The HC of the NEP has said that the end of the Ravens game went according to plan.
That means -- taking that at face value -- that he was prepared for the clock to be killed with about 14-15 seconds left and, as a result, for Flacco to have a shot at the end zone at the end absent a Ravens muff when they fielded the punt.
Had the Ravens punt returner not attempted a return, the result could easily have been that the Ravens would have been able to run two plays before time expired, with one of them possibly getting the ball closer into position before the final heave.
I know that the percentage of Hail Marys that succeed is very low. I also know that I gave birth to a litter of kittens on that last play. And that had it succeeded, many people would be asking how it was that BB chose a strategy that virtually guaranteed that the Ravens would have a shot to decapitate the Pats at the very end of the game, when other choices could have been made.
A couple of caveats are in order at this point.
One, BB is a freaking football genius. So when I question something he decides of this magnitude, it's from a place of humility and respect. And more importantly, it's with an acknowledgement that he is playing chess while I am playing something taught in kindergarten.
Two, this week is dragging like crazy and I have been ruminating on this, and perhaps others have been too at one point or another. Since we have the luxury of asking such a question in the context of a happy ending, why the hell not?
Three, if this has been covered elsewhere on this site, mea culpa.
Anyway, it strikes me that in addition to giving Flacco as many as two attempts to win by choosing this path, Bill also risked a bad snap on the punt, a block of the punt or a shanked punt. I'm sure I was not alone in wincing when the snap arrived a little on the low side.
So what Bill could have done? Were there better options?
One thing he could have done is run the offense and tried to get a first down. Many risks present themselves with that, of course. A fumble. An interception. On the flip side, a first down ends the game without Flacco seeing the ball.
Another thing he could have done is kneeled down twice and then had Brady or more likely a RB take the ball at the snap and run into the end zone to take a safety, thereby allowing Allen to punt the ball without having to receive a snap and take the risk of a muff or a block. Putting the Ravens down by only two would have been very risky, however.
Another thing he could have done is kneel down twice, run one running play with his best ball security guy (none are Ridley-esque) and then had Brady heave the ball with a Flacco like angle into the sky on 4h down. It is at least possible that doing those two things would have eaten up the additional 14 seconds that remained on the clock when the Pats were forced to punt, and thereby ended the game.
Bottom line, I am much less certain that there were better alternatives than Bill took than I am that if things had gone wrong, we would be reading about the decision to give Flacco a shot in the same way we read about the 4th and 2 in 2006 and thereafter. Of course, as many have pointed out in MDL's thread, that people questioned the 4th and 2 call certainly doesn't make it wrong, and questioning this call wouldn't either.
Edited to clarify the last sentence.
That means -- taking that at face value -- that he was prepared for the clock to be killed with about 14-15 seconds left and, as a result, for Flacco to have a shot at the end zone at the end absent a Ravens muff when they fielded the punt.
Had the Ravens punt returner not attempted a return, the result could easily have been that the Ravens would have been able to run two plays before time expired, with one of them possibly getting the ball closer into position before the final heave.
I know that the percentage of Hail Marys that succeed is very low. I also know that I gave birth to a litter of kittens on that last play. And that had it succeeded, many people would be asking how it was that BB chose a strategy that virtually guaranteed that the Ravens would have a shot to decapitate the Pats at the very end of the game, when other choices could have been made.
A couple of caveats are in order at this point.
One, BB is a freaking football genius. So when I question something he decides of this magnitude, it's from a place of humility and respect. And more importantly, it's with an acknowledgement that he is playing chess while I am playing something taught in kindergarten.
Two, this week is dragging like crazy and I have been ruminating on this, and perhaps others have been too at one point or another. Since we have the luxury of asking such a question in the context of a happy ending, why the hell not?
Three, if this has been covered elsewhere on this site, mea culpa.
Anyway, it strikes me that in addition to giving Flacco as many as two attempts to win by choosing this path, Bill also risked a bad snap on the punt, a block of the punt or a shanked punt. I'm sure I was not alone in wincing when the snap arrived a little on the low side.
So what Bill could have done? Were there better options?
One thing he could have done is run the offense and tried to get a first down. Many risks present themselves with that, of course. A fumble. An interception. On the flip side, a first down ends the game without Flacco seeing the ball.
Another thing he could have done is kneeled down twice and then had Brady or more likely a RB take the ball at the snap and run into the end zone to take a safety, thereby allowing Allen to punt the ball without having to receive a snap and take the risk of a muff or a block. Putting the Ravens down by only two would have been very risky, however.
Another thing he could have done is kneel down twice, run one running play with his best ball security guy (none are Ridley-esque) and then had Brady heave the ball with a Flacco like angle into the sky on 4h down. It is at least possible that doing those two things would have eaten up the additional 14 seconds that remained on the clock when the Pats were forced to punt, and thereby ended the game.
Bottom line, I am much less certain that there were better alternatives than Bill took than I am that if things had gone wrong, we would be reading about the decision to give Flacco a shot in the same way we read about the 4th and 2 in 2006 and thereafter. Of course, as many have pointed out in MDL's thread, that people questioned the 4th and 2 call certainly doesn't make it wrong, and questioning this call wouldn't either.
Edited to clarify the last sentence.