I’m on record as saying that football coaches are way too risk-averse, and that they should go for it more often on fourth down, and try for two-point conversions, much more often than they do. And I still say that the Eagles played it exactly right at the end of the game. You’re not playing for points; you’re playing to win. Conservatively running down the clock, in that situation, is how you play to win. And I’d put their odds of winning at much higher than 80% for doing that: Even if they failed to get the FG, they’d still win unless the Patriots could bring in a touchdown in less than a minute, and if teams could do that consistently, then we’d see games with total scores over 200. And if they did get the field goal (as they did), then the only way they lose is if the Patriots bring in that quick touchdown, and make the two-point conversion, and then win overtime.
Well, perhaps… but an incomplete isn’t the only risk. An interception at that point could have been disastrous. Probably better to avoid the risk.
A play-action pass is designed from the beginning to be a pass; the pretend hand-off is all fakery.
A run-pass option (RPO) is when the quarterback doesn’t made the decision about whether to hand it off or keep the ball until after the snap. He reads how the play develops and makes the call at the very last second.
I don’t disagree that it was smart to be conservative, I said as much already. I think it was the right decision. I’m just saying as a spectator on the couch watching it on TV I want to see them go for it again. It’s more fun!
I think head coaches/managers in almost all pro sports are risk averse. They coach to keep their jobs, not to maximize wins. If you go the orthodox route and lose, you will not be criticized one tenth as much as if you go the unorthodox route and lose.
As to whether teams should go for two point conversions more often, I am surprised to report that it is surprisingly hard to find just how often true two point conversions are successful. Some sources report that the success rate of deliberate two point conversion attempts (so discounting busted kick attempts) is better than fifty percent, and one would assume that is certainly true for good offenses. If that is the case, a good offensive team should NEVER kick an extra point early in the game, or for that matter almost ever; it would only make sense late in the game if the shape of the score makes it clear the second point is not worth the risk. it would be especially sensible when playing a poor defensive team.
As it stands, NFL teams remain incredibly unwilling to take two point attempts. Philadelphia, unsurprisingly, led the regular season with… nine. And they scored 53 touchdowns, the most in the NFL, so they weren’t trying very often. Four teams attempted none at all, including the Rams, who were second in touchdowns with 51.
And don’t forget either that the point after kick isn’t a guarantee, either, as amply demonstrated by this very Superbowl.
As for coaches coaching to preserve their jobs, the only criticism that matters is from the owners. Which maybe means that the real risk-aversion is on the owners’ parts. I wonder if we’ll see an owner who decides, Moneyball-style, that he’s going to reward coaches who actually maximize the odds of winning, conventional wisdom be damned?
If there ever is one, they should take a good long look at that HS guy in Arkansas that never punts and always onside kicks. Or at least give him a job consulting.
Sure, it can lead to the occasional series of negative plays, but then again even though they gave up 26 points in a quarter, they still only lost by a touchdown.
Frankly, Brady without Belichick would be a lot worse off I think.
Since Brady became the starter, Belichick is I believe 14-6 without him (plus another half game where Bledsoe came in partway through and ran the game-winning drive). That’s including one game where the third-string QB was playing injured because there was no backup remaining at that point. Reasonably throwing out that game, and giving credit for the Bledsoe win, BB is 15-5 w/oTB, which is pretty good I think for a coach breaking in a new quarterback. (Note: in TB’s first full season as a starter, he went 9-7)
20 games isn’t a particularly compelling sample. If Tom Brady wasn’t instrumental to the Patriots’ success, Belichick would have gotten rid of him long ago and expended the resources on things of more value.
It’s especially unusual to suggest Brady is of lesser importance of day after his team lost the Super Bowl even though he had a great game. They lost because their defense was horrible. That ain’t on Tom Brady.
Much of NE was wondering about this last night, more and more as the game progressed.
Belichick is on record now saying the benching was not disciplinary.
So this was a pivotal game maybe, in which NE confronts the fact that no one is infallible, even the head coach, and on top of that he’s kind of an ass.
And a running play can be fumbled, either from a hit or from the ball intentionally being stripped. If you’re going to say that’s a reason not to throw, you might as well take three knees and kick the FG. :dubious:
I mean, seriously. The point wasn’t to score more points. The point was NOT to HAVE to score more points, by getting at least one first down. All it would have taken was a single first down from the time of the second down play on, and it was game over. Then you take the knee and you’re happy and all, and the Patriots aren’t one heaved pass away from potentially tying up the game (btw, there was blatant illegal contact downfield on that play). A well-designed pass play would have been worth the “risk” of interception, especially given that the Patriots were a) incapable of defending the pass all game and b) keyed to stop a run.
It worked, but I guarantee people would be making these assertions even louder had that Hail Mary connected. :rolleyes:
Quite the opposite. Tom Brady was excellent, and his team still lost, because this one time, his head coach got out-coached. That would indicate that Tom Brady is clearly less important to the overall result than the head coach is. Replace the poor defense with a good defense, and a much less excellent quarterback would have still won for the Patriots.
This seems dubious. We’ve already seen what a better defense and much less excellent quarterback would do against the Eagles: lose hilariously by 31 points.
I was still living in Philly the last time the Eagles won the NFL championship in 1960 (pre-super-bowl). It was a strange season. I am probably mis-remembering somewhat, but my recollection is that they lost the opening game of that season and then won the next 11 (of the 12 game season) all, or nearly all, by less than 7 points. And then the championship game.
Several takeaways:
–It was obviously defensive night off. I believe that there was not a single 3 and out and, as far I can recall, only one punt! That has to a record. Two series ended in turnovers and the rest in scores.
–Ertz had clear possession and control of the ball before he tripped over the defender.
–The previous TD was much more doubtful, IMHO.
–The game contained two more passes to the QB than I have ever seen in my life of watching football (which largely ended a couple decades ago, to be sure).
–The game was remarkably low in penalties.
–Had the Eagles spent the last two minutes with three double reverses, the patriots would have gotten the ball with only 30 seconds left. Had the scored a first down, the game is over then. Also a defender would have had to follow Foles downfield.
–That last hail Mary was a mess; I think both teams were guilty of interference.
–The announcers were blatant Pats fans.
The Patriots were the first team to not punt at all in a Super Bowl. Previously the record was 1.
It’s a dubious record though because any team can choose to not punt. It’s always voluntary. So while it’s kind of impressive, really any team could do that if they wanted to.
It does point to how good the offenses were and how bad the defenses were that they didn’t really need to punt. They weren’t making a bunch of desperate 4th down conversion attempts or anything.
You can’t have one without the other, can you? It was the Eagles that had the lone 3 and out, and only punt as a result of that.
There’s probably PI on every Hail Mary. It’s a jump ball with a crowd of players around it, the refs aren’t throwing the flag there unless it’s something really blatant involving a receiver the ball is very near to.
Collinsworth is a nut hugger for the Stealers and the Patriots, or whomever happens to be pretty good.
Of course, they were still trying to gain yards on their running plays, too, and had the possibility of gaining a first down from them. They’re trying to balance between maximizing the chance of a first down (or any other way they could win) and minimizing the chance of an interception (or any other way they could lose), according to a fairly complicated conditional-odds calculation. The null hypothesis here is that the obviously-skilled professional coach made the right decisions, especially considering that they did in fact win, and while I’m willing to be convinced otherwise, it’d take actual calculations backed up by actual statistics to do it, not just some armchair coulda-shouldas.
In any event, while not passing on the two-minute play might possibly (depending on the numbers that nobody in this thread has produced) have been a mistake, I think we can agree that it was the only mistake in that endgame.
