Punter MacAfee Throws Pagano Further Under the Snapfu Bus

[ctpatsfan77]

On one hand it is throwing his HC and STs Coach under the bus. On the other hand he will need to explain this play to any team he ever tries out for in the future. It is in his best interest to get this story out there ASAP if he ever wants a job again.

Not going to make that big a difference, I think. The Pats signed Chris "Keep Choppin' Feet" Hanson, after all.

 

[bbobbo]

Bingo!!!!!!!
I don't get the punter's explanation..."try to get too many men on the field". Who on the sidelines would rush out?
If the actual goal was to get NE to burn a TO.....then it starts to make a little sense....except for the inept execution/alignment/snap/jibberish explanation

the offense was lined up along the sideline as though they were getting ready to come in when the ST guys rushed over. i guess they were hoping that the patriots would see that, assume that the Colts were about to switch their players, and jump the gun by substituting their own players.

i think just having the offensive players lined up on the sideline is not enough of a "sell". what they should have done is, in previous games, run a play where they actually did change the players. the patriots would have seen that on film and thought they were doing it again and might have taken the bait.

 

[XLIX]

But were any eligible receivers lined up ineligible? As long as the 5 players on the line, but not on the end of the line, were offensive linemen than there would be no problem.

At the start of the play, the men on the line (from left to right) were numbers 17 (wide left), 51, 93, 45 (center), 49, 57, 27 (wide right).

The guys in the 40's are eligible numbers but, in the original formation, they were in the tackle box so it's fine (assuming they reported, which I am not sure they did). But then when the 5 interior linemen shift wide right and #17 goes to snap the ball, you still had #'s 45 and 49 as eligible receiver numbers lined up as ineligible outside what is traditionally considered the tackle box.

You might very well be right, but I always thought that when it came to the term "tackle box", it means simply where the tackles normally line up. Quite honestly, I admit that I have learned a bit about the rules of the game following this mess up. I was mistaken earlier when I thought the center had to be an interior lineman.

 

[XLIX]

This play reminded me of 2-on-2 football I used to play as a kid. We would have one kid snap the ball to his teammate, with the other 2 kids across the LOS on either side of the center ready to pummel the QB as soon as the ball was snapped.

(Yes, we would use the "5 Mississippi Rule" but once every set of downs the defense could "blitz" and rush the QB without counting Mississippi's. So I guess the Patriots saved their "blitz" for 4th down )

 

[Deus Irae]

Aren't you also ignoring, though, the whole "Whelan simply does not know that the ball is not supposed to be snapped" part of the equation, because he never practiced the play, even once?

I'll assume that Pagano called for the play.

The ST coach should then have said "Coach, we lost the snapper. This personnel hasn't practiced it". Did he? If not, be bears lots of the resposibility.

But Pagano should also have asked his ST coach, before calling the play, "are we ready to run this one?"

Just like Josh McD asked Edelman, before his big TD pass vs. the Ravens, if he was ready for that play to be called. You've got to make sure than you're on the same page, when calling something THAT unorthodox, as McDaniels was, and (presumably) as Pagano was.

The McDaniels thing helps the Pagano defense. That's not BB (HC) asking. That's the OC (ST equivalent in the given scenario).

According to McAfee:

Whelan practiced with the punters during the week
Whelan was fielding punts when the change about drawing the opponent offsides was put in, so he didn't hear about it
Usual 'center' was injured in the 2nd quarter of the Patriots game
Whelan took the place of the 'center', and assumed hands under ass meant he was to snap the ball
Hilarity ensued

What we know from TV:

After all hell broke loose, Pagano asked why the ball was snapped


So, from a combination of the above, and for purposes of people saying he should have called the TO because of the players not being lined up correctly, we should be able to safely assume that Pagano didn't expect the ball would be snapped, and a simple DOG penalty would be his expected worst case scenario.

From your McDaniels/Edelman reference:

It would be the ST coach that should be telling the snapper what to do and/or not do, just as it was McDaniels talking with Edelman. The ST should either have made sure that was dealt with, or he should have told Pagano that the play couldn't be run.

One can easily make the argument that the ST coach blew it three times:
Failing to tell Whelan during the week
Failing to tell Whelan during the game
Failing to call off the play because of the injury/replacement situation

Transferring that to the HC by any means beyond "final responsibility", though, is a different issue entirely.

 

[goheels22002]

I'm not saying the guy should be tied to the stake and burned for it, just saying he's not 100% absolved of the blame.

Pagano should at least be required to turn his phone over to Ted Wells. What could possibly go wrong?

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

Colts iz dumb

 

[Joker]

as soon as Piguano is fired, Sexy Wrecksie will hire him to reprise the Sal Alosi role...what a trip!

 

[TruthSeeker]

I heard on the radio today that the ball was always snapped in practice because the Colts special teams on defense never reacted correctly. It's hilarious that the Colts punt return team got it wrong every time in practice but the Patriots got it right the first time in a game - without wasting a time-out. It wouldn't surprise me if the Patriots special teams might be the only unit in the NFL to get this totally right in a game.

As far as the blame goes, there is plenty to go around. It's hard to say that anyone is blameless with the whole line not on the line of scrimmage and no one but the ref noticing it (any player could have conceivably tried to correct this).

That being said, my understanding of the new rule leads me to believe the whole concept of the play required an illegal formation which would nullify any legitimate snap to gain the 3 yards (which was also an option according to what I heard). That is clearly on the head coach.

I would say anytime an ill-advised and inadequately practiced play is called by the head coach in a game (and this play definitely qualifies as both of these), the head coach has to shoulder the majority of the blame.

 

[Chevy]

via Imgflip Meme Maker

 

[Joker]

look, you beat the Pats by punching them in the mouth. You play YOUR game. Trickeration is so preposterously stupid that an outside observer would most likely opine that the HC of said team had little to no understanding of his opponent. Is the repeated(about 100,000 times) notion of "situational football and its application" as put forth by BB the last 15 years lost on these morons in this league?

 

[n1997y]

look, you beat the Pats by punching them in the mouth. You play YOUR game. Trickeration is so preposterously stupid that an outside observer would most likely opine that the HC of said team had little to no understanding of his opponent. Is the repeated(about 100,000 times) notion of "situational football and its application" as put forth by BB the last 15 years lost on these morons in this league?

Yes. It is pearls before swine.

 

[pats1287]

50 bucks says Bill studies and practice something similar to this and uses it against the Colts in the playoffs

 

[bbobbo]

a few more details from the indy star:

Insider: The real story behind botching of Colts' fake punt

A source told IndyStar that Anderson and Geathers had previously discussed using a code word to signal specific actions during the play. Whalen, however, was not privy to those discussions and did as he was instructed — snapping the ball when Anderson assumed his position under center.

The context on Whalen's role is key.

Because he is considered one of the team's most intelligent players, he's often asked to perform special-teams tasks that are not typically part of his job. This was just another instance of that happening.

While Whalen appeared to be at fault for inexplicably snapping the ball when the Patriots didn't react as the Colts hoped, it was Anderson's decision to take his position under center that was the most pivotal moment.

Anderson is one of the most important members of the punt team, referring to himself as the quarterback of the unit. Without being specific, he said on Monday, "I feel like, being the captain of that unit, I’m going to take responsibility and make sure that this doesn’t happen again. We got to make sure all 11 guys are on the same page from the long snapper to the punter and me being the personal protector. We all have to make sure we’re on the same page and that this mistake doesn’t happen again."

anderson really should be catching a little more heat here. he knew that whalen didn't know about option 2 and the code word, and he knew that going under center was the signal for whalen to hike the ball. and he's the captain of the unit.

he did try to warn whalen by yelling, "don't snap the ball", but it's a little too late to be doing that for the first time during the actual play. whalen may have thought that anderson was just trying to create a little misdirection by making the patriots think that the ball wasn't going to be snapped.