PatsFans.com - Mobile
PatsFans.com
Search
2020 Patriots Season:
Upcoming Opponent:
Next Up: N/A

Current Patriots Twitter Feed:

Ice_Ice_Brady

Team Bill's Worst Nightmare
PatsFans.com Supporter
So yesterday's game feaured some pretty interesting clock management decisions. I won't get too far into the decision by LaFleur to kick a field goal with 2:06 remaining because that will undoubtedly hijack the thread, there are already lots of people talking about it, etc. For the record, I think it was the wrong call, but I also don't believe he would have done it if it were a 7-point game. An 8-point game, and the need for an additional 2-point conversion, changes the percentages a lot because it makes that field goal a lot more valuable and the overall reward of a touchdown potentially less valuable.

First Time Management Scenario

The scenario begins with 2:05 remaining in the game and the Packers have three timeouts and are kicking off. The Packers surprised me by kicking short of the endzone for several reasons. First, it risks a return taking the clock down to the 2-minute warning, which is equivalent to an extra timeout. Second, Mickens had completely gashed the kickoff coverage throughout the game.

I suspect that the kick was done that way either (a) unintentionally or (b) in hopes of forcing a fumble. I would argue that a squib kick might have been a better call if kicking off (without hindsight of what Mickens did) or even an onside kick isn't the worst idea because the game is about possession and not field position at that point.

Regardless, Mickens fielded the kickoff at the 8-yard line, got to the 17, and fell down intentionally, to not risk a fumble. Had he been able to extend the clock for two more seconds, perhaps by running to the outside, it would have gotten the clock to the 2 minute warning, voiding an additional advantage for the Packers.

1. What was the right call for LaFleur? Kickoff for a touchback? Squib? Onside? Or was this right call, kicking to try to entice Mickens into returning it and possibly fumbling?

2. Should Mickens have attempted to run the clock down by running a wider return and then falling down? Or was this the right play, with almost zero turnover risk?


Second Time Management Scenario


Another very interesting scenario came into play just one play later. Tampa Bay completed perhaps the best possible scenario, gaining 9 yards on first down. That set up a 2nd and 1 at the two minute warning (1:56).

Green Bay still had three timeouts remaining. However, a highly likely first down would mean that Green Bay would be forced to used all three timeouts, and in a best case scenario, likely get the ball back with about 45 seconds, no timeouts, needing to go 60-70 yards. Or if the Bucs had been stuffed on second down, then picked it up on third down, the Packers would likely not get the ball back at all.

With this in mind, Damon Harrison jumped offsides/encroachment (and I believe another Packers player did as well.) The penalty was a five yarder, resulting in an automatic first down.

But this gave the Packers a much better scenario, as it was now 1st and 10 again, and they had all three timeouts. Stopping Tampa three times would lead to them getting the ball back with about 1:40 remaining. In essence, the penalty wiped out the 9-yard gain by the Bucs and reset the clock battle.

1. Did LaFleur have them intentionally jump offsides?

2. Should Arians have declined the penalty? Are teams even allowed to decline that type of dead ball penalty?
 

PatsDeb

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
Not going for it on 4th and short (where if you don't get it you at least pin the Bucs deep and remain 8 pts. back) and instead kicking a FG, but therein guaranteeing that you never get the ball back) - curious tactics my dear Watson.
 

Ras-IR Dowling

Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract
So yesterday's game feaured some pretty interesting clock management decisions. I won't get too far into the decision by LaFleur to kick a field goal with 2:06 remaining because that will undoubtedly hijack the thread, there are already lots of people talking about it, etc. For the record, I think it was the wrong call, but I also don't believe he would have done it if it were a 7-point game. An 8-point game, and the need for an additional 2-point conversion, changes the percentages a lot because it makes that field goal a lot more valuable and the overall reward of a touchdown potentially less valuable.

First Time Management Scenario

The scenario begins with 2:05 remaining in the game and the Packers have three timeouts and are kicking off. The Packers surprised me by kicking short of the endzone for several reasons. First, it risks a return taking the clock down to the 2-minute warning, which is equivalent to an extra timeout. Second, Mickens had completely gashed the kickoff coverage throughout the game.

I suspect that the kick was done that way either (a) unintentionally or (b) in hopes of forcing a fumble. I would argue that a squib kick might have been a better call if kicking off (without hindsight of what Mickens did) or even an onside kick isn't the worst idea because the game is about possession and not field position at that point.

Regardless, Mickens fielded the kickoff at the 8-yard line, got to the 17, and fell down intentionally, to not risk a fumble. Had he been able to extend the clock for two more seconds, perhaps by running to the outside, it would have gotten the clock to the 2 minute warning, voiding an additional advantage for the Packers.

1. What was the right call for LaFleur? Kickoff for a touchback? Squib? Onside? Or was this right call, kicking to try to entice Mickens into returning it and possibly fumbling?

2. Should Mickens have attempted to run the clock down by running a wider return and then falling down? Or was this the right play, with almost zero turnover risk?


Second Time Management Scenario


Another very interesting scenario came into play just one play later. Tampa Bay completed perhaps the best possible scenario, gaining 9 yards on first down. That set up a 2nd and 1 at the two minute warning (1:56).

Green Bay still had three timeouts remaining. However, a highly likely first down would mean that Green Bay would be forced to used all three timeouts, and in a best case scenario, likely get the ball back with about 45 seconds, no timeouts, needing to go 60-70 yards. Or if the Bucs had been stuffed on second down, then picked it up on third down, the Packers would likely not get the ball back at all.

With this in mind, Damon Harrison jumped offsides/encroachment (and I believe another Packers player did as well.) The penalty was a five yarder, resulting in an automatic first down.

But this gave the Packers a much better scenario, as it was now 1st and 10 again, and they had all three timeouts. Stopping Tampa three times would lead to them getting the ball back with about 1:40 remaining. In essence, the penalty wiped out the 9-yard gain by the Bucs and reset the clock battle.

1. Did LaFleur have them intentionally jump offsides?

2. Should Arians have declined the penalty? Are teams even allowed to decline that type of dead ball penalty?
1. Yes
2. Yes
 

Nehalem

In the Starting Line-Up
Not going for it on 4th and short (where if you don't get it you at least pin the Bucs deep and remain 8 pts. back) and instead kicking a FG, but therein guaranteeing that you never get the ball back) - curious tactics my dear Watson.
Probably didn't want a repeat of the 2015 AFFCG where BB repeatedly passed up FGs in the 4th quarter and then lost on a failed 2 point conversion.
 

Family

PatsFans.com Supporter
PatsFans.com Supporter
I have no problem with anything happening in the game other than Rogers not running for an easy TD, and the coaches decision to kick a field goal.

No BB decision was ever as bad as that one, and we see again why Tom Brady now has as many NFC Championships as Rogers.
 

Pape

2nd Team Getting Their First Start
couldnt tampa decline the encroachment penalty?
They could have, but since it was a dead ball penalty, it would have been like giving the Packers a free time out... so in essence, if they declined the penalty the clock would have stopped, it still would have been 2nd down with a yard to go... by accepting it, they at least get a first down... it wouln't have burned any time off the clock because the play before it was an incomplete pass
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

Team Bill's Worst Nightmare
PatsFans.com Supporter
They could have, but since it was a dead ball penalty, it would have been like giving the Packers a free time out... so in essence, if they declined the penalty the clock would have stopped, it still would have been 2nd down with a yard to go... by accepting it, they at least get a first down... it wouln't have burned any time off the clock because the play before it was an incomplete pass

Clock was already stopped though. It was the first snap after the 2 minute warning.
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

Team Bill's Worst Nightmare
PatsFans.com Supporter
Not going for it on 4th and short (where if you don't get it you at least pin the Bucs deep and remain 8 pts. back) and instead kicking a FG, but therein guaranteeing that you never get the ball back) - curious tactics my dear Watson.

Well, I guess we'll get into that one too.

I think they should have gone for it, too, but the call was a little more complicated than the media is making it out to be. The Packers two-point conversion failure set this up, I think, which is why a lot of people would argue against going for 2 in the third quarter down 28-23.

Packers trail 31-23 just before two minute warning.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that they have a 50% chance of scoring a TD from the 8-yard line. I think that's really high, but let's roll with it.

So if they score a touchdown at 50%, then the two-point conversion is also 50%. So you're looking at a 25% liklihood of tying the game there.

If you hit on that 25% liklihood, you're still going to have to stop Tampa Bay, who would have the ball last. Then you're likely looking at another overtime coin flip even if you do.

Those odds really suck, honestly, despite probably being the better option.

If you take the three points, then the odds rest heavily on stopping Tampa Bay, but if you stop Tampa Bay, then at least you're in control of your own destiny on offense. A touchdown now wins the game and you don't have to worry about 2-point conversion odds, overtime odds, etc.

I don't know the exact analytics on it. It would have been the right call if your QB sucks. It didn't seem like the right call there.
 

Doctor DDS

Rotational Player and Threatening Starter's Job
If I was GB I would have kicked off out of the end zone as any advantage gained from field position was more than offset by risk of clock going down to 2 minute warning. I do not really think you can play for a fumble. Plus - because the clock was 2:02 instead of 2:05 the Bucs had no risk in passing on first down as the clock was stopping anyways. At 2:05 that may not happen.

If I was TB I would have declined the penalty. 5 yards were not important at that point in the game and getting that first down was an extra 40 seconds off the clock.

I thought GB was very casual going for the tying TD. Rodgers was running the clock down to the final second on virtually every snap. When you are down 8 with 3 TO's remaining scoring quickly leaves more chances to win.
 
Last edited:

Pape

2nd Team Getting Their First Start
Well, I guess we'll get into that one too.

I think they should have gone for it, too, but the call was a little more complicated than the media is making it out to be. The Packers two-point conversion failure set this up, I think, which is why a lot of people would argue against going for 2 in the third quarter down 28-23.

Packers trail 31-23 just before two minute warning.

Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that they have a 50% chance of scoring a TD from the 8-yard line. I think that's really high, but let's roll with it.

So if they score a touchdown at 50%, then the two-point conversion is also 50%. So you're looking at a 25% liklihood of tying the game there.

If you hit on that 25% liklihood, you're still going to have to stop Tampa Bay, who would have the ball last. Then you're likely looking at another overtime coin flip even if you do.

Those odds really suck, honestly, despite probably being the better option.

If you take the three points, then the odds rest heavily on stopping Tampa Bay, but if you stop Tampa Bay, then at least you're in control of your own destiny on offense. A touchdown now wins the game and you don't have to worry about 2-point conversion odds, overtime odds, etc.

I don't know the exact analytics on it. It would have been the right call if your QB sucks. It didn't seem like the right call there.
The Pack never should have gone for two at the end of the third. Terrible decision. Always put the points on the board when the outcome is in question.
 

Ice_Ice_Brady

Team Bill's Worst Nightmare
PatsFans.com Supporter
They likely couldn't quite have run out the clock by design by completing a QB sneak but it would have been very close, depending on how long Brady could hold the ball before kneeling.

1:56 remaining

2nd and 1 - Snap to Brady...fall forward, short of first down.
Packers call timeout #1 at 1:53

Third and 1 - Snap to Brady...QB sneak for first down
Packers call timeout #2 at 1:49

1st and 10 - Snap to Brady...hold ball and kneel down
Packers call timeout #3 at 1:44

2nd and 12 - Snap to Brady...hold ball and kneel down
Clock runs down to 1:00

3rd and 14 - Snap to Brady...hold ball and kneel down
Clock runs down to 0:16

4th and 16 - Punt
Packers likely get the ball still with about :08 remaining. Probably a 50-60 yard hail mary.
 

Pape

2nd Team Getting Their First Start
They likely couldn't quite have run out the clock by design by completing a QB sneak but it would have been very close, depending on how long Brady could hold the ball before kneeling.

1:56 remaining

2nd and 1 - Snap to Brady...fall forward, short of first down.
Packers call timeout #1 at 1:53

Third and 1 - Snap to Brady...QB sneak for first down
Packers call timeout #2 at 1:49

1st and 10 - Snap to Brady...hold ball and kneel down
Packers call timeout #3 at 1:44

2nd and 12 - Snap to Brady...hold ball and kneel down
Clock runs down to 1:00

3rd and 14 - Snap to Brady...hold ball and kneel down
Clock runs down to 0:16

4th and 16 - Punt
Packers likely get the ball still with about :08 remaining. Probably a 50-60 yard hail mary.
Packers coach managed that game poorly. The only reason they were even in it was because Arians was even worse.
 

NashuaPats

In the Starting Line-Up
I thought much of Tampa Bay’s play calling was odd. In the second half and up by more than two scores and then more than one score, they were throwing deep on third and short. They were going for the low percentage kill rather than the high percentage win. I didn’t get that and it allowed Green Bay to get back into the game.
 

Top