Agree. At first I thought it was a terrible decision because I assumed Folk had no shot from 56. But he barely missed. And the Pats offense was not lighting the world on fire on that drive. The coaching staff knew Folk had a decent shot from there.I would have preferred going for it but was fine with it and clearly it ended up being a makeable kick that just missed.
I’d feel better about the miss if it had hit a little higher off the upright — a slightly more reliable trajectory.Ive seen a lot of posts along the lines of “well Folk clearly could have made it because it doinked off the upright and he had the distance” but isn’t it equally possible that the kick he made - long enough but inaccurate - was the best kick he could have possibly made in that circumstance? Put another way, if he kicks that ball 10 times how many times does it go in? Is it higher than twice?
I might be wrong about this but my guess that the Pats (like many other teams) have a process in place where they talk to the kicker at some point in the game (or maybe multiple times) to get a target yard from the kicker. The kicker tells the coaches where they need to get the ball, and if they get the ball to that spot, then the team kicks the field goal.but isn’t it equally possible that the kick he made - long enough but inaccurate - was the best kick he could have possibly made in that circumstance? Put another way, if he kicks that ball 10 times how many times does it go in? Is it higher than twice?
Yeah my preference for going for it over kicking has much more to do with time remaining and opposing offense than chances of making the kick. If that kick was at the buzzer I like the call. Giving it back to Brady with a minute plus timeouts … well let’s just say we’ve seen that a couple times before. Once or twice.I didn't like it independent of the kicker's capability to make the kick, and I liked it even less with Folk. I do get he was making kicks of this distance in warmup, but I just don't love the idea of pinning this "upside" on a FG, at Folk's career long (and five yards longer than any kick he's made in the past five years), in the rain. I also would push back a bit on the clearly he would make it, that was good from 56 or 57 straight away as it was, and he still missed it. There's a real possibility that was "max distance" Folk and that he misses that kick rather often in a worse fashion. He is not Justin Tucker and we all know that.
But let's just say Belichick and Folk were confident in his ability to make this kick, which is okay, I still dislike the idea of giving the ball back to the Buccaneers with 60-70 seconds and two time outs left given the Bucs had two scoring drives in the quarter already and that it seemed either an injured Jones or Bethel were going to be on the field for it. I think if this were a 56 yard field goal with 5-10 seconds left on 4th and 3, I'd move into the good call realm, but I don't think that the odds of hitting the field goal combined with the odds of preventing Brady from going 40-50 yards in that timeframe made the right amount of sense.
I feel like given how Mac was throwing overall, down and distance, and the upside of making that 4th and 3 in terms of clock control (almost certainly being able to make the next FG attempt a game winning attempt), I'd prefer to see them let Mac try it.
Edit: It's not an indefensible decision at all of course, I just felt it was the wrong one at the time (I was shocked to see Folk out there) and still feel it was the wrong call now from my couch. There are worse decisions make in the NFL constantly and to have New England in the game despite the turnovers and talent disparity was truly impressive.
Folk isn't the longest kicker, so to reach the uprights he had to kick the ball on a lower trajectory.I’d feel better about the miss if it had hit a little higher off the upright — a slightly more reliable trajectory.
The blocked pass was the defensive play of the game, and you have to wonder whether it factored into the decision to kick.We needed to convert that third down. That was the game just as much as the hit post. It put the team in the position having to choose between two suboptimal choices.
I get what you're saying, but i'm also damn glad we aren't debating this morning whose fault it was that the fourth and three play failedI completely get that converting the 4th and 3 was far from a given. But I think attempting that would have been a much better call.
I guess. We're debating a failed FG attempt instead. It's always something in a close loss.I get what you're saying, but i'm also damn glad we aren't debating this morning whose fault it was that the fourth and three play failed
You are saying this like this isn't something they had done many times throughout the game, including many times on the very drive they were on. The mere fact that the immediately prior play was not successful should not affect the decision to go for it at all.You need your bad o-line to hold up, and not allow pressure or (like the play before) a tip. You need to get a guy open, he needs to catch it in the rain, you need to pick up the blitz, and/or get it out so fast you beat it. Also your line has to not commit a false start, or a hold or a hands to the face.
They also failed on many more plays than just the one they were on. Go look at our play log, there were a tremendous number of negative plays, and a lot of our best production came in long yardage situations. The point is, you need a lot to go right, and if you fail you lose. I trust the D more than the offense.You are saying this like this isn't something they had done many times throughout the game, including many times on the very drive they were on. The mere fact that the immediately prior play was not successful should not affect the decision to go for it at all.
Yeah, to me this is what's been glossed over a bit - this Pats team has been bad in the red zone all year, and then on top of that had absolutely no run game the entire day. So they've been uniquely poor at exactly what they'd be trying to achieve here.I thought it was a fine call, Folk has been a great kicker, and if you feel good about his ability from 56 you take the points. The Bucs had struggled, poor weather, your defense is playing well.
I think part of it is... I don't at all buy the idea that the Patriots had a 52% chance of picking up a 4th and 2. I'd put the chance on a run at a good what.. 0%? So you're passing. You need your bad o-line to hold up, and not allow pressure or (like the play before) a tip. You need to get a guy open, he needs to catch it in the rain, you need to pick up the blitz, and/or get it out so fast you beat it. Also your line has to not commit a false start, or a hold or a hands to the face.
I guess it comes down to.... I trust this team's PASS defense more than I trust the offense to execute on short-yardage/ red-zone type opportunities in a single play.
In two of the first three games the D failed in “must stop” drives at the end of the game. Why would last night have been different given how TB was moving the ball?They also failed on many more plays than just the one they were on. Go look at our play log, there were a tremendous number of negative plays, and a lot of our best production came in long yardage situations. The point is, you need a lot to go right, and if you fail you lose. I trust the D more than the offense.
And beyond that, I look at the season as a whole. Do you really trust this offense more than the pass D?
They didn't have many short yardage plays last night, in part because they had so many failed plays that put them in long distances.
Good call.Knowing that they thought Folk was already in range, that third down play would have been a really good spot for a run if they had an even minimally competent run game. Running has huge advantages there. You might make a first down. You might get closer to a first down. You might get an extra yard or two for a kick if you go that way (which could have made a difference), you burn time for Tom to get a chance or make them use a time out.
If they had any tricky running plays, that might have been a good spot. QB draw or something. The defense was not expecting run there. But the way the O-line was playing, there were too many bad possibilities that you usually don't worry about. Fumble. Holding. Stopped in the back field.
Perfect freaking spot for a run, but we can't run.
Because there was a lot less time, and the weather was bad. The Patriots failed on must stop drives that involved a lot of running and draining the clock with 4-5 yard runs. I don't think the Bucs were going to just hand it to Fournette in those situations. It would be the Bucs playing to the strength of our defense by throwing.In two of the first three games the D failed in “must stop” drives at the end of the game. Why would last night have been different given how TB was moving the ball?
Maybe, maybe not. Both the Saints and Dolphins completed crucial passes on those drives. Wish we got to see the D get another shot, or have Mac try to throw it, one way or the other. We got neither which sucks.Because there was a lot less time, and the weather was bad. The Patriots failed on must stop drives that involved a lot of running and draining the clock with 4-5 yard runs. I don't think the Bucs were going to just hand it to Fournette in those situations. It would be the Bucs playing to the strength of our defense by throwing.
Just how "makeable" it was is the question, though. Sure, theoretically most NFL kickers can make a kick into the 60+ yard range if the stars align. Given the conditions and Folk's in-game history, I don't know how anyone could have been highly optimistic that he could make it. And he didn't.Preferred the kick in the moment and still prefer it. You need to put points on the board and you may not get another chance. Makeable kick. Unfortunate outcome.
I don't want to be argumentative, but I disagree with the overarching point about Folk having the leg. I mean, yes, the ball hit the upright so there was appropriate length. But to get that length he had to kick on a trajectory that compromised accuracy. Needless to say, the two are connected. Folk hasn't made a FG from that distance in 11 years, and I presume that's because it is exceedingly unlikely that he can.My lady will tell you I did not like the decision to kick the FG. Weather and distance made that kick incredibly difficult and I didn't think Folk could reach. And I was 100% incorrect. He did have the leg and if it's a foot to the right it's in. If he nails that, you then kickoff so the ball is short of the goal line to force a return, eat a few more second off the clock and hope you can pin them inside their own 25.
Could Brady have gotten them back in FG range after that? History says yes. But I would've been fine taking my chances and seeing if Succup can hit a 45-50 yarder in the rain going in the other direction.
Yeah, agree with this. Given that Folk hit the upright a lot of people seem to be assuming that the range of possible outcomes for the kick was something like "miss by a few yards" to "nail it dead center." But isn't it just, if not more, likely, that the range of possible outcomes is more like "have it come up way short" to "just barely miss"? In other words, isn't it possible that what we saw (a near miss) was actually the best Folk could have done under the circumstances?I don't want to be argumentative, but I disagree with the overarching point about Folk having the leg. I mean, yes, the ball hit the upright so there was appropriate length. But to get that length he had to kick on a trajectory that compromised accuracy. Needless to say, the two are connected. Folk hasn't made a FG from that distance in 11 years, and I presume that's because it is exceedingly unlikely that he can.
I still don't really like the decision but I agree with this overall take.I wrote in the game thread that I didn’t think he had the leg for it. I was wrong. He did. And after thinking about it, I’m fine with the decision (wished for a better outcome of course). But the rationale to me is that they probably weren’t going to gain that many more yards after picking up a first down (if they got it), so they were still looking at a long field goal attempt.
I mean, what's the basis for that? The special teams folks thought he could kick it. He thought he could kick it. Belichick thought he could kick it, and he missed it by a few inches. Maybe that was among the worst possible outcomes and he makes 7 of 10. No way to know.Yeah, agree with this. Given that Folk hit the upright a lot of people seem to be assuming that the range of possible outcomes for the kick was something like "miss by a few yards" to "nail it dead center." But isn't it just, if not more, likely, that the range of possible outcomes is more like "have it come up way short" to "just barely miss"? In other words, isn't it possible that what we saw (a near miss) was actually the best Folk could have done under the circumstances?
I'm sure there's a universe where the ball tails a couple feet less and it squeaks inside the goalpost. I'm also sure there are many universes where the ball lands a few yards short of the crossbar, or tails another 15 feet left.Yeah, agree with this. Given that Folk hit the upright a lot of people seem to be assuming that the range of possible outcomes for the kick was something like "miss by a few yards" to "nail it dead center." But isn't it just, if not more, likely, that the range of possible outcomes is more like "have it come up way short" to "just barely miss"? In other words, isn't it possible that what we saw (a near miss) was actually the best Folk could have done under the circumstances?
It was Meyers (16) and he was wiiiiiiiiiiide open.The blocked pass was the defensive play of the game, and you have to wonder whether it factored into the decision to kick.
On the replay, you see the receiver (number ended in 5 so either Agholor or Henry), jump up in frustration after the pass is blocked, because it was clear the play would have worked.
I think the thing is... the decision to punt or take a FG is very different though:They’ve never shown confidence in Folk to make FG of that length, in less challenging game situations. How many times have we seen them punt rather than try a 50+ yarder?
To make that kick and then prevent the Bucs from scoring a FG seems less likely to an converting and then kicking a shorter FG with less time.
It was a call that i found to be completely out of character for Belichick, and I think it was the wrong move, but I’m not gonna fight anyone over it- the choice he made was certainly defensible.
The basis, from a fan's perspective, is that Folk hasn't made a kick of that distance in 11 years. And he still hasn't.I mean, what's the basis for that? The special teams folks thought he could kick it. He thought he could kick it. Belichick thought he could kick it, and he missed it by a few inches. Maybe that was among the worst possible outcomes and he makes 7 of 10. No way to know.
That's exactly my point - there's no way to know. So "he had the leg" or "he barely missed it" can't be justifications supporting the decision to kick because we don't know if that was among the best or worst possible outcomes. Put another way, if you thought the decision was bad prior to the kick, the fact that he hit the upright shouldn't change that thinking.I mean, what's the basis for that? The special teams folks thought he could kick it. He thought he could kick it. Belichick thought he could kick it, and he missed it by a few inches. Maybe that was among the worst possible outcomes and he makes 7 of 10. No way to know.