The Game Goat Thread: Week 16 at the Jets

[TheoShmeo]

This. This is what they were trying to do and I get it. It just didn't work out like they had hoped, though I think it was a worthwhile gamble.

Also, Brady was getting hit a lot. Look at the bright side: you didn't have that Jets DL coming after Brady, fighting for their playoff lives, in a 5th quarter. You want to win, but sometimes it's better to take what could be a meaningless loss and get your key players home healthy for what's important.

Right but we're discussing who was the goat for THIS game. I understand your point. But your point also suggests that the Pats should have just sat everyone key this week so as to not risk injuries to them, relied on a win in Miami and focused on what's important, the playoffs.

But if you have chosen to try to win this game, I don't think changing course so as to minimize Brady exposure is the right way to go.

I think BB thought the best chance to win was to put them on offense first. I don't think he was trying to protect Tom. And I'm pretty sure he did the same thing in 2013 with success. And given that the offense struggled today and with some key guys were out, I understand it.

I just think that the Jets were on their heals a bit there at the end and seeing Tom on offense would have been tough for them there. Or it might have been tough. I also think that I would rather be aggressive there given how great our QB is.

 

[Sportsbstn]

This. This is what they were trying to do and I get it. It just didn't work out like they had hoped, though I think it was a worthwhile gamble.

Also, Brady was getting hit a lot. Look at the bright side: you didn't have that Jets DL coming after Brady, fighting for their playoff lives, in a 5th quarter. You want to win, but sometimes it's better to take what could be a meaningless loss and get your key players home healthy for what's important.

Sorry but Brady is one of the best if not the best QB of all time, right now. To cower away from letting him try to put up points right before half was bad, to not give him the ball in OT, was just a bad decision. Win or lose, give him the ball, this is not second guessing.

 

[speedracer]

Assuming league-average everything, the team receiving the OT kickoff is a 56-44 favorite according to Brian Burke:

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2010/03/new-proposed-overtime-rules.html

Even given all the injuries, I don't think the Patriots offense is much worse than league average, if at all.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Why not take the ball, move it enough to get a field goal, kick off, and then strangle the Jets' offense? When you flat out give the ball to any decent team, they can muster one TD drive, which we saw. As for wind, the flow goes:

Kick or receive? NE kicks.
Direction? Jets picked the wind at their back.

Pats got the worst of both.

Well, again, Slater's mistake was he was supposed to pick a side and then let the Jets choose to receive. But whatever. That had nothing to do with what ultimately happened.

I probably take the ball in OT but they most likely would have ended up punting, since that's what they did all game long on offense until the last drive when they converted two fourth downs. So it would have come down to the defense eventually.

So I'm not losing much sleep on the coin toss decision.

 

[patinorange]

The defense worked fine - they held the opponent to 20 points and provided 7 points on their own despite an anemic offence giving the Jets good field position and many possesssions.


This loss is completely on the offense, who scored 6 points in the first 56 minutes of the game. The O-Line is terrible, the receivers are terrible, and Brady is doing a combination of holding onto the ball too long, and forcing it into bad coverages. It's mostly caused by injuries, but there's not much to be done.

Blaming the defense is lazy.

(and yes, Belichick is being way too conservative - the 1:53 before the half was criminal, and the 33 seconds in the second half was really short, but a couple things go right and that's enough to score a field goal. Going conservative only makes sense if you have a huge talent advantage, and with the injuries, they don't)

The defense was lousy most of the day and terrible in the OT. Any QB that could hit a long pass would have had a few more touchdowns.
They missed tackles and had very little in the way of an effective pass rush. Butler had a bad game.
Of course they were missing their two safeties and Hightower didn't look right. Playoff optimism remains high, assuming no more major injuries in Miami.

I don't really have a problem with deferring on the OT kick off in general, but the Pats had just come off their best drive of the day. Strange.

The end of the first half was inexplicable. I can only guess that BB was pissed at the offense for some reason and was trying to send some kind of message.

 

[Shelterdog]

Why not take the ball, move it enough to get a field goal, kick off, and then strangle the Jets' offense? When you flat out give the ball to any decent team, they can muster one TD drive, which we saw. As for wind, the flow goes:

Kick or receive? NE kicks.
Direction? Jets picked the wind at their back.

Pats got the worst of both.

Because they couldn't move the damn ball all day.

 

[H78]

Right but we're discussing who was the goat for THIS game. I understand your point. But your point also suggests that the Pats should have just sat everyone key this week so as to not risk injuries to them, relied on a win in Miami and focused on what's important, the playoffs.

But if you have chosen to try to win this game, I don't think changing course so as to minimize Brady exposure is the right way to go.

I think BB thought the best chance to win was to put them on offense first. I don't think he was trying to protect Tom. And I'm pretty sure he did the same thing in 2013 with success. And given that the offense struggled today and with some key guys were out, I understand it.

I just think that the Jets were on their heals a bit there at the end and seeing Tom on offense would have been tough for them there. Or it might have been tough. I also think that I would rather be aggressive there given how great our QB is.

Yeah, I mean, no one is ever wrong when they say, "I wish TB12 had a chance to win the game." I just see what BB was thinking and get that as well, given how many times Brady had been getting hit and how they needed miracle 4th down completions on the previous drive just to stay alive. Minimize how much field you'd need to win by letting your defense make a stop. The problem is the "gamble" part of this - trusting your defense - bit you in the ass when one unlikely long play happened at the worst possible time.

But to your first point, I did want to see the Pats sit a bunch of people - at least people who are banged up - this week. I mentioned that earlier this week in I believe this very thread. I just didn't see the point in pushing players when you'll have a much, much more favorable matchup next week and it seems likely Edelman and maybe even Dola will be back, both of which could use some game action before the playoffs anyways. So in my mind, I thought win that one and cruise through this week as healthy as possible. Even in the worst case scenario where they lose, oh well, you still get a bye and worst case scenario is you have to go back to Denver with, finally, a healthy squad (assuming Denver can even get out of the Divisional Round).

This game didn't mean much to me. I hate the Jets just as much as anyone else, but health is so much more important for this team than the #1 seed. Remember, we lost to the Eagles at home this year not because we were on the road, but because we were decimated (and, admittedly, our Special Teams didn't show up). We could easily lose at home to a mediocre team if we're without our best players - it's already happened.

Health >>>>> #1 seed when you already have, at worst, the #2 seed locked up

 

[H78]

Also, here's what people are forgetting: If the Pats take the ball and stall early on their first drive, which had happened repeatedly throughout the game, they're punting from somewhere probably between their own 20 and 30 yard line and the Jets likely get the ball around their own 30 or 40, needing only 35-40 yards to get into FG position to win the game anyways.

I think Bill thought it was less likely that his defense would give up an 80-yard TD drive than a 35-yard-drive ending in a game-winning FG. And if his defense could limit the Jets' first drive, his offense would only need a couple plays themselves to setup a game-winning field goal of their own.

But, alas, injuries in the secondary caught up to them. Oh well. Beat the Dolphins, the same Dolphins that scored 12 points at home against the Colts today, and you're the #1 seed. If you can't beat the punchless Dolphins in Week 17 - with the #1 seed on the line - you're probably not going to beat three of the best teams in the NFL to win a championship anyways.

 

[BigSoxFan]

Neither side on this debate is wrong. There is merit to both arguments. I didn't like the decision because I want to give Brady a chance in every situation like this. The strategy today didn't allow it and that's frustrating.

 

[E5 Yaz]

All I could think about when they tied the game was the nearly 2 minutes at the end of the first half. The coin flip doesn't bother me, because just because you choose to kick doesn't mean you're going to give up a touchdown.

Besides, in an OT game there's a dozen plays either way that could have meant the game. The Fitz pass that dunked off Nink's helmet was there to be picked if Nink had turned around. Just one of those games

 

[RedOctober3829]

I have no problem whatsoever in BBs decision to kick off. As he explained in his A Football Life he was doing what he thought was best for the team and give them the best chance to win. Just as in the 4th and 2 decision, one side of the ball was significantly better than the other on the particular day. In his mind, the defense had a good shot to stop them and give the offense the ball back with only needing a FG. Let's not forget, FG range for the Pats is around the 40 going in. Therefore, the offense doesn't need much in order to get in range. It's very easy for armchair QBs and Patriots haters to criticize after seeing the results after the fact as it's very easy to do. But in my mind wit was the correct decision given the context of the game and the condition and performance of each u it. It's very easy to sit behind a computer and criticize the best coach the NFL has ever seen. Me, I will live with whatever he decides to do and live with the results

 

[Tony C]

Yeah, I thought the decision to kick was great, though I may have risked choosing the wind and assumed the Jets would take the ball. But the Jets had a tough time moving the ball even with great field position all game long -- it's a better bet that the Jets will only score a FG than the Pats would score a TD on their first drive. If the Jets only score a field goal, Brady has 4 downs coming the other way to tie the game if not put the Pats in a position to win.

Someone would have to do the simulations and could easily be wrong, but I suspect they'll show it was playing the odds albeit in an unconventional way.

 

[TheoShmeo]

Health >>>>> #1 seed when you already have, at worst, the #2 seed locked up

It's impossible to argue against health. A fully healthy squad would have looked a lot different today.

But had the Pats sat guys today and played for the loss, effectively, there's no denying that important players could still get hurt against the Jets. They can't sit everyone. Also, as much as they really should be able to beat Miami with ease, nothing is guaranteed. Look at the Panthers and Steelers games today. Just a few days ago many people were talking in hushed tones about how tough those teams might be in the playoffs (and that still might be true) and each just lost to a bad team.

As to the Fins, they are never an easy match up down there. The BB/Brady teams have lost their share of games to objectively inferior teams in Miami (and I have had the fun of being at two of those losses, not that that is relevant to anyone but me).

Last, I agree that being healthy is hugely important but at the same time, winning in Denver is very difficult to do. Whether it's the altitude or the noise or whatever, Pats teams have not fared well there...ever. So while I can't argue against health, I don't know that sitting key guys today would have ensured it and I think you may be underselling the difficulty in winning potential AFC Championship game in Denver. (Though if they need Peyton to help them with some HGH to help with all those damn injuries....)

 

[mulluysavage]

Goats:

BB. Socci and Zo said there was no wind. Are there any other reports saying there was wind? Even if they get a 3 and out, you still probably only get the ball on the 30. It doesn't matter if they weren't moving the ball that well, you have to rely on your offense to score.

Brady. He should have thrown it away instead of taking the sack in several situations.

O-Line. It's not their fault for being decimated and as a result being all rookies and second stringers besides Stork, but it was a major difference in the game.

 

[H78]

Goats:

BB. Socci and Zo said there was no wind. Are there any other reports saying there was wind? Even if they get a 3 and out, you still probably only get the ball on the 30. It doesn't matter if they weren't moving the ball that well, you have to rely on your offense to score.

But there is a difference on relying on them to drive 80 yards and score, which they did once all game and needed four downs twice to do so, and driving 30-40 yards for a field goal to win.

Here's the short of it: BB was putting the burden of having to score a TD on the Jets. The Jets broke a long fluky play after a busted coverage and then won the game. BB had an idea, it just didn't work. But you can see how in many other instances it could very well work - like it did in 2013 against the Denver Broncos.

 

[Tony C]

Yeah, I thought the decision to kick was great, though I may have risked choosing the wind and assumed the Jets would take the ball. But the Jets had a tough time moving the ball even with great field position all game long -- it's a better bet that the Jets will only score a FG than the Pats would score a TD on their first drive. If the Jets only score a field goal, Brady has 4 downs coming the other way to tie the game if not put the Pats in a position to win.

Someone would have to do the simulations and could easily be wrong, but I suspect they'll show it was playing the odds albeit in an unconventional way.

Here's one attempt at modeling -- not a good one for my position: http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/112875/numbers-dont-back-up-patriots-ot-strategy

 

[Dahabenzapple2]

I can't believe anyone would mention Brady. With an average QB, they maybe kick a FG. He made a few incredible passes and only the pick was possibly his fault.

No goats here - good effort by a team without a decent receiver, running back or offensive tackle.

Only thing that irritated me was too many touches for Bolden but I realize so few other options

 

[Ed Hillel]

Listening to Brady's WEEI interview this week, I get the feeling Brady/Edelman/Gronk would have been playing at least 2-3 quarters in Miami regardless of today's results. Brady wants game-time practice to get this offense back in sync, and I'm sure Edelman does, too.

In the end, this could work out fine. People keep talking about playing the Jets at home in January, but I'm not sure I'd pick the Jets to beat either Denver or Cincy on the road, and I think they are certainly less likely to win there than Pitt. That leaves a pretty decent chance that KC or Houston could come to town, and neither of them concern me much at all. KC is the biggest paper tiger I can remember, though that D is legit.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Goats:

BB. Socci and Zo said there was no wind. Are there any other reports saying there was wind? Even if they get a 3 and out, you still probably only get the ball on the 30. It doesn't matter if they weren't moving the ball that well, you have to rely on your offense to score.

Brady. He should have thrown it away instead of taking the sack in several situations.

O-Line. It's not their fault for being decimated and as a result being all rookies and second stringers besides Stork, but it was a major difference in the game.

Brady?

I hope you are taking some time away from your crack binge to watch what is happening to Aaron Rodgers right now.

 

[E5 Yaz]

This is the best job of clarifying it that I've seen thus far

At that point, Slater had two choices. Per NFL Rule 4, Section 3, Article 2, he could elect whether to receive the kick or kick off OR he could declare "the choice of goal his team will defend." As NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino noted on Twitter, he could not choose to kick off and the direction. (Obviously, the choice to defer isn't relevant in overtime.)

Having already spoken informally to Belichick, Blakeman knew what to expect. He said to Slater: "You want to kick?" And Slater said: "We want to kick, that way."

That sentiment reflected Belichick's wishes, but unfortunately the wording locked Slater into the first set of options rather than the second. The Patriots did want to kick off, but their goal in doing so was to kick off in the opposite direction than they ultimately kicked in. To do so, Slater should have told Blakeman which goal the Patriots wanted to defend and left out the part about kicking entirely.

In other words, Slater should have said, "We want to defend that goal" instead of saying, "We want to kick, that way."

You might think it's wild that such an important decision would rely on what seems to be a distinction without a difference. And it's fair to wonder if Slater was simply following Blakeman's lead in terms of the precise wording. But that's why Slater appeared confused when Blakeman asked Jets captain Antonio Cromartie to choose the goal to defend and, thus, the direction of the kickoff.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/193507/a-slight-wording-mistake-caused-the-patriots-overtime-confusion

 

[Harry Hooper]

Here's one attempt at modeling -- not a good one for my position: http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/post/_/id/112875/numbers-dont-back-up-patriots-ot-strategy

Hmm, a couple of things to note in that piece:

1) "Receiving teams have won 33 of the 65 overtime games that did not result in a tie, a 50.7 percent rate."

So that's a virtual coin flip given the limited data since the OT rule change.

2) "even a poor offense has a positive scoring expectation past its own 20."

You can see that as evidence for supporting a strategy to kickoff and then force a punt.

 

[Harry Hooper]

This is the best job of clarifying it that I've seen thus far

That sentiment reflected Belichick's wishes, but unfortunately the wording locked Slater into the first set of options rather than the second. The Patriots did want to kick off, but their goal in doing so was to kick off in the opposite direction than they ultimately kicked in. To do so, Slater should have told Blakeman which goal the Patriots wanted to defend and left out the part about kicking entirely.

In other words, Slater should have said, "We want to defend that goal" instead of saying, "We want to kick, that way."

You might think it's wild that such an important decision would rely on what seems to be a distinction without a difference. And it's fair to wonder if Slater was simply following Blakeman's lead in terms of the precise wording. But that's why Slater appeared confused when Blakeman asked Jets captain Antonio Cromartie to choose the goal to defend and, thus, the direction of the kickoff.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/193507/a-slight-wording-mistake-caused-the-patriots-overtime-confusion

Bolded portion doesn't seem to be what happened to me. Pats appeared to kickoff in the direction Slater preferred.

 

[mulluysavage]

But there is a difference on relying on them to drive 80 yards and score, which they did once all game and needed four downs twice to do so, and driving 30-40 yards for a field goal to win.

Here's the short of it: BB was putting the burden of having to score a TD on the Jets. The Jets broke a long fluky play after a busted coverage and then won the game. BB had an idea, it just didn't work. But you can see how in many other instances it could very well work - like it did in 2013 against the Denver Broncos.

But if he's betting on a defensive stop and an FG, why not take the ball first in the hopes you can do better, rather than let the other team have a crack at it?

Maybe ST factors in? Thinking you can make a stop, send the house, and get a block or a short kick?

 

[E5 Yaz]

Bolded portion doesn't seem to be what happened to me. Pats appeared to kickoff in the direction Slater preferred.

If you look at the still with Slater pointing, he's pointing in the direction that the Jets ultimately moved on offense

 

[mulluysavage]

Also, BB could explain the reasoning, but he's too much of an arrogant ass.

 

[j44thor]

But if he's betting on a defensive stop and an FG, why not take the ball first in the hopes you can do better, rather than let the other team have a crack at it?

Maybe ST factors in? Thinking you can make a stop, send the house, and get a block or a short kick?

You give yourself 4 downs if you are forced to score after holding the other team to a FG. Given the way NE was moving the football, or rather lack there of, I think the extra down comes in very handy. It certainly was critical in the game tying drive in this game and a few others already this season.

I think Bill assumed worst case scenario was NYJ score a FG on the opening drive and now Brady has essentially four downs at least until you get into FG range.

 

[H78]

Listening to Brady's WEEI interview this week, I get the feeling Brady/Edelman/Gronk would have been playing at least 2-3 quarters in Miami regardless of today's results. Brady wants game-time practice to get this offense back in sync, and I'm sure Edelman does, too.

In the end, this could work out fine. People keep talking about playing the Jets at home in January, but I'm not sure I'd pick the Jets to beat either Denver or Cincy on the road, and I think they are certainly less likely to win there than Pitt. That leaves a pretty decent chance that KC or Houston could come to town, and neither of them concern me much at all. KC is the biggest paper tiger I can remember, though that D is legit.

I honestly think, assuming the Jets win next week, we're in for a Patriots/Jets AFCCG. I think the Jets are a bad matchup for either the Broncos or the Bengals and will win Wild Card weekend. We'll see, but I think these two are playing again in about a month.

 

[Mystic Merlin]

Also, BB could explain the reasoning, but he's too much of an arrogant ass.

Lol boo hoo.

 

[jablo1312]

It took a semi-miraculous drive for them to score their only offensive TD all day. I had no faith in them going 80 yards to win the game in OT. Kick off, get a stop or at least hold them, and then take the extra down you have to go and try to tie/win the game. I wish they did the same thing in the Denver game.

 

[k-factory]

But if he's betting on a defensive stop and an FG, why not take the ball first in the hopes you can do better, rather than let the other team have a crack at it? If you get the FG you still need the stop.

Maybe ST factors in? Thinking you can make a stop, send the house, and get a block or a short kick?

When asked it sounded like BB in the presser said it was about field position.

NYJ had 10 possessions in regulation. They scored a TD twice - so 20%
Meanwhile the Pats scored a TD in 1 out of 9 possessions. 11%

The chances of a TD were slim. BB was playing for a play on D or ST to set up the offense in a better spot.

Conversely, you also don't want to give the Jets a short field to kick a FG.

 

[H78]

It took a semi-miraculous drive for them to score their only offensive TD all day. I had no faith in them going 80 yards to win the game in OT. Kick off, get a stop or at least hold them, and then take the extra down you have to go and try to tie/win the game. I wish they did the same thing in the Denver game.

Yup. And minimize how many times the Jets are getting free shots at Brady because your o-line is decimated.

 

[RedOctober3829]

The scenario BB wanted was a stop in 1 or 2 series and the ball at their own 30. That leaves the offense only 35 yards to go in order to be in GW FG range. It's certainly an unconventional decision given TB is the QB but understanding feel of the game, personnel on offense, and defense doing well in 2nd half I'd have done the same thing.

 

[jablo1312]

Goats:

BB. Socci and Zo said there was no wind. Are there any other reports saying there was wind? Even if they get a 3 and out, you still probably only get the ball on the 30. It doesn't matter if they weren't moving the ball that well, you have to rely on your offense to score.
.

Could not disagree more. The offense was smoke and mirrors all day. They were lucky to go to OT. Get a stop from your best unit and then try to win. Your discounting the changes of a turnover, a punt return, a bad punt, lots of things. Quigley had some good kicks but not every punter puts one 50 yards deep. Why trust a shitty unit to go 80 yards? I wanted them to kick in the Denver game too, where they had a shitty, decimated offense, and they took the ball, went three and out, and handed Denver the game.

 

[H78]

When asked it sounded like BB in the presser said it was about field position.

NYJ had 10 possessions in regulation. They scored a TD twice - so 20%
Meanwhile the Pats scored a TD in 1 out of 9 possessions. 11%

The chances of a TD were slim. BB was playing for a play on D or ST to set up the offense in a better spot.

Conversely, you also don't want to give the Jets a short field to kick a FG.

Again, I'm amazed at how many people (not on SoSH, everywhere else on the net) aren't getting this.

Yes, it was risky. But it made sense given the situation for multiple reasons. I bet he would make the same decision if faced with a similar situation again.

Also, I think he knew the whole time in the back of his head "I want us to win this, but we don't need to win it, so why risk getting my starters injured by having them attempt long drives in overtime? If we can win this quickly, great, if not, we'll beat the shit out of Miami next week, use them to get our offense in synch, and get Edelman and maybe Dola some meaningful reps."

 

[Ed Hillel]

I honestly think, assuming the Jets win next week, we're in for a Patriots/Jets AFCCG. I think the Jets are a bad matchup for either the Broncos or the Bengals and will win Wild Card weekend. We'll see, but I think these two are playing again in about a month.

If the Jets are the 6 seed and the Pats the 1 seed, they can't play in the AFCCG, they would have to play in the Divisional round.

 

[shawnrbu]

Also, I think he knew the whole time in the back of his head "I want us to win this, but we don't need to win it, so why risk getting my starters injured by having them attempt long drives in overtime? If we can win this quickly, great, if not, we'll beat the shit out of Miami next week, use them to get our offense in synch, and get Edelman and maybe Dola some meaningful reps."

Then he should have gone for 2 when down 20-19 and eliminated any chance of the game going to overtime.

 

[H78]

If the Jets are the 6 seed and the Pats the 1 seed, they can't play in the AFCCG, they would have to play in the Divisional round.

I thought the Jets were positioned to possibly be #5? I haven't looked at the playoff generator today so I'm clearly going off of some old scenarios.

 

[H78]

Then he should have gone for 2 when down 20-19 and eliminated any chance of the game going to overtime.

Yeah, good point. I was kind of hoping they would for the reason stated. Maybe he was hoping that they could stop the Jets before time ran out in regulation and get a crack at a field goal then? They actually did do that, but then the tricky-tack DPI gave the Jets a new set of downs.

 

[BigSoxFan]

I thought the Jets were positioned to possibly be #5? I haven't looked at the playoff generator today so I'm clearly going off of some old scenarios.

Only if KC loses next week.

 

[Stitch01]

Not sure what explanation is needed, BB thought he had a better chance of getting a stop and kicking a FG on a short field than going to get a TD or getting enough yards to flip field position.

Not nearly as impactful as lighting a possession on fire for zero reason to end the half.

 

[Ralphwiggum]

Also, BB could explain the reasoning, but he's too much of an arrogant ass.

Lol. Our HOF coach doesn't owe us shit.

You give yourself 4 downs if you are forced to score after holding the other team to a FG. Given the way NE was moving the football, or rather lack there of, I think the extra down comes in very handy. It certainly was critical in the game tying drive in this game and a few others already this season.

I think Bill assumed worst case scenario was NYJ score a FG on the opening drive and now Brady has essentially four downs at least until you get into FG range.

Exactly right. Disagree with it if you want, but the reasoning is clear and we don't need Belichick to spell it out for us.

 

[mulluysavage]

I can see the point of betting on the D or ST to do something for you and your offense. Also the point about putting all 4 downs in play for your O is well taken.

It really is a poker game at that stage, and BB has the guts to go with his hand and put the other team under pressure. See: final seconds of SB XLIX.

Riverboat Ron Nothin'.

 

[pokey_reese]

Could not disagree more. The offense was smoke and mirrors all day. They were lucky to go to OT. Get a stop from your best unit and then try to win. Your discounting the changes of a turnover, a punt return, a bad punt, lots of things. Quigley had some good kicks but not every punter puts one 50 yards deep. Why trust a shitty unit to go 80 yards? I wanted them to kick in the Denver game too, where they had a shitty, decimated offense, and they took the ball, went three and out, and handed Denver the game.

Best unit? This being the guys who gave up almost 430 yards on the day, let Fitzy throw for 300 yards/3 TDs/0 INTs, and allowed almost 150 yards rushing? The Pats have a good defense, but I don't know that I would call them the best unit by a long shot, even with the offensive struggles over the last few weeks. Maybe you could argue that in a vacuum, with all of the injuries, the defense should be our best unit on a given day, but other than the strip/TD, they didn't look especially good today, and got consistently gashed.

 

[k-factory]

Then he should have gone for 2 when down 20-19 and eliminated any chance of the game going to overtime.

Somebody else mentioned this upthread. Its not a good argument. Going for 2 is a relatively low percentage play - really gambling when its unnecessary to do so - plus your offensive options are limited to convert this. Tying the game gives you a chance in OT. BB was playing the percentages. Seems reasonable enough to me.

 

[E5 Yaz]

If you told me at the beginning of the season that the Pats would be heavily damaged by injuries, but would split with the Jets -- with the loss coming at the sewer in overtime -- i'd have said i'll be fine with that

 

[DJnVa]

Also, BB could explain the reasoning, but he's too much of an arrogant ass.

The arrogant ass that went over to say some words to Thompkins after he was carted off the field?

I appreciate the run you took us on last year, but you're off base on this. That said, start the game thread for Miami

 

[DJnVa]

Best unit? This being the guys who gave up almost 430 yards on the day, let Fitzy throw for 300 yards/3 TDs/0 INTs, and allowed almost 150 yards rushing? .

The Jets had 200 of those yards in the first half and 80 more in OT. Which means in the second half they allowed about 150 yards, of which only 35 were in the 4th quarter.

Yes, the defense was the better unit today.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

This is the best job of clarifying it that I've seen thus far

At that point, Slater had two choices. Per NFL Rule 4, Section 3, Article 2, he could elect whether to receive the kick or kick off OR he could declare "the choice of goal his team will defend." As NFL vice president of officiating Dean Blandino noted on Twitter, he could not choose to kick off and the direction. (Obviously, the choice to defer isn't relevant in overtime.)

Having already spoken informally to Belichick, Blakeman knew what to expect. He said to Slater: "You want to kick?" And Slater said: "We want to kick, that way."

That sentiment reflected Belichick's wishes, but unfortunately the wording locked Slater into the first set of options rather than the second. The Patriots did want to kick off, but their goal in doing so was to kick off in the opposite direction than they ultimately kicked in. To do so, Slater should have told Blakeman which goal the Patriots wanted to defend and left out the part about kicking entirely.

In other words, Slater should have said, "We want to defend that goal" instead of saying, "We want to kick, that way."

You might think it's wild that such an important decision would rely on what seems to be a distinction without a difference. And it's fair to wonder if Slater was simply following Blakeman's lead in terms of the precise wording. But that's why Slater appeared confused when Blakeman asked Jets captain Antonio Cromartie to choose the goal to defend and, thus, the direction of the kickoff.

http://espn.go.com/blog/nflnation/post/_/id/193507/a-slight-wording-mistake-caused-the-patriots-overtime-confusion

They still don't have it completely right. If Slater had said, "we want to defend that goal," then the Jets would have had the choice whether to kick or to receive. Perhaps the Jets ALSO would have preferred to kick. Probably not, but you can't be sure. So, if you really want to kick -- if that is your top choice -- you must pick it if you win the toss.

Winning the toss gets you the first choice. Then the other team gets its choice. If Belichick wanted to kick, then if Slater had picked direction, Belichick was risking not getting his first choice. If you decide you want to kick in overtime (or you decide that direction is most important), then the only way to ensure it is to chose to kick if you win the flip. Now, this is likely an academic point. If Slater had said, 'we want to defend that goal," then the Jets probably elect to receive, because that's what everyone not named Belichick seems to choose. So, it's likely Slater did make a mistake because he could have said, "we want to defend that goal," and gambled that they would also then kick, because that likely would be what the Jets would choose.

But the "mistake" here was that in implementing his coach's desire -- that he wanted to kick -- Slater eliminated his right to choose direction. If Belichick told him "we want to kick," and "we want to defend that goal," then Belichick made a mistake by misunderstanding the rule. He might have thought that by choosing to kick you also get to choose direction, but that would have been wrong. In that case, he needs to give more explicit instructions.

You really need to go through all the options. (1) You lose the toss and your opponent elects to kick. Now you receive and you get to choose direction. (2) You lose the toss and your opponent elects to receive. Now you kick and you get to choose direction. (3) You lose the toss and your opponent chooses direction. Now you need to know if your coach wants to kick or receive. (4) You win the toss and you want to kick. You can either chose direction and hope, or you can choose to kick, and your opponent gets to choose direction. (5) You win the toss and you want to receive. You have to declare receive in this case, and your opponent will get to pick direction. (6) You win the toss and you want direction. (Say, if there is considerable weather.) Now, you must choose direction. Because if you choose kick or receive, whichever you pick your opponent chooses direction.

Numbers 2 and 5 happen 90 percent of the time. The confusion comes in because most people (like Slater today and perhaps like Belichick) equate kicking with getting to pick direction

 

[tims4wins]

If you told me at the beginning of the season that the Pats would be heavily damaged by injuries, but would split with the Jets -- with the loss coming at the sewer in overtime -- i'd have said i'll be fine with that

Moreover if you told me they would be 12-3 through 15 games with a bye secured and only needing a win to secure HFA, and listed out every injury they have had, including having los lt the guys they have for the year, I still think I would have signed up to be in this position. But I could be wrong and we may have reached the tipping point with the O line. My guess is that next week will give us a pretty good indication whether this offense will be good enough to win a title if both DA and JE play. I think I lean toward the O line mattering less when those guys are healthy. Time will tell but I'm overall ok with where they are.

 

[E5 Yaz]

Moreover if you told me they would be 12-3 through 15 games with a bye secured and only needing a win to secure HFA, and listed out every injury they have had, including having los lt the guys they have for the year, I still think I would have signed up to be in this position. But I could be wrong and we may have reached the tipping point with the O line. My guess is that next week will give us a pretty good indication whether this offense will be good enough to win a title if both DA and JE play. I think I lean toward the O line mattering less when those guys are healthy. Time will tell but I'm overall ok with where they are.

Agreed, I don't think the issue is that they lost the game ... just how it went down. When it was 17-6, it just felt like a day that was going to go the other way