162 replies to this topic

[Zomp]

Not sure it was possible. It would have been awkward if they let him walk in from the 10...I'm sure bradshaw would have downed himself.

[BigJimEd]

I was yelling to let NY score for a few plays but tough to know if it would have worked. Obviously, Bradshaw did realize on the TD what the Pats were doing and tried or at least thought about taking a knee so with more time/yards the Pats plan would have been more obvious and maybe the Giants kneel on it.

However, I don't think the Giants coaching staff was planning for a kneel down in that situation otherwise why hand it off at all. Just have Eli take a knee.

[Jungleland]

As much as hindsight makes me want to, I can't fault the clock management. On the drive that stalled with the Welker drop and Branch miss, I think it was correct to move slowly. I'm too scarred by the outcome to go to espn and look up the exact time on the clock, but weren't there about 3:10 left when Welker dropped it? He catches that, and the clock runs down to a little over 2.5 minutes with New England having the ball at the twenty. Even with three kneel downs and a field goal from there, the Giants get the ball back needing a TD with under a minute and a half and no timeouts. The alternative - playing the drive to score as quickly as possible - feels too much like hedging your bets. A slow drive for a TD was the one possible way to ice the game completely. With that option available, I see no way of suggesting the team wouldn't play it the same way if they had the chance to again.

As far as the Giants drive goes, I agree with Zomp. With NY needing only a field goal to win, there's no guarantee they would have taken the bait on a play that far out. Challenging Manningham's catch was far and away the most glaring clock/time out mismanagement of the game.

[moondog80]

.They should have also run the 2nd to last drive at a faster pace to give them more time to answer in case the Giants went down the field as they did. There wasn't much chance that they would be able to burn the entire clock and not score a TD.

No? Welker makes that catch and the next snap is 1st and 10 at the 20 with about 3:20 left and one Giants TO. Get another first down and the Giants get the ball with no TO and 40 seconds left, need a TD. Really, they score there and it's like the 4th quarter drive that ate the clock and put Indy away in the AFC Championship in 2004.

[bowiac]

This is also a bit of a goofy area in the rules. The silliness of both teams trying to fail in order to handle clock issues is a bit much to handle at times like this. The team on defense should be able to give the other team an immediate touchdown and force a kickoff/onside kick attempt.

[moondog80]

Challenging Manningham's catch was far and away the most glaring clock/time out mismanagement of the game.

No way there was enough time to determine that was a catch. Losing the TO sucked, but that was a huge play and worth the risk. Too bad it didn't happen within 2 minutes.

Edited by moondog80, 06 February 2012 - 12:16 PM.

[bowiac]

No? Welker makes that catch and the next snap is 1st and 10 at the 20 with about 3:20 left and one Giants TO. Get another first down and the Giants get the ball with no TO and 40 seconds left, need a TD. Really, they score there and it's like the 4th quarter drive that ate the clock and put Indy away in the AFC Championship in 2004.

Fair enough. It seemed unnecessarily slow to me, since when running a hurry up, there isn't much difference in whether the Giants have 3:46 or 5 minutes on the clock. There's a scenario where Welker makes the catch, they get another first down, but don't score a TD, but I'd expect an awful lot of the time when they get two more first downs, they score a touchdown there anyways.

[moondog80]

Fair enough. It seemed unnecessarily slow to me, since when running a hurry up, there isn't much difference in whether the Giants have 3:46 or 5 minutes on the clock. There's a scenario where Welker makes the catch, they get another first down, but don't score a TD, but I'd expect an awful lot of the time when they get two more first downs, they score a touchdown there anyways.

Maybe. But if they do get another first down, depending on the time remaining, they're probably going to be content with three runs up the middle and a FG. All I know is that at the time, I was aware of the fact that the pace was going to come back to bite them if they didn't score, but a FG seemed like a pretty good bet until the Welker drop left them 3rd and 11.

[SWHB]

I guess Bill deserves some credit for a decent defensive game. However, I am very disappointed in how his team played--yet again--when it mattered most. There was nothing during that game that I saw as brilliant strategy. Both teams were sloppy yesterday, but the Patriots were the worse of the two. The 12 men on the field negating a fumble recovery was about as embarrasing as it gets. Bill is a very good coach still, but the notion that he's playing chess and everyone else is playing checkers is no longer true. He's fallen back to the pack.

I thought the Giants were worse - they had an illegal huddle, 12 men on defense (though maybe that was intentional), and burned two timeouts because they couldn't get plays off. They also fumbled three times, though it didn't result in any turnovers. And Coughlin's a good coach. I don't know what "falling back to the pack" means, but I'd take Belichick over any other coach in the league hands down. If all you mean is that he doesn't look as good as he did when they won 3 Super Bowls in 4 years, then I agree, but I think he was never as good as he looked - no one can be. 5 SB appearances in 11 years is still pretty fucking good.

Edited by SWHB, 06 February 2012 - 09:04 PM.

[Three10toLeft]

On a different note:

Michael Lombardi was on the BS Report, apparently he has a close relationship to Belichick, he said they went out for dinner a few times throughout the week in Indy. Simmons brought up the fact that Belichick's getting up there in age and how much longer can he be doing this?

To my surprise, Michael Lombardi said he firmly believes that he's going to continue coaching after Tom Brady retires. Now.... Who knows when Brady will be at that point, but he will be 35 heading in to the 2012 campaign so you have to imagine it's not too far off.

I was more surprised to hear Lombardi say that with as much conviction as he had.

[soxfan121]

On a different note:

Michael Lombardi was on the BS Report, apparently he has a close relationship to Belichick, he said they went out for dinner a few times throughout the week in Indy. Simmons brought up the fact that Belichick's getting up there in age and how much longer can he be doing this?

To my surprise, Michael Lombardi said he firmly believes that he's going to continue coaching after Tom Brady retires. Now.... Who knows when Brady will be at that point, but he will be 35 heading in to the 2012 campaign so you have to imagine it's not too far off.

I was more surprised to hear Lombardi say that with as much conviction as he had.

Did he say after Brady left (the team) or after Brady retired? Brady's on record as wanting to play into his late 30s.

I think BB wants to prove the success wasn't "all Brady" after Brady is gone. And Bill Walsh traded Joe Montana. Not that I expect it any time soon...but with BB, it's not out of the realm of possibility at any time.

I love that BB wants to be the Greatest.Fucking.Coach.Ever.The boat. The borderline insane will & determination the man has is unbelievable; Belichick probably has 5 more names he wants to eliminate on his march to GFCE; Noll (4), Lombardi (5), Lambeau & Halas (6) and Shula (347). One more play or a little more luck in 2006, 2007 and 2011 and he'd be tied; Belichick Field at Gillette/Patriots Place has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?

I love that our coach is clearly still insanely committed to winning as much as possible. Nine more seasons gives him an even 20 in New England; 3 Super Bowl wins, 5 Conference Championships, 9 Division titles, the NFL record for wins in a decade (126) and the only 16-0 regular season ever in his first 11 seasons on the job. Cut his production in half (assume he's human and slows the pace) and he still ends up obliterating almost every significant coaching record (Shula's probably out of reach unless he goes at least 11 or 12 more very good seasons).

I think BB wants the trophy renamed for him - and there's a decent chance it happens. We are so fucking lucky. Cue the Imperial March.

[Three10toLeft]

He said something along the lines of, he'd be shocked if Belichick didn't coach at least 5 more years. And coach beyond Tom Brady's "career".

[Ed Hillel]

Fair enough. It seemed unnecessarily slow to me, since when running a hurry up, there isn't much difference in whether the Giants have 3:46 or 5 minutes on the clock. There's a scenario where Welker makes the catch, they get another first down, but don't score a TD, but I'd expect an awful lot of the time when they get two more first downs, they score a touchdown there anyways.

Well, if the Pats score a TD the Giants have to score twice and the difference between 3 and 5 minutes is more significant. I have no real issues with the way they played anything. Maybe see if you can get them to score a play earlier, but it may not work anyway. It may even be best to grab the guy ajd gang drag him into the endzone lol.