The Game Goat Thread: Week 13 at Packers

[Ed Hillel]

Well they aren't 75-80 percent to get the one seed, but they weren't before the game either. I think they might be 80 percent for a bye, they're clear favorites for the one seed though.

Yeah, they could win in mile high too. They win 60-65 percent at home 35-40 on the road or something like that

 
What are they at, then? Denver and NE have similar strength of schedule. Pretty much every other team but Cincy is out of the picture, and they play Denver. What are the odds for the 1 seed, assuming a Denver witn tonight? Assuming equal schedules and Pats tiebreak, it should be 75% for the Pats, right?

 

[RedOctober3829]

I suppose that a win against NE would not be an "emotional win" for Denver to deal with in San Diego? Some of this is just lol.

I'm not saying that Denver at SD isn't a tough game for Denver. I'm just not counting on them losing another regular season game and so should you. They sure as hell aren't losing in Cincy.

 

[brandonchristensen]

While I think the New England Patriots tried adamantly to win this game, I also think (as some have hinted at) they held back quite a bit and did not show all their cards. They wanted to win, but coach structured it in a way that made it a greater challenge for the Patriots and elevated the level of frustration for players to the point of discomfort and poor performance beyond the weather, opponent, and officials. Maybe Green Bay is just that good and they took us down in a close one - they are the top of the league - but I do not think they got our best by any stretch of the imagination, and I would not put it beyond coach to use this game as prep for the big one. It's also pure Machiavellian/Belichickian to implement disinformation to confuse your enemy if you think you're meeting them on the field again. All I'm saying is it wasn't just the performance of guys on the field, and there's a reason we're having a hard time pinpointing a single goat.

They are so good that the only team that can beat them...is themselves.

 

[Devizier]

Let's not overstate things: anyone can lose in the NFL, at any time. The Patriots didn't play their best today, and still had a chance to win.
 
On the other hand, let's not underestimate the road ahead. Not that it matters what we think, but two weeks on the road is brutal. And San Diego is a decent opponent.

 

[Ed Hillel]

I'm not saying that Denver at SD isn't a tough game for Denver. I'm just not counting on them losing another regular season game and so should you. They sure as hell aren't losing in Cincy.

 
I don't understand why you can assume Denver wins out. Odds say they'll lose another game. If New England can lose another game, so can Denver. I do think the Pats will win next week, San Diego is really one-dimensional and don't have a strong D, and those teams don't typically perform well against BB. I think Denver will win in San Diego, too, but I don't think one team losing in San Diego is particularly more likely than the other. If anything, Manning seems to have the heebie Jeebies against San Diego, though I wouldn't count on it.

 

[Stitch01]

I like SD and am probably as high as anyone on this board when they're healthy.

The Pats are going to beat them comfortably. Rivers isn't mobile and the Pats will get pressure against that line. Take a gander at the starting Ravens secondary today before worrying too much about today's offensive performance being replicated next week.

 

[Stitch01]

What are they at, then? Denver and NE have similar strength of schedule. Pretty much every other team but Cincy is out of the picture, and they play Denver. What are the odds for the 1 seed, assuming a Denver witn tonight? Assuming equal schedules and Pats tiebreak, it should be 75% for the Pats, right?

I don't feel like running numbers, but I'm guessing its around 60 percent.

 

[dcmissle]

I like SD and am probably as high as anyone on this board when they're healthy.

The Pats are going to beat them comfortably. Rivers isn't mobile and the Pats will get pressure against that line. Take a gander at the starting Ravens secondary today before worrying too much about today's offensive performance being replicated next week.

The Ravens got no sustained pressure against that line today. Rivers operated very comfortably in the pocket throughout.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

I like SD and am probably as high as anyone on this board when they're healthy.
The Pats are going to beat them comfortably. Rivers isn't mobile and the Pats will get pressure against that line. Take a gander at the starting Ravens secondary today before worrying too much about today's offensive performance being replicated next week.

Agreed pats by at least 14 going away

 

[Stitch01]

The Ravens got no sustained pressure against that line today. Rivers operated very comfortably in the pocket throughout.

Yeah, now want to list who played the Revis, McCourty, and Browner roles for the Ravens today?

 

[Super Nomario]

I think the idea is not to go elsewhere on that play, but rather to keep using Gronk in intermediate routes where he was feasting with ease.

 
 

Co-sign. Would have preferred a more make able, clock-killing play, followed by more tries at the EZ. So frustrating.

P.S. No way do Peyton and Denver lose in Cincy. No chance.

I just don't understand the fixation on the second-down play. On first down, they ran a shitty running play and got just a yard. On second down, Brady went deep to Gronk and came close to getting the go-ahead TD (and it might have been DPI) but didn't. On third down, the protection broke down, no one got open, and Brady took a bad sack. Why are we criticizing the second down play and not the other two plays, which were just as bad or worse?
 
As far as the play/route itself, I'd have to see the all-22 to be sure, but a fade route is a common sight adjustment to press/man coverage. If Green Bay was running press/man, they're doing so to try to take away the shorter stuff that you want the Pats to run, so you adjust and take what the defense gives you. I have a really hard time criticizing individual plays like this, especially before you have the all-22 to understand how the defense is playing the situation.

 

[Stitch01]

Especially when the throw is to Gronk 1-on-1.

It's also four down territory unless the third down play is exactly a sack, and IIRC Brady hadn't been sacked all day, so throwing to the end zone on second down isn't really all that risky

 

[H78]

It was bad because even if they convert, they would have had to go for two to go up by three, and if they got that, they give Rodgers 2.5 minutes to go just far enough for a tying (or winning!) field goal or worse a go-ahead touchdown. It was a bad decision after a first down play that was designed to keep the clock running. It made no sense to go to the end zone there, especially when you've only stopped the Packers' offense ONCE all day.

On top of all of that, it put them in a 3rd and long, which they struggled with converting all day. The rest is history. Just stupid football.

 

[ShaneTrot]

Collins and Hightower were awesome today. 23 tackles, 2 sacks and 3 tackles for losses. Can't ask for more from your LBs.

 

[bankshot1]

The Ravens got no sustained pressure against that line today. Rivers operated very comfortably in the pocket throughout.

 fwiw, the Raven settled for FG (like the Packers) outplayed the Chargers for most of the game, like the Packers outplayed the Pats, except Rivers got the last minute TD, that Brady didn't.

 

[H78]

That's another thing to note - are my eyes deceiving me, or is one glaring weakness of this offense converting 3rd and 7, 8, 9+? I know that's tough for a lot of teams, but they seem to struggle quite a bit with it.

 

[Devizier]

My wish on the second down play was a run, but that was just because I was hoping to see the Patriots run down the clock with Green Bay needing only a FG to win or tie in the event of a touchdown. That said, I don't have many qualms with the second down call.

 

[8slim]

 
Denver plays in San Diego in 2 weeks. I guess that game isn't as difficult for them? Denver also has @ Cincy.

He said that because people were suggesting that the Pats sandbagged their playbook today so as not to tip their hand in the inevitable rematch with Green Bay in the Super Bowl.

I'll assume you agree that the Pats intentionally didn't run their best plays because the AFC championship is already in the bag.

 

[Silverdude2167]

That's another thing to note - are my eyes deceiving me, or is one glaring weakness of this offense converting 3rd and 7, 8, 9+? I know that's tough for a lot of teams, but they seem to struggle quite a bit with it.

No team is good at converting 3rd and long.

 

[H78]

No team is good at converting 3rd and long.

Yeah but some teams are better than others. For example, today the Packers were much better than the Patriots at it.

 

[Silverdude2167]

Yeah but some teams are better than others. For example, today the Packers were much better than the Patriots at it.

I feel like these stats exist but I can not find them. 
 
For the game the Packers were 4-9 (not counting the kneel down) on 3rd and 6 or more while the pats were 2-6.
Two of the Packers 4 conversions came on questionable to poor officiating decisions. The first holding call on Browner and the Cobb conversion where the spot was off by a yard or two in my opinion.
 
It is not like the Packers were really much better than the Pats on 3rd and long. They were much better than the Pats on 3rd down in general though 10-17 vs. 4-10.

 

[Super Nomario]

Yeah but some teams are better than others. For example, today the Packers were much better than the Patriots at it.

On average teams convert 28% of 3rd-and-7+. Pats are a little above-average at 32.4%; Green Bay is #1 at 40.7%.
 
EDIT: to be clear, before today.

 

[H78]

Well they were twice as good than the Pats though.

 

[H78]

On average teams convert 28% of 3rd-and-7+. Pats are a little above-average at 32.4%; Green Bay is #1 at 40.7%.
 
EDIT: to be clear, before today.

So my eyes are correct - they're a top overall offense, but closer to league average on 3rd and long. Pack are also a top overall offense and also get it done on third and long. Just interesting that they're great overall but are middle of the pack when they have to throw the ball a little further down field.

 

[Stitch01]

Whatever the third and long conversion rate is since the Bengals game will be more predictive and accurate describing the current Pats offense. They were worst in the league at it or pretty close to it the first month because they knew the couldn't protect Brady and didn't even try to do anything besides throw screens and run draws on third and long, and the few times they didn't Brady died. I'm pretty impressed they are above average/9th for the year, they must be close to top of the league last eight weeks.

EDIT: 41.5 percent and number one in the league starting in week 5. I was right the first time I think, the link was screwy for some reason someone else can rerun and verify if they want

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/play-index/play_finder.cgi?request=1&match=summary_all&search=&player_id=&year_min=2014&year_max=2014&team_id=&opp_id=&game_type=R&playoff_round=&game_num_min=0&game_num_max=99&week_num_min=5&week_num_max=15&quarter=1&quarter=2&quarter=3&quarter=4&quarter=5&tr_gtlt=lt&minutes=15&seconds=00&down=3&yds_to_go_min=7&yds_to_go_max=99&yg_gtlt=gt&yards=&is_first_down=-1&field_pos_min_field=team&field_pos_min=&field_pos_max_field=team&field_pos_max=&end_field_pos_min_field=team&end_field_pos_min=&end_field_pos_max_field=team&end_field_pos_max=&type=PASS&type=RUSH&is_turnover=-1&turnover_type=interception&turnover_type=fumble&is_scoring=-1&score_type=touchdown&score_type=field_goal&score_type=safety&is_sack=-1&include_kneels=-1&no_play=0&game_day_of_week=&game_location=&game_result=&margin_min=&margin_max=&order_by=yards&rush_direction=LE&rush_direction=LT&rush_direction=LG&rush_direction=M&rush_direction=RG&rush_direction=RT&rush_direction=RE&pass_location=SL&pass_location=SM&pass_location=SR&pass_location=DL&pass_location=DM&pass_location=DR#tm_offense::none

 

[Devizier]

So my eyes are correct - they're a top overall offense, but closer to league average on 3rd and long. Pack are also a top overall offense and also get it done on third and long. Just interesting that they're great overall but are middle of the pack when they have to throw the ball a little further down field.

 
I can think of two reasons why this might be so:
 
1) This is just a small sample effect and the variance on a statistic like this is relatively large.
2) Teams with a more established intermediate/deep passing game like the Packers do better in long yardage situations.
 
I don't really have data to back up either theory, though.

 

[8slim]

Generally speaking though, doesn't being good on 3rd long mean you're not good as you could be on 1st and 2nd down?

I'm guessing that teams best at converting, say, 2nd and 6+ are more correlated to having good offenses than 3rd and 6+.

 

[Super Nomario]

Whatever the third and long conversion rate is since the Bengals game will be more predictive and accurate describing the current Pats offense. They were worst in the league at it or pretty close to it the first month because they knew the couldn't protect Brady and didn't even try to do anything besides throw screens and run draws on third and long, and the few times they didn't Brady died. I'm pretty impressed they are above average for the year, they must be close to top of the league last eight weeks.

Good call! The Pats are #1 in the league in converting 3rd-and-7+ since Week 5 at 41.5%, just ahead of Green Bay's 40.0% (again, doesn't include today). Through four weeks the Pats were 7th-worst at 18.5%.
 
 

 
1) This is just a small sample effect and the variance on a statistic like this is relatively large.

To this point, Denver is below-average in this stat at 25%.
 
I was going to posit a theory that Rodgers' ability to extend plays is huge here, but the 49ers, Colts, and Seahawks are all a little below-average (26-28%) and Washington is dead last at a putrid 9.7% (less than half of #31 Cleveland's 19.5%).

 

[Ed Hillel]

Generally speaking though, doesn't being good on 3rd long mean you're not good as you could be on 1st and 2nd down?

 
Not if you are going by percentages. If anything, it means you get more yardarge on the first two downs.

 

[dynomite]

re #1 seed:  As we enter December, the Patriots control their destiny for the #1 seed in the AFC.  Honestly, that was about as much as I was hoping for at the beginning of the season.  Won't be easy, but I wouldn't trade places with any team in the league.
 
 re this game:  Sometimes you lose on the road to a Super Bowl contender.  I feel like this was a perfect illustration of Belichick's wisdom: the Patriots just didn't make enough plays in any of the three phases to win today.  It happens, but even on a day when they weren't at their best they gave the Packers all they could handle.  He sounded proud of the team in the postgame presser, and for good reason.

 

[8slim]

 
Not if you are going by percentages. If anything, it means you get more yardarge on the first two downs.

Huh? Wouldn't that mean you have a lot of 3rd and shorts?

 

[PayrodsFirstClutchHit]

Generally speaking though, doesn't being good on 3rd long mean you're not good as you could be on 1st and 2nd down?

I'm guessing that teams best at converting, say, 2nd and 6+ are more correlated to having good offenses than 3rd and 6+.

 
All teams have 3rd and long situations. All this data says is that GB is better at converting those situations. It is not saying they are always in 3rd and long.

 

[Jody Reeds Well]

I missed the first few minutes to CBS showing a fuckton of ads, but in the pre-game was there talk of wind conditions? We saw two missed FGs (1 to1) and a couple of shitty punts.

 
On ESPN Countdown today, there were a few of the analysts broadcasting from Green Bay. Ditka said that the wind would be a factor. However, it wasn't really discussed at all during the game.
 
Regarding the game, there really is no shame in this loss. It was hard fought, and relatively mistake free (no turnovers on either side)  Holding Green Bay to three FGs in the first half was huge considering how easily the Packers seemed to move the ball before they got down to NE's 20. But the offense had a difficult time establishing a rhythm. Brady faced constant pressure all night. Brady's pocket awareness was excellent tonight as he was able evade several sacks/strips. It was really only a matter of time before his luck ran out (at the worst possible time).
 
Maybe it was me, but Brady seemed to be a little less accurate than normal. At one point in the second half, he missed an open receiver on third down and he shook his hand. I'm not sure if it was just that his fingers were cold or if there was something else going on there.
 
And as others have said, the refs were awful again making inconsistent, wrong, or plain missed obvious calls.  We all know that we have to live with them, but it is frustrating nonetheless. 

 

[riboflav]

It was bad because even if they convert, they would have had to go for two to go up by three, and if they got that, they give Rodgers 2.5 minutes to go just far enough for a tying (or winning!) field goal or worse a go-ahead touchdown. It was a bad decision after a first down play that was designed to keep the clock running. It made no sense to go to the end zone there, especially when you've only stopped the Packers' offense ONCE all day.

On top of all of that, it put them in a 3rd and long, which they struggled with converting all day. The rest is history. Just stupid football.

 
Oh. Jesus. JESUS. This is why BBTL sucks. Yes, you do not want to score the go-ahead TD. If Gronk hangs onto the ball, a ball he had for a split second longer, then they score the TD (oh horror!) because in our drama play, the offense can just run micro-plays until it scores the perfect TD with just seconds (or none at all!) on the clock. No fucking NFL or any good coach thinks this way. This is the fiction in the NFL fan's mind that makes this board a damn joke. 
 
Yes, much better not to score there. 

 

[normstalls]

Oh. Jesus. JESUS. This is why BBTL sucks. Yes, you do not want to score the go-ahead TD. If Gronk hangs onto the ball, a ball he had for a split second longer, then they score the TD (oh horror!) because in our drama play, the offense can just run micro-plays until it scores the perfect TD with just seconds (or none at all!) on the clock. No fucking NFL or any good coach thinks this way. This is the fiction in the NFL fan's mind that makes this board a damn joke. 
 
Yes, much better not to score there.

R-E-L-A-X

Fans are bummed after a tough loss, and they are looking for people to blame. it happens.
This board is not a joke.

 

[riboflav]

R-E-L-A-X

Fans are bummed after a tough loss, and they are looking for people to blame. it happens.
This board is not a joke.

 
I don't care that folks are upset or worried that this loss may result in the Patriots not ending up as the one seed. I share their concern. But, focus on what I actually wrote in response to the most ridiculous thing written in this thread. Then, we can debate it.

 

[riboflav]

I mean H78 is outright suggesting that the Patriots would have been better off... what?... picking up three yards on a rushing play to make it 3 and 6 than Gronk hanging on to the catch for the go-ahead TD.
 
Oh wait. No, H78 is saying just throw a pass for 9.5 yards for the first down and then kneel down for a play to run some clock, maybe burn a GB timeout, then pass for 11 yards for another first down, then a couple kneel downs,  more TOs burned, then a rush for the TD leaving only five seconds.
 
Ok. Got it. Just do that next time, Patriots.

 

[GeorgeCostanza]

I don't care that folks are upset or worried that this loss may result in the Patriots not ending up as the one seed. I share their concern. But, focus on what I actually wrote in response to the most ridiculous thing written in this thread. Then, we can debate it.

To be fair there are posts in this thread suggesting BB held back the good plays for a potential rematch. So maybe not the most ridiculous.

 

[m0ckduck]

I just don't understand the fixation on the second-down play. On first down, they ran a shitty running play and got just a yard. On second down, Brady went deep to Gronk and came close to getting the go-ahead TD (and it might have been DPI) but didn't. On third down, the protection broke down, no one got open, and Brady took a bad sack. Why are we criticizing the second down play and not the other two plays, which were just as bad or worse?

 
Well, we're partly blaming the second-down play for the outcome (sack) of the third-down play. Sitting at the 20 on 2nd-and-9, I felt certain that we would run a play designed to pick up 5-10 yards to give two shots at converting the first down if we didn't get it, all the while running time off the clock — keep it as low-variance as possible. Why go high-variance there? The moment Brady dropped back and threw the fade, I felt dismayed. The fact the Gronk nearly hauled it in doesn't change the fact that the fade route is a lower-percentage play, particularly for Brady at this point in his career.

 

[mulluysavage]

Re: goat, whose decision was it to throw to Gronk on the fade route? Is that Toms first read? Is MdD thinking more conservative here but Brady sees a favorable matchup?

 

[rodderick]

Don't have any idea why people are so hung up on that second down play to Gronk. The opportunity was there, Brady made a great throw, Gronk very nearly came up with it, what's the problem with taking a shot at the endzone on second down when you're in four down territory? The sack fucked everything up, but people are talking as if that's the play that lost the Patriots the game, and that's ridiculous to me.

 

[H78]

I mean H78 is outright suggesting that the Patriots would have been better off... what?... picking up three yards on a rushing play to make it 3 and 6 than Gronk hanging on to the catch for the go-ahead TD.
 
Oh wait. No, H78 is saying just throw a pass for 9.5 yards for the first down and then kneel down for a play to run some clock, maybe burn a GB timeout, then pass for 11 yards for another first down, then a couple kneel downs,  more TOs burned, then a rush for the TD leaving only five seconds.
 
Ok. Got it. Just do that next time, Patriots.

You're just not following the point. I've explained it twice and you're really just trying to be a douche, despite the real problem being your poor reading comprehension.

The play was poor because of what they were trying to set up on FIRST DOWN by running the ball and then taking their time to snap the ball on second down. They were clearly trying to run the clock to score with as little time as possible left for Rodgers to get a tying or go-ahead field goal on the next drive. Then Brady just chucks one deep to attempt a quick score. It was dumb and it made no sense, because by missing it they put themselves in a much lower percentage play on 3rd down to pick up a new set of downs. And even if they score the TD, Rodgers has plenty of time to beat our defense (for the 100th time in the game) to setup a winning FG or TD.

But you clearly want to argue this no matter what (aggressively), so I'll leave you alone now. It was dumb of Brady. It's ok to say that. 99% of the time he's awesome, but it was dumb not to use 2nd down to chip away at another 1st down particularly after running a "clock control" play on 1st down of the previous drive.

 

[ivanvamp]

I mean H78 is outright suggesting that the Patriots would have been better off... what?... picking up three yards on a rushing play to make it 3 and 6 than Gronk hanging on to the catch for the go-ahead TD.
 
Oh wait. No, H78 is saying just throw a pass for 9.5 yards for the first down and then kneel down for a play to run some clock, maybe burn a GB timeout, then pass for 11 yards for another first down, then a couple kneel downs,  more TOs burned, then a rush for the TD leaving only five seconds.
 
Ok. Got it. Just do that next time, Patriots.

 
No, the suggestion is simple and straightforward.  The Patriots were trying to accomplish two objectives:  First and foremost, score a TD.  Second, burn as much clock as possible.  They were doing a great job working their way down the field methodically, using a ton of clock.  To go for a quick strike there would have (if successful) accomplished the primary objective, which is the most important thing, of course, but it would have left too much time on the clock for Rodgers.  Does anyone here really think the Patriots would have held at that point?  Not me.
 
So why not continue to do what was working?  Short passes, runs, burn clock, keep the ball moving, set yourself up for short yardage third down (or, if necessary, fourth down) conversions.  
 
Nobody would have been upset if Gronk had made the catch.  It's just that the play selection itself was inconsistent with achieving both objectives above.  That's what made it a poor play selection.  Of course, it would have all been forgotten had Brady not been sacked on the next play.  Oh well.
 
By the way, I want to point out that after being down 13-0, the Patriots outscored GB 21-13 the rest of the way. 

 

[H78]

And the only thing wrong with BBTL is the occasional poster who comes in, doesn't understand a point someone or several people are making, but has to try to be the smartest person in the room so they go on a rampage calling everyone an "idiot" or "dumb" when in reality they're the one not keeping up with the conversation. It's a bad look, and unfortunately a few posters here like to wear it.

Don't be so quick on the "you're a dumbass" trigger. There are plenty of smart people on SoSH but that's not the way to fall into that group - even if you're right. It screams that you're desperate to be liked.

 

[lexrageorge]

 
Oh. Jesus. JESUS. This is why BBTL sucks. Yes, you do not want to score the go-ahead TD. If Gronk hangs onto the ball, a ball he had for a split second longer, then they score the TD (oh horror!) because in our drama play, the offense can just run micro-plays until it scores the perfect TD with just seconds (or none at all!) on the clock. No fucking NFL or any good coach thinks this way. This is the fiction in the NFL fan's mind that makes this board a damn joke. 
 
Yes, much better not to score there. 

Nice strawman, as they say.  I don't see anyone suggesting that the Pats should pass up a TD in order to kill more clock. 
 
There are good arguments for not throwing that pass to Gronk.  He was very well covered.  I realize that the replay showed he almost caught it, but it would have been an amazing catch had he caught it.  Those of us that like the play felt it was a very high percentage play; those of us that don't like the play call felt it was very low percentage play.  I didn't like the play call when the pass was thrown, but I would have happily held my tongue had Gronk caught the pass.  
 
The issue some of us have with the play call is that the Pats had some success in running the ball during that drive, and GB's run defense is not considered their strength.  Had they picked up a few yards on that 2nd-and-9, they have a very makeable 3rd-and-short, and with 2 downs to make those short yards.  The chances of the Pats scoring a TD from that 3rd-and-short would have been very high.  Instead, they ended up with 3rd-and-long, which gave GB the green light to bring pressure on Brady. 
 
The running down of the clock would have been an added benefit.  And not an insignificant one, either.  With 3 timeouts and the 2 minute warning, and the Pats horrific kick coverage earlier that game, chances are better than 50/50 that Rodgers is able to drive down the field for a tying FG attempt (or go ahead try if the Pats fail on the 2 point conversion). 
 
There are reasoned arguments in favor of the pass to Gronk as well.  A TD in hand is indeed better than 2 in the bush, and the Pats did have 2 chances to pick up the 1st down from 3rd-and-9.  At some point, you do have to rely on your OL to make some very basic blocks, which they (esp Solder) failed at miserably on the subsequent 3rd down play. 
 
If you cannot see both sides of this argument, that's really not the problem of those making the argument with which you disagree. 

 

[Stitch01]

I think Rodgers was going to get the ball back with something close to 2 minutes left anyways needing at worst a FG to tie so I wasn't that worried about scoring too quickly.  I understand the strategy that you guys are talking about, but it was really unlikely they were going to be able to score with 20 seconds left or something like that. 
 
EDIT: Too bad the line broke down on third down, at least on the broadcast replay it looks like they are going to have a good chance at converting that if Solder makes his block and Brady has time to move in the pocket.
 
Also on the replay on the Gronk catch it looks like he might have had Vereen for 3-4 yards but Gronk was probably the proper read the way the Packers were defending. 

 

[H78]

 
No, the suggestion is simple and straightforward.  The Patriots were trying to accomplish two objectives:  First and foremost, score a TD.  Second, burn as much clock as possible.  They were doing a great job working their way down the field methodically, using a ton of clock.  To go for a quick strike there would have (if successful) accomplished the primary objective, which is the most important thing, of course, but it would have left too much time on the clock for Rodgers.  Does anyone here really think the Patriots would have held at that point?  Not me.
 
So why not continue to do what was working?  Short passes, runs, burn clock, keep the ball moving, set yourself up for short yardage third down (or, if necessary, fourth down) conversions.  
 
Nobody would have been upset if Gronk had made the catch.  It's just that the play selection itself was inconsistent with achieving both objectives above.  That's what made it a poor play selection.  Of course, it would have all been forgotten had Brady not been sacked on the next play.  Oh well.
 
By the way, I want to point out that after being down 13-0, the Patriots outscored GB 21-13 the rest of the way. 

 
 

Nice strawman, as they say.  I don't see anyone suggesting that the Pats should pass up a TD in order to kill more clock. 
 
There are good arguments for not throwing that pass to Gronk.  He was very well covered.  I realize that the replay showed he almost caught it, but it would have been an amazing catch had he caught it.  Those of us that like the play felt it was a very high percentage play; those of us that don't like the play call felt it was very low percentage play.  I didn't like the play call when the pass was thrown, but I would have happily held my tongue had Gronk caught the pass.  
 
The issue some of us have with the play call is that the Pats had some success in running the ball during that drive, and GB's run defense is not considered their strength.  Had they picked up a few yards on that 2nd-and-9, they have a very makeable 3rd-and-short, and with 2 downs to make those short yards.  The chances of the Pats scoring a TD from that 3rd-and-short would have been very high.  Instead, they ended up with 3rd-and-long, which gave GB the green light to bring pressure on Brady. 
 
The running down of the clock would have been an added benefit.  And not an insignificant one, either.  With 3 timeouts and the 2 minute warning, and the Pats horrific kick coverage earlier that game, chances are better than 50/50 that Rodgers is able to drive down the field for a tying FG attempt (or go ahead try if the Pats fail on the 2 point conversion). 
 
There are reasoned arguments in favor of the pass to Gronk as well.  A TD in hand is indeed better than 2 in the bush, and the Pats did have 2 chances to pick up the 1st down from 3rd-and-9.  At some point, you do have to rely on your OL to make some very basic blocks, which they (esp Solder) failed at miserably on the subsequent 3rd down play. 
 
If you cannot see both sides of this argument, that's really not the problem of those making the argument with which you disagree. 

 
Spot on. If Gronk scores, I'm not complaining. I didn't like the play the second I saw Brady release the ball, but if they scored, sure, it would have been great, even with all the time that was left. But given the first down running play, GB's inability to stop Blount, and the state of the clock...it wasn't the smartest situational play on second down.

 

[Norm loves Vera]

A facebook friend who is also a Packer fan posted this to me today.. the caption he posted with it is "Brady Face, you've got the cutest little Brady Face"
 

 
The 2 penalties on Browner in the 1st qtr (one holding and one illegal use of hands) seemed a bit much.. like the ref went into the game expecting to call Browning out early and often.  The Defensive adjustment at the half has me optimistic that on a neutral field, the Patriots will prevail next time they meet the Packers.

 

[ivanvamp]

Lots of positives and negatives from this game.
 
Negatives:  
- They lost.
- They got totally out gained and out-time-of-possessioned.
- They couldn't force a single turnover.
- They got precious few actual stops.
- They couldn't get the big play on either offense or defense when they needed it.  
- Ghost missed a huge kick and the special teams just weren't great.
- They went away from the run way too soon.
 
Positives:
- They were 3-3 in the red zone.
- They held GB to four field goals in four red zone attempts.
- They held an offense that had been averaging 40+ points a game at home to just 26.
- They outscored GB 21-13 after the first quarter.
- They had a very real chance, despite everything, to win the game at the end.
- They played GB tougher at Lambeau than any opponent yet had.
 
I think if they play on a neutral field the Pats have a good chance of winning.  No guarantee, obviously, because GB is terrific.  But still…NE would have a good chance.

 

[C4CRVT]

The ref who blew the call on the OPI (3rd and 9??) that allowed GB to keep the ball. That was a terrible non-call and had a huge impact on the outcome of the game.
 
Nink can't be the defender assigned to a WR in motion. Rodgers saw that coming a mile away.