yesterday. Converting would have made it very difficult for the Chargers, but still, going 50 yards in a minute happens all the time in the NFL.

Well said.

 

[pencilneckgeek]

The risk-reward consideration of SD's remaining timeouts is a good one. ESPN ran some win probability numbers that made it seem like a no brainer for the Pats to punt. However, I trust this guy's numbers more, and it looks like a wash, unless you consider how tough SD was against the run yesterday. I still blame BJGE for blowing the play, but the punt looks much better when you consider SD's timeouts.

 

[chris_in_sunnyvale]

From the replay behind and above the play, it looked like BJGE took it too far outside when simply cutting to the right of Connolly would have gotten the 1st down. Was the play called to go outside or did BJGE simply try to stretch it outside? I don't know if the call should be blamed.

I like going for it. The play was after the 2 minute warning so if the Pats converted, the Chargers had to burn their 1st TO. Then they burn their last 2 after runs on 1st and 2nd down. On 3rd down, the Pats definitely needed to run to let the clock run, then punt it. Chargers get the ball deep in their end with no TOs and about a minute left. I like those odds.

Regards,
Chris

 

[TruthSeeker]

If BJGE had run the play correctly he would have had an easy first down, game over. On a previous short yardage play he was able to bounce outside of his blockers and get the first down. That obviously influenced his decision on this play. I am sure he will learn from this, one way or another....

Exactly.

The call wasn't to run a sweep outside. It was to run over left guard/tackle. And there was a huge hole there as the endzone camera clearly shows. I could have gotten a first down on my bad knee with that blocking.

No, the only problem was a running back who couldn't see the hole and didn't follow either the play design or his blockers.

That being said, I believe it was definately correct to go for it. And I can only laugh at those who think a QB sneak on 4th and 2 is a percentage call.

 

[Kontradiction]

There were also a few instances where yesterday where having a full time FB on the roster would have paid dividends. This play was just one of those instances.

 

[Patsrock]

I love going for it, but I would have rather seen a play action pass to one of the tight ends. SD was all in for the run.

 

[VJCPatriot]

I would have gone for it as well. I think going for it was the right call. Now the play they ran was a bit too obvious and the way the OL was playing that day I don't think it had a good shot at working. Would have gone with a double tight end formation and quick PA to Gronk or Hernandez in space or a misdirection play to Woodhead and let him make something happen. BJGE had no chance of picking it up on that play.

 

[Patsrock]

Has anyone thought that maybe BB went for it because of Ingrams horrible snapping and thought he might be a problem at the point.

 

[captain stone]

There were also a few instances where yesterday where having a full time FB on the roster would have paid dividends. This play was just one of those instances.

Amen.

I look at Houston's Leach, SD's Tolbert, Philly's Weaver, et.al., and I wonder:
Why can't we get guys like that?

If Sometimes Sammy, the 3rd RB of only 3 active and the only one with FB capabilities,
can't be trusted on the field in an obvious short-yardage situation,
then I have no use for him.
As it was, I wasn't thrilled when Bill signed him in 2007, anyway.