Touchdown Mike

[long distance]

just to balance game thread..

TD Mike is on track to break LGB record before bye week..

 

[captain stone]

Too bad that Skippy had no clue whatsoever how to use him on 3rd/4th & short.

 

[Dagg]

Yeah 2 awful 4th down calls by McDaniels they seemed arrogant. In other news Gilislee on pace for 48 TDs this year.

 

[long distance]

not much love for Gillislee I see.

wow . pretty hot take for Reiss' standards here.


I guess play calling, KC D and NE OL had nothing to do with the outcome ..

Ok. Let me add another Gill run that was not a TD.
(there were more IIRC where he was blocked @Los and still drilled for 3-5 yds)


Not to mention he was out for most of preseason..

 

[maineman209]

Yeah 2 awful 4th down calls by McDaniels they seemed arrogant. In other news Gilislee on pace for 48 TDs this year.

It's entirely possible that the Pats went for it the first time because they didn't have an alternative play that had succeeded in practice and thought they could get away with one, even after the refs stopped play for the measurement. Unfortunately, the KC defense played it perfectly.

On the second one, it may be that - in addition to the above - it was clear they were in a shootout because the Pats D wasn't stopping much of anything so they felt they had no choice. Unfortunately, the KC defense also played the second one perfectly.

Such calls are often dictated not only by the game situation that's visible on the field, but also by circumstances behind the scenes. Personally, I'm wondering whether those two pay selections are somehow related to Lewis' exceedingly low snap count.

 

[RobertWeathers]

not much love for Gillislee I see.

wow . pretty hot take for Reiss' standards here.


I guess play calling, KC D and NE OL had nothing to do with the outcome ..

Ok. Let me add another Gill run that was not a TD.
(there were more IIRC where he was blocked @Los and still drilled for 3-5 yds)


Not to mention he was out for most of preseason..

I don't blame Gillislee completely. The dude had nowhere to run and ran where the play was designed.

Not sure if they were trying to establish a level of physicality but clearly it sucked.

I stated in another post that I avoid criticizing the playcalling but my god there was zero creativity on those 4th down calls.

With that said, this O line is not a in-line, drive blocking/smashmouth line. They are a zone, trapping, pulling blocking line.

Bill, Josh and even Scar know that and should be better at staying true to themselves and the playcalling should reflect that.

 

[long distance]

It's entirely possible that the Pats went for it the first time because they didn't have an alternative play that had succeeded in practice and thought they could get away with one, even after the refs stopped play for the measurement. Unfortunately, the KC defense played it perfectly.

What do you mean they didn't have an alternative play? They didn't practice field-goals?

I can't question going for it for the 3rd time esp. since they obviously decided to go for it . but after two blown plays and a measurement . field-goal was certainly an alternative despite early confidence after Gill 1st short yd TD.

I didn't like going for it to begin with (smartass to say it here now but that's how I felt) not only because Id prefer 10:0 (in an opening game full of uncertainties) but also because I didn't want the momentum change after great D turnover. I know it sucks to swallow a FG after a big turnover too (esp. home, w Tom getting the ball at opponent 30y) and you're normally ok to give the ball to Alex Smith on his 10 and trust your D. Still I didn't feel like going for it. Call me conservative (although most of the time Id like to go for it), call me momentum fanatic . but thats how I felt..

 

[archstanton543]

just to balance game thread..

TD Mike is on track to break LGB record before bye week..

Just to unbalance it. Tom Brady still has 84 more TD passes to pass Peyton Manning's TD record. Last night did him no good.

 

[maineman209]

What do you mean they didn't have an alternative play? They didn't practice field-goals?

I can't question going for it for the 3rd time esp. since they obviously decided to go for it . but after two blown plays and a measurement . field-goal was certainly an alternative despite early confidence after Gill 1st short yd TD.

I didn't like going for it to begin with (smartass to say it here now but that's how I felt) not only because Id prefer 10:0 (in an opening game full of uncertainties) but also because I didn't want the momentum change after great D turnover. I know it sucks to swallow a FG after a big turnover too (esp. home, w Tom getting the ball at opponent 30y) and you're normally ok to give the ball to Alex Smith on his 10 and trust your D. Still I didn't feel like going for it. Call me conservative (although most of the time Id like to go for it), call me momentum fanatic . but thats how I felt..

I didn't like going for it either the first time. I'd have preferred the points on the board. OTOH, it might have been a great call before the ref stopped the clock for the measurement and allowed the KC defense to compose themselves.

But it's not just that they went for it after the timeout, it's how they went for it.

They lined up in the same formation they'd been in before the ref called time. The formation clearly telegraphed a run through the LOS and that's exactly what they did - instead of using it as a misdirect to something else.

What I'm saying is that it may be that they simply didn't have that "something else" (because all their usual "something else" that didn't involve Edelman hadn't succeeded in practice) and went for it anyway because they thought they could get away with it and keep the offensive momentum going. And, then, superb play by the KC defense turned it into a "bad call."

 

[luuked]

Yeah 2 awful 4th down calls by McDaniels they seemed arrogant. In other news Gilislee on pace for 48 TDs this year.

Both 4th down stops happened due to bad execution and not because anyone was arrogant. The fact that they got in three times in short yardage in the endzone just shows that if everyone does their job then the result is there for the taking. This hindsight cherry picking of playcalls that get called out because they ended up not working is getting tiresome.

 

[luuked]

I didn't like going for it either the first time. I'd have preferred the points on the board. OTOH, it might have been a great call before the ref stopped the clock for the measurement and allowed the KC defense to compose themselves.

But it's not just that they went for it after the timeout, it's how they went for it.

They lined up in the same formation they'd been in before the ref called time. The formation clearly telegraphed a run through the LOS and that's exactly what they did - instead of using it as a misdirect to something else.

What I'm saying is that it may be that they simply didn't have that "something else" (because all their usual "something else" that didn't involve Edelman hadn't succeeded in practice) and went for it anyway because they thought they could get away with it and keep the offensive momentum going. And, then, superb play by the KC defense turned it into a "bad call."

Given the insistence on running this play several times I think the coaching staff thought they had a good matchup somewhere at the LOS. Following their gut usually leads to more success than failure over the course of a season so they get a pass on that from me. Especially because they were able to run 3 TDs without much effort from similar distances.

 

[archstanton543]

I didn't like going for it either the first time. I'd have preferred the points on the board. OTOH, it might have been a great call before the ref stopped the clock for the measurement and allowed the KC defense to compose themselves.

But it's not just that they went for it after the timeout, it's how they went for it.

They lined up in the same formation they'd been in before the ref called time. The formation clearly telegraphed a run through the LOS and that's exactly what they did - instead of using it as a misdirect to something else.

What I'm saying is that it may be that they simply didn't have that "something else" (because all their usual "something else" that didn't involve Edelman hadn't succeeded in practice) and went for it anyway because they thought they could get away with it and keep the offensive momentum going. And, then, superb play by the KC defense turned it into a "bad call."

Just take the points there. Especially after the ref gave KC a free timeout. Not that it would have helped if everything else played out the same way. It was a very un-Belichician move there.

 

[long distance]

..but lets give some credit to the other side as well . Pats are not the only ones playing/calling and is an arrogant mentality to say if Pats do their job, execute well the plays will succeed..

 

[luuked]

..but lets give some credit to the other side as well . Pats are not the only ones playing/calling and is an arrogant mentality to say if Pats do their job, execute well the plays will succeed..

Bingo. The margin for error in the league is razor thin in general and the other team gets paid as well to practice.

 

[maineman209]

Given the insistence on running this play several times I think the coaching staff thought they had a good matchup somewhere at the LOS. Following their gut usually leads to more success than failure over the course of a season so they get a pass on that from me. Especially because they were able to run 3 TDs without much effort from similar distances.

Different situations. The TD runs succeeded on 2nd down, 1st down and 2nd down. I'm pretty sure that they weren't out of exactly the same formation, personnel, movement, etc. as the 4th-down attempts.

 

[captain stone]

not much love for Gillislee I see.

wow . pretty hot take for Reiss' standards here.


I guess play calling, KC D and NE OL had nothing to do with the outcome ..

Ok. Let me add another Gill run that was not a TD.
(there were more IIRC where he was blocked @Los and still drilled for 3-5 yds)


Not to mention he was out for most of preseason..

I agree; I don't blame Gillislee for those 3 attempts, athough I had hoped that he might've learned his lesson after the results of the first 2 attempts, and looked to bounce outside, seeing as KC totally sold out to the inside run all 3 times. A faked hand-off followed by a short dump-0ff to Gronk might've cought the defense in a particularly vulnerable position, at least one of those times.
I really don't blame the OL either; it's dificult to get push when the entire defense is surrounding you, especially when 2/3 of the interior line are Andrews & Thuney, who let's face it are not exactly built for this kind of action. Overall, I thought that they played well enough, and at times more than well enough, to win.
The blame in my opinion rests more with the decision-making process than with any other single factor for the results of those attempts. The lack of any even cautious versions of creativity & risk-taking was inexcusable.

 

[Dagg]

Just to clarify my comments I think on the first fumble you are tempted to step on their throat and try and go up 14. I didnt like the play call, but you have to say hmm the cheifs are decent team just fumbled lets at least get 3 here and go up two scores. I do see the reasoning b ehind going for it but didnt like the play call.

Calling the exact same play agian later in the game was arrogance. How about about payaction and dump it off quick to like a TE or FB. Or spread them out and run, that goaline look had fail all over it.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

not much love for Gillislee I see.

wow . pretty hot take for Reiss' standards here.

I guess play calling, KC D and NE OL had nothing to do with the outcome ..

Did you actually bother to read what Reiss wrote?
"But not picking up two fourth-and-1s (entire unit/blocking etc.) a big disappointment."

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

I don't blame Gillislee completely. The dude had nowhere to run and ran how the play was designed.

Not sure if they were trying to establish a level of physicality but clearly it sucked.

I stated in another post that I avoid criticizing the playcalling but my god there was zero creativity on those 4th down calls.

With that said, this O line is not a in-line, drive blocking/smashmouth line. They are a zone, trapping, pulling blocking line.

Bill, Josh and even Scar know that and should be better at staying true to themselves and the playcalling should reflect that.

Likewise, as a passing team they are a chameleon, matchup focused unit with two capable tight ends (one all world) and several excellent dual-threat running backs. No idea why you run a 5 WR empty set so often.

 

[long distance]

Did you actually bother to read what Reiss wrote?
"But not picking up two fourth-and-1s (entire unit/blocking etc.) a big disappointment."

did. no bother. discussed in the thread. thanks for asking..