I'm not sure Brady does much more in that game than Jimmy did. True they protected him a bit but he played very, very well and made some very tough passes. Even the fumble was more a function of the protection collapsing so quickly than a mistake on Jimmy's part.The radio guys must be pissed.
Jimmy played well enough to put their stupid Bill mismanaged the the preseason hot take to bed. But he did not play well enough to feed the QB controversy hot take. It's a not win situation for those guys.
He did great. He did what he absolutely had to do -- ball security, avoid giving up short fields -- plus he made plays. And the reserves on that o-line fought their guts out. I don't know how any fan could be happier.
Which, yeah, will piss off the two idiots with the radio mic.
He regularly does what conventional wisdom says. And sometimes he makes mistakes when deviating from that. Or is anyone here going to defend going for it on 4th and 13 against the Giants?Why Pats fans and/or media would want Belichick to call a timeout that 99% of other NFL coaches would call strikes me as weird.
The whole point of BB is that he doesn't do what conventional wisdom says.
I agree.I'm not sure Brady does much more in that game than Jimmy did. True they protected him a bit but he played very, very well and made some very tough passes. Even the fumble was more a function of the protection collapsing so quickly than a mistake on Jimmy's part.
Great call!This Pats D is better then people think, and the Cards O is overrated. This game is close and in the low 20s.
This is sort of an odd argument to me. BB isn't contrarian for the sake of being contrarian and the argument for calling TO isn't that every other coach would have called TOWhy Pats fans and/or media would want Belichick to call a timeout that 99% of other NFL coaches would call strikes me as weird.
The whole point of BB is that he doesn't do what conventional wisdom says.[/QUOTE
.
The only point I would raise there is that they missed a very make-able kick at the end that would've won it. This wasn't Pittsburgh in '02 complaining that "the better team didn't win." I mean, I wouldn't put it the way Arians did probably but he's not wrong: the Cards SHOULD'VE won the game.Arians notes that the Cardinals should have won.
Hey, fuck you buddy. That mentality is the worst.
A fair reading of my post wouldn't lead someone to think that I mean that he NEVER does what conventtional wisdom says. And of course it doesn't work 100% of the time.He regularly does what conventional wisdom says. And sometimes he makes mistakes when deviating from that. Or is anyone here going to defend going for it on 4th and 13 against the Giants?
No, it's what the game thread wanted.This is sort of an odd argument to me. BB isn't contrarian for the sake of being contrarian and the argument for calling TO isn't that every other coach would have called TO
You said you didn't understand why people criticized him for not taking a time out, when taking a time out is what 99% of coaches would do in that situation and Belichick is known for not following conventional wisdom.Not what I said. Of course it doesn't work 100% of the time.
I said that it seems people complain any time he doesn't do what conventional wisdom says. My point was that if he always did what convention wisdom says, then he's not BB.
Yep. As noted upthread, the reason he didn't call a timeout right away there was that he wanted to see if they were going to kick it immediately – as most kickers prefer not to wait around and think about the kick too much. He said that in the press conference.Gotcha. The TO decision was simply a way to make the point that his unconventional approach overall is a good one and NOT specific to any one call.
Shorter: BB gets benefit of the doubt (from me), and he did have reasoning for his decision. It'd be different if someone asked him after the game and he didn't have a reason.
Kicking FG's is part of the game so I would argue Arizona shouldn't have won. I mean he didn't miss a 20 yard FG.The only point I would raise there is that they missed a very make-able kick at the end that would've won it. This wasn't Pittsburgh in '02 complaining that "the better team didn't win." I mean, I wouldn't put it the way Arians did probably but he's not wrong: the Cards SHOULD'VE won the game.
Not to Felger this thread because this was all in the context of a really well played game by a team with a novice starter and missing key players, but they didn't force a rushed disorganized play either on 3rd or 4th down. Arizona was running down clock deliberately on 3rd down and ended up running a play after a TO and the Pats called timeout before the FG because Arizona was going to lineup and take their time to kick the FG.BB clearly marches to his own drum when it comes to clock management. He seems to believe that it's likely to be a better outcome to let the opponent get off a rushed, disorganized play than call TO and give them a chance to settle down. Obviously the Super Bowl vs. Seattle being the ultimate case of that. Like anything there will be successes and failures, but there appears to be a method to the madness. It's Bill, who can argue?
Everyone seems to want to group together field goals in 10 yard chunks, which makes it really difficult to figure out what actual accuracy should be for a given range, but my best guess is that a 47 yarder is in the 75-80% range - so yeah, the expectation for that kick should have been 35 seconds left, Pats down 24-23.The only point I would raise there is that they missed a very make-able kick at the end that would've won it. This wasn't Pittsburgh in '02 complaining that "the better team didn't win." I mean, I wouldn't put it the way Arians did probably but he's not wrong: the Cards SHOULD'VE won the game.
Thanks for noting this. We were all talking about that where I was watching the game.Finally, I'm amazed that no one mentioned how close the Pats came to blocking that kick. ABC focused on the bad snap and that was a factor, no doubt, but I wonder if the kicker could also sense how close the rush was. It was Chung coming in from the kicker's right so he would be more likely to be in his peripheral vision and might cause him to pull it left.
I think the issue is at the time there was a real chance they would be going for it on 4th down instead of kicking a FG. If they go for it on 4th and make it you don't want to give them the extra time.Regarding the timeouts, the fourth down delay is understandable and Hightower calling a timeout was good at that point in time, but the real mistake was not calling it immediately after the second down play. Gotta call it then and there, there's no way to give it more value than at that moment.
In that case, Arians needs to find a kicker who's longest FG last season was more than 47 yards. Catanzaro isn't bad, but that wasn't Gost the Cards ran out there for the game-winning points.The only point I would raise there is that they missed a very make-able kick at the end that would've won it. This wasn't Pittsburgh in '02 complaining that "the better team didn't win." I mean, I wouldn't put it the way Arians did probably but he's not wrong: the Cards SHOULD'VE won the game.
I thought NBC's sideline person said "up to 60 yards" or some other silliness during pregameDoes anyone know what Catanzaro's range was in the pre-game FGs?
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/17531077/arizona-cardinals-gm-steve-keim-says-loss-unacceptable"Not when you're playing a backup quarterback and they're missing some playmakers and it's a game at home," he said. "Our mindset is you cannot lose those games in front of our crowd."
Fair pointHe doesn't sound butthurt, just annoyed they let a game they should've won on paper slip away.