Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Super Bowl 2012 final: Giants 21, Patriots 17
Boston Globe ^ | 02/05/2012

Posted on 02/05/2012 7:22:13 PM PST by SeekAndFind

INDIANAPOLIS -- On one last Hail Mary try, Tom Brady heaved it up for his two star tight ends in the end zone. Neither Rob Gronkowski or Aaron Hernandez, who both got a hand in the play, could come down with it.

The New York Giants beat the New England Patriots 21-17 in Super Bowl XLVI, the second time the Giants beat the Patriots in the last four years in the NFL's title game.

Giants RB Ahmad Bradshaw scored the go-ahead touchdown with 0:57 left in the game.

(Excerpt) Read more at boston.com ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: New York
KEYWORDS: chat; giants; patriots; sports; superbowl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

1 posted on 02/05/2012 7:22:25 PM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I have NEVER seen that kind of incomplete pass called intentionaL GROUNDING.

nEVER.


2 posted on 02/05/2012 7:24:43 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I was not going to watch it but discovered 3 players from my Alma Mater (Troy University) were starting for the Giants. Osi who always says “University of Troy”, the kicker, Tynes and kickoff returner, Jerrel Jernigan. Jernigan looked so good, I wish they would let him return punts too.


3 posted on 02/05/2012 7:31:09 PM PST by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Newt called it for the Giants yesterday. Now hopefully he can call it for his campaign.
Headline-’Newt Wins in the Fourth Quarter!’


4 posted on 02/05/2012 7:36:39 PM PST by paintriot (Newt 2012 & 2016 Thinking long term!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
You have a point. In 40 years of watching football on TV, I can't remember another incidence like that. Intentional grounding is usually within 10 yards of the line of scrimmage. That was way down the field. If that's illegal, why isn't throwing it out of bounds illegal? The same intent is obvious.

Like the Calvin Johnson "possession" controversy from last year, I think the NFL has too many pointy-heads making up the rules.

The very next week after the Calvin Johnson thing, I watched a highlight reel of a receiver making an almost-identical catch in the end zone. But, he lost control of the ball after he crossed the plane of the sideline, and it was ruled a touchdown.

5 posted on 02/05/2012 7:39:04 PM PST by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: FlyVet
You have a point. In 40 years of watching football on TV, I can't remember another incidence like that. Intentional grounding is usually within 10 yards of the line of scrimmage. That was way down the field. If that's illegal, why isn't throwing it out of bounds illegal? The same intent is obvious.

Throwing throwing the ball out of bounds without a receiver in the area is illegal, and is called when it happens (though NFL quarterbacks are usually smart enough to throw it close enough to a receiver that it's not going to be called very often).

6 posted on 02/05/2012 7:42:50 PM PST by Conscience of a Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FlyVet; dfwgator
The fact that there was no receiver in sight could just as easily have been due to a miscommunication between receiver and quarterback.

There is no way an official could know, unless he was psychic. Or maybe he was thinking “gotta be on the lookout for a safety” and then screwed up because of the Superbowl jitters. Or....Las Vegas?

As John Madden once famously said, “You have to remember, there are three teams on the field."

7 posted on 02/05/2012 7:44:53 PM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: FlyVet

I have never seen that called either but after it was explained, it was a correct call. I also noticed the players picked up on it immediately and began making “safety” symbols with their hands.


8 posted on 02/05/2012 7:47:43 PM PST by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative
Throwing throwing the ball out of bounds without a receiver in the area is illegal,... WHEN the QB is under pressure AND when the QB makes said throw from within the tackle box.

Outside the tackle box, throws can be to nowhere. But inside the tackle box AND under heavy pressure, the call was easy.

Lots and lots of judgments involved - but Brady made this easy. It was grounding ... and it was a bad one.

9 posted on 02/05/2012 7:49:06 PM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin; FlyVet
I think that's a relatively new rule where if you're still in the pocket and there is no eligible receiver within 10yards, it's intentional grounding. My brother in law disagrees with me only because I am female.

Oh, and I made a bet when the Giants were 7-7 that they'd win the Superbowl with said brother in law. I could see a change in their attitude. WooHoo! Now he has to give me his intended Obama contribution!

10 posted on 02/05/2012 7:50:18 PM PST by MacMattico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Conscience of a Conservative

Sure, without a receiver in the area, but when they make that throw “with a receiver in the area”, it’s 10 feet over everybody’s heads. Ain’t nobody catching that, not even Wilt Chamberlain. The intent is obvious.


11 posted on 02/05/2012 7:50:56 PM PST by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
The fact that there was no receiver in sight could just as easily have been due to a miscommunication between receiver and quarterback.

It doesn't matter why there was no receiver in sight. There wasn't one - and Brady was inside the tackle box - and he was under pressure.

Who's to say it would have altered outcome anyway? Psychic refs? he he he

12 posted on 02/05/2012 7:52:50 PM PST by Principled
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
If there's no receiver, the QB's in the pocket, and the QB threw the ball under pressure (but wasn't hit as he threw) they make the call. You can't expect the referee to know what people are thinking.

It's the correct call unlike the interference call they didn't make later in the game. Chris Collinsworth tried to chock it up to seeing the play in "real time" vs. reply. Anyone who can't make that call in real time shouldn't be reffing in the NFL.

13 posted on 02/05/2012 8:07:20 PM PST by hometoroost (Frodo lives!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Principled

Intentional Grounding of Forward Pass

Intentional grounding of a forward pass is a foul: loss of down and 10 yards from previous spot if passer is in the field of play or loss of down at the spot of the foul if it occurs more than 10 yards behind the line or safety if passer is in his own end zone when ball is released.

Intentional grounding will be called when a passer, facing an imminent loss of yardage due to pressure from the defense, throws a forward pass without a realistic chance of completion.

Intentional grounding will not be called when a passer, while out of the pocket and facing an imminent loss of yardage, throws a pass that lands at or beyond the line of scrimmage, even if no offensive player(s) have a realistic chance to catch the ball (including if the ball lands out of bounds over the sideline or end line).


14 posted on 02/05/2012 8:09:18 PM PST by Lmo56 (If ya wanna run with the big dawgs - ya gotta learn to piss in the tall grass ...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: MacMattico
My brother in law disagrees with me only because I am female.

Really?

:=P

15 posted on 02/05/2012 8:12:52 PM PST by FlyVet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: FlyVet

:) Don’t get me started!


16 posted on 02/05/2012 8:31:08 PM PST by MacMattico
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The end of the game was a trial by fire for this long-time Giants fan. Down by two points, with 57 seconds left and 2nd and goal from the six, the right call was to run two plays, make New England use their last time out, and attempt a game-winning field goal that, from that range, is just a glorified extra-point, which has a 99% probability of success.

Bill Belichick, wise coach that he is, was aware of the statistics, and told his defense to lie down and let the Giants score. Tom Coughlin, a bit older than Belichick, but also quite wise, told his team to keep the ball from crossing the goal line, to set up the potentially easy game-winning field goal.

Ahmad Bradshaw, hard-running halfback for the Giants, was aware of the situation, and tried valiantly to stop at the one yard-line, but he was unable to do so. The Giants scored the go-ahead touchdown, but gave the Patriots a real shot to come back with just under a minute to play, and one time out remaining. The fact that a few passes were dropped in the final minute, and a last-ditch hail Mary hit the ground after a few Patriots had a shot at it only proves what Coughlin had told his team beforehand. Don’t score! Had New England managed to come back, it would have been a totally avoidable scenario that had been undone by a player’s failure to heed his coach’s admonition.


17 posted on 02/05/2012 8:40:52 PM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (How bad would an Obama II administration be, without the constraints of re-election?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

YES THE NEW JERSEY GIANTS WON....!!!!

Not a total sucess as Brady still breathing (I’m a JETS FAN)


18 posted on 02/05/2012 8:44:53 PM PST by njslim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: paintriot
Newt called it for the Giants yesterday.

But Vice President Biden called it almost 3 weeks ago.

P

19 posted on 02/05/2012 9:01:16 PM PST by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative

I’m sure he is happy someone is listening to him.


20 posted on 02/05/2012 9:07:18 PM PST by paintriot (Newt 2012 & 2016 Thinking long term!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

I was saying though, you gotta take the points if they are going to give them to you. The field goal is almost automatic but no guarantee like a giant hole and no one trying to tackle you. I would rather put my confidence in the defense than the field goal kicker. Anyway, it worked out for the Giants and they are champs.


21 posted on 02/05/2012 9:53:21 PM PST by taterjay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: taterjay
Especially with Tynes as your kicker.

I don't blame Bradshaw, despite how embarrassing it looked on national TV.

22 posted on 02/05/2012 10:29:58 PM PST by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

Maybe you should pay closer attention then. No one even questioned the call. Including the Pats.


23 posted on 02/05/2012 10:44:12 PM PST by moonhawk (Romney tuck's his tail and licks the hand that beats him. Newt rips it off at the shoulder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

And if you want to cry about calls, how about that non-call on pass interference?


24 posted on 02/05/2012 10:45:10 PM PST by moonhawk (Romney tuck's his tail and licks the hand that beats him. Newt rips it off at the shoulder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

“Ahmad Bradshaw, hard-running halfback for the Giants, was aware of the situation, and tried valiantly to stop at the one yard-line, but he was unable to do so.”

The fact is that Bradshaw had complete control of his body at all times. He very deliberately stopped inches in front of the goal line, pirouetted 180 degrees, then, after much deliberation, he sat down in the end zone for six points.

On his way to the goal line, Bradshaw had a flashback of what happened to Baltimore and their attempt at an “automatic” 3 points in the AFC championship game. This made him realize that scoring a touchdown would leave New England with the necessity to score an answering touchdown within 57 seconds to win the game, whereas if he did it Coughlin’s way Brady could have had about thirty seconds to get his team into position win it with a field goal.

In any case, Ahmad was right and Coughlin was wrong, and Coughlin knew it. One only had to look at the smile on Coach’s face after Brady’s last Hail Mary hit the ground to tell you that. If Bradshaw had done what Coughlin had told him, and New England moved the ball into field goal range and won it with a second left on the clock, and Coughlin would now be trying to sneak out of the country disguised as Madonna.


25 posted on 02/06/2012 12:34:54 AM PST by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: haroldeveryman; TruthShallSetYouFree
Yep. Announcers were waaaaaaay overthinking this.

There's less than 2 min in the game, you're losing, and you have a chance to score. What's there to think about? You put the ball in the endzone, every single time. Too much can go wrong.

And as for the "genius" of Belichick's move...... Probably between the three of us, we've played in what? A zillion football games? HS, College, playground, whatever? When drawing the play up in the dirt, have you ever, EVER, heard the strategy, "OK, First we let the other team score....."

There was at least one other play to run and a 25 yard field goal is not automatic. Plenty can go wrong. Belichick really outsmarted himself, and it says a lot about the Patriots' athleticism that they overcame his "coaching" and actually made it close on the last play.

26 posted on 02/06/2012 5:51:32 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin
I was surprised that Brady's first play from scrimmage was flagged for IG, simply because it's the Super Bowl and in this case, it would result in a safety. But technically, he was still between the tackles and threw the ball far down field without an eligible receiver anywhere in the vicinity, even one that might have fallen down or broken off a route.

All he had to do was throw it to the sideline ten yards away and it simply would have been an incomplete pass.

But errors and poor offensive execution killed the Pats yesterday. A fumble recovery negated for having 12 men on the field. Three dropped passes in a key drive. An offside penalty that extended a Giant drive, eventually resulting in points. Zero points scored by the Pats' offense in the last 26 minutes of the Super Bowl. Those things do catch up to you eventually.

The other thing that caught up to the Patriots was the brilliant passing of Eli Manning, who has now removed any doubt about whether he is an elite quarterback - he is. And his corps of receivers and tight ends are among the best (if not the best) in the business. That catch that Mario Manningham made along the sidelines was just ridiculous. Impossible. Similarly, Victor Cruz went up into tight double coverage and snagged a ball out of the air that Manning had placed where only he could catch it, for a first down.

So while it hurts like hell to be a Patriots fan this morning (and trust me, it really, really does), the Giants deserved to win. They beat six of the best teams in the NFL to get there and that's no small accomplishment.

27 posted on 02/06/2012 6:10:29 AM PST by andy58-in-nh (America does not need to be organized: it needs to be liberated.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: haroldeveryman; taterjay

With all due respect, let’s look at the probabilities here. If Bradshaw stays down at the one yard-line, it will take a few seconds for the play to be blown dead, or until one of the Patriots finally realizes what he’s doing and covers him up. Let’s say 5 seconds for that to occur, after which Belichick calls his last time out, with 52 ticks left.

Now Eli runs a keeper out of the Victory Formation, lining the ball up in the center of the field at the two or three yard line. This play takes about 4 seconds, leaving 48 to go. It is now fourth down. The Giants allow the entire 40-second time clock to run down and attempt to kick what is essentially an extra point, which (with a very high probability—more about that later) clears the uprights with 5 seconds to go.

At that point, the only play left in the Belichick playbook on the kickoff return is the California tuba-player special, multiple laterals until somebody is tackled, fumbles or scores a touchdown.

Okay, back to probabilities. The probability of kicking a 19 yard-field goal from the center of the field (the exact spot from which extra points are attempted) is north of 99% in the NFL. You want to subtract a little due to the pressure of the situation—fine. But it’s the same kick that has to be made when your team trails by 7 late in the game, and then scores a touchdown. The extra point is still made nearly all of the time, pressure or not. As far as the the chances of New England receiving a kickoff and being able to kick a field goal with under ten seconds left when the ball is kicked, and no time outs: again, virtually nil,
like the chances of missing an extra point.

The opposite side of the equation is: What are the chances of Tom Brady being able to engineer a touchdown drive that starts with receiving a kickoff with 57 seconds left, and still owning a timeout? As you saw last night, even with a few drops, the percentages are way more than nil. I’d much rather take my chances on a professional kicker being able to make a (virtual) extra point than giving Brady the ball with just under a minute to go and a timeout in hand. Every time. Coughlin knew it. Bradshaw was told it (hence his hesitation.) He just couldn’t help himself. Had that last Hail Mary been snagged by Gronkowski, Bradshaw would be living with a Bill Buckneresque stigma for the rest of his life.


28 posted on 02/06/2012 6:12:57 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (How bad would an Obama II administration be, without the constraints of re-election?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: wbill
When drawing the play up in the dirt, have you ever, EVER, heard the strategy, "OK, First we let the other team score....."

It's only the correct strategy when the alternative is to allow the other team to attempt a 19-yard go-ahead field goal (basically, an extra point) that will leave you with no time outs and about 5 seconds left on the clock. Is the likelihood of a missed field goal (from 19 yards) greater than the likelihood of Brady engineering a touchdown drive with a minute to play and a timeout in hand?

29 posted on 02/06/2012 6:21:20 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (How bad would an Obama II administration be, without the constraints of re-election?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
I know you should play the percentages, but I still don't trust Tynes enough to put the SB on his foot.

I'm with Gilbride on this one.

30 posted on 02/06/2012 7:12:05 AM PST by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: OddLane

What is the probability of Tynes missing the field goal?
What is the probability of Brady being able to score a touchdown with a timeout in hand and just under a minute to play?

My numbers are under 2% for a missed kick and over 10% for a Brady-led touchdown.

If you think that the probability of a missed kick is greater than the probability of a subsequent New England touchdown, then Bradshaw scoring is the right call. You’d have to really tweak the numbers to get there though.


31 posted on 02/06/2012 7:21:34 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (How bad would an Obama II administration be, without the constraints of re-election?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: moonhawk
It was interference IMO. It was at that point that I turned to my son and said "Man, I hate to see games decided by bad officiating."
32 posted on 02/06/2012 8:23:22 AM PST by BenLurkin (This is not a statement of fact. It is either opinion or satire; or both)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
I'm sure that this is a hotly debated topic in Boston this morning. :-)

My take? It's 2nd and goal on the 8, when they let Bradshaw walk in. There's still a whole lot that can go wrong in 2 plays, from botched snaps to fumbles to blocked kicks, to penalties, to botched clock handling, to just "the kicker shanking it wide right", and on and on and on.

Is a 25-yard FG a "gimme"? Probably. But, I'll take "Probably" over "A Certain TD, then drive the length of the field in less than a minute", every single time.

Annnnnnd......IMHO, the Pats possibly would have gotten within FG range in 20-25 sec. The 20-yard out plays that they were running on the last drive were working pretty well. Might have been a 60+ yd FG, but that's no less uncertain than a Hail Mary.

What the heck, it doesn't really matter, I'm a Panthers fan anyway. LOL! Got a little more payback for what? 8 years ago? With Vinateri and his magic right foot....

33 posted on 02/06/2012 8:23:22 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: wbill
Is a 25-yard FG a "gimme"? Probably. But, I'll take "Probably" over "A Certain TD, then drive the length of the field in less than a minute", every single time.

Annnnnnd......IMHO, the Pats possibly would have gotten within FG range in 20-25 sec.

There would not have been 20-25 seconds left. More like 5. (See my earlier post.)

So, what it boils down to is this:

You trust your field goal kicker to kick a glorified extra point with under 10 seconds to go in the Super Bowl. or

You trust your defense to stop Tom Brady from engineering a touchdown drive with just under a minute to go and a timeout in hand.

And you would take the first option every time?

34 posted on 02/06/2012 8:38:33 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (How bad would an Obama II administration be, without the constraints of re-election?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree; wbill
You trust your field goal kicker to kick a glorified extra point with under 10 seconds to go in the Super Bowl. or

You trust your defense to stop Tom Brady from engineering a touchdown drive with just under a minute to go and a timeout in hand.

And you would take the first option every time?

I 'm sorry--I should have said I would take the first option every time.

35 posted on 02/06/2012 8:44:38 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (How bad would an Obama II administration be, without the constraints of re-election?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

If Bradshaw could have gotten a first down without scoring, then it would have made sense to stop short of the goal line, since the Giants could basically run down the clock from there.

I believe it would have been third down, and New England would have taken a timeout, so that guaranteed that no matter what, they still would have gotten the ball back with at least 30 seconds left, so at the point, he might as well have scored.


36 posted on 02/06/2012 8:44:44 AM PST by dfwgator (Don't wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
:-)

Good Analysis on the 5 seconds or so left. I figured about 20, at the time. Might have been off.

I think that the decision is Belicheck saying "I trust Tom Brady to make a big play more than my defense". I guess what I'm debating is *his decision*, not Bradshaw's decision to score. IMHO, if I'm Bradshaw, and it's the 4th quarter, and my team is losing, and I have a chance to score..... then I put the ball in the end zone, every single time. Nothing to debate. Otherwise, the Giants are one botched snap away from "What the hell was Bradshaw thinking, not scoring the TD when he had the chance?"

Man, this is going to be rehashed a million times between now and August. LOL!!

37 posted on 02/06/2012 8:54:58 AM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Correct--it would have been third down. The Giants would run another play, placing the ball in the middle of the field. Then, with no more New England timeouts left, they could have let the full 40 seconds of the play clock run down before attempting the go-ahead field goal. See my timeline here. New England would have about 5 seconds on the clock when they received the kickoff. And no timeouts.
38 posted on 02/06/2012 12:16:26 PM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (How bad would an Obama II administration be, without the constraints of re-election?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: wbill
IMHO, if I'm Bradshaw, and it's the 4th quarter, and my team is losing, and I have a chance to score..... then I put the ball in the end zone, every single time. Nothing to debate. Otherwise, the Giants are one botched snap away from "What the hell was Bradshaw thinking, not scoring the TD when he had the chance?"

Look, there are no guarantees, only probabilities. There is a chance of a bad snap, a muffed hold, a blocked attempt, or even an outright shank by the kicker. But all these possibilities combined still give the kicker a 98-99% chance of success for a kick from what is essentially the extra-point distance.

So, if you're Bill Belichick, and you don't allow the Giants to walk into the end zone unchallenged, you are left with 1 or 2 chances out of a hundred of winning the game.

If you allow your quarterback to get the ball with just under a minute to play and one timeout, you are still in a fairly desperate situation, needing a touchdown to win, but I think it's a lot better than one or two per cent. I don't know what the percentages are for Hall of Fame caliber quarterbacks engineering a touchdown drive under those circumstances, but they would seem to be a lot better than one or two percent. You talk about a botched snap. What about defensive pass interference, which is far more likely? A team could easily pick up 30 or 40 yards like that, with time stopped on the field. Geez, Brady managed to get a Hail Mary all the way into the end zone, with some tall receivers there to outjump the defenders or catch a rebound.

I've been a Giants fan since I was 8 years old (which takes us back to 1956) and I was mortified when Bradshaw scored, instead of milking the clock and trying the field goal with virtually no time left. Nothing that happened in the last 57 seconds did anything to persuade me otherwise.

39 posted on 02/06/2012 12:36:34 PM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (How bad would an Obama II administration be, without the constraints of re-election?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
there are no guarantees

Sure there are. Bradshaw was guaranteed a touchdown. The Giants were guaranteed a 4-or-more point lead, with less than a minute to go. That's where I would want to be - firmly in the driver's seat - rather than 2 points down and waiting for a chip shot FG with time expiring.

Now, if the score would have been closer and the Pats can tie or win with a FG....then that's a little different. Running the clock out to nothing makes some sense.

OR, if Gronkowski is at something closer to 100%, he's a difference-maker on the Pats offense. Again, I might sit on the ball.

But we've been hashing this out all day. Bradshaw had a second or two to make his decision. The coaches had maybe a handful of seconds more? Tough call to make.

I missed all of the postgame wrapup. Are the talking heads on ESPN, etc etc having as good a debate as this? :-)

40 posted on 02/06/2012 1:55:52 PM PST by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: wbill
OR, if Gronkowski is at something closer to 100%, he's a difference-maker on the Pats offense.

Gronkowski was in the best position to catch the tip on the last play of the game....if he was 100%, he might have been able to dive and make the catch.

41 posted on 02/06/2012 1:58:29 PM PST by dfwgator (Don't wake up in a roadside ditch. Get rid of Romney.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Who won?


42 posted on 02/06/2012 2:02:33 PM PST by Revolting cat! (Let us prey!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: wbill; TruthShallSetYouFree; taterjay

“There was at least one other play to run and a 25 yard field goal is not automatic. Plenty can go wrong. “

My sentiments exactly. Must be the conservatism in me. .
The “fieldgoal alternative” assumes getting the clock down to at most, 17 seconds, while hustling the field goal team onto the field and the right players off with no confusion, with the referee saying when the play clock starts.

Among other things, there is an elevated chance of an miscue on the snap from center. Even though the game was well played by both teams (no turnovers that I can remember), there were penalties against both teams for having 12 players on the field earlier in the game.

When you have championship quality players (or high quality people in any business for that matter) it’s a good idea not to overcoach. In the end, with the Pats needing a touchdown, the best thing that Beliceck’s micromanaging could produce was a predictable 50 yard Hail Mary.


43 posted on 02/06/2012 2:30:23 PM PST by haroldeveryman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: BenLurkin

“Man, I hate to see games decided by bad officiating.”

And with that, I’m sure we can all agree....


44 posted on 02/06/2012 3:07:21 PM PST by moonhawk (Romney tuck's his tail and licks the hand that beats him. Newt rips it off at the shoulder.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]


Click the Flames

Your Conservative Source of News and Information

Abolish FReepathons
Donate Monthly

Sponsors will contribute $10
For each new monthly sign-up!

45 posted on 02/06/2012 3:45:32 PM PST by TheOldLady (FReepmail me to get ON or OFF the ZOT LIGHTNING ping list)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
Tynes almost missed the two field goals-both under forty yards-so missing the chip shot was not out of the realm of possibility.

He is last on the depth chart when I'm looking for a Giants player to seal a game.

46 posted on 02/07/2012 6:29:54 AM PST by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: OddLane; wbill; haroldeveryman; taterjay
You have all made references to what could go wrong if the Giants milk the clock and attempt the field goal. But you have avoided the analysis of what could go wrong by giving Brady the ball with a minute to play and a timeout in hand. Merely saying that Tynes might miss or there might be a bad snap or they could fumble on the next play are all true. But what about the other side of the equation?

An article in Slate analyzes the probabilities of each strategy. The probability of the Giants' winning by killing the clock and attempting the field goal is calculated at 98%. The probability of the Giants' winning by scoring the uncontested touchdown and giving the Patriots a minute and a timeout to answer with a touchdown was computed at 88%. In other words, milking the clock gave the Pats a 2% chance of winning, while letting the Giants score gave them a 12% chance. That's a six times greater probability of New England winning the game. Here's the link.

47 posted on 02/07/2012 6:54:53 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (How bad would an Obama II administration be, without the constraints of re-election?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree

All that is stupid in light of the fact that Brady had an entire game to score more than 17 points and couldn’t do it, so the liklihood of his team scoring 7 more in 58 seconds was not good. Folks should ignore crap like you’re trying to float because it does not take into the calculus the history of the game up to the 58 seconds. Defenses win super bowls. The Ginats’ defense won the game by shutting Brady and company down for only 17 points. How many points per game did the Pats avergae the whole year? ... But not against Piere-Paul & co. defenses!


48 posted on 02/07/2012 7:00:31 AM PST by MHGinTN (Being deceived can be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Brady did set a Super Bowl record by completing 16 passes in a row. In this game. Yes, the Giants’ defense held him down. But we are not comparing things in a vacuum. We are comparing the Giants defense ability to stop the Pats with a minute to go and one timeout to the ability of Lawrence Tynes to kick an extra point. Is the probability of making that field goal under 98%? Is the probability of stopping the Patriots from answering with a touchdown greater than 98%? How is “what I am floating—crap?” Unless you can quantify how your preferred strategy is superior to Belichick’s, you are merely using anecdotal evidence to support what is a question of probability.


49 posted on 02/07/2012 7:11:03 AM PST by TruthShallSetYouFree (How bad would an Obama II administration be, without the constraints of re-election?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: TruthShallSetYouFree
Again, this sabermetrics fixation is great if you're plotting out the championship in a Fantasy Football League, but it doesn't take into account the reality of actual players.

Without any sort of context, taking a knee and getting tackled at the two makes sense.

If your kicker is David Akers, perhaps it would be foolish to try to score a touchdown.

But to pass up a guaranteed six points-when you're behind with less than a minute to go-in favor of a field goal attempt by a spotty kicker who almost missed two field goals under forty yards earlier in the game is absolute madness, Brady or no Brady.

50 posted on 02/07/2012 8:10:26 AM PST by OddLane (If Lionel Hutz and Guy Smiley had a lovechild together, his name would be "Mitt Romney." -KAJ)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-52 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson