Heh, a friend has Brady, Moss and T.O. And he’s in second place! Sheesh.
I call bullshit on this. I’ve seen a bunch of blowouts that didn’t involve the Patriots, and when it gets to garbage time, the winning team NEVER kicks a field goal. Never ever ever. That’s probably why you’ve never heard criticism of it, because it’s just not done.
If the Pats did it, they would be castigated.
Exactly what is your definition of “garbage time”? That is, what combination of points difference and time remaining do you consider the benchmark for making a field goal “just not done”?
Do you think a points difference of more than 3 touchdowns (22+ points) and ten minutes left in the 4th quarter to be a reasonable mark?
Here’s a few games, just from the past two years, where teams have kicked field goals in such situations. The stats are listed in the following way:
Date
Winning Team
Losing Team
Score (Points Difference) [before the final field goal]
Time remaining [when final field goal taken]
9/9/2007
Pittsburgh
Cleveland
31-7 (24)
7:12
9/17/2006
Chicago
Detroit
31-7 (24)
10:03
11/26/2006
Baltimore
Pittsburgh
24-0 (24)
4:15
11/23/2006
Dallas
Tampa Bay
35-10 (25)
10:00
10/1/2006
Chicago
Seattle
34-6 (28)
7:43
10/8/2006
Jacksonville
New York Jets
38-0 (38)
2:42
Would you place any of those games in the “just not done” category?
More than three touchdowns is 25 points, not 22. (Says the guy who saw the Miracle at Midnight in person, screaming his lungs out until the final play in overtime, and who also watched with disgust as the 49ers overcame a 24 point deficit against the Giants in the 2002 Wildcard round.) And 10 minutes left is a ton of time. So filtering those out of your list, we’re left with:
10/1/2006
Chicago
Seattle
34-6 (28)
7:43
10/8/2006
Jacksonville
New York Jets
38-0 (38)
2:42
I remember that Jags game. They were total douchebags, and the announcers even commented to that effect when they lined up to kick the final field goal. Total bush league move. The Jags wanted to make a statement with that game, but that doesn’t excuse that last kick.
I did not see the Seahawks-Bears game, so I cannot comment on the circumstances, though it looks like there was still quite a bit of time left. Maybe Omni can offer further insight.
Well, it’s called the “Miracle at Midnight” for a reason—because stuff like that almost never happens.
Also, your reference to those two miracle games, after asserting that “more than three touchdowns is 25 points,” seems to imply that those miracle games are evidence that a team can score 24 points with three touchdowns. But in neither of those games did the winning team manage three two-point conversions.
In the Jets-Dolphins, not a single two-point attempt was successful. The Jets tried it once, but missed. And while the 49ers went for three two-point attempts, they were only successful with 2 of them.
While overcoming a 24-point deficit with three touchdowns is theoretically possible, it’s so unlikely that i think it’s stretching your argument to breaking point to say simply that “more than three touchdowns is 25 points.” According to this page, a team has only scored more than 2 two-point conversions in a single game three times in the whole history of the NFL. Also, of the examples i gave in my previous post, the lowest differential was 24 points, so even three touchdowns, each with a two-point conversion, would have done no better than tie the game.
So you can dismiss those 24-point differences if you like, but in any realistic universe, the trailing team would have needed to score 4 times to win with ten minutes or less to go. And in the Ravens-Steelers game the time remaining was a little over 4 minutes. I’d call that “garbage time.” Also, i don’t know why you dismiss the 25-point difference, because even if the trailing team succeeded with three eight-point touchdowns in a row (extreeeeeeeeemely unlikely), they’d still be trailing.
It’s a ton of time if you need two scores. Hell, it might be a fair bit of time if you need three. But a “ton of time” for four scores? That’s a bit of an exaggeration, don’t you think?
But the question is not whether is was a “bush league” move, or what Omni has to say about the Bears game.
I was responding to a post in which you said that:
Well, i’ve found at least two candidates (and, i think, probably more) just within the last two years. And going back another season gives even more, like the September 18, 2005 game in which the Cincinatti Bengals kicked a field goal against the Minnesota Vikings with 5:41 to go and a 34-0 lead. Or the December 11 game that same year when, with 5:15 left, the Seahawks kicked a 52-yard (!!!) field goal while holding a 38-3 lead.
You seemed to be arguing that not kicking a field goal in “garbage time” is just one of those unwritten rules of the league, one that is so sacrosanct that it’s never ever ever broken. It seems to me that it’s not quite as unusual as all that.
I don’t get it. You’re on the 22 yard line, it’s 4th and 5 (the Jets-Jags situation), what do you do but kick a FG?
Go for it? Talk about running up the score… now you’re trying to score another touchdown and REALLY stick it to them.
Punt? From the 22?
Take a knee?
I don’t see how these other options are less insulting to the opponent than a FG. You take your 3 points, and give them the ball back. Anybody complaining about a FG running up the score is just not operating in the same reality as me. For a team that’s rolling over the opponent, a short to medium length FG is an admission that you stopped them, and they’ll give you the ball back, not an opportunity to embarrass you.
You deny someone that FG, you leave “conservative strategy” behind and start entering DtC’s territory where you’re asking the players to stop playing. Even if they’re second and third stringers, your players are putting their bodies on the line, hitting and getting hit, risking injury to move that ball, and you insult THEM by laying down during a scoring opportunity?
Conceded.
You go for it. That gives the defense a chance to stop you for 0 points. If I were as motivated as mhendo, I’m sure I could come up with plenty of examples of teams doing this.
What would be really interesting is if somebody were motivated enough to enumerate all examples of both kicking the FG and going for a 1st during garbage time in the past two years or so and see which is more common.
Well, i didn’t do an exact count while i was looking around last night, but based on the blowout games i examined while looking for field goal attempts, i’d say it’s likely that teams “go for it” more often than they kick a field goal.
Obviously, i didn’t do a play-by-play examination of every game, but there were far more blowout games where the winning team scored only touchdowns in the last quarter. While i found enough field goals to call into question your claim that it never happens, i do agree with you that kicking a field goal in garbage time seems considerably less common than going for the touchdown.
Of course, to confirm that properly, one would have to go back to the play-by-play stats, because it’s possible that, in instances where teams scored touchdowns, they got first-downs all the time and scored touchdowns without ever facing a fourth-down decision.
And even i’m not that motivated at the moment. Maybe tonight, when i’ve got some spare time.
You know what - you’re right. Kicking the FG is seen as tacking on points, and going for it on fourth down (provided you don’t run a trick play or something) is seen as the sporting thing to do because it gives the other team a chance to get a stop.
I do also remember the Colts throwing more often than necessary a few years back just to give Manning a shot at the TD pass record.
Well, there was this Cowboys-Packers game, where the Cowboys opted to let their kicker kick a 7th, record tying, field goal with 24 seconds left. The final score 21-6.
IMO, kicking a field goal while up 30 points or so is more “running up the score” than going for it on 4th down. Running a play gives the opponent a chance to stop you and receive the ball on downs. A chip shot FG is pretty much a gimme.
If you go up by 30 in the 3rd quarter, what are you supposed to do for the rest of the game? Take a knee for 4 downs every time you get the ball for the rest of the game???
Screw that. Play the game. Sure, you don;t have to bring out the flea-flickers and double reverses, but straightforward runs and passes? Hell, that’s just football!
(No, I am not a Pats fan. I don’t follow the AFC at all).
And Kenneth Davis, Thurman Thomas was out. Andre Reed was definitely playing, though. I was at that game, whined about the score, and was taken home at halftime by one of my uncles. He still hasn’t let me forget it.
I was a full grown man whining about the score before halftime at the Miracle at Midnight. Luckily, I had brought a die-hard Jets fan with me. (I’m a Giants fan.) He convinced me to use our Madden (at the time it was Dynamix, actually) scoring rules; play it out until there’s a 25+ point lead. The Jets biggest deficit that night was 23. I am eternally grateful to him for making me stay; that was one of the greatest experiences of my life.
Plus it emptied out around the time I started whining, so we were able to move down from the top of the nosebleed section to the bottom of the mezzanine on the side of the field the Jets were attacking for the entire fourth quarter. Greatest free seat upgrade ever.
I think the Patriots feel they have to do this because of the cheating scandal. They are chasing history and not just a final score. Any Superbowl they win (and have won) will allow some A-hole on TV or a MB to say “yeah but they were cheaters/its tainted” Which is to some extent is really unarguable.
So how are they going to say this was a special/dynastic type team? They are going to say we beat everyone by 40 points.
I think there were other teams that might have done something similar to this - perhaps the 80’s 49ers, the 80’s Redskins or early 00 Rams - they all could have run up the score at times like the Pats are now - but they didn’t. Why? Because for them it was “just” about winning a Championship and they needed to make sure their key players stayed healthy for the stretch run. The Patriots aren’t just about that this year - they are justifying their entire recent history.
From the Detroit Free Press, following a rout of the Lions by the Vikings in which the Vikings used a fake field goal to pick up a first down while leading by 32 points, and later had a halfback throw a pass that was dropped in the end-zone.
Nice to see there are still cough *men * coaching in the NFL.
The biggest deficit ever overcome was 32 points. The Bills came back to beat the then-Oilers.
I think Greg Easterbrook, who used to write for NFL.com, had it right: Once you’ve reached that threshold of 32 points in the lead, it’s time to take your foot off the gas. The football gods will frown upon you and smite your runningbacks with turftoe.
I don’t know about the 80’s Redskins, but the 80’s 49ers and early 00 Rams absolutely ran up the score, much like the Patriots are doing this year.
Easterbrook writes the same sort of stuff for espn.com now, in case you’re interested. I highly recommend him.
*Why, God? *
I think that’s exactly it. The Patriots want to make sure there is no doubt in anyone’s mind that their cheating was not the sole reason they’ve been winning. Imagine if the Patriots had lost in Week 2 - there would have been no end to the criticism. Even until they played the Colts, there was still grumbling about how the Patriots couldn’t beat good teams (I forgot why the Cowboys didn’t count, but I assure you it was out there). I can understand - although I don’t agree with - the decision to give the big “fuck you” to the rest of the league.
At this point in the season, however, a second reason emerges: history. A team with such great chances to finish unbeaten and smash certain records should go for it.