If ifs and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas.
I didn't participate in the game thread yesterday so I don't know if this has been discussed. But this is after all a discussion board so I'm curious as to other's takes on this:
After the week 16 Jets game, I was feeling very irritated about the Pats coaching staff having played far too passively. Many of you probably remember the way that we laid down and played dead at the end of the first half and again at the end of the game when a fg at either would have won the game and HFA.
I remain convinced that had the Pats secured HFA, they would have been at SB50. Brady being able to vary the snap count and the altitude would have been more than the difference in an AFCCG versus Denver at Foxboro. Given the way that the game went yesterday, I can't help but think that the Pats cost themselves a ring by their putrid coaching decisions in week 16.
Others may point to the muffed punt or other braindead decisions but none seem as indefensible to me as week 16.
There, I said it.
I didn't participate in the game thread yesterday so I don't know if this has been discussed. But this is after all a discussion board so I'm curious as to other's takes on this:
After the week 16 Jets game, I was feeling very irritated about the Pats coaching staff having played far too passively. Many of you probably remember the way that we laid down and played dead at the end of the first half and again at the end of the game when a fg at either would have won the game and HFA.
I remain convinced that had the Pats secured HFA, they would have been at SB50. Brady being able to vary the snap count and the altitude would have been more than the difference in an AFCCG versus Denver at Foxboro. Given the way that the game went yesterday, I can't help but think that the Pats cost themselves a ring by their putrid coaching decisions in week 16.
Others may point to the muffed punt or other braindead decisions but none seem as indefensible to me as week 16.
There, I said it.