Punter MacAfee Throws Pagano Further Under the Snapfu Bus

[Gumby]

Plenty of reason to bash the ST coach.

Plenty of reason to bash Pagano for the major playcalling changes that took place AFTER this happened and the Patriots scored.

Not reason for your specific attacks on Pagano here. They're nonsensical.

Can't you two let it go. You are both right (or wrong , however you want to take it)
Pagano should never have let the play go in first place with a newbie center and also not stood idly by with the mass not even on the LOS. But criticizing him for letting the play continue when he thought the clock was just going to go to zero (then 5-yd DOG) is not right either.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

McAfee was punting at home, in a dome. He, and Allen, ended up with an average of better than 47 yards per kick (47.8). The 5 yards thing is all but meaningless.

doing the math: 37 yard line + 47.8 avg kick puts you very close to the spot where a P returner lets it go to hope for a touchback. It's close and he may need 3 or 4 extra yards than normal on the punt but the oppostunity is there. Conversely, 32 + 47.8 is an almost certain return chance for the P returner.

Why a coach is not considering these things by saying who cares about these 5 yards is poor coaching decision making IMHO. Field position matters, P return opportunities matter, an extra opportunity to pin them behind the 20 matters.......again IMHO

 

[shmessy]

That is the key point. BB reads the rule book and works with it. For that he get blasted by the media. Pagano has having his team practice a play for over a year that is illegal and will not work!

What is scary is depending upon the refs to know this is illegal and make the call. Who is to say that another ref would not know the rule?

Whether or not a ref knew the rule, the entire world could see that 9 guys were lined up 3 yards off the line of scrimmage.

 

[Deus Irae]

That would be true for TAKING a 5 yard penalty (back up 5 yards and punt), but not for DRAWING a 5 yard penalty (1st down Indy).

So do you think Pagano needed a program to find out who that #17 was??????

That would be true for TAKING a 5 yard penalty (back up 5 yards and punt), but not for DRAWING a 5 yard penalty (1st down Indy).

So do you think Pagano needed a program to find out who that #17 was??????

You continue to make absolutely no sense.

 

[XLIX]

Again, this is not on Pagano. It's on the ST coach. People need to read the piece::



The play was dead, from the Colts POV.

The new wrinkle was never going to happen, because the replacement center didn't know about it. And moving the entire line forward after it had already gotten in position would have been a penalty.

Not true. You can shift your line if no one has gotten into a 3-point stance.

You are not allowed to simulate a snap, which is a false start, but you're not locked into position unless you've gotten into a 3-point stance. (Also it bears mentioning that after any shift, the offense has to come to a full stop for 1 second prior to sending anyone in motion or snapping the ball).

 

[shmessy]

You continue to make absolutely no sense.

Another quality post.

Point out where.

 

[Deus Irae]

doing the math: 37 yard line + 47.8 avg kick puts you very close to the spot where a P returner lets it go to hope for a touchback. It's close and he may need 3 or 4 extra yards than normal on the punt but the oppostunity is there. Conversely, 32 + 47.8 is an almost certain return chance for the P returner.

Why a coach is not considering these things by saying who cares about these 5 yards is poor coaching decision making IMHO. Field position matters, P return opportunities matter, an extra opportunity to pin them behind the 20 matters.......again IMHO

37+48 = 15
32 + 48 = 20

Adding 5 yards for a return puts the ball on the 10 and 15, and both of those are getting returned or fair caught.

 

[zydecochris]

Of course, on his radio show:

Seriously, Pagano should have explained this to the press - - gutless wonder never said a word about this until his punter gave out the details last night.

McAfee Clarifies Fake Punt: Whalen Wasn't Original Center, Explains Design

A more charitable interpretation might be that Pagano was trying to keep from throwing his Special Teams Coach under the bus.

 

[Deus Irae]

Not true. You can shift your line if no one has gotten into a 3-point stance.

You are not allowed to simulate a snap, which is a false start, but you're not locked into position unless you've gotten into a 3-point stance. (Also it bears mentioning that after any shift, the offense has to come to a full stop for 1 second prior to sending anyone in motion or snapping the ball).

Here's the play:



You're welcome to think that all those players who were too far off the line were going to be able to step forward, in perfect sync, and not get flagged on it.

 

[Deus Irae]

Another quality post.

Point out where.

I've already done so in this thread.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

And now you're ignoring the whole "Ball is not supposed to be snapped" part of the equation. I don't know why you have a hard on for Pagano, but this is not where you get him.

I'm curious, since you're so adamant that it isn't on Pagano, what the hell is the point of them not lining up properly on the line of scrimmage? Do you think that part was built into the play? "It doesn't matter, shouldn't have been snapped anyway" is not a good counterpoint. It's not as if lining up properly would've caused something terrible for the Colts. It's on the ST coach as well, but it's also on Pagano. IDK what's so hard about that to accept

 

[XLIX]

Here's the play:



You're welcome to think that all those players who were too far off the line were going to be able to step forward, in perfect sync, and not get flagged on it.

If they had jerked up suddenly as if simulating a snap, they would have been flagged.

If they just sort of stood up and trotted into formation, they would not have been flagged - just like they weren't flagged at the very start when they all were in the middle of the field, stood up, then trotted 25 yards wide right.

 

[TheBostonStraggler]

37+48 = 15
32 + 48 = 20

Adding 5 yards for a return puts the ball on the 10 and 15, and both of those are getting returned or fair caught.

37+48 = 15
32 + 48 = 20

Adding 5 yards for a return puts the ball on the 10 and 15, and both of those are getting returned or fair caught.

As mentioned "It's close and he may need 3 or 4 extra yards than normal" but 5 yards + a few extra from the kick closer to the 10 provides "opportunity" for the player to let it go and opportunity to get a pin inside the 10. Put another way, I am sure I could look up P returners who let the ball go when the landing spot is inside the 15 but above the 10. I bet I would have to look long and hard to find one who let it go with a landing spot behind the 20 but above the 15.
Even if the chances are lesser than I am making them out to be, a better field position opportunity can't possibly be dismissed in the third quarter of a one score game. And if Pagano believes 'so what, 5 yards' then I believe that is definite poor coaching jus as I believe not calling TO with an improper formation is bad coaching (in this game scenario). If you see it otherwise then we just simply disagree on what matters in a game scenario like this.

 

[Deus Irae]

I'm curious, since you're so adamant that it isn't on Pagano, what the hell is the point of them not lining up properly on the line of scrimmage?

Clearly a screw up

Do you think that part was built into the play?

Only the Colts know.

"It doesn't matter, shouldn't have been snapped anyway" is not a good counterpoint.

It's the perfect counterpoint, actually.

It's not as if lining up properly would've caused something terrible for the Colts. It's on the ST coach as well, but it's also on Pagano. IDK what's so hard about that to accept

You're getting it wrong.

 

[Deus Irae]

As mentioned "It's close and he may need 3 or 4 extra yards than normal" but 5 yards + a few extra from the kick closer to the 10 provides "opportunity" for the player to let it go and opportunity to get a pin inside the 10. Put another way, I am sure I could look up P returners who let the ball go when the landing spot is inside the 15 but above the 10. I bet I would have to look long and hard to find one who let it go with a landing spot behind the 20 but above the 15.
Even if the chances are lesser than I am making them out to be, a better field position opportunity can't possibly be dismissed in the third quarter of a one score game. And if Pagano believes 'so what, 5 yards' then I believe that is definite poor coaching jus as I believe not calling TO with an improper formation is bad coaching (in this game scenario). If you see it otherwise then we just simply disagree on what matters in a game scenario like this.

I do disagree, and we almost never see balls being allowed to drop on the 10 in today's game, in this sort of scenario. The kind of punt we're talking about would not have been one that significantly out kicked the coverage, so the PR wouldn't likely have have risked it. We see that repeatedly with the Patriots PRs.

 

[zydecochris]

I sure am glad that BB takes full responsibility when something goes south on offense, defense or special teams.

However, as had been discussed many times BB is unusually active in all three phases of the game. Originally thought of a defensive specialist, he is now quite involved with the offense and special teams.

I can't think of any similar type of coach, maybe other posters can bring some up? Most are primarily offensive coaches (Payton, Reid, Kelly, etc.) or defensive specialists (Ryan, Pagano, etc.).

 

[shmessy]

In a world where......

The Patriots have been practicing this trick play for over a year.

They had been practicing it with Dobson, snapping the ball to Ebner.

However, when the game occurs, Dobson is inactive.

Deep into a 2nd half, in a tight 5 point game, at home, on national television against their #1 most hated rival, the Patriots Head Coach calls for this trick play.

Even ALLOWING them onto the field without the practiced snapper for this play (suspend your belief for a moment that BB or ANY other NFL Head Coach would even let this get this far) do you think BB would look out there and notice that the guy lining up at snapper is actually Danny Amendola who hasn't practiced this even once?????

Would BB need a program to see who #80 was?

Would he (as Deus argues) 'just think it wouldn't be snapped'?

 

[Boots Electric]

The original intent of the play is to draw a 1st down through a New England penalty. When they drew it up they figured that if New England didn't bite the worst thing that could happen is a DOG penalty. The risk was not that high, the potential loss was low, and the probability that the play would not work was at a 50%.

I fail to see how this is Pagano's fault because in his mind the worst that could happen is a DOG penalty but, the STs coach did not properly prepare and communicate to that particular STs unit that the ball is never to be snapped and to take the DOG penalty.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Clearly a screw up

Clearly a screw up due to poor coaching...something a, GASP, head coach should be held responsible for.

It's the perfect counterpoint, actually.

Actually, it's not. The Colts weren't lined up properly. The backup center didn't know the full play. One or both of these things is at least partially at fault of the head coach. Saying "No" in the shortest quip possible doesn't change that.

 

[Deus Irae]

Clearly a screw up due to poor coaching...something a, GASP, head coach should be held responsible for.



Actually, it's not. The Colts weren't lined up properly. The backup center didn't know the full play. One or both of these things is at least partially at fault of the head coach. Saying "No" in the shortest quip possible doesn't change that.

Are you a Shmessy mult account, or something? Nothing you said above is even remotely correct, beyond the "final responsibility" card.