that play call and feeley pass is one for the ages and just further confirmation that football coaches are the stupidest people on earth. you've got 4:30 left, the clock is moving, you've got 2nd and 3 and you're in field goal range to tie the game and you go for the touchdown? excuse me? so at best, you were hoping to take the lead and give the pats the ball back with 4:30 to go. at worst, you get picked off. brilliant call. isn't the friggin' obvious choice the run (after i believe they just ran it for 7?). you run it, if you get the 1st down the clock keeps moving, which you need, and you knock another couple minutes off. if you don't get it by 3+ yards, then try a pass, if you almost get it, you try running it again and keep the clock moving and maybe get a 1st down and roll it down to possibly under 2 minutes with still an easy field goal always in your back pocket. if you get real lucky, you get the 1st, then another one and try to get your TD with very little time left. you screw up and you kick a fg to tie with 2:30 left or so. this seems damn easy. oh and feeley should just feel ridiculous. you go for a pump fake, the guy doesn't buy it, you stupidly ignore it and decide to throw on asante samuel anyway, and then you overthrow your receiver by a good 5 yards and hit samuel in stride so that the WR has no chance to knock it down. one of the worst play call/execution combos in a big situation i can ever remember when the choice was seemingly already made for you. edit: holy crap, and collinsworth now just makes the exact points i just made, especially leaving 4 minutes for brady and not running clock.
exactly! i know they love to blitz but they left gaffney completely uncovered! what was the plan there? lets hope brady misses the slot receiver even though he's hit the slot receiver about 14 times tonight? just amazing.
Keep in mind it was some pretty smart play calling and sharp passes that got the Eagles that close. Looking back it seems obvious it was a bad call but Reid and Feeley must've seen something there they could exploit. While the worst case scenario happened they must've felt they had a good shot to catch the Pats napping. Anyway this game just again proves that great teams get it done when it counts as compared to mediocre teams and right now the Pats are great and the Eagles mediocre..
It was a horrible call to go for the TD at that point. Run the ball with Westbrook, maybe a screen pass, but move the chains and keep the clock moving. Andy Reid had a brain fart. DD
I can't blame Reid at all. Disguised blitzing is the only way to play the Pats. Let Brady be comfortable and he will kill you. Phily was going a good job and Brady had been converting on 3rd downs less often when blitzed than not in that game. They got in position to win the game by scoring touchdowns and being aggressive. They had to try to get that last TD, and not worry about the clock. Get that TD and see if your defense can stop them, Phily had some success stopping the Pats--they had to like their chances if they got that TD. You can't fault the game plan when a pro quarterback doesn't execute the play. Feeley missing a wide open Curtis and that last INT were just terrible plays on his part that cost his team dearly. Can't fault the coach for lack of execution--it is the QB's job to make the proper read. Reid/Johnson had a great game plan and had a chance to win as a two TD dog in there place--nothing more you can ask. At least more chinks have been exposed in the Patriots team by the Phily and Indy defensive game plans. It will not be a slam dunk for the Pats to win the Superbowl unless they some consistency in their run game.
i didn't understand that either, the Eagles HAD that game if they miked Westbrook on that drive. there was way too much time on the clock to go for the endzone.
I am sure there were multiple routes on that play, I am sure the staff didn't say run the pump and go and nothing else. The Iggles had a great gameplan, and almost won with a career back-up. I think some of the only people dimmer than football coaches are football fans (not necc you guys). I'll give you examples of coaches not being smart people... -When you are in an offense dominated game when down by 14 in the 4th quarter and getting the 1st touchdown, and not going for 2. Assuming you get both TDs (which you need anyway or you lose) this gives you about a 50% chance to be up 1 (make the 2 pointer on the 1st try, than kick the EP on the second), 25% chance to be even (miss the 1st 2 point, make the second) and 25% chance to be down one (miss on both). Any person with any logic has to like their odds. and an even worse fallacy by college football coaches..... -When you are down by 15 late, and get the 1st TD, not going for 2 on the 1st TD. The dumbass football commentator logic is that "wait and go for it on the second TD", because then you only need "1 score" the rest of the way. Hello, you need the 2 point one way or the other, the odds don't help (or at leats not very much) waiting for the 2nd TD. At least if you go for it and miss on the 1st TD, you know the clock situation and how to manage the rest of the game, where in most the latter situations I see teams wait to go for 2, often don't make it, and have used up all the clock/no chance left by not realizing the very real possibility of not making that last 2 pointer. Now I'll give you a really smart coaching decision. The Boise guy going for 2 last Fiesta Bowl. It was very clear his defense was worn out and couldn't stop basic OU run plays. At best if he keeps on playing they win 30 or 40%. But he had a great 2 point play in the bag, got to figure at worst a 50% chance it succeeds, maybe 60%. Basical ballsey and smart call there because he applied real world logic instead of dumb football coaching conventional wisdom. These are examples of smart/dumb coaching--all we saw last night was judgement calls and for the most part those judgement calls kept a massive underdog right there.
My assessment the small things: New England 1) pass interference on Moss in the end zone on a sure TD 2) Welker dropping a pass on 3rd on goal. 3) Missed field goal. 4) Tom Brady clutch late in the 4th quarter. Eagles 1) Attacked the middle of the field on offense to expose Patriot defense 2) Well timed disguised blitz bring pressure to Brady 3) Testing Asante Samuel on the outside. 4) clock mismanagement at the end of the game. In all I think Philly deserves credit for coming in and playing great. However New England shows once again how resilient they are as a teams. They win the shootouts or grind it out like they did in Indy. Can someone beat New England? Yes the Colts and Eagle showed how to contain Brady but that is very difficult tak to do especially in the 4th quarter when Brady usually shines. Will someone beat New England? No, well someone might beat them late in the season and end the 16-0 thing but when all the marbles on are the line in the post season, New England is too good to fall at home with 2 or more weeks to prepare for Bill Billicheck.
True. This is a game that the Pats should have lost, yet they came out on top (if only just barely). That's a sign of a great team: to pull out a win, even on your "off" night. I think this might have been the last chance for someone to beat the Pats this year. They lived through their "trap" game. They'll be ready for whatever comes their way next week. 17-0.
I think this is my biggest pet peeve in football. I've never understood waiting on the 2pt-er. Nothing good can come out it.
"You speak the truth, this tough Alabama win just means were are more unbeatable down the lined", -Les Miles, Nov 4, 2007.
OK, many of you know that I am probably the biggest Eagle fan on the board but what I do not get is why does the media keep portraying the Eagles in a positive light? They lost. I mean they probably did the best out of any team that played the Patriots so far but they still lost.
you could fail the conversion and your chances to win the game could go down big-time(when it's the difference between a 1 score or 2 score game).
If you're going to fail it now, you're going to fail it later. Except if you fail it now, at least you know it's going to be a two possession game and can plan for that, instead of getting to the end of the game and then missing the two point conversion and not having the time to do anything about it. You'll never be a in a worse situation going for it now rather than later, unless you believe the outcome would be different running the same play later on for some reason.
I think its ok, that you are not going for 2 in the first TD, Because if you fail the conversation, you would be down 9 points, and have to score two more times, and probably you dont have enough time to do that. and if you kick the extra point in the first TD, you only have to score one more time.
David_rocket and Storm Surge, you should really should check Major's logic, it is right on. Down 15 you need two TDs and one conversion to tie (and of course a stop or an onside kick recovery). Waiting for the 2 point doesn't increase your chance to convert it, and on the downside you probably manage the game with the assumption you do get that conversion at the end, where if you failed it earlier at least you could manage the game that way. No way around it, it is faulty reasoning and a lack of a understanding very basic probabilities (hurts your odds of winning the game) to wait for the 2 point try in almost all 4th quarter situations. Not that you guys are alone, a lot of coaches pretty smart in lots of ways--it ain't easy being a D1 football coach, just don't grasp this. The only exception might be if the 1st of two scores was with less than say 100 seconds left, where game management is completely irrelevant (already in the mode of basically needing to recover an onside kick and a quick 2nd score).
I don't think I agree that it's not easier to get the 2 points the second time. You would have more momentum and confidence; the other defense would be more fatigued and maybe be second-guessing themselves. If you miss the first 2-pt conversion, the game is basically over and the other team can relax a little - if you extend the game the opponent could tense up and be more mistake-prone.
Or, since you're down a lot now, the other defense could be more relaxed, whereas on a game-tying 2pter, the defense could be more focused and know that despite giving up 13 pts late, all they need is one play to end the game. I think the psychological part of it could go both ways. If you do believe it to be the way you suggest, then yeah, that's the exception that would justify going for two late. But I think any possible psychological advantage is more than overridden by the fact that you don't give yourself the option to manage the game differently. I also have issue when you're down by 22 with not going for 2 on the first one. If you make it, you're back on track. If you miss it, you can go for 2 the next two times. If you go for 1 and then 1 again, you have to make that last one. This came up a few games ago where they went for 1, 1, and then missed the 2 and lost.
I agree. The psychological advantage cuts both ways. Personally I think it is harder to make 2 when you know if you don't the game is over. Then again there is something to be said for tired defenses and momentum. Regardless, the whole, "you only need 1 score to make up if you kick the EX on the first try" is just faulty logic. After the 1st score you need 2 scores, one TD and one conversion. Postponing the conversion try doesn't improve your chances of making it AND you are giving up earlier knowledge about whether you will need an extra score (earlier failed attempt versus later failed attempt). The above is an obvious bonehead move. Assuming the 3 TDs in response to a 22 point deficit, if you only go for 2 at the end you are only 50/50 (or 45/55 against). Going for 2 on score 1, and then if necc going for it the next two scores, gets you like 66/33 for. I still think more coaches down by 14 should go for 2 on the first score--particularly in an offense driven game. Gets you like a 50% chance to win (make the first 2, kick on the second), 25% chance to tie (miss try one, make try two), 25% chance to lose (miss two tries for 2). In a toss up situation of offensive minded teams, this is great odds.
