The Game Goat Thread: AFCCG @ Broncos
- Thread starter SeoulSoxFan
- Start date
Yeah, we're going to part ways here. I strongly disagree that he blew that play on his own, that's a ridiculous thing to say IMO. His OL blew up yet again which cost him time for the necessary decision-making.
The correct read on the the roll out would be to the flat (which is doubled), then Gronk across. For some reason he locked in on JE and ignored Gronk...that one is on Brady.
As those pictures and the replay of that play demonstrate clearly, the line had not blown up at the point Gronk broke open, and Brady had time to get the ball to him moving across the end zone. Brady, instead, hesitated and then looked back towards Edelman, who looked like he might break clear but did not. That's just the reality of the play.
The key to yesterday's loss was the Miami game to end the season. Brady barely escaped Florida alive due to the horrendous OL play. This game felt a lot like that Miami game, just on a much bigger stage. 3-5 in their last 8 games. They played a lot of mediocre football the last month of the season. As much a we thought that KC was the match up to fear the most, they kinda caught them at the right time (Maclin injury/due for an off game after 11 straight). Lesson for years ahead. The 35-0 blowouts in September mean little in December and January. Need to be peaking late and have to avoid major injuries.
This is exactly what Tim Hasselbeck said on EEI(I assume you heard it there, but maybe you just knew that), said it was 100% on Brady and that it was an easy read.
I assume Tom just figured they'd double Gronk so he didn't even look that way.
I think that he assumed he wouldn't have time and that Edelman was his top choice and simply put his trust there.
When the Pats needed a do or die big play on 4th and 10 they went with no hesitation to their big play guy--Gronk deep. When they needed just a few yards, Brady went to the guy he trusts on those plays, Edelman. It's worked so much that thinking it would work one more time isn't horrible. It just worked out that there was a better option.
When the Pats needed a do or die big play on 4th and 10 they went with no hesitation to their big play guy--Gronk deep. When they needed just a few yards, Brady went to the guy he trusts on those plays, Edelman. It's worked so much that thinking it would work one more time isn't horrible. It just worked out that there was a better option.
Fair, but they still held the ball for 5 minutes. And there was 6 minutes remaining. I just don't think it's as a poor decision as some make it out to be.
FWIW, a component of that decision that does resonate with me is the need to get a 2 point conversion. I had precious little confidence that we could do so. Given what a slog scoring was for the offense, the way Denver was destroying our OL and the strong job they were doing covering our receivers, I fully expected Brady to get lit up on a conversion attempt from the 2. So from that perspective I'm sympathetic to the arguement that we should have tried the FG and set up a scenario where we wouldn't need the 2 of we scored again.
I totally agree. Brady was probably doing that most of the game, i.e. picking someone before the ball was snapped because he had no time to make all the reads. In my opinion nothing was an easy read considering the pressure Brady was under all night. If Brady doesn't adjust and make pre-snap judgments, then he would have been sacked 20 times while going through the progressions.
Given how the game went, I wonder if the proper play call would have been to just split Gronk wide and throw a quick fade/jump ball. Would have been obvious where the ball was going but was probably our best chance of success since the OL refused to block.
The play that they called resulted in single coverage and Gronk being wide open. The play call was not the issue.
It was the basketball version of going for a 3 pointer when down 3 and still a minute or so left on the clock instead of going for the layup and playing defense. This would have been Belichick's way of extending the game.
Agree 100%. Thought at the moment that cutting it to a 5 pt Denver lead with six minutes to go was the smart thing to do considering the worst result would be that Denver would get ball and end up kicking another FG ..still keeping it a one score game and giving them yet another shot at tying it late.
Neither do I to be honest.
Of those 5 minutes on that drive, the 3rd and 1 play that resulted in the big play was run at 13:39. Had they held him there that drive ends at the 13 minute mark or so. Almost as bad, on the next play he ran for 8 more setting up a 2nd and 2.
I'm surprised so many folks are second-guessing BB's decision not to kick the FG down 8. Converting 4th-and-1 against that defense with no running game was not a gimme by any means, but judging by what BB knew at the time, getting a conversion was, by far, the Pats' best chance to score a touchdown.
If you ask TB12 to make that long 4th down throw to Gronk on the final drive 10 times, he completes it maybe once or twice. If the Pats kicked the FG earlier and then the final drive ended on an incompletion there, I'll guarantee you that the majority of the people who are bashing BB now would be killing him for kicking a FG that left them down 5 instead of rolling the dice on what was plainly the team's best chance to score the needed TD.
Edit: Probably also worth mentioning that Denver might have been less conservative with its play calls if the Pats kicked the FG. It's a lot easier to justify running the ball and trusting your defense instead of letting Peyton Manning try to win the game when you're up 8 instead of just 5.
If you ask TB12 to make that long 4th down throw to Gronk on the final drive 10 times, he completes it maybe once or twice. If the Pats kicked the FG earlier and then the final drive ended on an incompletion there, I'll guarantee you that the majority of the people who are bashing BB now would be killing him for kicking a FG that left them down 5 instead of rolling the dice on what was plainly the team's best chance to score the needed TD.
Edit: Probably also worth mentioning that Denver might have been less conservative with its play calls if the Pats kicked the FG. It's a lot easier to justify running the ball and trusting your defense instead of letting Peyton Manning try to win the game when you're up 8 instead of just 5.
Last edited:
Jeff Howe @jeffphowe 7m7 minutes ago
Cannon: 2.5 sacks, 5 hits, false start Vollmer: 7 hits, 1/2 sack Kline: 5 hits, false start Stork: 2 hits, head-butting flag Mason: 1 hit
Cannon: 2.5 sacks, 5 hits, false start Vollmer: 7 hits, 1/2 sack Kline: 5 hits, false start Stork: 2 hits, head-butting flag Mason: 1 hit
Either that or I wonder if Brady's vision was partially blocked right as he was getting ready to throw the ball. If he could have hung on to it a couple of tics longer he probably would have found Gronkowski but given the pressure, his first line of sight was Edelman.
Gronk is the bizarro superstar. Instead of getting phantom calls in his favor, he gets called for phantom penalties and defenders can interfere with him with impunity.
You didn't have confidence that the offense could gain two yards on one play, so you'd opt for a situation where they need a whole 'nother TD drive instead? Doesn't follow for me.
Yes. I thought we could score a TD if we had multiple downs to find a way to punch it in while Brady was being battered. But I had little confidence that we could convert when we had just one single play to do so. No margin of error, which we clearly needed.
I was totally fine with going for it on 4th and 1. I'm not arguing for the FG attempt. Just saying I was worried we'd be able to get the 2 points when we had 1 play to do it. And yes, I'm also saying I was OK with having 1 play to convert the 4th down. It's a little illogical, but there you go.
We all know that sometimes you get beat by a team that's simply better. Imagine how Denver would have felt if, after outplaying the Patriots all game, they lost in OT based on a "Hail Mary" from the Denver 4 with almost no time left.
Really, I've got to take that final TD out of the equation. Denver should have won 20-12 (or 20-13 minus the PAT miss or worse minus the backwards pass by inches).
Here's one way it could have played out:
End of 1: 7-7 (PAT good)
End of Half: 17-10 Denver (Denver another TD and a NE FG)
End of 3: 17-13 Denver (NE FG)
4th Q:
20-13 Denver (DENVER 31 YD FG)
20-16 Denver (NE 34 yd FG)
20-19 Denver (NE 32 yd FG)
Final: 20-19 if Gronkowski doesn't make that unreal reception
And all of this is silly anyway because both teams play differently with different scores. You have to think NE would in any event have gone for a TD with 2:25 left and down by 4 points.
Game was lost regardless.
Really, I've got to take that final TD out of the equation. Denver should have won 20-12 (or 20-13 minus the PAT miss or worse minus the backwards pass by inches).
Here's one way it could have played out:
End of 1: 7-7 (PAT good)
End of Half: 17-10 Denver (Denver another TD and a NE FG)
End of 3: 17-13 Denver (NE FG)
4th Q:
20-13 Denver (DENVER 31 YD FG)
20-16 Denver (NE 34 yd FG)
20-19 Denver (NE 32 yd FG)
Final: 20-19 if Gronkowski doesn't make that unreal reception
And all of this is silly anyway because both teams play differently with different scores. You have to think NE would in any event have gone for a TD with 2:25 left and down by 4 points.
Game was lost regardless.
I think Maufman is completely right here. If you go for the TD first and get it, then you go for 2 and you either have a tie game or you need a FG to go ahead. Tie game changes things considerably.
If you take the FG first you still need a TD (barring the unlikely scenarios IMO of scoring two more FG without Denver getting on the board at all).
Given how badly the Pats had struggled on offense up until that point I was completely fine with going for it on the one of the rare occasions they'd got the ball close to the Denver line. And then going for it again the 2nd time because by that point your 3 FG scenarios is getting really unlikely. And if I wasn't, I still have more faith in BB's judgement than mine.
If you don't think you can make a 4th and 1 then you probably don't really deserve to win anyway.
Good season, not quite good enough. I thought Denver probably shaded it and I don't begrudge them the victory. I'm ready to be thankful for the good times and move on. When does spring training start?
You lost me at "Hail Mary from the 4".
Well, you lost me but I kept reading. Then you say it might have all gone down this way. Then say, "Well, probably not, cuz then the scores would be different."
Both teams scored TDs on short drives after TOs. Maybe if the ref had correctly called the lateral in the first place the PAT isn't missed. Who knows?
In summation:
"Hail Mary from the 4" is the pass to Gronkowski from the Denver 4 yd line with 12 seconds left in the game. That was a desperation play that was miraculously caught by Gronk, hence the references to the Mother of God.
The quip about "scores being different" was a snipe at people (including myself) who go back over individual events in a football, baseball, etc. game and assume everything that followed would have been similar to what actually happened ("If Jones had taken that extra base in the 5th he would have scored a run and the team would have won...").
That play sent me over the roof because Talib got called for that crap so often when he played for the pats, too. Hug with the right before/as the ball was thrown and then easy to see jersey grab with the left hand with the ball in the air (and thrown HIGH), ref right there and he got away with it.
More annoyed that Talib played the whole AFCC game this year when he couldn't do it in 2012 and 2013.
I would have liked to have seen the formation they ran early in the season with 4TE inside and then motion them all out to get mismatches, but they never went back to it after trading Hooman.Either that or I wonder if Brady's vision was partially blocked right as he was getting ready to throw the ball. If he could have hung on to it a couple of tics longer he probably would have found Gronkowski but given the pressure, his first line of sight was Edelman.
And they were wrong. They took the ball in 2013 when they were playing in Cincinnati and there was a huge storm scheduled to come through in the second half. They ended up with the ball, needing a score a couple times late during that game and couldn't get it done through a torrential downpour. Like it was tough to see the field at times- http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-game-highlights/0ap2000000257470/Week-5-Patriots-vs-Bengals-highlights
edit- definitely wasn't as bad as I remembered, at least based on those highlights...
Interesting article from 538: the 35 plays that cost the Pats more than the missed PAT
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-were-35-plays-more-costly-to-the-patriots-than-stephen-gostkowskis-missed-extra-point/
http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/there-were-35-plays-more-costly-to-the-patriots-than-stephen-gostkowskis-missed-extra-point/
The problem with that is the XP is a gimme (I know it's not anymore), but it's been a gimme for Gost's entire career. Nothing has to change for the game to play out the same. It's not a case of "well, if he made that catch the game would have changed". The XP exists in a vacuum and changing that doesn't change anything else since it's a final play of a drive anyway.
So other plays changing could butterfly effect more than him hitting that XP. In theory anyway.
So other plays changing could butterfly effect more than him hitting that XP. In theory anyway.
The other thing is that the negative WP on that play is pretty much all attributable to Gostkowski, unlike most scrimmage plays where up to 11 guys might be culpable.
Well at that point they had a shot at winning - so it went from that % to 0 - but I agree that 16.4% was too high. Maybe like 3-5%.
I'm not sure the win probability would be 3-5% even after a successful onside kick. You need either a Hail Mary or a 25+ yard pass completion out-of-bounds followed by a long field goal.
Well if you recover the kick it would be between your own 45-50 and in Denver that would mean youd really only need like 10-15 yards but yeah would have to be a sideline completion without any timeouts less
I hope Von Miller blows out both knees next week, during recovery catches all strains of the Zika virus, and has a nurse who hocks loogies into his IV.
Not a game GOAT, but I stumbled across the NFL Gronk highlights from that game. He is just so good, and he was not 100%. The only reason they even had the chance to tie the game was due to his massive 4th quarter.