Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

49ers at Patriots--Sunday Night Football


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
3482 replies to this topic

#3451 Nator

  • 1293 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:33 AM

I'm less worried about winning in Denver than I am about having to play an extra game with this team that has already been losing important players on a seemingly weekly basis.


The bitch of this situation is that most of us likely thought that the Pats would split these last 2 games. Then for about 47 seconds tonight there was hope that the Pats might find a way to win them both. That's what's pissing me off right now.

#3452 BigSoxFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 11317 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:34 AM

First home loss in Dec since 2002. That's just remarkable.

#3453 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6999 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:34 AM

There have been more Hail Mary's completed in NFL history than 73 yd FG.

Sure, but if you knock 10 or 20 yards off that FG distance, that's not true.

It's really all about how much time is left... you can make a case that maybe they could've tried one shot at the endzone... more than one, or any kind of disaster where a guy was tackled inbounds and the game was over.

This was pretty much true period. If they recovered the onside kick and Brady got sacked or completed a short pass in bounds, it would have the same effect on their chances of scoring a TD.

They way they did it, if they had recovered the onside they would've had enough time left for maybe 3 plays to get a TD.

Even if you can get a couple sideline passes and pick up 30 or 40 yards, you're still throwing a Hail Mary. If they could have gotten a TD in say, 10 seconds, they would have had plenty of time to get into FG range, even with no timeouts.

If you can go for the TD first and get it without blowing most of your time, that's clearly the best outcome. There's more downside risk to failing if you try that way, but down 10 with less than a minute left and no timeouts isn't really the time to worry about downside risk.

#3454 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14161 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:34 AM

There have been more Hail Mary's completed in NFL history than 73 yd FG.

It's really all about how much time is left... you can make a case that maybe they could've tried one shot at the endzone... more than one, or any kind of disaster where a guy was tackled inbounds and the game was over. They way they did it, if they had recovered the onside they would've had enough time left for maybe 3 plays to get a TD.


I don't see the logic there. You need two scores. You must recover an on sides kick. If you're not inside the 20 (where td is easier) why wouldn't you try to get to onside kick as quickly as possible? Seems like exactly the right percentage play....

#3455 BoredViewer

  • 2209 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:35 AM

True, although if you go on and get the TD first, the defense has to defend against both the FG and the TD if you recover the kickoff.


That's why it comes down to timing... you're unlikely to be in FG range after recovering an onside - with no TO left, I think you're going to want about 30 seconds.... so, Pats probably could've taken a shot in the endzone and maybe kicked the FG a play too early.. but it was close.

#3456 Super Nomario


  • SoSH Member


  • 6999 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:37 AM

I don't see the logic there. You need two scores. You must recover an on sides kick. If you're not inside the 20 (where td is easier) why wouldn't you try to get to onside kick as quickly as possible? Seems like exactly the right percentage play....

There's a difference in what you need after the onside kick.

The Pats were on the 23, not too far off the 20.

#3457 Ferm Sheller

  • 4318 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:43 AM

Was at the game, still don't understand how they didn't overrule the call that the punt didn't hit the SF returner in the first half. Clearly hit him, didn't it?

#3458 Mystic Merlin


  • SoSH Member


  • 21363 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:44 AM

Was at the game, still don't understand how they didn't overrule the call that the punt didn't hit the SF returner in the first half. Clearly hit him, didn't it?


All I know is balls don't change direction and rotation on their own.

#3459 Harry Hooper


  • SoSH Member


  • 13757 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:48 AM

Was at the game, still don't understand how they didn't overrule the call that the punt didn't hit the SF returner in the first half. Clearly hit him, didn't it?


From 2 replay angles, it looked like he didn't make contact with the ball, another angle was totally unclear, and a 4th and best angle it looked like the ball ticked the top of his foot (just below where you tie your shoelaces) but wouldn't qualify as irrefutable evidence to overturn. Overall, I'd say it was more likely than not the ball touched his foot, but that's not enough to overturn

Edited by Harry Hooper, 17 December 2012 - 12:48 AM.


#3460 McBride11

  • 2804 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:50 AM

From 2 replay angles, it looked like he didn't make contact with the ball, another angle was totally unclear, and a 4th and best angle it looked like the ball ticked the top of his foot (just below where you tie your shoelaces) but wouldn't qualify as irrefutable evidence to overturn. Overall, I'd say it was more likely than not the ball touched his foot, but that's not enough to overturn


Thought it got his middle or ring finger which appeared to bend back. But again, not enough evidence sadly.

More importantly... Any word any Dennard?? Tafoya mentioned she saw him "stretching it out" during the 2nd half??

#3461 LogansDad


  • SoSH Member


  • 5218 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:50 AM

Was at the game, still don't understand how they didn't overrule the call that the punt didn't hit the SF returner in the first half. Clearly hit him, didn't it?


I'm pretty sure Hochuli doesn't even know what the hell happened on that play at this point. They called a penalty on three different teams, moved the spot twice, reviewed a play, stopped play before a snap only to charge the Pats a timeout. The replacement refs were horrible, but I have a feeling they didn't get paid as well as these guys, and this was one of the worst flowing games I have seen, at least in the first half.

#3462 Ferm Sheller

  • 4318 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:51 AM

From 2 replay angles, it looked like he didn't make contact with the ball, another angle was totally unclear, and a 4th and best angle it looked like the ball ticked the top of his foot (just below where you tie your shoelaces) but wouldn't qualify as irrefutable evidence to overturn. Overall, I'd say it was more likely than not the ball touched his foot, but that's not enough to overturn


The replays on the Gillette scoreboard clearly showed that the ball changed rotation at the returners mid-shin. Clearly.

#3463 DeJesus Built My Hotrod


  • SoSH Member


  • 10001 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:51 AM

That was about as inconclusive as you can get. One camera angle suggested that it might have grazed him while another seemed to indicate that it missed him altogether. And then, as MM says, the ball seemed to bounce to the side after going past him.

#3464 Ralphwiggum

  • 1248 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:55 AM

Fuck that game. Strangest game I have ever attended live. The place was dead and then so electric when they tied it. I still don't know what happened after that.

I still think this is the best team in the league. They played like ass and could not catch a break for 2+ quarters and still almost won. But, barring something unforeseen they are going to have o win 3 playoff games including two on the road. If they want to be the champs they have their work cut out for them.

Fucking kickoff return. Fuck.

#3465 Harry Hooper


  • SoSH Member


  • 13757 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:02 AM

The replays on the Gillette scoreboard clearly showed that the ball changed rotation at the returners mid-shin. Clearly.


Mid-shin? Have to see it again, but the NBC replays showed potential foot and maybe fingertip contact. No sign of a mid-shin contact.

#3466 Ferm Sheller

  • 4318 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:05 AM

Mid-shin? Have to see it again, but the NBC replays showed potential foot and maybe fingertip contact. No sign of a mid-shin contact.



Sounds like NBC short-changed you. That happens.

#3467 Jed Zeppelin


  • SoSH Member


  • 15210 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:08 AM

All I know is balls don't change direction and rotation on their own.


Yet this is at least the second time this season a review has decided that they can - the other was the Texans on Thanksgiving maybe? Not sure exactly but it was a game that mattered seeding-wise. It's like if there's any doubt they have to leave open the possibility that an alien came from outer space in a split-second and blew on the ball.

#3468 Al Zarilla


  • SoSH Member


  • 20524 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:08 AM

Mid-shin? Have to see it again, but the NBC replays showed potential foot and maybe fingertip contact. No sign of a mid-shin contact.

I thought the ball changed direction and rotation when it went by/hit Ginn's shin, but you couldn't exactly see the ball hit him. In any case, I need some gin.

#3469 24JoshuaPoint


  • Grand Theft Duvet


  • 3202 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:49 AM

We were escorted out. Par for the course i guess.

(null)

#3470 Harry Hooper


  • SoSH Member


  • 13757 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 01:53 AM

Pats were 2-15 on 3rd down conversions, and still scored all those points.

#3471 E5 Yaz


  • Transcends message boarding


  • 24567 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:16 AM

Special teams coverage wasn't very special

#3472 Turrable

  • 2164 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 02:50 AM

Special teams coverage wasn't very special


Depends what kind of special you mean

#3473 Worst Trade Evah


  • SoSH Member


  • 10834 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 05:09 AM

Patriot fumbles: 2
Fumbles lost: 2

Niner fumbles: 6
Fumbles lost: 1

Argh

#3474 jkempa

  • 4784 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 08:10 AM

This was the first time I followed a game thread where I was rooting against you guys. It was interesting.

As frightening as that comeback was, it totally had the feel of a prevent defense strategy for most of the 2nd half. And it has me very worried about Justin Smith's inevitable decline at age 33. Hope he's fine.

As great as the Pats comeback was, and the 49ers did get some lucky bounces (though I think the whole fumble on the snap thing is not something Pats fans should be pointing to), the Patriots were also fortunate that they weren't down 31-3 at the half.

I really hope there's a rematch in February.

Edited by jkempa, 17 December 2012 - 09:27 AM.


#3475 NortheasternPJ


  • SoSH Member


  • 5590 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:25 AM

Being at the game (and not having time to go through 70 pages to find it) What the hell was the first PI call on Talib? From in the stadium and reviews on the screen it looked like there really wasn't any contact and the two officials that were next to the play let it go and the official 30 yards down field called it.

Was it a legit call or blown?

#3476 Mugsys Jock


  • Longtime Member


  • 3900 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:30 AM

Patriot fumbles: 2
Fumbles lost: 2

Niner fumbles: 6
Fumbles lost: 1

Argh

It's been cited elsewhere, but...

1.) A bunch of the 49er fumbles were dropped snaps, which aren't 50/50s
2.) One of them was on a 4th and 1, and was irrelevant
3.) The 49ers may have lost only one fumble, but it was inside the Patriots 10 yard line, so leverage-wise that's worth a lot extra
4.) Akers missed a chippie FG
5.) The Pats got a gift PI call on the long ball to Lloyd

All of which has to lead you to...

6.) The 49ers are really good.

I think the Pats, with Gronk, can win a rematch... but this one wasn't about luck.

Edited by Mugsys Jock, 17 December 2012 - 09:31 AM.


#3477 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 41491 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:34 AM

I don't think that was a gift call, there was plenty of contact before the feet tangled and the defender wasn't turned. On the Brady INT, there was a pretty clear hold not called, however.

As for the zone issue, the Niners played soft zone on one or two drives in the third and then went back to man. Brady just beat them deep three times.

#3478 PedroKsBambino


  • SoSH Member


  • 14161 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 09:56 AM

Mid-shin? Have to see it again, but the NBC replays showed potential foot and maybe fingertip contact. No sign of a mid-shin contact.


I think you may have missed an angle. On one, the ball clearly changed direction and spin as it went by Ginn's shin. In theory it could have been wind or a bounce, seemed like it hit him however.

If hochuli said 'it changed direction but insufficient evidence why' that's not unreasonable. But it moved, so I think many of us concluded it must have hit him

#3479 NavaHo

  • 109 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:50 AM

I must have missed something, and I'm sure there's a rule that explains it, but:

On the last two holding penalties on punts, it was a 10-yard penalty and the Patriots were backed inside the 10 yard line. Why was that not half the distance to the goal? Did the refs fuck this up or am I crazy?

#3480 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 6581 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 11:58 AM

According to the game log, the refs got them right - half the distance

#3481 BigSoxFan


  • SoSH Member


  • 11317 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:05 PM

According to the game log, the refs got them right - half the distance


Assuming there were actually holds on those plays. Hard to tell since they never show the replay, they just march you back.

#3482 Ed Hillel


  • Wants to be startin somethin


  • 41491 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:07 PM

I'm still convinced there was no flag on the questioned fumble punt play and that they made it up as a compromise.

#3483 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 6581 posts

Posted 17 December 2012 - 12:11 PM

I'm still convinced there was no flag on the questioned fumble punt play and that they made it up as a compromise.


Marquise Cole was clearly held on the play, that is what I am assuming the hold was, but I may be wrong




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users