To kick or not to kick, that is the question

What were your thoughts about Bill's decision to kick a 56 yard FG in the rain with 50 seconds left?

  • Good decision

    Votes: 33 11.4%
  • Bad decision

    Votes: 69 23.8%
  • Preferred going for it but was ok with kicking

    Votes: 118 40.7%
  • Preferred kicking but would have been ok with going for it

    Votes: 19 6.6%
  • Either decision was acceptable - just too bad

    Votes: 50 17.2%
  • Other

    Votes: 1 0.3%

  • Total voters
    290

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,085
I went back and forth in the moment about this decision but I ended up being ok with it. Lots of discussion going on in other threads but would be interested to quantify where this board landed on the call.
 

pedro1918

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2004
5,139
Map Ref. 41°N 93°W
In the moment, my thought was there was no way Nick Folk would make a 56 yard field goal, especially in the rain. Even if he did make it, 50 seconds or so seems like a long time for Brady and Co. to kick another one. Mac seemed to be moving the ball pretty well.

I wish I had been wrong.
 
Last edited:

Kliq

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 31, 2013
22,667
I think people are going way overboard on the decision to kick. I was surprised to see Folk out there, but he was hitting from 58 in warmups and he and BB felt confident in his ability to make the kick, which he missed by a couple inches. It's a shitty way to lose but I don't find it particularly egregious.
 

Rook05

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
3,115
Boulder, CO
Add it to the list of debatable decisions. Sometimes it’s 4th and 2, sometimes it’s not calling a timeout. BB’s calculus is all that matters at the end of the day. That’s not a blind “in Bill I trust” attitude, but I think it was a completely reasonable call.
 

azsoxpatsfan

Does not enjoy the go
SoSH Member
May 23, 2014
4,774
I hated the call to kick because I didn’t think Folk could get it there. Obviously I was wrong, and Belichick obviously knew Folk had the leg. Basically you’re choosing between a makeable but difficult kick with a minute left or a chance at an easier kick with less time left. The way the defense looked, I trusted them to hold. I just think if you know your kicker has the leg, you have to take the lead with a minute left when you have the chance
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
Factoring in weather conditions, time on the clock, and personnel, I think it was clearly the wrong decision - but not a “fireable” one or utterly nonsensical.

If they had gone for it and failed I would have come away from the game thinking “eh, they just got beat fair and square by the other team when the game was on the line.” It just kind of annoys me that they didn’t give the offense that chance.

Ive seen a lot of posts along the lines of “well Folk clearly could have made it because it doinked off the upright and he had the distance” but isn’t it equally possible that the kick he made - long enough but inaccurate - was the best kick he could have possibly made in that circumstance? Put another way, if he kicks that ball 10 times how many times does it go in? Is it higher than twice?

Edit: I guess what it comes down to is in a situation where the choices are “our offense could convert this, but it’s iffy” and “our kicker could make this, but it’s iffy” I’d always stick with the offense because there are more options in terms of designing plays, etc. Even with the offense in the state it’s in, getting 3-4 yards when you need to have it seems like something McD and Mac should be able to do.
 

Eddie Jurak

canderson-lite
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
44,475
Melrose, MA
I would have preferred going for it but was fine with it and clearly it ended up being a makeable kick that just missed.
Agree. At first I thought it was a terrible decision because I assumed Folk had no shot from 56. But he barely missed. And the Pats offense was not lighting the world on fire on that drive. The coaching staff knew Folk had a decent shot from there.
 

wiffleballhero

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 28, 2009
4,529
In the simulacrum
I wanted them to go for it, but I in no way am seriously second guessing the decision. What can you do?

It is worth noting that the Patriots had no running game to speak of. That changes things in this decision making process. Probably the right decision even if the result proved to be a couple inches off.
 

speedracer

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
3,832
Ive seen a lot of posts along the lines of “well Folk clearly could have made it because it doinked off the upright and he had the distance” but isn’t it equally possible that the kick he made - long enough but inaccurate - was the best kick he could have possibly made in that circumstance? Put another way, if he kicks that ball 10 times how many times does it go in? Is it higher than twice?
I’d feel better about the miss if it had hit a little higher off the upright — a slightly more reliable trajectory.
 

Fishercat

Svelte and sexy!
SoSH Member
May 18, 2007
8,265
Manchester, N.H.
I didn't like it independent of the kicker's capability to make the kick, and I liked it even less with Folk. I do get he was making kicks of this distance in warmup, but I just don't love the idea of pinning this "upside" on a FG, at Folk's career long (and five yards longer than any kick he's made in the past five years), in the rain. I also would push back a bit on the clearly he would make it, that was good from 56 or 57 straight away as it was, and he still missed it. There's a real possibility that was "max distance" Folk and that he misses that kick rather often in a worse fashion. He is not Justin Tucker and we all know that.

But let's just say Belichick and Folk were confident in his ability to make this kick, which is okay, I still dislike the idea of giving the ball back to the Buccaneers with 60-70 seconds and two time outs left given the Bucs had two scoring drives in the quarter already and that it seemed either an injured Jones or Bethel were going to be on the field for it. I think if this were a 56 yard field goal with 5-10 seconds left on 4th and 3, I'd move into the good call realm, but I don't think that the odds of hitting the field goal combined with the odds of preventing Brady from going 40-50 yards in that timeframe made the right amount of sense.

I feel like given how Mac was throwing overall, down and distance, and the upside of making that 4th and 3 in terms of clock control (almost certainly being able to make the next FG attempt a game winning attempt), I'd prefer to see them let Mac try it.

Edit: It's not an indefensible decision at all of course, I just felt it was the wrong one at the time (I was shocked to see Folk out there) and still feel it was the wrong call now from my couch. There are worse decisions make in the NFL constantly and to have New England in the game despite the turnovers and talent disparity was truly impressive.
 
Last edited:

pokey_reese

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 25, 2008
16,247
Boston, MA
Yeah, I would have preferred going for it, mainly because of the weather and the fact that it would have been asking Folk to make a career-best kick, but I think it was probably close from a numbers standpoint (FWIW, ESPN had it as the right move statistically, as opposed to the tweet posted above). The fact that the short passing game was completing at a such high percentage, and we only needed three yards and still had a TO to burn was part of what made me want to go for it, along with putting the trust in Mac out there. When I saw the kicking team coming out, my first thought was 'I guess they are giving up.'
 

wade boggs chicken dinner

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 26, 2005
30,482
but isn’t it equally possible that the kick he made - long enough but inaccurate - was the best kick he could have possibly made in that circumstance? Put another way, if he kicks that ball 10 times how many times does it go in? Is it higher than twice?
I might be wrong about this but my guess that the Pats (like many other teams) have a process in place where they talk to the kicker at some point in the game (or maybe multiple times) to get a target yard from the kicker. The kicker tells the coaches where they need to get the ball, and if they get the ball to that spot, then the team kicks the field goal.

I'm sure the decision was made long before 4th down came up. You have to, err, trust the process.
 

beezer

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 9, 2009
594
I thought kicking was the wrong call. Not so much because I didn't think Folk could make it. It was more about the short 4th down distance and the time left on the clock. I felt pretty certain that with just under a minute and 2 timeouts, that Brady could have gotten that team into field goal range. If it was 4th and 10 or if there were under 30 seconds left I would have kicked it, but 4th and 3, go for it.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
I think the disappointment I have with the decision is that I wanted to see what Jones would do at that moment. We know that the Patriots this year are a marginally good/bad team, so I'd like to see if the kid could have pulled it off.

Sure, he could have got the first down. But he also could have thrown a pick, or been sacked, or there could have been another holding call to push them out of FG range. So, while I would have liked to have seen it, I'm not thinking here the day after that it would have been successfully.

That said, I'm fine with the kick attempt. It was long enough and high enough. Just went awry.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
I didn't like it independent of the kicker's capability to make the kick, and I liked it even less with Folk. I do get he was making kicks of this distance in warmup, but I just don't love the idea of pinning this "upside" on a FG, at Folk's career long (and five yards longer than any kick he's made in the past five years), in the rain. I also would push back a bit on the clearly he would make it, that was good from 56 or 57 straight away as it was, and he still missed it. There's a real possibility that was "max distance" Folk and that he misses that kick rather often in a worse fashion. He is not Justin Tucker and we all know that.

But let's just say Belichick and Folk were confident in his ability to make this kick, which is okay, I still dislike the idea of giving the ball back to the Buccaneers with 60-70 seconds and two time outs left given the Bucs had two scoring drives in the quarter already and that it seemed either an injured Jones or Bethel were going to be on the field for it. I think if this were a 56 yard field goal with 5-10 seconds left on 4th and 3, I'd move into the good call realm, but I don't think that the odds of hitting the field goal combined with the odds of preventing Brady from going 40-50 yards in that timeframe made the right amount of sense.

I feel like given how Mac was throwing overall, down and distance, and the upside of making that 4th and 3 in terms of clock control (almost certainly being able to make the next FG attempt a game winning attempt), I'd prefer to see them let Mac try it.

Edit: It's not an indefensible decision at all of course, I just felt it was the wrong one at the time (I was shocked to see Folk out there) and still feel it was the wrong call now from my couch. There are worse decisions make in the NFL constantly and to have New England in the game despite the turnovers and talent disparity was truly impressive.
Yeah my preference for going for it over kicking has much more to do with time remaining and opposing offense than chances of making the kick. If that kick was at the buzzer I like the call. Giving it back to Brady with a minute plus timeouts … well let’s just say we’ve seen that a couple times before. Once or twice.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
That it's so debatable makes it pretty clear to me there was no perfect decision. It was close either way. Belichick is usually better than 50/50 in those calls, so I am good with it.

We needed to convert that third down. That was the game just as much as the hit post. It put the team in the position having to choose between two suboptimal choices.

That was going to be a tough 3 yards. If they were going to kick anyway they probably didn't need that last time out so I wouldn't have minded seeing them try the hard count at the line and if they didn't get them to jump calling the last time out.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
I wrote in the game thread that I didn’t think he had the leg for it. I was wrong. He did. And after thinking about it, I’m fine with the decision (wished for a better outcome of course). But the rationale to me is that they probably weren’t going to gain that many more yards after picking up a first down (if they got it), so they were still looking at a long field goal attempt.

So going for it meant having to convert an iffy first down and ALSO kicking a long field goal. Kicking there just meant they had to make the long(er) field goal. If Folk was killing it in warmups then I can’t really fault the call there.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
Didn't like the decision to kick at all. I really don't care the distance Folk was making it from in pre-game warmups. Every NFL kicker makes pre-game kicks that are several yards longer than they can make in actual game conditions. Folk was asked to make a kick from a distance he hasn't hit from in 11 years, in a driving rain. That it was close doesn't negate that it was an extremely low percentage attempt. As Gorilla Monsoon famously said, close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades.

I completely get that converting the 4th and 3 was far from a given. But I think attempting that would have been a much better call.
 

ngruz25

Bibby
SoSH Member
Sep 20, 2005
18,972
Pittsburgh, PA
I’d feel better about the miss if it had hit a little higher off the upright — a slightly more reliable trajectory.
Folk isn't the longest kicker, so to reach the uprights he had to kick the ball on a lower trajectory.

That's what a lot of the "hitting it from X in warmups" discussion misses. In warmups, there's no offensive or defensive line to kick over, so the kicker can make a kick that starts on a lower trajectory than he'll take in the game. In game, Folk has to make sure his ball doesn't get batted down at the line, so he has to take a higher trajectory. It's a tougher kick to make than in warmups.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
We needed to convert that third down. That was the game just as much as the hit post. It put the team in the position having to choose between two suboptimal choices.
The blocked pass was the defensive play of the game, and you have to wonder whether it factored into the decision to kick.

On the replay, you see the receiver (number ended in 5 so either Agholor or Henry), jump up in frustration after the pass is blocked, because it was clear the play would have worked.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,458
I thought it was a fine call, Folk has been a great kicker, and if you feel good about his ability from 56 you take the points. The Bucs had struggled, poor weather, your defense is playing well.

I think part of it is... I don't at all buy the idea that the Patriots had a 52% chance of picking up a 4th and 2. I'd put the chance on a run at a good what.. 0%? So you're passing. You need your bad o-line to hold up, and not allow pressure or (like the play before) a tip. You need to get a guy open, he needs to catch it in the rain, you need to pick up the blitz, and/or get it out so fast you beat it. Also your line has to not commit a false start, or a hold or a hands to the face.

I guess it comes down to.... I trust this team's PASS defense more than I trust the offense to execute on short-yardage/ red-zone type opportunities in a single play.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
90,014
Oregon
I completely get that converting the 4th and 3 was far from a given. But I think attempting that would have been a much better call.
I get what you're saying, but i'm also damn glad we aren't debating this morning whose fault it was that the fourth and three play failed
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
I get what you're saying, but i'm also damn glad we aren't debating this morning whose fault it was that the fourth and three play failed
I guess. We're debating a failed FG attempt instead. It's always something in a close loss.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
You need your bad o-line to hold up, and not allow pressure or (like the play before) a tip. You need to get a guy open, he needs to catch it in the rain, you need to pick up the blitz, and/or get it out so fast you beat it. Also your line has to not commit a false start, or a hold or a hands to the face.
You are saying this like this isn't something they had done many times throughout the game, including many times on the very drive they were on. The mere fact that the immediately prior play was not successful should not affect the decision to go for it at all.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Again, due to game situation, I’d have preferred they go for it.

That said, as others have pointed out, winning would have required not one but two medium ish probability events to succeed: 4th and 3 conversion, and then another long ish FG attempt. Even if you peg both those chances at 70%, you still only get a 50% chance of both going right. Of course the same applies to kicking - they’d have had to make the FG AND get a stop.

Close call either way but wish they threw it there.

Edit: Bill said this morning they only converted two third downs all game. Clearly that impacted his decision because he basically said they have almost no thought to going for it.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,458
You are saying this like this isn't something they had done many times throughout the game, including many times on the very drive they were on. The mere fact that the immediately prior play was not successful should not affect the decision to go for it at all.
They also failed on many more plays than just the one they were on. Go look at our play log, there were a tremendous number of negative plays, and a lot of our best production came in long yardage situations. The point is, you need a lot to go right, and if you fail you lose. I trust the D more than the offense.
And beyond that, I look at the season as a whole. Do you really trust this offense more than the pass D?
They didn't have many short yardage plays last night, in part because they had so many failed plays that put them in long distances.
 

BroodsSexton

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 4, 2006
12,630
guam
Preferred the kick in the moment and still prefer it. You need to put points on the board and you may not get another chance. Makeable kick. Unfortunate outcome.
 

Gdiguy

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
6,231
San Diego, CA
I thought it was a fine call, Folk has been a great kicker, and if you feel good about his ability from 56 you take the points. The Bucs had struggled, poor weather, your defense is playing well.

I think part of it is... I don't at all buy the idea that the Patriots had a 52% chance of picking up a 4th and 2. I'd put the chance on a run at a good what.. 0%? So you're passing. You need your bad o-line to hold up, and not allow pressure or (like the play before) a tip. You need to get a guy open, he needs to catch it in the rain, you need to pick up the blitz, and/or get it out so fast you beat it. Also your line has to not commit a false start, or a hold or a hands to the face.


I guess it comes down to.... I trust this team's PASS defense more than I trust the offense to execute on short-yardage/ red-zone type opportunities in a single play.
Yeah, to me this is what's been glossed over a bit - this Pats team has been bad in the red zone all year, and then on top of that had absolutely no run game the entire day. So they've been uniquely poor at exactly what they'd be trying to achieve here.

And as said above - the 3rd down play was the same play, and to me it's not like that one was just a lucky break for TB, it was the same thing that had been happening all game - poor pass protection, good decision but got batted down. On top of which, that drive hadn't been super phenomenal to me - it was progressing ok, but TB had 2 near-picks on that drive alone (I'm sure not helped by the poor protection)

I probably would prefer going for it, but I definitely think it was close enough that I don't think kicking was clearly a bad decision
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
They also failed on many more plays than just the one they were on. Go look at our play log, there were a tremendous number of negative plays, and a lot of our best production came in long yardage situations. The point is, you need a lot to go right, and if you fail you lose. I trust the D more than the offense.
And beyond that, I look at the season as a whole. Do you really trust this offense more than the pass D?
They didn't have many short yardage plays last night, in part because they had so many failed plays that put them in long distances.
In two of the first three games the D failed in “must stop” drives at the end of the game. Why would last night have been different given how TB was moving the ball?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
Knowing that they thought Folk was already in range, that third down play would have been a really good spot for a run if they had an even minimally competent run game. Running has huge advantages there. You might make a first down. You might get closer to a first down. You might get an extra yard or two for a kick if you go that way (which could have made a difference), you burn time for Tom to get a chance or make them use a time out.

If they had any tricky running plays, that might have been a good spot. QB draw or something. The defense was not expecting run there. But the way the O-line was playing, there were too many bad possibilities that you usually don't worry about. Fumble. Holding. Stopped in the back field.

Perfect freaking spot for a run, but we can't run.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Knowing that they thought Folk was already in range, that third down play would have been a really good spot for a run if they had an even minimally competent run game. Running has huge advantages there. You might make a first down. You might get closer to a first down. You might get an extra yard or two for a kick if you go that way (which could have made a difference), you burn time for Tom to get a chance or make them use a time out.

If they had any tricky running plays, that might have been a good spot. QB draw or something. The defense was not expecting run there. But the way the O-line was playing, there were too many bad possibilities that you usually don't worry about. Fumble. Holding. Stopped in the back field.

Perfect freaking spot for a run, but we can't run.
Good call.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,458
In two of the first three games the D failed in “must stop” drives at the end of the game. Why would last night have been different given how TB was moving the ball?
Because there was a lot less time, and the weather was bad. The Patriots failed on must stop drives that involved a lot of running and draining the clock with 4-5 yard runs. I don't think the Bucs were going to just hand it to Fournette in those situations. It would be the Bucs playing to the strength of our defense by throwing.

Edit- to be more clear, the two times this year the Patriots struggled end of game was on long clock killing drives. I'm fine with that type of failure with under a minute left, it will be a struggle to get in FG range. If they had struggled all year with the pass... that might change my decision, but the pass D both last night and all season has generally been good. The offense... not so much.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
37,054
Hingham, MA
Because there was a lot less time, and the weather was bad. The Patriots failed on must stop drives that involved a lot of running and draining the clock with 4-5 yard runs. I don't think the Bucs were going to just hand it to Fournette in those situations. It would be the Bucs playing to the strength of our defense by throwing.
Maybe, maybe not. Both the Saints and Dolphins completed crucial passes on those drives. Wish we got to see the D get another shot, or have Mac try to throw it, one way or the other. We got neither which sucks.
 

moretsyndrome

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 24, 2006
2,177
Pawtucket
If Folk misses they lose.

If Folk hits, they probably still lose.

If they go for it and don't make it, they lose.

If they go for it and make it, they probably win.

Go for it.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
Preferred the kick in the moment and still prefer it. You need to put points on the board and you may not get another chance. Makeable kick. Unfortunate outcome.
Just how "makeable" it was is the question, though. Sure, theoretically most NFL kickers can make a kick into the 60+ yard range if the stars align. Given the conditions and Folk's in-game history, I don't know how anyone could have been highly optimistic that he could make it. And he didn't.
 

ElcaballitoMVP

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 19, 2008
3,932
My lady will tell you I did not like the decision to kick the FG. Weather and distance made that kick incredibly difficult and I didn't think Folk could reach. And I was 100% incorrect. He did have the leg and if it's a foot to the right it's in. If he nails that, you then kickoff so the ball is short of the goal line to force a return, eat a few more second off the clock and hope you can pin them inside their own 25.

Could Brady have gotten them back in FG range after that? History says yes. But I would've been fine taking my chances and seeing if Succup can hit a 45-50 yarder in the rain going in the other direction.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
My lady will tell you I did not like the decision to kick the FG. Weather and distance made that kick incredibly difficult and I didn't think Folk could reach. And I was 100% incorrect. He did have the leg and if it's a foot to the right it's in. If he nails that, you then kickoff so the ball is short of the goal line to force a return, eat a few more second off the clock and hope you can pin them inside their own 25.

Could Brady have gotten them back in FG range after that? History says yes. But I would've been fine taking my chances and seeing if Succup can hit a 45-50 yarder in the rain going in the other direction.
I don't want to be argumentative, but I disagree with the overarching point about Folk having the leg. I mean, yes, the ball hit the upright so there was appropriate length. But to get that length he had to kick on a trajectory that compromised accuracy. Needless to say, the two are connected. Folk hasn't made a FG from that distance in 11 years, and I presume that's because it is exceedingly unlikely that he can.
 

Petagine in a Bottle

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 13, 2021
11,920
They’ve never shown confidence in Folk to make FG of that length, in less challenging game situations. How many times have we seen them punt rather than try a 50+ yarder?

To make that kick and then prevent the Bucs from scoring a FG seems less likely to an converting and then kicking a shorter FG with less time.

It was a call that i found to be completely out of character for Belichick, and I think it was the wrong move, but I’m not gonna fight anyone over it- the choice he made was certainly defensible.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
I don't want to be argumentative, but I disagree with the overarching point about Folk having the leg. I mean, yes, the ball hit the upright so there was appropriate length. But to get that length he had to kick on a trajectory that compromised accuracy. Needless to say, the two are connected. Folk hasn't made a FG from that distance in 11 years, and I presume that's because it is exceedingly unlikely that he can.
Yeah, agree with this. Given that Folk hit the upright a lot of people seem to be assuming that the range of possible outcomes for the kick was something like "miss by a few yards" to "nail it dead center." But isn't it just, if not more, likely, that the range of possible outcomes is more like "have it come up way short" to "just barely miss"? In other words, isn't it possible that what we saw (a near miss) was actually the best Folk could have done under the circumstances?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
So, here's an interesting question. Imagine the Bucs had called a time out just in time but Folk had kicked the exact same kick and hit the upright. Now the Patriots have a chance to rethink.

I feel pretty confident that in that case, I would have been full steam ahead on kicking. When Folk came out, my thought was "this is stupid" because I assumed it would fall 4 yards short.

Folk has been pretty reliable and has won games with 50 yarders. I would have been all about a rekick once I knew he had the leg.
 

Morgan's Magic Snowplow

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 2, 2006
22,345
Philadelphia
I wrote in the game thread that I didn’t think he had the leg for it. I was wrong. He did. And after thinking about it, I’m fine with the decision (wished for a better outcome of course). But the rationale to me is that they probably weren’t going to gain that many more yards after picking up a first down (if they got it), so they were still looking at a long field goal attempt.
I still don't really like the decision but I agree with this overall take.

I think there were some contextual factors that clearly played into the assessment. The rain had really picked up in the last few minutes and Mac and the offense actually hadn't been looking all that good on this drive or the very end of the previous one. And while Mac is very polished in the two minute drill for a rookie, he is still a rookie. So maybe BB figures the best case to going for it is picking up the first with a five yard pass that ends up taking 20-30 seconds off the clock before the next snap, then running 1-2 more plays that are also likely to be very short passes and where things can also go wrong. So you're talking about needing to pick up the first in poor throwing conditions then still having to kick a 45-50 yard FG in the rain a lot of the time.

A lot of the equity in going for it in the abstract win probability calculations comes from not just picking up the first but moving the ball inside 20 yards and getting to a point where you have a FG you'll make with 90-95% probability in good conditions. That was very unlikely to happen here.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,271
AZ
Yeah, agree with this. Given that Folk hit the upright a lot of people seem to be assuming that the range of possible outcomes for the kick was something like "miss by a few yards" to "nail it dead center." But isn't it just, if not more, likely, that the range of possible outcomes is more like "have it come up way short" to "just barely miss"? In other words, isn't it possible that what we saw (a near miss) was actually the best Folk could have done under the circumstances?
I mean, what's the basis for that? The special teams folks thought he could kick it. He thought he could kick it. Belichick thought he could kick it, and he missed it by a few inches. Maybe that was among the worst possible outcomes and he makes 7 of 10. No way to know.
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
Yeah, agree with this. Given that Folk hit the upright a lot of people seem to be assuming that the range of possible outcomes for the kick was something like "miss by a few yards" to "nail it dead center." But isn't it just, if not more, likely, that the range of possible outcomes is more like "have it come up way short" to "just barely miss"? In other words, isn't it possible that what we saw (a near miss) was actually the best Folk could have done under the circumstances?
I'm sure there's a universe where the ball tails a couple feet less and it squeaks inside the goalpost. I'm also sure there are many universes where the ball lands a few yards short of the crossbar, or tails another 15 feet left.
 

Smiling Joe Hesketh

Throw Momma From the Train
Moderator
SoSH Member
May 20, 2003
35,719
Deep inside Muppet Labs
The blocked pass was the defensive play of the game, and you have to wonder whether it factored into the decision to kick.

On the replay, you see the receiver (number ended in 5 so either Agholor or Henry), jump up in frustration after the pass is blocked, because it was clear the play would have worked.
It was Meyers (16) and he was wiiiiiiiiiiide open.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
34,458
They’ve never shown confidence in Folk to make FG of that length, in less challenging game situations. How many times have we seen them punt rather than try a 50+ yarder?

To make that kick and then prevent the Bucs from scoring a FG seems less likely to an converting and then kicking a shorter FG with less time.

It was a call that i found to be completely out of character for Belichick, and I think it was the wrong move, but I’m not gonna fight anyone over it- the choice he made was certainly defensible.
I think the thing is... the decision to punt or take a FG is very different though:
1. Field position if you miss matters
2. You have time to make a stop and score, so faith in your defense weighs against the FG.

In this case, if you miss it's over, and having faith in your defense weighs towards taking the FG, because you then need you D to slow them down or stop them.

I feel like the question here was does Bill have more faith in Folk to kick a 56 yarder or his offense to execute a 4th and 3 for a 1st dwn while avoiding a penalty.

Edit- so if for example Bill sees Folk at 65% to make that kick, in a different situation 65% of 3 points isn't worth the 35% of giving it to them at almost midfield. But in this situation 65% of 3 points is worth more than whatever chances he sees of picking up a 1st (and then kicking a FG that should be shorter (assuming no false starts or holds)).
 

8slim

has trust issues
SoSH Member
Nov 6, 2001
24,829
Unreal America
I mean, what's the basis for that? The special teams folks thought he could kick it. He thought he could kick it. Belichick thought he could kick it, and he missed it by a few inches. Maybe that was among the worst possible outcomes and he makes 7 of 10. No way to know.
The basis, from a fan's perspective, is that Folk hasn't made a kick of that distance in 11 years. And he still hasn't.
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
8,469
New York City
I mean, what's the basis for that? The special teams folks thought he could kick it. He thought he could kick it. Belichick thought he could kick it, and he missed it by a few inches. Maybe that was among the worst possible outcomes and he makes 7 of 10. No way to know.
That's exactly my point - there's no way to know. So "he had the leg" or "he barely missed it" can't be justifications supporting the decision to kick because we don't know if that was among the best or worst possible outcomes. Put another way, if you thought the decision was bad prior to the kick, the fact that he hit the upright shouldn't change that thinking.