This loss is mostly on the coaches

wheresmosi said:

If I understand you correctly, you are saying the Dolphins would not have run the play they did if they had had 16 seconds rather than 7, so at worst they do get out of bounds, with 1 or 2 shots in the endzone after that, and you'd have the D to stop that. But it seems clear to me that anything that maximizes their chance for 2 or even 3 plays vs. almost certainly just 1 play, for the sake of a few yards, is not as good of a decision. If they get the ball at the 25, they could throw it incomplete, and still be in the position to do what they did from the 31. Sure, they could complete it and the game could run out, but if they complete it and get stuck in the middle of the field, they are going to do what they ended up doing anyway, and that almost certainly would have scored if they started from the 25 as it was starting from the 31.

Click to expand...

• If Miami had 16 seconds left, and another 6 yards to go, the likeliest play would have been to try a quick out in order to get into 'Hail Mary' range.
• If Miami had 16 seconds left, and another 6 yards more to go, the Patriots coaches probably wouldn't have gone brain dead and put the offensive player in the game.

You're arguing from a "but any extra play is bad!" position, without actually adjusting for context. I'm noting that your position doesn't apply in the context of 16 seconds from the 25 yard line, because 16 seconds is not 30 seconds, Tannehill doesn't have great arm strength for a QB, and Tannehill's mobility, and ability to buy time was limited due to his ankle.

This is essentially another version of "go for the TD to put it away, or just play for the FG?", and the Patriots lost that game largely because they ignored context and got both of those wrong.

QuantumMechanic said:

Why assume NE plays the inevitable lateral play in that situation any better than they did in what actually happened? With the kind of stupidity, nonchalance, and half-assing NE displayed on the actual final play, Miami could just as easily gone 70 yards to set up a game winning FG in your scenario.

Click to expand...

Doubt the lateral play even happens if the Dolphins are going for GW field goal. They'd have to start off on the Pats 1 yard line and make two throws to get into field goal range (a total of 65 yards). Tough to do with 14-15 second and no TOs left. Essentially they would have to make 2 great sideline throws.

tasmlab said:

Question: how would the clock would've looked if the Pats ran for a fourth time on Fourth down.

Even if stuffed:
- 2 pts up
- Turnover on downs
- Dolphins 98 yards to go for TD
- Time left to do so?

Click to expand...

Ass-uming that the run on 4th down was stuffed:

Miami takes possession inside its own 3, needing almost 60 yards with 20 seconds and zero timeouts remaining...and with a QB on a gimpy wheel.

I would've very, Very seriously considered going for the TD on 4th down.

captain stone said:

Ass-uming that the run on 4th down was stuffed:

Miami takes possession inside its own 3, needing almost 60 yards with 20 seconds and zero timeouts remaining...and with a QB on a gimpy wheel.

I would've very, Very seriously going for the TD on 4th down.

Click to expand...

Field goals get blocked too. Would absolutely have gone for it there.

And another thing:

Why did Bill & Skippy even call for a long pass play, the result of which left the offense with only one more series of downs available to kill the clock and force Miami to use the rest of its timeouts?

The main objective on that drive should've been: collect as many 1st downs as possible in order to leave Miami with Zero timeouts, under 2 minutes remaining, and staring at our QB taking 3 knees without being able to do a damn thing about it. Attempting a higher-risk play such as the sideline bomb to Gordon was, upon further review, counter-productive.

It's a damn shame that Michel's long run was called back by a Holding penalty on Develin, a hold he sadly never really needed to make in order to execute his block. The ball would've been spotted at the Miami 22 with 2:50 remaining. Ass-uming that Miami used both of its last 2 timeouts after 1st & 2nd down, then the Pats would've been very likely looking at 3rd down at, or possibly just slightly before, the 2:00 warning. One more 1st down ends the game either way, and Miami never gets back the ball with a chance to do what it ended up, you know, doing.

pazrul72 said:

That only works when you give zero $%#*s about the clock and HAVE to score a TD no matter what.

Click to expand...

You picked the wrong week to make that assertion. Did you see the end of the PIT game? They did a lateral play to set up a FG attempt. (And then Boswell hilarously fell down while attempting the kick, which was blocked.)

Deus Irae said:

• If Miami had 16 seconds left, and another 6 yards to go, the likeliest play would have been to try a quick out in order to get into 'Hail Mary' range.
• If Miami had 16 seconds left, and another 6 yards more to go, the Patriots coaches probably wouldn't have gone brain dead and put the offensive player in the game.

You're arguing from a "but any extra play is bad!" position, without actually adjusting for context. I'm noting that your position doesn't apply in the context of 16 seconds from the 25 yard line, because 16 seconds is not 30 seconds, Tannehill doesn't have great arm strength for a QB, and Tannehill's mobility, and ability to buy time was limited due to his ankle.

This is essentially another version of "go for the TD to put it away, or just play for the FG?", and the Patriots lost that game largely because they ignored context and got both of those wrong.

Click to expand...

Okay, so I think the crux of our disagreement is that you would have been more comfortable giving them an extra one or two plays if those were likely to be hail marys, because then the D we had would have been more appropriate, OR, if they failed to get the sideline out and threw an incompletion, they would be down to 1 play from the 25, and BB would give no thought at of a Hail Mary (as he did from 31). I'm guessing the latter point is true, but 1) most are saying he shouldn't have set up for a HM from the 31 either, and 2) I never want to put a team in a position to go for a HM, even if one has the appropriate D for it. Too many weird things have happened, and almost did happen against the Bears (though I would agree we were set to shut that down at the last second if it doesn't get to the endzone, but that is still living on the edge).

Also in defense of your position, you could possibly get a quick out from the 31 with 7 seconds left, and maybe get to the 45 or 50 with 1 or 2 seconds left for one last gasp effort. But I'm thinking if you get there with 8-10 seconds left, you could theoretically get two HM throws off, OR (probably inadvisably) go for another quicxk out and try to leave a second or two for a more manageable play to the endzone (similar to what the Pats did in the SB on a play that was almost picked before Brady bombed it to Amendola and company on the final play).

So, I do see your point. Still, bringing it down to just 1 play from that range would be preferable for me. But whatever.

captain stone said:

And another thing:

Why did Bill & Skippy even call for a long pass play, the result of which left the offense with only one more series of downs available to kill the clock and force Miami to use the rest of its timeouts?

The main objective on that drive should've been: collect as many 1st downs as possible in order to leave Miami with Zero timeouts, under 2 minutes remaining, and staring at our QB taking 3 knees without being able to do a damn thing about it. Attempting a higher-risk play such as the sideline bomb to Gordon was, upon further review, counter-productive.

The preferred scenario would've been Michel's long run not being called back by a Holding penalty on Develin, a hold he sadly never really needed to make in order to execute his block. The ball would've been spotted at the Miami 22 with 2:50 remaining. Ass-uming that Miami used both of its last 2 timeouts after 1st & 2nd down, then the Pats would've been very likely looking at 3rd down at, or possibly just slightly before, the 2:00 warning. One more 1st down ends the game either way, and Miami never gets back the ball with a chance to do what it ended up, you know, doing.

Click to expand...

The problem wasn't the deep pass call, IMO. The problem was the concession of the pass after that. A TD there wins the game by putting the score out of reach. The run game was struggling. Yet, instead of going with the pass, they went with 3 vanilla rushes, in order to kill clock.

wheresmosi said:

Okay, so I think the crux of our disagreement is that you would have been more comfortable giving them an extra one or two plays if those were likely to be hail marys, because then the D we had would have been more appropriate, OR, if they failed to get the sideline out and threw an incompletion, they would be down to 1 play from the 25, and BB would give no thought at of a Hail Mary (as he did from 31). I'm guessing the latter point is true, but 1) most are saying he shouldn't have set up for a HM from the 31 either, and 2) I never want to put a team in a position to go for a HM, even if one has the appropriate D for it. Too many weird things have happened, and almost did happen against the Bears (though I would agree we were set to shut that down at the last second if it doesn't get to the endzone, but that is still living on the edge).

Also in defense of your position, you could possibly get a quick out from the 31 with 7 seconds left, and maybe get to the 45 or 50 with 1 or 2 seconds left for one last gasp effort. But I'm thinking if you get there with 8-10 seconds left, you could theoretically get two HM throws off, OR (probably inadvisably) go for another quicxk out and try to leave a second or two for a more manageable play to the endzone (similar to what the Pats did in the SB on a play that was almost picked before Brady bombed it to Amendola and company on the final play).

So, I do see your point. Still, bringing it down to just 1 play from that range would be preferable for me. But whatever.

Click to expand...

• Yes, the HM defense on that was a terrible choice. Unless you're dealing with a truly exceptional player ('exceptional' not necessarily in terms or greatness, but in terms of it being unusual), there's no smart reason to put an offensive player out on a play where you're thinking the HM is going to come down at the 15 yard line. Offensive skill players are not used to crossing over and going backwards, so you're immediately putting yourself at a disadvantage, and they're not used to chasing and tackling.
  
• You can run 2 plays in 7 seconds, if the QB gets rid of the ball right away, and there's either an incomplete or a catch and immediate step out of bounds on the first play. And, before you insist that I'm wrong, remember that Carr and the Raiders completed a 14 yard play in 6 seconds at the end of the game on Sunday, and that Roethlisberger completed a 10 yard play in 6 seconds at the end of the Steelers v. Bengals in October, just to give two examples of it happening involving the same team already this season.

Patriots v. Bears, earlier this season:

• 0:09 2 10 CHI 34 Mitch Trubisky pass complete short right to Tarik Cohen for 3 yards (tackle by Keion Crossen)
• 0:05 3 7 CHI 37 Mitch Trubisky pass complete short right to Taylor Gabriel for 8 yards
  
• 0:02 1 10 CHI 45 Mitch Trubisky pass complete deep middle to Kevin White for 54 yards (tackle by Duron Harmon)

New England Patriots at Chicago Bears - October 21st, 2018 | Pro-Football-Reference.com

Deus Irae said:

The problem wasn't the deep pass call, IMO. The problem was the concession of the pass after that. A TD there wins the game by putting the score out of reach. The run game was struggling. Yet, instead of going with the pass, they went with 3 vanilla rushes, in order to kill clock.

Click to expand...

I agree: as soon as the offense found itself in a GTG situation, then their primary objective should've Immediately changed to Score a TD.

captain stone said:

Ass-uming that the run on 4th down was stuffed:

Miami takes possession inside its own 3, needing almost 60 yards with 20 seconds and zero timeouts remaining...and with a QB on a gimpy wheel.

I would've very, Very seriously considered going for the TD on 4th down.

Click to expand...

They should have actively tried to score. The same head coach that once said "don't tell me about a lead in this league" decided to let his team get very conservative down at that end of the field and it cost them. The team has traditionally a cut throat mentality. They usually crush the windpipe when they have their foot on the opponent's throat. They didn't this time, and it cost them.

Deus Irae said:

• Yes, the HM defense on that was a terrible choice. Unless you're dealing with a truly exceptional player ('exceptional' not necessarily in terms or greatness, but in terms of it being unusual), there's no smart reason to put an offensive player out on a play where you're thinking the HM is going to come down at the 15 yard line. Offensive skill players are not used to crossing over and going backwards, so you're immediately putting yourself at a disadvantage, and they're not used to chasing and tackling.
  
• You can run 2 plays in 7 seconds, if the QB gets rid of the ball right away, and there's either an incomplete or a catch and immediate step out of bounds on the first play. And, before you insist that I'm wrong, remember that Carr and the Raiders completed a 14 yard play in 6 seconds at the end of the game on Sunday, and that Roethlisberger completed a 10 yard play in 6 seconds at the end of the Steelers v. Bengals in October, just to give two examples of it happening involving the same team already this season.

Click to expand...

Hi--in respect to your second point, if you go back and look at my most recent post before that, I said in defense of your position, it would have been possible for them to get to the 45 or 50 and still have a second or two on the clock. So I see that point. However, the same odds would hold for them to have 2 shots to the endzone with 1o-11 seconds left if they started from the 25 and got out of bound around the 40 or so (beginning with 16 seconds). There would also be a chance to get another pass out of bounds, and then a medium shot to the endzone (though that would require executing 2 out of bounds plays and a 3--40 yard endzone pass, consecutively, which is close to prohibitive).

Of course, all of this debate presupposes that Ghost was even able to kick an automatic touchback to begin with. If he keeps it in play and they get a return, that could be a problem as well. So given that threat, I'd still say the squib was the way to go, though I concede it is not a no brainer (and in theory, a squib could get returned on a lateral play as well--but that's less likely, I think, than a TD return on a regular kick off).

KontradictioN said:

They should have actively tried to score. The same head coach that once said "don't tell me about a lead in this league" decided to let his team get very conservative down at that end of the field and it cost them. The team has traditionally a cut throat mentality. They usually crush the windpipe when they have their foot on the opponent's throat. They didn't this time, and it cost them.

Click to expand...

That's an especially moronic disagree @QuantumMechanic. There's literally nothing in that statement that isn't factual.

To summarize the past few pages:

Short the Pats making the touchdown, just about every combination of plays puts Miami behind with bad field position, with barely any time left, and needing a desperate miracle play to win.

tasmlab said:

To summarize the past few pages:

Short the Pats making the touchdown, just about every combination of plays puts Miami behind with bad field position, with barely any time left, and needing a desperate miracle play to win.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I'm seeing a lot of relatively heated debate about a situation that should have resulted in a win either way.