Would/should BB have gone for it on 4th down?

[PatsFaninAZ]

It's not tough at all. They are 2 different situations, there was no going from being up 3 to being up 6 at the 50 against the Chargers. BTW I thought they should have punted at the time, but based on how much the defense was on the field prior to that (something like 2 minute rest in the last 10 minutes) I understood it.

I can't see how you do one but not the other. Either is a chance to put the game away with one yard. Going for it on 4th against the Chargers was not even a chance to put the game away, because the Chargers still had time outs. The risk/reward for going for it against the Chargers was way greater than it would have been in this situation.

I agree with those that say that plays on first and second were indicators of what Belichick's intentions were. The only thing that throws a bit of a wrench into it was the fact that there was a review of the TD play, so the playclock would have only been reset to 25 seconds if the TD had been overturned.

To me, incidentally, this is the most interesting part of the whole situation. Booth review in a situation where the clock is running down should never hurt a team, but it does with the disparity between the 25 and 40 second play clocks. If the TD had been overturned, it would have cost the Patriots 15 important seconds.

 

[cstjohn17]

That was a strange sequence. I could understand the first kneel down but not the second. Were the Patriots really afraid of the Vikings going up and own the field for two scores in under 2 minutes?

 

[emoney_33]

I can't see how you do one but not the other. Either is a chance to put the game away with one yard. Going for it on 4th against the Chargers was not even a chance to put the game away, because the Chargers still had time outs. The risk/reward for going for it against the Chargers was way greater than it would have been in this situation.

I agree with those that say that plays on first and second were indicators of what Belichick's intentions were. The only thing that throws a bit of a wrench into it was the fact that there was a review of the TD play, so the playclock would have only been reset to 25 seconds if the TD had been overturned.

To me, incidentally, this is the most interesting part of the whole situation. Booth review in a situation where the clock is running down should never hurt a team, but it does with the disparity between the 25 and 40 second play clocks. If the TD had been overturned, it would have cost the Patriots 15 important seconds.

As you said the reward in the Chargers game would not have been putting the game away, they still need 1 more first down to do that. And the risk was guarantee the Chargers the ball at midfield. So smaller reward, bigger risk than the 4th-down-that-would-have-been against the Vikes.

The timeout-killing QB sneaks are worthwhile no matter what their 4th down strategy would have been.

 

[PatsDeb]

That was a strange sequence. I could understand the first kneel down but not the second. Were the Patriots really afraid of the Vikings going up and own the field for two scores in under 2 minutes?

No, but they might have been concerned that they don't get a TD, kick a FG, then the Vikes only need one score to win and haven't wasted all their time outs. Doing what they did forced the use of the Timeouts, then they had one or two plays (depending on whether you think BB was going for it on 4th and 1) to get the TD, and if they don't get it, the Vikes have to drive the length of the field w/ no time outs for either a game-tying FG, or a game winning TD. As it was, we scored on 3rd down, which was the best possible outcome.

 

[patchick]

No, but they might have been concerned that they don't get a TD, kick a FG, then the Vikes only need one score to win and haven't wasted all their time outs. Doing what they did forced the use of the Timeouts, then they had one or two plays (depending on whether you think BB was going for it on 4th and 1) to get the TD, and if they don't get it, the Vikes have to drive the length of the field w/ no time outs for either a game-tying FG, or a game winning TD. As it was, we scored on 3rd down, which was the best possible outcome.

Well put, but I still think the 2 sacrificed plays point to a 4-down effort. A TD is so much more valuable than a FG there that you'd want more than one shot at it, plus if you don't get the TD the field position difference helps balance the loss of the 3 points somewhat.

 

[Keegs]

regardless it seems too risky and not a good decision, whatever the strategy was.

A TD puts them up by 10 and burning 2 downs to basically end the game in order to just waste 2 of minnesota's timeouts seems way too risky.

 

[patchick]

regardless it seems too risky and not a good decision, whatever the strategy was.

A TD puts them up by 10 and burning 2 downs to basically end the game in order to just waste 2 of minnesota's timeouts seems way too risky.

Now THAT is the really interesting part. Burning those 2 downs at the goal line was incredibly ballsy, and something I don't think I've ever seen before. That should be getting as much debate as any 4th-down choice around.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

Now THAT is the really interesting part. Burning those 2 downs at the goal line was incredibly ballsy, and something I don't think I've ever seen before. That should be getting as much debate as any 4th-down choice around.

Agree, it's the more interesting part. I love the decision. The clock was stopped on the first down with 3:20, about. (Maybe 3:18). That's the magic number. With 1:20 above the 2:00 warning, and the other team out of timeouts, you know that by running two plays you are minimizingg the damage caused by the two minute warning. Put another way, so long as you don't have an incomplete pass or go out of bounds, you know for a fact that with two plays, you can get all the way down to the two minute warning, and you know that the two minute warning will come just before the play clock hits zero, so the other team doesn't even really get a free time out.

Ok, so now you know that you can't have an incompletion or go out of bounds. The consequence is just too great. You preserve 40 seconds for your opponent if you fail to complete, and you give them the free time out with the two minute warning.

So, that decision is an easy one -- you are going to run the ball twice. Once you've decided that, the question is whether you want to score right away. Are you prepared to risk the potential of four extra points for 1:20 of your opponent's time, plus the 2 minute warning time out. I say "potential" because even if you try to score, you might not. You might get stuffed twice. You might get dropped for a loss. You might turn the ball over.

If you sit on the ball twice, the best possible position your opponent can be in is to get the ball back needing a FG with 1:20 or so and no time outs. But you might get the TD on 3d down anyway. Is that a better position than being up 10 with 3:20 left with your opponent still having the 2 minute warning? I think it's close. On balance, once you've taken passing the ball off the table, I like the decision to leave the opposition with as little time as possible and to take 2 shots at the end zone instead of 4. Using up 1:20 plus burning the 2 minute warning seems more valuable to me than the 2 extra attempts to get 1 yard.

 

[emoney_33]

Agree, it's the more interesting part. I love the decision. The clock was stopped on the first down with 3:20, about. (Maybe 3:18). That's the magic number. With 1:20 above the 2:00 warning, and the other team out of timeouts, you know that by running two plays you are minimizingg the damage caused by the two minute warning. Put another way, so long as you don't have an incomplete pass or go out of bounds, you know for a fact that with two plays, you can get all the way down to the two minute warning, and you know that the two minute warning will come just before the play clock hits zero, so the other team doesn't even really get a free time out.

Ok, so now you know that you can't have an incompletion or go out of bounds. The consequence is just too great. You preserve 40 seconds for your opponent if you fail to complete, and you give them the free time out with the two minute warning.

So, that decision is an easy one -- you are going to run the ball twice. Once you've decided that, the question is whether you want to score right away. Are you prepared to risk the potential of four extra points for 1:20 of your opponent's time, plus the 2 minute warning time out. I say "potential" because even if you try to score, you might not. You might get stuffed twice. You might get dropped for a loss. You might turn the ball over.

If you sit on the ball twice, the best possible position your opponent can be in is to get the ball back needing a FG with 1:20 or so and no time outs. But you might get the TD on 3d down anyway. Is that a better position than being up 10 with 3:20 left with your opponent still having the 2 minute warning? I think it's close. On balance, once you've taken passing the ball off the table, I like the decision to leave the opposition with as little time as possible and to take 2 shots at the end zone instead of 4. Using up 1:20 plus burning the 2 minute warning seems more valuable to me than the 2 extra attempts to get 1 yard.

I don't, I still hate the decision to QB sneak twice. That 1:00 is not -THAT- valuable when you are going up 2 scores with 3 minutes to play against the backup QB, your defense playing well and your running game having success.

 

[bradydaman29]

I would have preferred they just tried to get the td from first down because getting that td basically puts the game away with 3 minutes left. The only bad situation they avoided by running 2 sneaks was the disastrous situation of a turnover while trying to score. If they get a turnover on 3rd down, it's not nearly as dire. That's why I'm not coacing the Pats and BB is, In BB we trust.

 

[patriotscpfc]

Kicking the FG is a NO brainer. Only way BB goes for it there is if his kicker is hurt/terrible and/or maybe if his special teams is atrocious (neither are the case).

Of course I want to kick whoever decided to run the 2 QB-sneaks and force us into 3rd down!

You mean the guy who took 1:20 off the clock with just over 3 minutes left on the clock. Over a third of the time left was taken off with 2 half sneaks.

 

[emoney_33]

You mean the guy who took 1:20 off the clock with just over 3 minutes left on the clock. Over a third of the time left was taken off with 2 half sneaks.

Yes I want to kick that guy. That 1:20 might have been super necessary if we were going up by 1 score, we were going up by 2 scores. Your main goal should have been get in the endzone, not get crazy and waste 50% of your chances to go up 2 scores.

 

[PatsFaninAZ]

I don't, I still hate the decision to QB sneak twice. That 1:00 is not -THAT- valuable when you are going up 2 scores with 3 minutes to play against the backup QB, your defense playing well and your running game having success.

Well, it's not just 1:00. It's 1:20, plus taking away the 2:00 warning from your opponent as a free time out.

I guess I agree that if the Vikings will just let you walk the ball into the end zone, you take it -- although even then I'm not sure. As Belichick said on WEII, BJGE could have just scored on the play before and that would have been that, but once the option was presented, the chance to take the time off the clock and still have at least one chance to score seemed the right move.

 

[Patsrock]

Yes I want to kick that guy. That 1:20 might have been super necessary if we were going up by 1 score, we were going up by 2 scores. Your main goal should have been get in the endzone, not get crazy and waste 50% of your chances to go up 2 scores.

Less time on the clock mean less time for Minnesota to score. Who is to say you get that TD with 3:15 left and Minnesota scores before the 2 min warning> The cut it down to a 3 point lead with say 2:10 left. The do an onsides kick and recover and then they have about 2 mins left to get a fg or td.

 

[emoney_33]

Less time on the clock mean less time for Minnesota to score. Who is to say you get that TD with 3:15 left and Minnesota scores before the 2 min warning> The cut it down to a 3 point lead with say 2:10 left. The do an onsides kick and recover and then they have about 2 mins left to get a fg or td.

It's order of importance. The TD is not free, it is earned. You are not guaranteed to get it on any one single play. You do not GIVE AWAY 2 plays like that I'm sorry. Yes obviously you can create hypotheticals that help your case, but that 3rd down TD was NOT a guarantee.

The 1:20 is simply NOT worth the 2 plays that MIGHT be needed to get you up by 2 scores.

 

[emoney_33]

Well, it's not just 1:00. It's 1:20, plus taking away the 2:00 warning from your opponent as a free time out.

I guess I agree that if the Vikings will just let you walk the ball into the end zone, you take it -- although even then I'm not sure. As Belichick said on WEII, BJGE could have just scored on the play before and that would have been that, but once the option was presented, the chance to take the time off the clock and still have at least one chance to score seemed the right move.

I think I saw O'Brien pitching it to BB and BB walking away agreeing. Maybe it sounded right and there ARE arguments for it, but I still hate the decision having time to think about it.

For me it comes down to those 2 plays being worth more than running 1:20 off the clock. If they were up by 1 point, I'd be OK with it, but I want the best chance possible to go up by 2 scores because it's more likely you'll win being up 2 scores with 3:00 than it is being up 3 or 6 points with 2:00.

 

[patchick]

I would have preferred they just tried to get the td from first down because getting that td basically puts the game away with 3 minutes left. The only bad situation they avoided by running 2 sneaks was the disastrous situation of a turnover while trying to score.

Not quite -- they also avoided the possibility of the Vikings scoring, pulling off an onside kick, then having enough time left to drive again. 3+ running plays resulting in a TD was the only way to put the game away for certain.

I'm not necessarily saying I like the decision...It's VERY risky to only give yourself 2 chances at the touchdown...but the time was definitely valuable.

 

[Patsrock]

I think I saw O'Brien pitching it to BB and BB walking away agreeing. Maybe it sounded right and there ARE arguments for it, but I still hate the decision having time to think about it.

For me it comes down to those 2 plays being worth more than running 1:20 off the clock. If they were up by 1 point, I'd be OK with it, but I want the best chance possible to go up by 2 scores because it's more likely you'll win being up 2 scores with 3:00 than it is being up 3 or 6 points with 2:00.

Would have been 3 or 6 with 1:08 left not 2 mins.

 

[emoney_33]

Would have been 3 or 6 with 1:08 left not 2 mins.

OK still, I rather be up 10 with 3:20.

Up 3 they start at the 1, up 6 with 1:08 they get a kickoff. If they can't score 7 in 1:08 then what exactly was the worry about being up 10 with 3:20. The onside kick is in our favor when we know it's coming.

 

[emoney_33]

Not quite -- they also avoided the possibility of the Vikings scoring, pulling off an onside kick, then having enough time left to drive again. 3+ running plays resulting in a TD was the only way to put the game away for certain.

I'm not necessarily saying I like the decision...It's VERY risky to only give yourself 2 chances at the touchdown...but the time was definitely valuable.

You are basing your opinion on end-result though. The absolute optimal end-result is 4 runs and a TD. That takes maximal clock time and scores maximal points. But they cannot foresee a guaranteed score, the decision can only be based it odds and risk/reward.