If you don't think you O can drive 80 yards to end the game, and you believe the D can get a stop, whether it's 3 and out or at the 40 yard line, a 40 or 50 yard drive for a game ending fg may seem like better option. The Pats took the ball in OT vs Denver, lost 5 yards on a 3 and out. Gave Denver a short field and lost. The only TD drive the Pats could muster Sunday, included 2 unlikely 4th down conversions that you don't attempt in a tied ot game.
https://m.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/2h30h8/statistical_look_at_the_new_ot_rules/ This was done a year ago, but the stats heavily dispute your position. Of the 42 OT games up to this point, only 8 were won by the team receiving it first - a 20% chance. That means, obviously, the team kicking the ball has an 80% chance of getting the ball back, so the Jets were getting the ball in OT statistically only needing a FG at that point even if the Pats receive. Granted, teams who receive the ball first generally win the games eventually on a FG, but if NE's offense is so vaunted because they have Brady and Gronk, and statistically the Jets are unlikely to score a TD, then there is no reason to believe the Pats won't score at least s FG on their first possession and buck that trend. What is more likely, the Jets outperform the statistics and score a TD or the Pats outperform the statistics and get a FG? Anecdotally your position is less valid nevertheless statistically.
The number of people coming the BB's defense on this one is astounding. Anyone else, and they'd be calling him a fricken moron, but not Bill the Genius Cheating SOB. You won the toss. You're on the road. You have a HOF QB. Take the ball and and at least flip field position. Don't overthink this. Dumbass got what he deserved. It was a stupid decision and he should get reamed for it.
They played conservative before the half, at the end of regulation and "kicked off" in Ot. The fact that Fitz and the boys drove down their throats and scored a TD to win makes it even sweeter. Fuck BB and that scum organization.
That's kind of my thinking, New England beat Pittsburgh easily the 1st meeting, both games wth the Jets they trailed in the 4th quarter. The scoreboard doesn't show it but the Jets were much better on Sunday.
http://www.usnews.com/news/sports/articles/2015-12-27/teams-are-6-7-when-choosing-ot-kickoff Except for the fact that this is the first time a team that has elected to kick instead of receive has actually lost the game under the new rules. Granted there have only been three total times it has happened but the first two times the team that chose to kick has won the game, so your reasoning has no empirical support to validate why it is a bad decision. All the statistics show that there was no significant reason for the Pats to be concerned. But let's ignore facts.
My point is that there is a double standard that bows down to BB as some sort of mastermind, when in fact, he is just a coach who got burned cutting against the conventional wisdom. If Todd Bowles makes that decision and the result is the same, regardless of the "facts", he would get second-guessed, ridiculed, and trashed on by everyone with an opinion. When BB takes that same risk and it backfires, many of those same pundits come rushing to his defense to portray it as some type of genius move. That is a double standard. Fuck that - Without a HOF QB and cheating, BB is a JAC (just another coach).
Not true Jetblue! the numbers you gave us earlier aren't from 2015. In 2015 nearly every OT game this season is being won by the team who receives first this year by the way- look it up. also, while its true that for the most part teams have a 20% chance of scoring a TD on any given drive (by the way- somehow this is supposed back up Belichick's decision? as if knowingly giving yourself a 1 in 5 chance of losing the game, instead of taking that 1 in5 chance ON PURPOSE is a good decision???).. it doesn't mean that the team who gets the ball second is in any better shape because of it, in fact, they aren't! If you just look at when teams win the game in OT, 1st possession vs. 2nd possession, Its a virtual toss up, something like 30% each way, very slight edge to the team receiving the ball first. so basically he threw away his own 1 in 5 chance at winning the football game to give the Jets a 1 in 5 chance, for the chance to win slightly less anyway. ---------------- also consider this: -Since the advent of the new rules. Teams receive the ball second after giving up a FG in OT lose the game 85% of the time. So basically if you give up ANY points in that first drive you are most likely losing the football game (100% chance if its a TD, 85% chance if its a FG). Now the Jets in 2015 score points on 36% of their offensive drives (12th in the league) So you have to look at it that way- they had a 36% chance of most likely losing the game just by kicking to the Jets. But its actually more dumb than that when you consider how good the Patriots offense is!! The Patriots are tops in the league at scoring points on 45% of their drives! so basically Belichick just threw away a 45% chance at most likely winning the game to give the Jets a 36% chance..... for field position...... so I personally think its a horrendous decision. You can disagree but you cannot say there "is no statistics to show they should've been concerned" http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/team-scoring-drive-efficiency-statistics/2015/
The Patriots offense is shit right now. You are using stats from when they had healthy players. Currently they suck balls.
well I was responding to him with statistics only because he made the comment he needed statistical proof that it was a horrible decision. But yes, I am more inclined to agree with you, actually, that on any given day the decision should rest on who's playing and the current circumstances. But even if I do THAT, I still think its a terrible decision because I believe the very best 2 players on the football field that day were Tom Brady and Rob Gronkowski. Considering the way the rules are that those 2 guys could win the game at any moment, I would want to have them on the field with the ball in their hands. As opposed to having them sit on the sidelines and watch and hope lesser players give them a chance (we all know they didnt)
^ Nice work, Nagle. I would also add that to my knowledge the only times it makes sense to kick off in OT is when the weather dictates that. Yes, there have been cases where THE CHOICE OF WIND DIRECTION overcomes the advantage of receiving the kick. But that was not the case here. Either Belichik fell on his sword to protect his players or he overthought the situation and lost the game.
IMO, this can all be thrown in the trash when your best player on your team by a huge margin is Tom Brady. Statistics don't hold as much weight with a small sample size and including 2015 would paint a much different picture. To me, going by what other teams (built differently) have done in the past rather than playing the matchup to the strengths of their team is silly for a coach as wildly praised as BB, unless he was seriously worried about the Jets defense. You have to trust your best player, especially when he's one of the best to ever play the position. It was a bad call. In the other games where BB did that, the weather was a factor. In this game it was not.
they had no gronk in ot vs denver, and the conditions where much worse. they had gronk vs us, and just had along td drive to send the game to OT
