Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

An observation about NE's going for it last night


Cunning Runt
 Share

Recommended Posts

Maybe I'm wrong, but did anyone else happen to notice Brady motion to the sidelines to go for it as soon as the third and 2 play was unsuccessful? They only had the camera on him for a very brief second, but it sure looked to me like he was making a hand gesture suggesting that they "go for it". And then they called the timeout and discussed it. Any chance Brady played a role in persuading the coach to go for it? Sure looked that way to me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was at the game, there was so much going on as the punt team came on, and then went off, I didn't see that . . . but it's possible. But offensive players always want to go for it. Ultimately it's the coaches' call.

 

I know, but how often do they want to go for it on their opponent's 28? I'm a Colts fan and dislike almost things "Patriots", but objectively, I think Brady played a larger role in the decision than what is being discussed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they all must have been high. but i guess if faulk doesn't bobble the ball then they get the 1st down. then it goes down as one of the boldest calls in NFL history.

Just because you make it does not mean it was a bold good call. Either way you slice it it was a stupid call and should never have been made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belichick is getting roasted around here (rare to see).

 

I try to see his POV:

 

The defense was missing: Ty Warren, Jarvis Green, Pierre Woods, Tully Bant-Cain And they were getting stomped by the Colts offense pretty much all of the 4th quarter.

 

Bill Belichick figures: Either I put the hands in my second and third string defensive players, or I give it to my top notch, first string offense? Offense.

 

I understand, even if I don't agree.

 

Congrats Colts fans. Well played game by your team, with plenty of injury challenges of it's own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Belichick is getting roasted around here (rare to see).

 

I try to see his POV:

 

The defense was missing: Ty Warren, Jarvis Green, Pierre Woods, Tully Bant-Cain And they were getting stomped by the Colts offense pretty much all of the 4th quarter.

 

Bill Belichick figures: Either I put the hands in my second and third string defensive players, or I give it to my top notch, first string offense? Offense.

 

I understand, even if I don't agree.

 

Congrats Colts fans. Well played game by your team, with plenty of injury challenges of it's own.

 

The point of this particular thread is to shed some light on on the "Brady" factor of this decision. Ultimately the final decision is the coach's, but was he swayed by Brady? That's what I'm curious about. I'm not defending Belichik's decision at all, I'm quite glad for it actually, but again, objectively, I think he was sold on the idea by Brady moreso than deciding himself to go. He let his QB make the call. That's where I think he made the mistake. So really, the bad decision, IMO was two-fold: 1) Brady wanting to go for it and 2) Belichik going against what was his better judgement and playing along.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I keep hearing people describe this as BB's arrogance. I think, in this scenario, it was the exact opposite. Basically, BB felt there would be no way the defense could stand up to Manning for another series. It was either convert, or lose. And the rest is history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

they all must have been high. but i guess if faulk doesn't bobble the ball the official didn't have his head up his a$$ and made the correct call then they get the 1st down. then it goes down as one of the boldest calls in NFL history.

 

Fixed

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone really beleive that the Colts wouldn't have driven 70 ayrds in the final 2+ minutes, knowing they had torched the Pats defense all 4th quarter and the Pats were playing with spent back-ups at that point? Cmon, be serious. If this had been a 16-10 game, and the defense had been stopping the Colts for much of the game, different story completely.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone really beleive that the Colts wouldn't have driven 70 ayrds in the final 2+ minutes, knowing they had torched the Pats defense all 4th quarter and the Pats were playing with spent back-ups at that point? Cmon, be serious. If this had been a 16-10 game, and the defense had been stopping the Colts for much of the game, different story completely.

 

Doing my best to keep this on-topic.

 

So did Brady sell Belichik on this decision, or did Bill make it solo?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bill made it solo. I've seen it several times now this morning. Brady is heading off the field, suddenly looks somewhat surprised, turns around and signals the offense to stay on the field. Brady may have sold him on the play call, but it was Bill's decision, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Bill made it solo. I've seen it several times now this morning. Brady is heading off the field, suddenly looks somewhat surprised, turns around and signals the offense to stay on the field. Brady may have sold him on the play call, but it was Bill's decision, IMO.

 

Finally someone addressing the actual issue I was wanting to discuss (not that I don't enjoy all the other banter mind you). :wacko:

 

Not sure if I'm necessarily in agreement with you, but thanks to replying to the gist of the thread topic anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Brady did play a role in making the decision, he did a good job of throwing Belicheat under the bus (postgame interview I heard on the radio). He was talking about how Belicheat always preaches 60 minutes and Brady was suprised with the call but was ready to do whatever his coach wanted. In my opinion, I felt that Brady was pissed (based on the tone of his voice) that they didn't punt the ball.

Edited by Shorttynaz
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Brady did play a role in making the decision, he did a good job of throwing Belicheat under the bus (postgame interview I heard on the radio). He was talking about how Belicheat always preaches 60 minutes and Brady was suprised with the call but was ready to do whatever his coach wanted. In my opinion, I felt that Brady was pissed (based on the tone of his voice) that they didn't punt the ball.

 

I hope that's the case, 'cause anything that might shed a negative light on Belichik, I'm all for.

 

Just looked like Brady was motioning to go for it, then boom, a time out, and they go for it. That's what made me think Brady pressed the issue.

 

Could be totally wrong of course.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone really beleive that the Colts wouldn't have driven 70 ayrds in the final 2+ minutes, knowing they had torched the Pats defense all 4th quarter and the Pats were playing with spent back-ups at that point? Cmon, be serious. If this had been a 16-10 game, and the defense had been stopping the Colts for much of the game, different story completely.

 

Much easier to drive 30 yards than 70 yards.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was BB's decision. There is a camera view of Brady's face when he's coming off the field, and his expression changes, in shock really. He then turns around and motions for the offense to stay out. Then they call the time out to talk it over. At that point, I think the decision was made and what they're discussing is what to call, not if to go for it. At that point, yeah, I'm sure BB wanted to run something Brady also thought they could convert, so he had a say in play selection.

 

This is BB's F-up to live with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the spot on Faulk's catch was terrible, and I was pulling for the Colts. As I watched the play, the ref on the near side of the field started running towards the spot where Faulk was tackled, basically. The ref coming from the far side ran towards a spot much closer to where forward progress would have been (had Faulk not bobbled the ball)... the two were at least two full yards apart. I expected the actual spot to come out somewhere in the middle, but it looked to me like they ended up spotting the ball around where he was tackled... worst-case scenario for NE. It almost looked like they were determined to spot the ball short, no matter where he actually caught the ball. There wasn't even a need for a measurement, given where they spotted the ball, but I think it was actually much closer than that. In fact, the bobble wasn't much of one at all... Faulk looked like he had that ball secured well before he was tackled, at least a full yard ahead of where they ended up spotting it.

 

Like I said, I was pulling for Indy, and thought the call to go for it was HORRIBLE, so this is just a "side note" of sorts. But, considering that people will be talking about the call (to go for it by BB) for probably the rest of the season, it's unfortunate that the ball wasn't spotted where it should have been, IMO.

 

Edit: It seemed like the consensus was to spot the ball where the ref who couldn't see the ball thought it should be, rather than the one who would have had a much better view of the play, due to the fact that Faulk's back wasn't turned towards him, like it was to the near-side judge.

Edited by Gopher
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This was BB's decision. There is a camera view of Brady's face when he's coming off the field, and his expression changes, in shock really. He then turns around and motions for the offense to stay out. Then they call the time out to talk it over.

I saw this too.

 

I think you're barking up the wrong tree Cunning Runt. I think this was all Bill. . .

Edited by CaptainHook
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone really beleive that the Colts wouldn't have driven 70 ayrds in the final 2+ minutes, knowing they had torched the Pats defense all 4th quarter and the Pats were playing with spent back-ups at that point? Cmon, be serious. If this had been a 16-10 game, and the defense had been stopping the Colts for much of the game, different story completely.

 

 

Would have taken Manning about 40 seconds (or less) to get the ball to the NE 30 yard line. So Manning would have had 1 min 20 sec instead of 2 minutes to score. not much of a difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information