The Game Goat Thread: Week 13 at Packers
- Thread starter SeoulSoxFan
- Start date
Question: If Gostkowski hits that FG, do the Pats onside or kickoff? The Pats would have had 2 TO and the 2-minute warning, down 3, so they most likely kick off. But maybe not. The miss limited Pats' options, in addition to eliminating a FG-to-tie scenario. Big miss.
I'm giving blanket blame to the offense in the first quarter.
Defense holds GB to a FG. Pats go 3 and out. GB drives again, held to a FG. Pats go 3 and out again.
Tired D comes out and gives up the TD.
Offense from then on was a lot better but the damage was done.
Defense holds GB to a FG. Pats go 3 and out. GB drives again, held to a FG. Pats go 3 and out again.
Tired D comes out and gives up the TD.
Offense from then on was a lot better but the damage was done.
I agree that there were not goats. I suspect that most people here don't think of any of these choices as true goats and it's really more code for someone whose play or decision making contributed more than others to the outcome.
I can see both sides of the Gronk point. On the one hand, it was a bit of a high stakes gamble in that failing to convert would put the Pats in 3rd and 9 and let GB tee off on Tom. On the other hand, it indeed almost worked. So while I was nodding my head at the original post, those who replied that it damn near worked have a good point.
I do think that the smarter play would have been to try to pick up yards on the ground and make it third and much more manageable, with the option to go for it again on forth down. That doesn't make Josh a goat and the point about Gronk almost scoring is there. It's just not what I would have preferred.
Surprised no one has picked up on my Gray point. Were others not also scratching their head or calling for BB to use him more?
I can see both sides of the Gronk point. On the one hand, it was a bit of a high stakes gamble in that failing to convert would put the Pats in 3rd and 9 and let GB tee off on Tom. On the other hand, it indeed almost worked. So while I was nodding my head at the original post, those who replied that it damn near worked have a good point.
I do think that the smarter play would have been to try to pick up yards on the ground and make it third and much more manageable, with the option to go for it again on forth down. That doesn't make Josh a goat and the point about Gronk almost scoring is there. It's just not what I would have preferred.
Surprised no one has picked up on my Gray point. Were others not also scratching their head or calling for BB to use him more?
ShaneTrot said:
I don't know who was on, but the Patriots got fucking demolished when they had only one down lineman for a couple of downs against the Packers. Reminiscent of Kyle Arrington at DE. Even Trent Richardson would have been able to pick up a dozen against that front.
by the way, per Reiss:
Couldn't agree more. Didn't see the first (it was when CBS was still on Chargers-Ravens, right?), but the 2nd was incredibly ticky-tack and cost the Pats a stop. Really impressed by Browner this year and he doesn't deserve half the penalties he's recv'd.
Couldn't agree more. Didn't see the first (it was when CBS was still on Chargers-Ravens, right?), but the 2nd was incredibly ticky-tack and cost the Pats a stop. Really impressed by Browner this year and he doesn't deserve half the penalties he's recv'd.
I'm not really all that upset. Like others have said, no shame in losing by 5 to a very good team in their building. Would love to get them again in Glendale.
I was most disappointed in our OL. Brady started hearing footsteps in the 2nd half and that's when he loses his sharpness. Run blocking was sporadic in the first half when we really needed it.
If Gronk holds onto that last drop a half second more it's 6.
I was most disappointed in our OL. Brady started hearing footsteps in the 2nd half and that's when he loses his sharpness. Run blocking was sporadic in the first half when we really needed it.
If Gronk holds onto that last drop a half second more it's 6.
Obviously, Bill Belichick is about as far as you can get from being a goat. But if we're highlighting fuck-ups that ended up playing a role in deciding the game, let's call a spade a spade: The punt on 4th and 1 from the 49 was completely, utterly, unequivocally wrong.
Speaking of things that are wrong, it's too bad we can't have some kind of word filter for "keep XYZ off the field." That's ESPN-level logic.
jsinger121 said:
Speaking of things that are wrong, it's too bad we can't have some kind of word filter for "keep XYZ off the field." That's ESPN-level logic.
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.
I'm with the no goat crowd too. Though it seemed to me that Logan Ryan was getting burned frequently.
Beyond that, though, the inability to shut down on 3rd down was maddening.
Beyond that, though, the inability to shut down on 3rd down was maddening.
Agreed 100%.Chuck Z said:
They sucked at both, so I think it's fair to say they sucked.GeorgeCostanza said:
Agreed on all of this.Mystic Merlin said:
Not really. GB came into the game averaging 2.74 points per drive; they had 2.89 today. The D sucked, a low number of drives for each team just makes it look like they were OK.Smiling Joe Hesketh said:
I don't gamble, but I imagine people who had the Pats +2.5 are pretty pissed at Gost.
Also, for those suggesting Allen as a goat, I think every punt he got off without getting killed was a victory. Nink's snaps were like slo-pitch softballs.
Also, for those suggesting Allen as a goat, I think every punt he got off without getting killed was a victory. Nink's snaps were like slo-pitch softballs.
It is disappointing that they did not get more stops but let not discount the red zone defense GB averages 5.2 points per red zone trip and today they averaged 3.Super Nomario said:
And lets remember the terrible second penalty on Browner, that negated a sack. Get that sack and who knows what happens on 3rd down and the rest of the game. The defense could have been better, but they did enough to win.
Agreed.Super Nomario said:
They forced one punt, folks. One. There was almost no pass rush, even when the coverage made Rodgers hold the ball for 4, 5, 6 seconds. Another TD was dropped by GB. This could have been a GB blowout just as easily as it could have been the Pats squeaking out a win.
Don't do this.H78 said:
Gronk could have caught the ball, Nelson could have been marked out at the one like I think he should have, The Refs could have not thrown a flag and then picked it up that made the Pats run one more play before the 1st half 2 minute warning leaving lots less time for the Packers.
This game was close, it is not like the Pats did not have a chance at the end.
And I'm not saying all us lost. This isn't an overreaction, just an honest one. The score was not a very good indicator of how much they dominated the Patriots.
Can the Pats beat them? Yeah, I think so. But on a neutral field I bet GB is favored, and I think they should be.
Can the Pats beat them? Yeah, I think so. But on a neutral field I bet GB is favored, and I think they should be.
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.
My point is actually a neutral one. I'm saying that if people want to point out that the Pats "could" have done "this" or "that" and squeaked out a win, the same could be said for Green Bay who had plenty of missed opportunities and still won the game. If you look at it another way, if they connected for two more touchdowns in the red zone they would have won by two scores. It's not like them to go 0-for in the red zone, yet they still won.Silverdude2167 said:
I also feel like Green Bay is one of the worst possible match ups for the Patriots defense right now. They don't have a single dominating receiver, or even two guys, they have a bunch of weapons that can beat your third and fourth best defender. They have a mobile QB that is exceptionally good at buying extra time. And they have a solid OL.
Fun, if not frustrating game. Some of the flags seemed absurd. Probably the NFL's two best teams right now.
Fun, if not frustrating game. Some of the flags seemed absurd. Probably the NFL's two best teams right now.
I don't buy for a second that BB held anything back. Guy is uber competitive and wants to win.
He's playing a long con on the off chance they meet the Packers 9 weeks from now?
Don't buy it at all.
He's playing a long con on the off chance they meet the Packers 9 weeks from now?
Don't buy it at all.
My criticism is that it was not the highest percentage play in that situation, and Gronk was very well covered during that play. All they needed was to pick up some yards, and they would have had some more shots to the end zone from 1st-and-goal. The connection between the incompletion and the subsequent sack was that the GB defense had freedom to tee off on that 3rd down play; the run was no longer a threat.Mystic Merlin said:
Having said that, I'll agree it's mostly a nit I'm picking with the play calling. Had Solder actually blocked his man the sack doesn't happen, and Brady probably would have been able to make play or at worst throw the ball away.
I'm still keeping my goat calls on both lines. GB is a good team, but the offense never got going, and the defense gave up far too many 1st downs (10) on 3rd down. And punting on that 4th-and-1 on midfield was not a defensible call when you have Blount and Brady's QB sneak available. Any argument that claims otherwise is simply wrong. And Phil Simms is an idiot for thinking the Pats should have punted on that 4th-and-3 on the 4th quarter.
Completely agreed. That said, no goats from where I sit. Sometimes you lose tough games against good teams. Hope we see a rematch in Glendale.8slim said:
I will go to my grave (hopefully not for another 50 years or so) believing that was a catch. He caught it with the hands, slid on his back for at least 2-3 yards with full control and a dude on top of him before it popped out. With the way Rogers was firing though they most likely come down and kick a game winning field go anyway but fuck. That was a catch goddammit mother interns !!!richgedman'sghost said:
I saw something that could be construed that way, and hoped it was unintentional or tongue-in-cheek. Because there is close to zero percent chance of that happening.8slim said:
If they don't grab the first seed, the chances are substantially higher that they won't be going to the SB. The 1 seed is not even close to being secure.
Silverdude2167 said:
Don't forget the world's most obvious OPI on a 3rd down catch against Dennard. Even Nantz and Simms admitted that was a brutal missed call.
They had a one on one with their best offensive player, and arguably the best offensive player in the league.
This idea that they have a better chance at gaining 9-10 yards short of the end zone to another target seems like wishful thinking to me. Plenty of red zone passes are going to be 'well-covered' and require great throws. Brady made it, like he did numerous other times in this game. Was the second TD pass to LaFell a bad decision because he was 'well covered'?
I mean, the idea that you don't throw to Gronk in the red zone when he's got a matchup because there's a 'higher percentage' target somewhere else does not make sense to me. I'll take the Gronk matchup over anything short of the goal line all day.
This idea that they have a better chance at gaining 9-10 yards short of the end zone to another target seems like wishful thinking to me. Plenty of red zone passes are going to be 'well-covered' and require great throws. Brady made it, like he did numerous other times in this game. Was the second TD pass to LaFell a bad decision because he was 'well covered'?
I mean, the idea that you don't throw to Gronk in the red zone when he's got a matchup because there's a 'higher percentage' target somewhere else does not make sense to me. I'll take the Gronk matchup over anything short of the goal line all day.
Don't worry, CBS didn't bother showing a reply of his first penalty anyway. So you didn't miss anything.Tony C said:
I put it 100% on Brady. He was in full on, locked I to forcing it to gronk mode at the end of that drive. Who knows maybe I'm wrong and nobody else was open or gronk had an obvious mismatch but to me it looked like Brady was throwing that ball to gronk no matter what. The fact that they almost pulled it off feels like it's just reinforcing a bad Brady habit.lexrageorge said:
You had to remind me of that. Just when I was feeling ok with the loss. That was absolutely brutal.Jettisoned said:
( . ) ( . ) and (_!_) said:
Maybe he did, who knows? Or Gronk was his primary given the one-on-one, so why look away unless you're trying to pump the safety? He got some separation on the DB and Brady hit him. I swear I'm hallucinating because I'm not seeing this almost-miraculous play.
I know what you're saying about Brady locking in on Gronk, he's made some dumbfuck throws into double coverage before. And he's forced the ball to Moss/Edelman/Welker in the past. But I'm not seeing this here.
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.Mystic Merlin said:
Co-sign. Would have preferred a more make able, clock-killing play, followed by more tries at the EZ. So frustrating.Jed Zeppelin said:
P.S. No way do Peyton and Denver lose in Cincy. No chance.
The Patriots better win out if they want the 1 seed. I didn't buy into the bullshit that about losing this game and still being 75-80% to get the 1 seed. SD is coming off a pretty emotional win and will not be easy at all.
Do not downplay the fact they won't be following their normal practice week at the facility either. This week will tell us how mentally tough they are as a team. Can they handle a week of preparation on the road?
Do not downplay the fact they won't be following their normal practice week at the facility either. This week will tell us how mentally tough they are as a team. Can they handle a week of preparation on the road?
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
Yeah, they could win in mile high too. They win 60-65 percent at home 35-40 on the road or something like that
Tough loss on the road to a SB contender. Few things break Pats way, they win and this is a game ball thread. Few more things break GBs way and its a blowout (hey refs!). Playing the what if game is tough. Both lines and Brady have looked better and Im sure theyll learn a few things from the tape afterwards.
Honestly, my biggest take home, what the 2007 Pats did winning every game on the road was very impressive. Winning away games against good teams with good home field is hard.
SD big game next week.
Honestly, my biggest take home, what the 2007 Pats did winning every game on the road was very impressive. Winning away games against good teams with good home field is hard.
SD big game next week.