BB's timeout calling late game.

[zydecochris]

Why would he agree with you? He just admitted that he should have done 2 things differently during a game that they won. That means he believes that he made bad tactical decisions during the game.

Maybe he was being modest but I don't think so. There is no one or nothing stopping BB from saying, "I felt ok letting the time tick off because......" or "We left Fitzy in single coverage because...."

I would respectfully argue that there might, in fact, be a reason that he isn't saying publicly "I felt ok letting the time tick off because.....," and it is to not publicly embarrass an opposing coach that he respects. Isn't this similar to the situation at the end of the Super Bowl against the Seahawks? I think BB likes to shake up the opponent at the end of the game and see if they freak out by not calling an expected timeout, that is certainly what he did against the Seahawks. As everyone remembers, they freaked out a bit under the unexpected time pressure, called a stupid play, and it worked. However, BB was careful not to embarrass Carroll after that play, when asked why he didn't call a timeout he said: “… We saw that matchup and we certainly gave some consideration to taking a timeout there and leaving some time on the clock. I don’t know if that would have been a bad thing to do. It might have been a good thing to do. But it just seemed like in the flow of the game that we were OK with where we were.” A classic BB non-answer.

So, on Sunday, BB doesn't call the timeout to "do the unexpected" and shake up the Cards a bit, the Cards muddle around getting ready for the field goal, and then he calls timeout at the last minute to disturb their rhythm. It makes complete sense to me. But he would never try to embarrass a coach he respects by saying "we were trying to shake up the opponent and their coaching staff by doing the unexpected". This seems obvious to me, do you think I'm off base on this?

 

[letekro]

@letekro,

One can't prove a move was bad in football the way one can in chess.

That said, BB's choice defied all relevant known percentages, and nothing about the specifics, whether in advance or in retrospect, seems to give a reason to think those percentages were inapplicable in the particular case.

Show me the "known percentages" that take into account 1. The score and time left 2. the magnitude of the pressure of playing for a perfect season in a super bowl 3. The likelihood of a kicker making a kick 4 yards longer than anything he has kicked in over a year, and doing that in the most pressure packed game in history 4. Bb's perception of Gost's psyche and physical condition 5. Bb's perception of he likelihood of success of the greatest offense of all time completing a 13 yd pass against a mediocre secondary 6. The 7-19 yards of field position that could be gained even on an unsuccessful play 7. The dozens of other things that BB automatically considered at that moment.

 

[letekro]

I would respectfully argue that there might, in fact, be a reason that he isn't saying publicly "I felt ok letting the time tick off because.....," and it is to not publicly embarrass an opposing coach that he respects. Isn't this similar to the situation at the end of the Super Bowl against the Seahawks? I think BB likes to shake up the opponent at the end of the game and see if they freak out by not calling an expected timeout, that is certainly what he did against the Seahawks. As everyone remembers, they freaked out a bit under the unexpected time pressure, called a stupid play, and it worked. However, BB was careful not to embarrass Carroll after that play, when asked why he didn't call a timeout he said: “… We saw that matchup and we certainly gave some consideration to taking a timeout there and leaving some time on the clock. I don’t know if that would have been a bad thing to do. It might have been a good thing to do. But it just seemed like in the flow of the game that we were OK with where we were.” A classic BB non-answer.

So, on Sunday, BB doesn't call the timeout to "do the unexpected" and shake up the Cards a bit, the Cards muddle around getting ready for the field goal, and then he calls timeout at the last minute to disturb their rhythm. It makes complete sense to me. But he would never try to embarrass a coach he respects by saying "we were trying to shake up the opponent and their coaching staff by doing the unexpected". This seems obvious to me, do you think I'm off base on this?

This makes perfect sense. I dont get a mea culpa vibe at all from BB's remarks. Although i can see how they can be misinterpreted on a quick read.

 

[Patriots_Master]

Bill Belichick didn't called a timeout because Bill knows the players are so prepare and the seahawks and the cardinals don't know what possible trick plays or big plays on our team. Bill Belichick is magic and he control something to make our team win.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I would respectfully argue that there might, in fact, be a reason that he isn't saying publicly "I felt ok letting the time tick off because.....," and it is to not publicly embarrass an opposing coach that he respects. Isn't this similar to the situation at the end of the Super Bowl against the Seahawks? I think BB likes to shake up the opponent at the end of the game and see if they freak out by not calling an expected timeout, that is certainly what he did against the Seahawks. As everyone remembers, they freaked out a bit under the unexpected time pressure, called a stupid play, and it worked. However, BB was careful not to embarrass Carroll after that play, when asked why he didn't call a timeout he said: “… We saw that matchup and we certainly gave some consideration to taking a timeout there and leaving some time on the clock. I don’t know if that would have been a bad thing to do. It might have been a good thing to do. But it just seemed like in the flow of the game that we were OK with where we were.” A classic BB non-answer.

So, on Sunday, BB doesn't call the timeout to "do the unexpected" and shake up the Cards a bit, the Cards muddle around getting ready for the field goal, and then he calls timeout at the last minute to disturb their rhythm. It makes complete sense to me. But he would never try to embarrass a coach he respects by saying "we were trying to shake up the opponent and their coaching staff by doing the unexpected". This seems obvious to me, do you think I'm off base on this?

Yea I'm starting to come around on BB playing mind games with the kicker. Just dont tell @letekro

Your point is excellent. If you look at my signature, BB saw how confused SEA was organizing before Malcolm's pick so he let them run around confused. You are right though, anyone who questioned Pete's decision BB questioned their credentials and said they were not in any position to judge what Pom-Pom shoulda, coulda or woulda done.

After sleeping on it, no question it is highly possible that conventionally BB should have called the time out after the 3rd down completion but he wanted to see what the kicker was doing. Once he saw Canazarro putzing around and not engaging on the kicking cadence right away, BB may have thought he was a little skiddish. That might be the reason why he didn't call the TO right away and wanted to let him think about the kick, time running out, wondering if NE would call a TO and letting his heart rate get up a couple of ticks above normal.

So I don't think BB was trying to save Ariens from embarassment or showing he was out-maneuvering him but with Dale and Holley BB did reveal exactly what he was thinking at that moment.

So in the end, he knew what he should do by the book in that situation but once he saw the kicker putzing around and not engaging, he turned up a psychological heat on him....but didn't admit doing it.

The guy is freaking mastermind.

 

[luuked]

What this boils down to is that BB made a deliberate decision with some sound reasoning behind it. This is enough for me to say "he didnt screw up". What many people dont want to understand is that the eventual outcome doesnt matter if you wanna discuss if it was a good decision or not. Even if we had lost the game his expanation of why he chose to delay the TO a bit would have made sense to me. This is not a Andy Reid/Chuck Pagano "random timeout" situation.

I will continue defending his reasoning behind the onside kick against the Eagles last year as much as I will defend him choosing to defend against the Jets in overtime. In both instances the outcome was not favorable but the reasoning behind his decision was sound enough for me to say "hey, this makes sense" and I won't criticize him for it.

The very same people that said he blew those games with decisions like that are pretty much very vocal this time again. They just dont get it.

 

[brdmaverick]

What this boils down to is that BB made a deliberate decision with some sound reasoning behind it. This is enough for me to say "he didnt screw up". What many people dont want to understand is that the eventual outcome doesnt matter if you wanna discuss if it was a good decision or not. Even if we had lost the game his expanation of why he chose to delay the TO a bit would have made sense to me. This is not a Andy Reid/Chuck Pagano "random timeout" situation.

I will continue defending his reasoning behind the onside kick against the Eagles last year as much as I will defend him choosing to defend against the Jets in overtime. In both instances the outcome was not favorable but the reasoning behind his decision was sound enough for me to say "hey, this makes sense" and I won't criticize him for it.

The very same people that said he blew those games with decisions like that are pretty much very vocal this time again. They just dont get it.

I agree 100% on the fact that the outcome can't be the lone determinant of whether or not something was a good decision.

I feel differently about your views on this particular game. I still would have called two quick timeouts when the Pats sat on them, and would scream for them to do so if they find themselves in the same situation next week.......but I too think the onside kick against the Eagles was a good move and I also liked the decision to kick off in OT against the Jets.

So we agree on 2/3's of the controversial situations so I'll take it.

 

[Fencer]

Bill Belichick provides an epic explanation on how he handles end-of-game situations

Tom Curran did another great job of inspiring a BB lecture, in this case one that's directly relevant to this thread.

And it wasn't even Friday.

 

[Fencer]

you guys should seriously consider writing monologues for Sominex.

You know what's really boring on a message board?

Somebody posting just to say he isn't interested in the discussion.

 

[Joker]

a 9 word response is boring? you've got attention deficit issues...or hypersensitivity internet syndrome.

 

[Haley]

As much as I'd like to fawn over BB for this amazing psych out, I really think this decision was as simple as he laid it out. He expected the FG unit to kick immediately because it is really unwise not to do so. He called a timeout once he saw they weren't going to kick immediately.

To me, this is less of BB being a genius and more BB surprised/watching someone do something a little stupid and trying to react to it as best he can. Of course, BB can't come out and say, "Arians was a capital letters MO-RON for letting his kicking unit lollygag on the field without a timeout in his own pocket". But really, that is the case here.

Arians screwed up and it was unexpected for BB, who reacted as best he could given the circumstances. Arians lost the game by trying to make a grab at BBs last timeout at the cost of his own FG unit.

 

[cmasspatsfan]

As much as I'd like to fawn over BB for this amazing psych out, I really think this decision was as simple as he laid it out. He expected the FG unit to kick immediately because it is really unwise not to do so. He called a timeout once he saw they weren't going to kick immediately.

To me, this is less of BB being a genius and more BB surprised/watching someone do something a little stupid and trying to react to it as best he can. Of course, BB can't come out and say, "Arians was a capital letters MO-RON for letting his kicking unit lollygag on the field without a timeout in his own pocket". But really, that is the case here.

Arians screwed up and it was unexpected for BB, who reacted as best he could given the circumstances. Arians lost the game by trying to make a grab at BBs last timeout at the cost of his own FG unit.

BB actually said the opposite, they were going to use every second they could before kicking the ball to leave the Pats with as little time as possible. Arians didn't mess up he played it perfectly.

 

[Haley]

BB actually said the opposite, they were going to use every second they could before kicking the ball to leave the Pats with as little time as possible. Arians didn't mess up he played it perfectly.

That's how I read this. What were you reading from?

Q: Bill, what went into your thinking calling the time out with 41 seconds left, when you were kind of trying to rush out there, for that field goal attempt. You know, obviously that worked out really well for you guys, calling that time out.

A: Well, I wasn't going to initially call it, but then it looked like they weren't in a big rush, that they were going to bleed it a little bit, so if they had made it, it would have given us more time on the clock--you know, a field goal would have won going the other way.

Q: Bill, just to go back to the time out, you've been in the league so long, you've been in so many of those situations, is that a feel thing, or are you looking for something specific on the field, or something you see on the other sideline--when do you know?

A: If they would have run right out and lined up to kick it, then I don't think I would have taken the time out. And, you know generally I don't think you want to go out and line up and get it all set and make your field goal kicker wait, you know, 20 seconds to kick it. I mean, you could theoretically, but you know most kickers don't like that. I don't think that's really the way to go, personally. So when they came out there, that's what I thought they were going to do, is run right out and kick because it was fourth down. But then, they, you know, the holder wasn't even down, you know, the kicker was sort of ten yards off to the side, warming up. It looked like they were going to bleed it down, you know, so I thought we could save, I don't know what it was maybe 20 seconds on the 40-second clock, somewhere in there. So I thought we would be able to save that. I mean, obviously, if the kick was no good we're kneeling anyway, so it didn't really make any difference. It would only have helped us if the kick had been good.

 

[BTTA]

Shouldn't we save second guessing for when we lose?

You may have just invented third guessing.

 

[n6249c]

Wasn't it the holder who messed up not the kicker? Gotta think that ****s you up anticipating the timeout and then not getting it.

Actually I think it was the long snapper. IIRC the snap came in a little off target (low and flat?), which made it more difficult for the holder to get it placed properly in time.

I'm wondering if Collins attempted vault earlier in the game got into the center's head a little bit too, as a distraction when the pressure was already high. That was another one of lots of factors stressing the Cards, including time, and they failed to execute in the moment.

 

[n6249c]

I agree. I thought he wanted to rush the kicker and then ice him. Get the blood pumping and freeze it. Let me tell you, it works.

Part of getting the blood pumping is having the kicking team rush to get onto the field and lined up. If BB calls the TO immediately that doesn't happen. Genius.

 

[n6249c]

I would respectfully argue that there might, in fact, be a reason that he isn't saying publicly "I felt ok letting the time tick off because.....," and it is to not publicly embarrass an opposing coach that he respects. Isn't this similar to the situation at the end of the Super Bowl against the Seahawks? I think BB likes to shake up the opponent at the end of the game and see if they freak out by not calling an expected timeout, that is certainly what he did against the Seahawks. As everyone remembers, they freaked out a bit under the unexpected time pressure, called a stupid play, and it worked. However, BB was careful not to embarrass Carroll after that play, when asked why he didn't call a timeout he said: “… We saw that matchup and we certainly gave some consideration to taking a timeout there and leaving some time on the clock. I don’t know if that would have been a bad thing to do. It might have been a good thing to do. But it just seemed like in the flow of the game that we were OK with where we were.” A classic BB non-answer.

So, on Sunday, BB doesn't call the timeout to "do the unexpected" and shake up the Cards a bit, the Cards muddle around getting ready for the field goal, and then he calls timeout at the last minute to disturb their rhythm. It makes complete sense to me. But he would never try to embarrass a coach he respects by saying "we were trying to shake up the opponent and their coaching staff by doing the unexpected". This seems obvious to me, do you think I'm off base on this?

Not just avoiding embarrassing the opposing coach. He's not showing his cards to avoid tipping his hand for next time.

Think about it. Twice now he's gotten tremendously big wins on two plays where he did not call TO. Both times not calling time out put pressure on the opponent and and the results won the game for the Pats. Why should he help anyone else figure it out?

Yea I'm starting to come around on BB playing mind games with the kicker. Just dont tell @letekro

Your point is excellent. If you look at my signature, BB saw how confused SEA was organizing before Malcolm's pick so he let them run around confused. You are right though, anyone who questioned Pete's decision BB questioned their credentials and said they were not in any position to judge what Pom-Pom shoulda, coulda or woulda done.

After sleeping on it, no question it is highly possible that conventionally BB should have called the time out after the 3rd down completion but he wanted to see what the kicker was doing. Once he saw Canazarro putzing around and not engaging on the kicking cadence right away, BB may have thought he was a little skiddish. That might be the reason why he didn't call the TO right away and wanted to let him think about the kick, time running out, wondering if NE would call a TO and letting his heart rate get up a couple of ticks above normal.

So I don't think BB was trying to save Ariens from embarassment or showing he was out-maneuvering him but with Dale and Holley BB did reveal exactly what he was thinking at that moment.

So in the end, he knew what he should do by the book in that situation but once he saw the kicker putzing around and not engaging, he turned up a psychological heat on him....but didn't admit doing it.

The guy is freaking mastermind.

Not just psychological heat. He forced the Cardinals to hurry to get onto the field because they had no time outs and the clock was an issue - even if it doesn't run out they couldn't afford a delay of game penalty to push them back any farther. So they had to rush to make sure they were ready, and that got their pulses racing, put some physiological stress on them.

Then after they were on the field and not worried about getting set in time they wanted to milk the clock by slowing the pace. That was when he called the time out, took control of the clock out of their hands and gave them a chance to think about how the Pats might try to block the attempt, Collins' vaulting ability, a whole lot of things on top of the physiological stress from rushing onto the field.

Well played. As usual.

 

[PatriotsReign]

Lotta whining in the GD thread about timeouts late. How can you not see that Belichick didn't call a TO right away in the hopes that the Cards might **** something up. You let them rush out into a pressure situation, maybe they **** up lining up, maybe they snap it faster than they should, you just never know.

I mean, you guys who are still whining or chalking it up to luck that we didn't get screwed by not having more time on the clock, do you honestly think that Belichick, of all coaches in this league, doesn't make choices like that based on detailed time management analysis? This isn't some fly by night local over 30 flag football league, this is the Patriots in the NFL.

Sometimes these things work, sometimes they don't. But there's always going to be some pretty calculated rationale behind what he's doing because that's the man we are lucky enough to have as HC of the NEP.

I know BB isn't above being questioned, but sometimes our fans get petty with his decisions. We won the game and that's what matters

I watched Inside the NFL last night and Brown asked this question....

Who is more responsible for the Patriots success, Brady or Belichick?

All 4 agreed it's Belichick

 

[Froob]

Actually I think it was the long snapper. IIRC the snap came in a little off target (low and flat?), which made it more difficult for the holder to get it placed properly in time.

I'm wondering if Collins attempted vault earlier in the game got into the center's head a little bit too, as a distraction when the pressure was already high. That was another one of lots of factors stressing the Cards, including time, and they failed to execute in the moment.

Matt Chat and a former long snapper on Twitter are both saying the snap was good enough. Hold was awful.

 

[Kdo5]

I know BB isn't above being questioned, but sometimes our fans get petty with his decisions. We won the game and that's what matters

I watched Inside the NFL last night and Brown asked this question....

Who is more responsible for the Patriots success, Brady or Belichick?

All 4 agreed it's Belichick

I'd argue that they needed each other for this unprecedented success. Brady would still have been a terrific QB, Belichick still would have been an outstanding coach but w/o each other I don't think we're talking today about the GOAT QB & GOAT Coach.

I hate the whole "who is more responsible" debate. We don't have four, probably not even three SB's with one guy (and not the other).