Belated Observations about SB 51 -- In General Edition

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,920
Hingham, MA
It helped that after Atlanta went up 28-3, they, Atlanta, never had a possession that lasted longer than about 2 minutes 15 seconds. They had four possessions and one of them of course ended quickly with the Hightower strip sack and Alan Branch recovery. Any Atlanta drive of even five minutes would have made it all the more improbable that the Pats win.
Kind of crazy that on their 2nd to last drive - the one with the Freeman play and the Julio catch - the Falcons gained 2 first downs yet still only bled 2:26. This was of course due to the holding penalty on 3rd down that stopped the clock, then the following incompletion.
 

bernardsamuel

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2006
195
Denver, only physically
I went through the hundred prior posts in this thread and was surprised not to read anyone else imagining that the defensive offside on the tying two-point conversion might easily have construed as an "unabated to the quarterback" situation, with play being halted before the pass could even have been thrown. Also, in real time (though rapidly seen more accurately in replay) I saw Amendola's feet cross the goal line but I honestly couldn't be certain that the ball had reached the goal line - there was a moment when I was hopeful that the defensive offside would give us one more chance at the two-point conversion. Anyway, SB51 for me was like ten Malcolm Butler miracle interceptions transpiring in rapid succession and I just start crying for joy when I see any of the videos.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
5,675
Bow, NH
I went through the hundred prior posts in this thread and was surprised not to read anyone else imagining that the defensive offside on the tying two-point conversion might easily have construed as an "unabated to the quarterback" situation, with play being halted before the pass could even have been thrown. Also, in real time (though rapidly seen more accurately in replay) I saw Amendola's feet cross the goal line but I honestly couldn't be certain that the ball had reached the goal line - there was a moment when I was hopeful that the defensive offside would give us one more chance at the two-point conversion. Anyway, SB51 for me was like ten Malcolm Butler miracle interceptions transpiring in rapid succession and I just start crying for joy when I see any of the videos.
You didn’t read it in this thread because the defensive end was not even close to being unabated to the QB. He was barely 1 full step over the line when the ball was snapped and was not in danger of making a play.

Re: the Amendola play, I thought the same thing for a split second, but he looked to get the ball over the line in real time. Once I saw the replay, it was clear that the ball crossed the plane. I mean the entire ball, not just the tip.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,144
AZ
- Buck mentions Slater got cleared out on the fair catch play near the end of regulation, specifically saying something like "no flag though". I'm assuming that a free kick would still be in play if a penalty was called? A personal foul call would have set up a 60 yard FG ayyempt with a Falcon returner no doubt waiting in front of the goal posts for the chance to run back anything short. Thatight literally have been the most exciting play in SB history.
Yup. The free kick is allowed from the spot after penalty enforcement: "the receiving team has the option of putting the ball in play by either: (a) a fair-catch kick (drop kick or placekick without a tee) from the spot of the catch (or the succeeding spot after enforcement of any applicable penalties) . . . . "

Game can't end on a penalty, so yes, I think the free kick would have been in play.
A weird quirk of the fair catch free kick rule is that the game can't end on it no matter what -- whether there's a penalty or not -- if the receiving team doesn't want it to. Even if the clock shows zero when the kick is caught, the receiving team gets to extend the game for a free kick if it elects to do so.
 

DavidTai

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 18, 2003
1,237
Herndon, VA
Yup. The free kick is allowed from the spot after penalty enforcement: "the receiving team has the option of putting the ball in play by either: (a) a fair-catch kick (drop kick or placekick without a tee) from the spot of the catch (or the succeeding spot after enforcement of any applicable penalties) . . . . "



A weird quirk of the fair catch free kick rule is that the game can't end on it no matter what -- whether there's a penalty or not -- if the receiving team doesn't want it to. Even if the clock shows zero when the kick is caught, the receiving team gets to extend the game for a free kick if it elects to do so.
If the penalty had been called on that play, and Gostkowski had made the FG, the whining about the OT rules would have been -nothing- compared to the whole 'THE NFL GAVE THE PATRIOTS A WIN!' whining.
 

Bergs

funky and cold
SoSH Member
Jul 22, 2005
21,578
You didn’t read it in this thread because the defensive end was not even close to being unabated to the QB. He was barely 1 full step over the line when the ball was snapped and was not in danger of making a play.

Re: the Amendola play, I thought the same thing for a split second, but he looked to get the ball over the line in real time. Once I saw the replay, it was clear that the ball crossed the plane. I mean the entire ball, not just the tip.
Just the tip?
 

Pxer

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2007
1,690
Maine
You didn’t read it in this thread because the defensive end was not even close to being unabated to the QB. He was barely 1 full step over the line when the ball was snapped and was not in danger of making a play.

Re: the Amendola play, I thought the same thing for a split second, but he looked to get the ball over the line in real time. Once I saw the replay, it was clear that the ball crossed the plane. I mean the entire ball, not just the tip.
Even better was Solder not reacting to the early movement, and allowing the offense to get a free play out of it.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,144
AZ
Could the Colts fake the kick and throw a pass or run (I'm guessing not)? Could the Pats run it back for a score of (how many, 6?) points?
If there is no time on the clock, your only option is to kick. If there is time on the clock you can kick or snap. So the Colts had the option to snap. I'm not sure whether that means they could fake. It would probably be some kind of procedure penalty. Maybe there's a way to line up the formation to make it look like a free kick but really to have the holder serve as a defacto center and snap the ball. More likely, you'd have to give a free kick look then quickly change up the formation for a snap. Seems unfair to the defense since they have to stay ten yards back and likely have different personnel on the field. The rule probably should be that you have to declare your option like a conversion after a TD but I can't see where that is in the rules. It's probably somewhere.

I think if it is kicked backwards it can be advanced by the kicking team.

All field goal rules apply, I believe. So it can be returned for a TD. If it goes out of bounds or is touched by the offense or rolls and stops outside the end zone it goes to the spot of the kick.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,920
Hingham, MA
Two observations:
On the Freeman catch and run, Sanu pretty clearly shoves Roberts while the ball is in the air, resulting in Roberts falling and the play going for huge yards. By definition that was pass interference, although it would have been somewhat of a ticky tack call.
On the Freeman run for a loss of one later in the drive, hell of a play by McCourty to stick him for the loss.
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,144
AZ
Two more little things, both in the same category. The Patriots did a great job of letting the pressure mount without letting Atlanta having time to reset. First, they were already at the line of scrimmage with a play ready when the review was being announced on the Edelman catch. Amendola gets 20 yards on the catch that will be forgotten because the Patriots were ready to go. They went fast, just seconds after the ball was ready for play. Then, after the White TD to make it 28-26, everyone was immediately ready to go and they went fast. Other than White's spike, they went back to the line without any celebration and though they made a fast substitution, I don't think they huddled. It was 37 seconds between White scoring and the snap on the two-point conversion attempt.

That all had to have been coached up. They probably talked about it in the two minute warning. That's the amount of time between plays in a regular series.

Edit: Maybe closer to 40 seconds.
 
Last edited:

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,842
Alexandria, VA
If there is no time on the clock, your only option is to kick.
Depends on the quarter; in the first or third you can (obviously) opt to take the ball in the next period instead. Only mentioned because in those quarters you can either extend the period by a fair-catch kick down immediately or wait until the start of the next quarter and delay the choice. 4-8-2-e:
"If a fair-catch is signaled and made, the receivers may choose to extend the period by a fair-catch kick down (10-2-4-a). If the first or third period is not so extended, the receivers may start the succeeding period by either a down from scrimmage or fair-catch kick"

If there is time on the clock you can kick or snap. So the Colts had the option to snap. I'm not sure whether that means they could fake. It would probably be some kind of procedure penalty. Maybe there's a way to line up the formation to make it look like a free kick but really to have the holder serve as a defacto center and snap the ball. More likely, you'd have to give a free kick look then quickly change up the formation for a snap. Seems unfair to the defense since they have to stay ten yards back and likely have different personnel on the field. The rule probably should be that you have to declare your option like a conversion after a TD but I can't see where that is in the rules. It's probably somewhere.
3-9-1 indicates that a Fair Catch Kick down is not a Scrimmage Down, so you can't snap it legally (making fakes impossible). It's not explicitly stated anywhere, but other places where a team has the option of a or b also don't let you change once you've selected, and the rules explicitly state when a decision like that is not final and may be changed (e.g. kicking a PAT vs going for a 2-point conversion, in 11-3-1 Note 1). As you note, with the defense forced back 10 yards it'd be unfair to allow changes.

I think if it is kicked backwards it can be advanced by the kicking team.
11-4-3 says "the kicking team cannot possess the ball unless it has first been touched or possessed by the receivers".
 

Jed Zeppelin

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 23, 2008
51,252
Is there anybody out there who thought the Pats defense would need to step back on the field once they won the coin toss?

Hearing these guys talk about telling Patricia not to bother drawing anything up is legendary. By the time I'm old and grey I'll probably change the details to something like "after winning the coin toss, the whole D went to the locker room to take off their pads and put on their champagne goggles to get a head start on celebrating. Such was everyone's belief in Tom Brady."
 

jsinger121

@jsinger121
SoSH Member
Jul 25, 2005
17,670
Is there anybody out there who thought the Pats defense would need to step back on the field once they won the coin toss?

Hearing these guys talk about telling Patricia not to bother drawing anything up is legendary. By the time I'm old and grey I'll probably change the details to something like "after winning the coin toss, the whole D went to the locker room to take off their pads and put on their champagne goggles to get a head start on celebrating. Such was everyone's belief in Tom Brady."
No. The second the Patriots won the toss and took the ball is knew this game was over. Matt Ryan wasn't never stepping back onto the field.
 

Ed Hillel

Wants to be startin somethin
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2007
43,493
Here
No. The second the Patriots won the toss and took the ball is knew this game was over. Matt Ryan wasn't never stepping back onto the field.
If you watch Matt Ryan's expression when it was called as heads, you can tell he knew the same.
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,851
San Andreas Fault
Is there anybody out there who thought the Pats defense would need to step back on the field once they won the coin toss?

Hearing these guys talk about telling Patricia not to bother drawing anything up is legendary. By the time I'm old and grey I'll probably change the details to something like "after winning the coin toss, the whole D went to the locker room to take off their pads and put on their champagne goggles to get a head start on celebrating. Such was everyone's belief in Tom Brady."
Like Chris Long said after the game, I think on ESPN's "booth on the field": "we knew we (defense) were not going back out there. Tom Brady is an assassin. He'll rip your heart out."
 

Al Zarilla

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
58,851
San Andreas Fault
Anybody else think Atlanta was playing too soft late on the game, especially in overtime? Like on the pass to Hogan on the left sideline, at 40 seconds below, the DB had equal opportunity for the ball, but he let Hogan come back toward Brady pretty much uncontested to make the catch. Was he afraid Hogan would get behind him for the TD? Tom was super accurate on the drive, except for the end zone pass to Bennett, but Atlanta also seemed to be too afraid of a penalty call. The other extreme was Malcolm's interception in SB 49. After Wilson threw the pass, it looked like a touchdown until Malcolm just overpowered Lockette with a phenomenal effort to steal the ball. I was afraid they might call interference, but you have to "make a play" at that point. Atlanta didn't seem to try to make one. What did they have to lose at that point except the super bowl :rolleyes:. Or, maybe Tom was just too good to be beaten,

 
Last edited:

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,842
Alexandria, VA
If anyone's interested, Quirky Research has a rundown of all the fair catch kick attempts known in NFL history.

In addition, it lists times when they could have been attempted but weren't, such as:

Dallas vs. Green Bay, January 15, 2017 (NFC Divisional Playoffs).
The Cowboys' Cole Beasley fair caught a punt at his own 38 with no time left in the first half. Dallas headed straight for the locker room, and the FOX broadcast crew made no mention of the fair catch kick opportunity.
Dallas vs. Atlanta, September 20, 1999.
Wayne McGarity fair caught a punt on the Atlanta 47 with no time left in the first half. Dallas coach Chan Gailey knew of the rule, and had specifically instructed McGarity to fair catch the punt if it was inside the 50, but Gailey forgot that he would be able to attempt the kick with no time left on the clock. Instead, the Cowboys went to the locker room.
 

Pxer

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 16, 2007
1,690
Maine
If anyone's interested, Quirky Research has a rundown of all the fair catch kick attempts known in NFL history.

In addition, it lists times when they could have been attempted but weren't, such as:
how can coaches forget this rule? I'm a fan that's never even played football and I think of it every time there's a punt.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,647
Is there anybody out there who thought the Pats defense would need to step back on the field once they won the coin toss?

Hearing these guys talk about telling Patricia not to bother drawing anything up is legendary. By the time I'm old and grey I'll probably change the details to something like "after winning the coin toss, the whole D went to the locker room to take off their pads and put on their champagne goggles to get a head start on celebrating. Such was everyone's belief in Tom Brady."
For posterity's sake:

“We sat back and, literally, Matt [Patricia] is going over defense and we’re just like, ‘Matty P, we’re not going out there. There’s no way we’re going out there. Tom Brady is in a groove, he’s doing everything that we need him to do to win this game.’ And that’s what happens, man. He led that team down there that whole fourth quarter man. That’s Tom Brady’s quarter. Tom Brady Quarter – that’s what we’re going to call it from now on.” --Duran Harmon

“When it got to overtime, I basically untied my cleats, and watched Brady like you guys did,” -Logan Ryan

“We were like, ‘We’re not going back out there.' Tom, he’s an assassin, man. He tears peoples’ hearts out. He just did it tonight.” -Chris Long
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
That is just beautiful. The glow is never wearing off this one. We'll carry it in our hearts forever. Down in dumps? Just think about this.
 

JoePoulson

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Feb 28, 2006
2,755
Orlando, FL
It's going to go down as my favorite year of football for so many reasons. And that's one of them, being just so damn positive with the absurd ending.
 

genoasalami

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 4, 2006
2,579
Mitchell made a key 4th down catch - then literally put the ball on the ground before being touched. We never got a definitive look at it as Pats were in a hurry up, but every time I see the replay I wonder what the call would have been if ATL challenged.
 
Last edited:

Investor 11

Plobbably the greatest videographer ever
SoSH Member
Jul 23, 2006
3,910
San Diego
Mitchell made an key 4th down catch - then literally put the ball on the ground before being touched. We never got a definitive look at it as Pats were in a hurry up, but every time I see the replay I wonder what the call would have been if ATL challenged.
He did, but he also never took his grip off the ball and was touched by the defender. Even if they challenged, that was never getting turned over. However, it still scares me every time I see it.
 

BigSoxFan

Member
SoSH Member
May 31, 2007
47,038
He did, but he also never took his grip off the ball and was touched by the defender. Even if they challenged, that was never getting turned over. However, it still scares me every time I see it.
He's incredibly lucky that he was able to maintain a grip on the ball, which is not easy to do with 1 hand on a play like that. Certainly could have easily gotten away from him and he'd be a Leon Lett forever.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,913
Silver Spring, MD
Nobody on Atlanta made a move for it. I'd like to think if a Falcons receiver did that the Pats defender instead of touching the receiver would dive for the ball.
 

bigsid05

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
2,327
Wouldn't they have to knock away the ball without touching him? Technically he would be down with possession as soon as they laid a finger on him, wouldn't he?
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
I thought there was a case where something similar came up where it was ruled that a player "ending the play" is not fumbling it away. It was a similar situation where the guy with the ball was trailing and in an obvious hurry-up situation. Basically the equivalent of a QB spiking the ball.

Does anyone else remember this?
 

DennyDoyle'sBoil

Found no thrill on Blueberry Hill
SoSH Member
Sep 9, 2008
42,144
AZ
I thought there was a case where something similar came up where it was ruled that a player "ending the play" is not fumbling it away. It was a similar situation where the guy with the ball was trailing and in an obvious hurry-up situation. Basically the equivalent of a QB spiking the ball.

Does anyone else remember this?
Other than a slide, a player can declare himself down by falling or by kneeling, and the play is over if he makes no attempt to advance the ball. Mitchell fell while catching the ball, and his placing it on the ground is a good indication that he intended to declare himself down and have the play end, but it would have been up to the ref's discretion I think.
 

MuppetAsteriskTalk

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2015
5,387
A few years ago against the Pats a WR on the Chargers caught the ball and was never touched going to the ground. He got up and left the ball on the ground and the Pats jumped on it and ended up with a fumble recovery.
 

loshjott

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 30, 2004
14,913
Silver Spring, MD
Rodney Harrison took a knee and dropped the ball without being touched after the final INT in SB 39. I've often thought of an alt-reality nightmare where he doesn't take the knee or the ref doesn't see it and the Eagles grab the ball and run for the game winning TD.
 

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
As someone noted before they changed the rule.

I wish I could remember it, but I swear it was a giant. A wide receiver did the Give up and not be touched thing during a hurry up. He then left the ball there to get back in position. There was a review about whether it was a fumble. It was declared he gave himself up though it didn't explicitly exist for non-QBs. NFL then codified it after the fact.

Fake edit - Victor Cruz and one of the worst referees Booger against the Cardinals.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/875771-victor-cruz-giants-wide-receiver-reveals-rule-that-must-be-changed
 

fiskful of dollars

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
2,863
Charlottesville, VA
A similar thing happened in SB XXII. Doug Williams dropped back to pass and his knee buckled awkwardly. His knee went down but he wasn't touched. He let go of the ball and a Broncos defender picked it up and (if not down by contact w/ Williams) would have walked in for an easy TD - I think it was Rulan Jones. At the time Denver was leading 10-0 and looked to be on the edge of a blowout. Washington, you may remember, went on to score 35 2nd Q points en route to a rout. The officials said no fumble because Williams "gave himself up". He clearly slipped and fell, fumbling in the process. Weird call - I'm not sure if they go that one right even after 29 years. But then Elway might have had another SB, so justice was served in my opinion.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
14,528
South Boston
As someone noted before they changed the rule.

I wish I could remember it, but I swear it was a giant. A wide receiver did the Give up and not be touched thing during a hurry up. He then left the ball there to get back in position. There was a review about whether it was a fumble. It was declared he gave himself up though it didn't explicitly exist for non-QBs. NFL then codified it after the fact.

Fake edit - Victor Cruz and one of the worst referees Booger against the Cardinals.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/875771-victor-cruz-giants-wide-receiver-reveals-rule-that-must-be-changed
If this call is correctly called a fumble...the Giants finish at 8-8 and Arizona makes the playoffs at 9-7...ugh
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,842
Alexandria, VA
As someone noted before they changed the rule.

I wish I could remember it, but I swear it was a giant. A wide receiver did the Give up and not be touched thing during a hurry up. He then left the ball there to get back in position. There was a review about whether it was a fumble. It was declared he gave himself up though it didn't explicitly exist for non-QBs. NFL then codified it after the fact.

Fake edit - Victor Cruz and one of the worst referees Booger against the Cardinals.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/875771-victor-cruz-giants-wide-receiver-reveals-rule-that-must-be-changed
The 2011 Rule Book is still online.

7 (2) (1)A dead ball is declared...
(e) when a runner is out of bounds, or declares himself down by falling to the ground, or kneeling, and making no effort to advance
2010 has similar wording, only with poor grammar:
...declares himself down by falling to the ground and makes no effort to advance.
 

SumnerH

Malt Liquor Picker
Dope
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
31,842
Alexandria, VA

edmunddantes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 28, 2015
4,737
Cali
That's a whole other bucket of fish from saying the rule didn't exist then and the NFL codified it after the fact.

(Though the rule doesn't mention "giving oneself up"--it sure looks like Cruz slips and falls to the ground and then makes no effort to advance.)
could have sworn this was the episode that changed the rule.

Memory is going or conflating separate incidents.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
15,647
Allow me one comment about the criticism of the Falcons for not sitting on the ball after the Jones catch at the 22. Before Ryan goes out after the kickoff Quinn says to him go attack them, or something like that and Ryan assents. So that's their mindset heading into the drive.

And we see it. They are aggressive. A pass to Freeman gives them 39 yards. Then on first and ten they ran the ball and then had 2nd and 8 from the New England 49 with about five minutes left and the clock ticking and an eight point lead. What do you do there? I'm guessing that snapping the ball with 11 seconds left on the play clock and then throwing a sideline pass that is likely to be incomplete and stop the clock - and one that absolutely has a chance of being intercepted -is not what any of us would draw up. Probably the best play was to tuck and run that ball and not throw it at all. But they attack and Ryan made the throw and Jones made the catch and what do you know it was a good Falcons play and now they're at the 22.

They run the ball and now it's second and long (11) again. So the criticism is that at this exact moment, having two plays ago successfully executed what I would argue was a pretty illogical play on second and long while in "attack mode," the team didn't recognize that the situation had changed sufficiently that it was time to suddenly abandon "attack mode" and switch to "conservative mode" right then and there and run twice and then attempt a 40-yard field goal. On the one hand I absolutely agree with the criticism, but on the other hand if they had been thinking totally situationally and conservatively and odds-wise right along the Jones catch probably never happens anyway.
 

dcmissle

Deflatigator
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Aug 4, 2005
28,269
Probably, but the Jones catch DID happen, and you have to adjust your approach from that point based on the situation. And if you listen to the mic'ed version of the game, Quinn's thinking did evolve -- several plays in a row, he is obsessed about FG distance. Too late.
 

tims4wins

PN23's replacement
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
36,920
Hingham, MA
Three more belated observations
- When the Pats kicked off at 28-20, I would like to know what Dan Quinn was thinking in terms of his return strategy. There were 6 minutes on the clock and it was an 8 point game, and yet they played the kickoff like they were expecting a surprise onsides kick from the Pats. They only returned the kick to the 11. They ended up in FG range anyway on the drive, but if they started on their own 25, maybe things would have been different. Bad error by Quinn
- When the Pats kicked off at 28-28, they got to tack on the 5 yards from the offsides penalty from the two point conversion, meaning they kicked off from the 40 instead of the 35. In this situation, I would say that I have seen 99% of teams just boom the ball through the end zone. Instead, Ghost hits the kick waaaay in the air, lands it on the goal line, and the coverage is able to get down the field to make the stop inside the 20. Absolutely crucial yards at that point in the game given that there was under a minute and Atlanta had no timeouts. Extra bonus points for chewing up a few seconds on the return. This is BB at his finest. Absolutely fantastic strategy here. These two contrasting examples show the gap between Quinn and BB and why it matters so much in close games
- On the Edelman catch, I believe the first official to call it a catch - and he did so authoritatively - is the same official that Edelman had the mic'd up exchange with in the Texans game re: pushing off (along the lines of, "sorry, I get so defensive - my therapist tells me it's something I need to work on"). Just got a kick out of it being the same guy. Edelman also had an interaction with him in pre-game of the Super Bowl. Good to be on good terms with that official!
 

InstaFace

The Ultimate One
SoSH Member
Sep 27, 2016
21,595
Pittsburgh, PA
Yeah, a part of what makes BB's mystique so mysterious is that a big chunk of his differential skill is in his focus on special teams. They're not an afterthought, they're essential to his strategic thinking from the start of every year and how he builds his team. Ghost got a little out-of-sync earlier this year trying to land every kickoff on the 5, but it was clear he had that tool in his arsenal when it was called upon. We had several games this year where Ryan Allen legitimately deserved a game ball. And of course, Slater won the voting for AFC Special Teamer and the runner-up was... Nate Ebner.
 
Apr 7, 2006
2,484
Even with that seriously deflating missed PAT, Gost managed to play a key positive role in this win. Those kickoffs were pretty big, as kickoffs go, and I was happy HE could feel happy about his meaningful contribution to the win, especially considering his up and down season.
 
Last edited:

Van Everyman

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 30, 2009
26,951
Newton
This is another game that makes me wonder what kind of role Ernie Adams plays during the game. There's just so much for a head coach to be thinking about during any game, much less the Super Bowl. Is Ernie the one telling Bill, "Hey, they look like they're expecting an onside kick" or "let's dare them to run it out here" or "If Wilsons going to throw it down this close, it's probably gonna to be here"? Given Belichick's love of situational football, you have to think someone in the organization must be designated to be looking for things that no one with a more granular role—coordinator, position coach—would normally be.