I fully realize that, but that's sometimes easier said than done, even for a very well coached team like the Patriots. Stuff like that is going to happen in the NFL and you just try to make it happen as infrequently as you can.
The Game Ball Thread: Wk 1 vs Texans
- Thread starter SeoulSoxFan
- Start date
Perhaps this should be its own thread, but should the Pats be trying to lock up Trent Brown long term, like, now?? If he has a Pro Bowl year they're going to lose him. Maybe they are ok with getting a comp pick and sliding in Wynn, I dunno. But for a guy who was a 7th round pick and is on his rookie contract, there has to be some kind of middle ground where he can set himself up for life but the Pats don't have to pay Solder-type money.
Yeah, and probably the best way to limit it is - if that is indeed what's going on here - to cut guys who do that stuff immediately. Send the message to the other PS guys that this isn't the way to greater NFL glory.
My guess is that this might be the sort of extension that we often see from the Pats during the Bye week. That gives both sides a few more games to see what's what before committing.
We don't really know what was going through McCarron's head at the time he made the muff. If he was indeed trying to make a play out of pure selfishness, then he gets cut. If he instead was victimized by a brain cramp, then I would expect the team to take a more holistic view of the player and decide whether he can (and should) be trusted in the future. Let Joe Judge and Cameron Achord work with him and see if they and McCarron can collectively do a better job going forward.
Regardless of why he was trying to run with that punt, it was a poor decision. Especially when viewed in the light of how he had fair-caught everything earlier including one where there was no one within 10 yards of him when he caught it.
Gronk: Just a beast. First lost fumble in 6 years and first EVER at home? Pretty remarkable.
TB12: Ho hum. Got past some early game shakiness and did his thing.
Flowers/Wise: Agreed with others, so nice to see a line that gets some push and disrupts.
O-Line: Overall, did a really good job at limiting the damage that the HOU front 7 can cause.
TB12: Ho hum. Got past some early game shakiness and did his thing.
Flowers/Wise: Agreed with others, so nice to see a line that gets some push and disrupts.
O-Line: Overall, did a really good job at limiting the damage that the HOU front 7 can cause.
Can't it be #3 - that he simply fucked up in the biggest moment of his short career? I'm sure he was properly coached. I'm sure he can take coaching because he wouldn't be here otherwise. I think he simply just had a mental brain fart that will probably cost him his job with the Patriots in the very near future.
Extremely on board with this. The third contract is usually the killer, and the one the Patriots usually don't give (see: Nate Solder, who NYG fans are already lumping in with the truly terrible Ereck Flowers). But for a 25 year old beast at this position, you bet. If Wynn can come back, let him come back somewhere else on the line.
Yeah, I mean, he's obviously not being coached to start running and avert his eyes before catching a punt. He made a bad decision and exacerbated it with panic. If that sort of reaction comes naturally to him I'm sure we'll find out pretty soon. I'd rather he not be back there next week but we'll see. Jacksonville's punter was hitting a bunch of sidewinders yesterday that I'd rather not see McCarron trying to handle.
It'd be incredibly hard for me to ever send McCarron back for another punt. As we saw with Cyrus Jones, sometimes the first mistake causes an avalanche of mistakes. McCarron got a shot that he earned and simply failed. I'm moving on to Plan B now, whatever that is.
Every player is different, and how they react to mental mistakes will differ. He will need to show that he can put that mistake behind him; not sure the downside of giving him the chance to do that, at least in practice.
According to Paul Perillo on the postgame - he’s had issues fielding punts in practice as well. Honestly, I think we have seen enough from him. The “Wes Welker clone” talk is laughable. Doesn’t seem to have anywhere close to Wes’ straight line speed or shiftiness. Unless we are talking about Wes at this moment.
Jace Billingsley, come on down! You're the next contestant on the Punt Returner Better Be Right.
How bad was Berrios at returning punts this summer? He seemed pretty capable for the Canes.
Regardless, he is ineligible to return this season?
Regardless, he is ineligible to return this season?
I'm going to go with number 4. McCarron is a really smart guy and the idea that Bill O'Brien would punt the ball down two scores with 4:30 left was so shocking to him that he wasn't ready to get into the game and was unprepared when he got there.
And Bill O'Brien says it's not his job when he was asked why he didn't call a timeout.
Your job is to try to win games. A timeout might help you with that so yes it is your job to call a timeout and give the refs at league office some time.
It's amazing to me how many NFL coaches just can't keep up with the game. Just moves to fast for them to think.
And instead of "wow, what a well-coached team", we'll hear how the Patriots got lucky. In some sense, they did but not many QBs would have gotten everyone organized quickly enough to get that snap off before the NFL could initiate the review process. The NFL front office can't be too happy today about the exposure that this got so I doubt we'll be so fortunate the next time.
I was at the game and haven't really had a chance to check out replays, was it definitely not a catch? On the replays they were showing in the stadium I remember thinking it was close but thought it looked like it was probably a catch.
It was close. I think it was a catch under the revised rule, especially since it was called a catch on the field, but who the hell knows what would have happened under review.
The fact that he went into halftime with 3 TO's in his pocket is even worse. Way to pass the buck, Bill. Pretty sure the Pats (Brady) knew that a challenge flag wasn't coming, and the request from NY has to go through a channel or 2, so get off a play as quickly as possible. It'll probably happen several times this year, but the only one that people will pay attention to is this one (or when the Pats do it).
Yeah, there will be someone clamoring for some stupid rule change so that teams can no longer hurry up to snap the ball. Until they have to figure out an exception allow non-Patriot teams to run a 2 minute drill, and the result will be the usual tangled mess of a rule.
I actually would favor a rule like that if it could be made to work. Maybe not in the first 28 minutes of each half. In those periods if a coach thinks it's close he has the ability to throw the challenge flag. But when you're in the period of the game where replay must be initiated by the replay review center, I actually don't like running up to run a play for the sole purpose of defeating a replay review.
The problem is that I don't know of a way that it could be made to work without the potential of negating subsequent action. Maybe you give the refs discretion to suspend plays where they think the call may be debatable, like the way they can hold up play for a substitution. You stop the clock, but merely suspend the play clock, if you think that perhaps replay could be of assistance.
Why not simply allow the coaches the option to throw the flag in the last two minutes? So a coach would have three options in the last two minutes:
1. Wait for NY to review
2. Throw the challenge flag.
3. Do nothing
1. Wait for NY to review
2. Throw the challenge flag.
3. Do nothing
This is what I never understood -- why limit the coaches' options at the most important time of the game?
I'm guessing Pat Chung is the PR until Edelman returns and will fair-catch everything, unless they decide to try the decoy play from SB51 again.
Because it’s not a penalty to throw it on an unreviewable play (I think)and throwing the flag stops the clock so the refs can come ask the coach what he is challenging. 2 minute offenses would just toss the flag out there as a free mini timeout.
That could be discouraged easily enough with a time rundown if the challenge is lost.
What about when defensive coaches throw it to give the D a breather? Add time? Gets complicated.
There is already a penalty for defenders lollygagging to get in position, right? If they are not on-sides when the ball is snapped they are called off-sides. So a five-yard penalty seems consistent with the current rules.
There was some discussion on the radio yesterday that there is a replay official as part of the crew on site at the game who could have requested a pause for a replay review. This person doesn't need to hear from NYC first. So it sort of wasn't BillyO's job.
I can get that O'Brien wasn't about to let the league and the officials off the hook for not timely signaling the need for a replay review. He has a legitimate beef in that he shouldn't be forced to take a timeout to correct an official's error.
But he had 3 timeouts left before half, and saw that the Pats were rushing to the line; last I checked, those unused timeouts don't get donated to the United Way. Call the timeout, hope for an official review, and give the league an earful on Monday morning.
Agreed 100%, though a play like that one inside of 2 minutes is likely the main reason there's an on-site review person there in the first place.
Pats managed fine but why aren't more teams running up to the ball and spiking it to ensure a play is.burnt when a 40+ yard is at stake?
The decision to run up and try a play quickly actually can be counterproductive and not necessarily all it's cracked up to be. Rushing a play can be a problem. It could end up leading to a penalty. Or a ten second run off in the last two minutes. Or you could run a bad play when you didn't need to. Think about Super Bowl LI. The Patriots tried to run a quick play before the Edelman catch could be reviewed. A shitty 3 yard run into the line of scrimmage could have changed that whole game around. Instead, they got the call confirmed and the next play was almost as big as the Edelman play.
This Sunday, it was great that they got a 28 yard completion but rushing back up and running a play wasn't exactly all roses and rainbows. Burkhead got clobbered, is in the protocol, and they were lucky not to have a turnover on his fumble and could have if it had bounced differently. Who knows whether any of that was related, but it certainly could have been the result of trying to hurry up and run a play before everyone was fully ready.
This Sunday, it was great that they got a 28 yard completion but rushing back up and running a play wasn't exactly all roses and rainbows. Burkhead got clobbered, is in the protocol, and they were lucky not to have a turnover on his fumble and could have if it had bounced differently. Who knows whether any of that was related, but it certainly could have been the result of trying to hurry up and run a play before everyone was fully ready.
Don't you think 1) that BB practices situational football including each position group knowing a hurry up call or two when needed? 2) That the risk reward of overturn warrants a hurry-up? Jules catch, I mean if I were BB I'd want to hurry up too. I had no idea if it hit the ground or not watching it live. If your team isn't coached up on a hurry up play I can see your point but I have trouble believing that this team wouldn't be adequately coached to execute that level of situational football.
If the concern is a bad outcome, default to running up and spiking it like you would in 2 minute drill.
That would work as a very conservative option. If a team did this I would see the logic of it.
I would rather it be coached as, not to beat a dead horse, situational football. Something like if there is a situation where we want to avoid a replay get to the line of scrimmage quickly and do x, y, z. Treat it kind of like a frantic 2 minute drill with no time-outs situation and you don't want to spike it if possible. I think you'd get better outcomes for 2nd down that way. However, it would require a good level of execution. Also, if the play isn't there based on the defense, or your own guys being gassed, or any other factor, then spiking would be the right option. I see it as more of the last desirable play call but one that is a safety valve. I bet BB and Ernie Adams have a few white papers on this one...
Certainly I have faith that Bill has called some good plays for the situation where you might want to defeat replay. But, virtually by definition, you are going to end up running a less optimal play than you would have if you weren't planning on running a quick play. Spiking the ball, for example, is certainly suboptimal. (Unless you were running out of time and intending that anyway.)
And I agree there are obvious cases. If it was 4th and 28 and you converted on a disputed play there's almost no subsequent play short of a turnover you wouldn't be happy with if it defeated replay. The Jules catch is an interesting one. Let's say that they had spiked the ball and defeated review. In hindsight that would have been bad. They would have wasted a down in a big moment in a huge game for no benefit. In real time, though, the truth of the play was sufficiently uncertain that I do think the correct situational play was to get a down run to defeat review.
But I don't think that's always the case. Like if Gronk absolutely knows that he caught the ball and could communicate that information to everyone, on a routine first down play, you'd hate to burn a down just to avoid review.
By and large, though, the notion of good situational football means that you have enough information to make an informed risk-reward decision. I think that often in these run up to the line plays you just don't have enough information except in the obvious cases. And I've literally never heard anyone talk about the delta between the play you otherwise would run and the suboptimal hurry up play you will run. Which turns on a ton of stuff, including personnel on the field, down and distance, time left in the game, etc. If the coach's instruction was "when in doubt on a close play hurry up" that would be the opposite of situational football.