Bill Barnwell of Grantland on last night's game at Atlanta

[convertedpatsfan]

Bill Barnwell on the Denver Broncos and Week 4 - Grantland

Starts off on the Broncos, but talks about Mike Smith's decision late yesterday down 10 and whether to kick the field goal or go for it. I was totally in favour of kicking, but really re-thinking based on this piece.

Also a question about whether we might see more 3-4 now that Vince is out, and a note on booing actual injuries that every fan should read.

 

[Triumph]

Falcon fans were booing the Pats offensive players like Solder when he went down losing his shoe. Stopping the clock gave the Atlanta D a breather and these clowns are booing?

 

[Oswlek]

Bill Barnwell on the Denver Broncos and Week 4 - Grantland

Starts off on the Broncos, but talks about Mike Smith's decision late yesterday down 10 and whether to kick the field goal or go for it. I was totally in favour of kicking, but really re-thinking based on this piece.

Also a question about whether we might see more 3-4 now that Vince is out, and a note on booing actual injuries that every fan should read.

All you need to know about kicking is that I, as a Pats fan, breathed a sigh of relief when they didn't go for it.

The 3-4 is a strange question since they actually need more heavies to run that than a 4-3. Not only that, but unless you want consider Kelly to be one (I don't) NE has no NT with Vince down. The entire idea of that change makes no sense whatsoever and I'm surprised that Barnwell would even ponder it.

 

[BradyFTW!]

Falcon fans were booing the Pats offensive players like Solder when he went down losing his shoe. Stopping the clock gave the Atlanta D a breather and these clowns are booing?

It was obviously part of the Pats' master plan to kill their own offensive rhythm and slow themselves down.

 

[dales804]

Good stuff in there. Despite being a Giants fan, I like Barnwell's writing. I am curious to see what the Patriots do at the DT spot. I'm curious about the Forston promotion coupled with more Collins on the field in a 3-4 look.

 

[Oswlek]

Good stuff in there. Despite being a Giants fan, I like Barnwell's writing. I am curious to see what the Patriots do at the DT spot. I'm curious about the Forston promotion coupled with more Collins on the field in a 3-4 look.

If they do more 3-4, it won't be on running downs if they have any interest in holding teams under 200 yards.

 

[Nunchucks]

The right move is to take the 3 points. If you do not get t he td, you are still down 10. Take what you can get, worry about the td on the next possession

 

[Oswlek]

The right move is to take the 3 points. If you do not get t he td, you are still down 10. Take what you can get, worry about the td on the next possession

I think Barnwell builds a solid enough case to think otherwise. I know my confidence level took an uptick once they kicked the figgie.

 

[PatsDeb]

Bill Barnwell on the Denver Broncos and Week 4 - Grantland

Starts off on the Broncos, but talks about Mike Smith's decision late yesterday down 10 and whether to kick the field goal or go for it. I was totally in favour of kicking, but really re-thinking based on this piece.

Also a question about whether we might see more 3-4 now that Vince is out, and a note on booing actual injuries that every fan should read.

I dunno. They needed two scores and had already failed on 4th and short near the end zone earlier in the game. I don't think they did the wrong thing. Heck, it almost worked! Miss on 4th and short and the game is over. I thought the bigger mistake was not kicking the FG earlier in the game (where they would have been down only 7-6). That miss on 4th and 2 gave our guys a lot of confidence, I thought, even though at the end of the game they still would have been down by 4. Then they would have been going for the win rather than a tie.

 

[Rob0729]

Without big Vince, I think the Pats are less likely to see a 3-4. Why would you run a 3-4 without a legitimate starting NT?

 

[Deus Irae]

The right move is to take the 3 points. If you do not get t he td, you are still down 10. Take what you can get, worry about the td on the next possession

Yup..... Barnwell was sniffing glue when he wrote that crap.

 

[Avenger]

The right move is to take the 3 points. If you do not get t he td, you are still down 10. Take what you can get, worry about the td on the next possession

That's not playing to win, that's playing not to lose. You still need the TD, it's easier to get the TD on 4th and 2 than it is later in the game.

 

[Oswlek]

That's not playing to win, that's playing not to lose. You still need the TD, it's easier to get the TD on 4th and 2 than it is later in the game.

Exactly. It is similar to, when teams are down by 15 or 22 points, it always befuddles me why they kick the XP after scoring a late TD. You know you need the 2pt conversion at some point, why wait until there is nothing you can do about a failure? If you try and fail the first time around, at least you now can game plan around the need for another score.

 

[PatsDeb]

That's not playing to win, that's playing not to lose. You still need the TD, it's easier to get the TD on 4th and 2 than it is later in the game.

Not exactly. It's playing to tie the game when you have precious little time to do it.

 

[letekro]

Yup..... Barnwell was sniffing glue when he wrote that crap.

Barnwell's analysis is correct. You're confusing two things---what gives the team the best chance to continue to be competitive in the game (kick the FG) and what gives the team the best chance to win the game (go for the TD). While the former looks appealing, the latter is all that really matters.

 

[Oswlek]

Not exactly. It's playing to tie the game when you have precious little time to do it.

Over three minutes with all three timeouts. Even if you fail, you are still likely to get a possession and an on-side try. And unless NE gouges you, that first possession is going to be in good field position, giving you an easy march to FG position.

The fact that Atlanta ended up needing to convert a more difficult 4th down conversion - and it wasn't surprising in the least - validates a lot of what Bill is suggesting.

 

[PatsDeb]

Barnwell's analysis is correct. You're confusing two things---what gives the team the best chance to continue to be competitive in the game (kick the FG) and what gives the team the best chance to win the game (go for the TD). While the former looks appealing, the latter is all that really matters.

Hmmm. If I am the head coach in this situation and I am down two scores with 3 minutes left, I think my best chance to win is to take the points that I can, force a quick 3 and out and then try to tie it. If I go for it and miss (like I have once already in the same game), then we're done.

If it was the Pats down by 10 in the same position, wouldn't you have been mad at BB if he went for it and missed? I know I would have been. I would have wanted them to take the 3 then give Brady the chance to get the 7 on the next drive.

Edit - which they almost did.

 

[patchick]

Barnwell's analysis is correct. You're confusing two things---what gives the team the best chance to continue to be competitive in the game (kick the FG) and what gives the team the best chance to win the game (go for the TD). While the former looks appealing, the latter is all that really matters.

I'm leaning toward Barnwell's argument too (anybody who hasn't fully read his reasoning should).

I would love to see someone do a full statistical analysis of this sort of situation and actual outcomes. Though I suspect that the sample size of teams that went for it on 4th down might be too small to draw conclusions from!

 

[PatsDeb]

Over three minutes with all three timeouts. Even if you fail, you are still likely to get a possession and an on-side try. And unless NE gouges you, that first possession is going to be in good field position, giving you an easy march to FG position.

The fact that Atlanta ended up needing to convert a more difficult 4th down conversion - and it wasn't surprising in the least - validates a lot of what Bill is suggesting.

When the Pats have been going on long drives for much of the 2nd half. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[tmracht]

I dunno. They needed two scores and had already failed on 4th and short near the end zone earlier in the game. I don't think they did the wrong thing. Heck, it almost worked! Miss on 4th and short and the game is over. I thought the bigger mistake was not kicking the FG earlier in the game (where they would have been down only 7-6). That miss on 4th and 2 gave our guys a lot of confidence, I thought, even though at the end of the game they still would have been down by 4. Then they would have been going for the win rather than a tie.

This is always a tough debate and one Barnwell has been trying to disprove repeatedly. The fact the Falcons missed on 4th and short earlier shouldn't preclude them from trying it later in the game.

The always touchy feel of the game versus following the numbers.

If you believe you should take whatever points you can get then it's true you should kick the FG, but if you are trying to maximize points based on the current situation, there are many times you should go for it on 4th and 1 or 2 (with conversion rates above 60% and giving yourself a chance at an extra 4 points it becomes quite close).

As you said it almost worked out, however if they had gotten the touchdown on that drive rather than settling for the 3, and then had to kick a game tying FG on 4th and 7, that might have been better than just falling short.

It's not always about points on the board it can sometimes be about maximizing your expecting winning opportunities which is what Barnwell is arguing.