Belichick ("not a tremendous downside"), Ebner on failed onsides kick

[TheBostonStraggler]

Being blown out 45-17...not enough for turbo mode.
Being blown out 45-14. On national TV. By the Lions....not enough for turbo mode.
Losing 14-0...not enough for turbo mode.
But my god -- a trick kickoff. NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANY MORE RAAAAHR!

Yea QM, I just don't see what others are seeing with this big moment that changed Philly to this super motivated avenging team.
I know we disagree on the validity of the choice to call that play ((for fairness I have to note I have been/posted against multiple calls this year that, IMHO, didn't properly play the moment and/or percentages)). But whether it worked or not, it just wasn't a super critical play. Did it matter? Sure. Field position matters and momentum gained from good field position/being on the good end of a non standard play can matter. But, again, I just don't get how this play is made to be so cathartic. And that isn't even considering the play does have validity to be tried (this is BB, this is how he coaches, no big suprise).

I recall Philly had two good drives the entire game (from my recollection). Other than that they were no threat to score whatsoever. What clearly won the game for them was a blocked punt (I keep saying FG for some reason) for a TD, Int for a 99 yard TD (minimum 10 point swing), super long punt return for a TD. So with some deference to Philly making those happen, all of these plays were visrtually unforced errors IMHO. The Patriots sucked the big one on plays they should execute in their sleep. That is the main and primary reason of what lost this game. IMHO, despite shortcomings in multiple areas for the Patriots, they lost this game far more than Philly went out and won this game (I hate to take away from Philly -- big win for them -- but I think it is clear the Patriots proverbially lost this game).

 

[Deus Irae]

Did it not matter at all? No. It definitely altered the current trajectory of the game. However, it was little more than a good kick return in terms of its field position change.
An Int for a TD, a blocked FG for a TD, a PR for a TD (and dropped passes among others) amplified the effect of what was otherwise a non standard play that BB sometimes likes to throw into the mix (one I did not agree with). Remove 1 maybe 2 of these big plays I just mentioned and this 'non standard' play is just a footnote, a once in a blue moon BB wacky play, in another Patriot victory.

I just don't see the argument that this one play stacks up against the big ticket items the Patriots fell down on and resulted in a loss.

It's the issue of momentum v. on-the-field plays. Without the Eagles getting the momentum, do the plays happen? Probably not, but it's not provable.

You've just shoved the ball down the Eagles' throat for the second time in a row. You're up 14 and in control. A team that's lost 3 in a row, and is in the middle of a lost season, is generally ready to cave at that point.

And the Patriots gave them the gift of a blown trick play + field position, and the psychological boost that goes along with that. The argument's impossible not to see.

 

[metrowest]

One thing that everyone overlooks is that sometimes these plays are "traps" set to put other teams on notice when we are in the playoffs. The Brady / Amendola trick play was perfect -- now other teams are going to wonder when we are going to snap it.

My 8 year son was crying about loosing this game. I think we will be fine once Gronk and JE11 are back.

 

[XLIX]

I love plays like this. It is risk reward, and I don't even think the risk is all that great.

If they kick it off and Philly returns it to the 40, absolutely no one is talking about the play. But try something unusual? People lost their minds.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

It's the issue of momentum v. on-the-field plays. Without the Eagles getting the momentum, do the plays happen? Probably not, but it's not provable.

You've just shoved the ball down the Eagles' throat for the second time in a row. You're up 14 and in control. A team that's lost 3 in a row, and is in the middle of a lost season, is generally ready to cave at that point.

And the Patriots gave them the gift of a blown trick play + field position, and the psychological boost that goes along with that. The argument's impossible not to see.

The argument that the end result of the play gave Philly a boost (for lack of a better word) is not in question. It did provide improved field position and a shot in the arm that goes with being on the better end of a play. I would not of called that play. Again none of that is in question. The question is what affect it had on the result of the game.
You are making the connection that the non offensive TDs probably happen because of this (or don't happen if the play is not called?)? That is a stretch of a pretty large magnitude. The Patriot protection allowed a semi-inside rusher an unobstructed line to the punter based on a mistaken block assignment choice. If the play in question does not happen the Philly player is not in place on the punt, doesn't try as hard, and/or the Patriot does cover the right block (as one example)??
The kind of logic to make that connection is so open ended anyone could make almost any connection between play A and play Z.

 

[Deus Irae]

You are making the connection that the non offensive TDs probably happen because of this (or don't happen if the play is not called?)?

I specifically, and deliberately, have not made the connection to any on-field play. The impact of momentum, is not always immediate. Also, momentum, sometimes easily noticeable and sometimes not, is immeasurable.

In this case, it was clearly a game changer, and it never had to be entered into the equation. That's the problem with the play. BB, who's usually masterful at this stuff, just blew it. It happens to the best of us.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

I specifically, and deliberately, have not made the connection to any on-field play. The impact of momentum, is not always immediate. Also, momentum, sometimes easily noticeable and sometimes not, is immeasurable.

In this case, it was clearly a game changer, and it never had to be entered into the equation. That's the problem with the play. BB, who's usually masterful at this stuff, just blew it. It happens to the best of us.

DI states: "Without the Eagles getting the momentum, do the plays happen? Probably not". Not sure how that is not making a connection between the 'play' and the subsequent big ticket plays I discussed. Yet, if that was not your intention then point closed.

If you are arguing the 'play' was a game changer then I agree. IMHO the play did have an effect on momentum. How much it was an effect we are, seemingly, very far apart.
If you arguing the play should not have been called then I also agree. I would prefer the call not have been made given circumstances of injury and offense not currently running any where near optimal.

The argument that has been put forth is the 'play' specifically and highly motivated the Eagles which ended up a big contributor to the loss. It is not. When you give up 21 non offensive points plus remove 3 from the scoreboard at minimum for a 24 point swing, a swing resulting from errors that were virtually unforced, that is the big enchilada right there - lock, stock and two smoking barrels. The blocked punt for a TD on a blown blocking assignment, PR coverage where more than 1 players doesn't stay in his lane, and an absolute fat pitch gift Int did not happen because a team was slighted and disrespected (or whatever). It happened because a team sucked the big one on plays they should execute in their sleep. And if they do execute like they have 99% of the time so far this season, the 'play' is just a footnote to a likely Patriot victory.

 

[convertedpatsfan]

It's the issue of momentum v. on-the-field plays. Without the Eagles getting the momentum, do the plays happen? Probably not, but it's not provable.

You've just shoved the ball down the Eagles' throat for the second time in a row. You're up 14 and in control. A team that's lost 3 in a row, and is in the middle of a lost season, is generally ready to cave at that point.

And the Patriots gave them the gift of a blown trick play + field position, and the psychological boost that goes along with that. The argument's impossible not to see.

I see the argument. It's just wrong. It's like watching a coin flip go heads 10 times in a row. Some would argue the coin flip will only go heads infinitely based on what they've seen, but that would be wrong.

There's lots of good stuff out there about the fallacy of momentum. Specific to the NFL, a few links below:

Nomentum, Part 1

Advanced Football Analytics (formerly Advanced NFL Stats): Momentum 1: Scoring Rates following 'Momentum-Swinging' Events

And for the really nerdy:

http://www.sloansportsconference.co...ays-and-Psychological-Momentum-in-the-NFL.pdf

As for those who really hated the decision, the Expected Point difference between the Eagles starting on their 40 vs. their 20 was approximately 1 point. If they had recovered, they would have an EP of 2.5 vs. 1.5 for the Eagles recovering vs. 0.5 if they had gotten a touchback.

The success rate of an onside kick is only around 20%. But on unexpected onside kicks, it's closer to 60%. Even if you knock that down to a 50% jump ball type of recovery chance on an unexpected onside kick, the Patriots would be +5 points over 10 attempts.

Another scenario: if a team has 4th and goal from the 1 and goes for it vs. kicking a FG, they would gain more points over the course of a season if they were to convert 50% (because of the extra point). But even if that team converted 70%, that means failing 30% of the time. And after every one of those failed attempts, someone would point out how stupid it was.

I have no issue with the attempt. It really was a low-risk, high-reward scenario. It just didn't work out for us. The Eagles attempted the same thing later and it didn't lead to momentum changing either. It's just an excuse to cover up the fact our OL sucked, Brady had a bad day, our receivers dropped a lot of passes, our run D was terrible, and our special teams had the worst day in a while.

 

[supafly]

We were playing with a lot of injuries and a limited offense, yet had just taken a 14-0 lead in the second quarter where we've never lost a game at Gillette when leading at the half.

It was not a good time to be getting cute or taking any unnecessary risks, and it was a stupid play to begin with. It was a pointless pooch kick that only goes 25 yards, with very limited chance at recovery. This was a time where Belichick "out thinked" himself, and unfortunately, we see that on occasion, just like anyone else.

 

[Galeb]

We were playing with a lot of injuries and a limited offense, yet had just taken a 14-0 lead in the second quarter where we've never lost a game at Gillette when leading at the half.

It was not a good time to be getting cute or taking any unnecessary risks, and it was a stupid play to begin with. It was a pointless pooch kick that only goes 25 yards, with very limited chance at recovery. This was a time where Belichick "out thinked" himself, and unfortunately, we see that on occasion, just like anyone else.

One of the big things you're missing, is that the play was designed to be kicked further, where it could not have been caught before it hit the ground. Such a kick would likely have rolled even further. I sincerely doubt BB would have attempted this if they didn't see something on tape that they through gave it a good chance of success.

I've noticed that whenever you use the word "cute" to describe something negative, your posts are drenched in bitterness. I suggest trying harder to understand the opposing point of view to help alleviate the obvious resentment that is sabotaging your ability to think clearly and objectively. I was having the same difficulty Sunday night.

 

[supafly]

One of the big things you're missing, is that the play was designed to be kicked further, where it could not have been caught before it hit the ground. Such a kick would likely have rolled even further. I sincerely doubt BB would have attempted this if they didn't see something on tape that they through gave it a good chance of success.

I've noticed that whenever you use the word "cute" to describe something negative, your posts are drenched in bitterness. I suggest trying harder to understand the opposing point of view to help alleviate the obvious resentment that is sabotaging your ability to think clearly and objectively. I was having the same difficulty Sunday night.

I understand what you're saying, Galeb, and of course it was designed to go further, just as the odd call for a fake punt with Patrick Chung was "supposed" to work in the divisional loss vs. the Jets.

That's the problem with calls like that in the wrong situation. They can tend to backfire due to poor execution, and you may end up losing the momentum you previously had.

We may have a difference of opinion on this issue and you may not care for the word "cute," but I would certainly stick with the term "unnecessary." If we're sharing our personal feelings or opinions, I'd want to see the ball booted into the end zone by Gostkowski there every single time, as they hadn't proven capable of being able to march down the field.

 

[supafly]

I've noticed that whenever you use the word "cute" to describe something negative, your posts are drenched in bitterness.

Not meaning to come off as a smart ass, but do I have some kind of past history in overusing the word "cute" that I haven't noticed?

I'm sure that I've used it a couple times in the past day or two regarding this specific situation with the pooch punt, but are there other examples of the word that need to be brought to my attention regarding this bitterness that you speak of?

It seems to me as though it's probably just the one recent issue/difference of opinion on the pooch punt, no?

 

[PP2]

Let me ask you this, as the Patriots have piled onto these pathetic palookas (all teams) many games over the past X amount of years, why isn't every team finding this hidden high turbo gear when playing the Patriots? Haven't the Patriots slapped every team with the proverbial white glove enough through huge scoring (much more so than a squib kick)?
Again how does this hidden high turbo gear that when hit releases the monsters of the gridiron account for a poor throw returned for an Int and absurdly bad blocking for a FG and P? Are you saying these STs plays can happen because they were insulted and willed it so??

Being blown out 45-17...not enough for turbo mode.
Being blown out 45-14. On national TV. By the Lions....not enough for turbo mode.
Losing 14-0...not enough for turbo mode.
But my god -- a trick kickoff. NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANY MORE RAAAAHR!

I don't want to spend too much time in responding to this or to any other parts of this game as I'm ready to move on to the next game.

But I do want to point out something- if neither of you believe that this "trick kickoff" provided the Eagles with a momentum swing, then how come there weren't any real "miscues" leading up to the 14-0 score?

 

[QuantumMechanic]

Because the miscues, especially the blocked punt and the pick-six, were unforced errors.

You think Philly wanted to allow NE to drive all the way to the 1? Hell, if White could have taken a half-step more he would have scored. And that happened an hour after the kick. With halftime in between.

 

[Zeus]

So it was momentum that caused Grissom to block the wrong guy on the punt and it was momentum that allowed the unblocked Eagle to block the punt?

C'mon.

 

[JarOfMayo51]

Of all the plays to be upset about in that game, the onside kick is pretty low on that list.

Was it weird play? Sure. Did the 20 Yard difference have some snowball affect on the game? No. . The pick 6, punt block for td and punt return for td did a fine job of that I'd say

 

[1960Pats]

Look, you don't have to agree with me, but the air changed in the stadium on that play. It was stupid to call it and started the landslide.

I just don't get why people don't understand that. There are times during sporting events when one small thing can awaken a sleepish team. I've been on teams where you could actually feel the difference in the aura around the team after something set us off, and it could be something as simple as one of the opponents yapping. That onside kick brought them to life.

 

[1960Pats]

So it was momentum that caused Grissom to block the wrong guy on the punt and it was momentum that allowed the unblocked Eagle to block the punt?

C'mon.

So you don't believe in momentum in sports? I do. I couldn't see it or touch it, but I could damn sure feel it.

 

[1960Pats]

It's the issue of momentum v. on-the-field plays. Without the Eagles getting the momentum, do the plays happen? Probably not, but it's not provable.

You've just shoved the ball down the Eagles' throat for the second time in a row. You're up 14 and in control. A team that's lost 3 in a row, and is in the middle of a lost season, is generally ready to cave at that point.

And the Patriots gave them the gift of a blown trick play + field position, and the psychological boost that goes along with that. The argument's impossible not to see.

Apparently there are some here who have a blind spot.

 

[Zeus]

So you don't believe in momentum in sports? I do. I couldn't see it or touch it, but I could damn sure feel it.

You might try reading what I wrote instead of inventing something I didn't say at all. Momentum did not cause the Patriots to make the dumb mistakes they made that cost them the game.