NFL Superbowl: Dont Waste My Overtime

[Rockroi]

2 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

That's not true either. The Patriots got the ball an additional two times, due to nothing more than the randomness of a possession based game with a time constraint and the arbitrary overtime clock rules, and produced 150 yards and 10 points on those two possessions, which was the difference in the game.

 

The Falcons were moving the ball at will against the Pats all night, they just shot themselves in the foot repeatedly in the last 25 minutes of the game. Even the drives that stalled out the Falcons were gashing the Pats, they just had inexcusable negative plays in critical situations.

What?

Atlanta had the ball with 50 second left in the game.  They were terrible.  They literally just needed 60 yards.  However, because they mauled their time outs they were left hapless.  That's not arbitrary,  Nothing there is arbitrary.  

Also, lets say Atlanta won the toss; I cannot know this but I feel like Atlanta would have blown it.  They were so out of sync by then.  Could anyone have brought that back together?  I don't know.  But by then?  I had a lot more faith in the Pats D than in Atlanta's offense.  

[JonSnow4President]

11 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

That's not true either. The Patriots got the ball an additional two times, due to nothing more than the randomness of a possession based game with a time constraint and the arbitrary overtime clock rules, and produced 150 yards and 10 points on those two possessions, which was the difference in the game.

 

The Falcons were moving the ball at will against the Pats all night, they just shot themselves in the foot repeatedly in the last 25 minutes of the game. Even the drives that stalled out the Falcons were gashing the Pats, they just had inexcusable negative plays in critical situations.

The first quarter when they didn't score? (No turnover ended drives)  The 4th quarter when they didn't score? (only one turnover and 3 punts) The third quarter when they only scored once? (No turnover). Half their drives (not counting the one going into halftime) they barely moved the ball.

The Falcons only had 5 drives of more than 30 yards, one of which barely meets that and resulted in a punt, and one of which should have resulted in a FG). The Pats had 8 (plus a ninth where they went the maximum possible), 2 of which were likely to lead to scores before turnovers. 

[Rockroi]

A great Five Thirty-Eight article that essentially says that the Falcons attempt at being efficient was really stupid:

"On the ensuing Falcons possession, Ryan gripped it and ripped it. The Falcons moved from their own 10-yard line to the Patriots’ 22 with a 2-yard run sandwiched between two deep passes. They then ran once, for a loss of a yard, shaving 44 seconds off the clock. Then, Shanahan dialed up another pass — and Ryan took his fifth sack. (then a holding penalty).  

“You don’t think, just run the ball and make your guy kick a 50-yard field goal,” Shanahan told reporters after the game. But wait — why wouldn’t you think that?

Running two more times, even for no gain, would have forced the Patriots to burn two timeouts. The Falcons were on the Patriots’ 23-yard line; a field-goal attempt from there would have been 40 yards, not 50. Falcons kicker Matt Bryant has made 78.2 percent of his career kicks from between 40 and 49 yards. With the score 28-20, going up by 11 with less than four minutes to play would likely have been as effective a dagger as going up by 15.

So, hey great- Atlanta was really efficient. Good job; but efficiency there was almost assuredly over-rated.  They should have shot for being inefficient and with a three-point lead increase.  

[sperry]

13 minutes ago, Rockroi said:

A great Five Thirty-Eight article that essentially says that the Falcons attempt at being efficient was really stupid:

"On the ensuing Falcons possession, Ryan gripped it and ripped it. The Falcons moved from their own 10-yard line to the Patriots’ 22 with a 2-yard run sandwiched between two deep passes. They then ran once, for a loss of a yard, shaving 44 seconds off the clock. Then, Shanahan dialed up another pass — and Ryan took his fifth sack. (then a holding penalty).  

“You don’t think, just run the ball and make your guy kick a 50-yard field goal,” Shanahan told reporters after the game. But wait — why wouldn’t you think that?

Running two more times, even for no gain, would have forced the Patriots to burn two timeouts. The Falcons were on the Patriots’ 23-yard line; a field-goal attempt from there would have been 40 yards, not 50. Falcons kicker Matt Bryant has made 78.2 percent of his career kicks from between 40 and 49 yards. With the score 28-20, going up by 11 with less than four minutes to play would likely have been as effective a dagger as going up by 15.

So, hey great- Atlanta was really efficient. Good job; but efficiency there was almost assuredly over-rated.  They should have shot for being inefficient and with a three-point lead increase.  

 

What? That has nothing to do with being "efficient." It was just a piss-poor coaching decision.

18 minutes ago, Rockroi said:

What?

Atlanta had the ball with 50 second left in the game.  They were terrible.  They literally just needed 60 yards.  However, because they mauled their time outs they were left hapless.  That's not arbitrary,  Nothing there is arbitrary.  

Also, lets say Atlanta won the toss; I cannot know this but I feel like Atlanta would have blown it.  They were so out of sync by then.  Could anyone have brought that back together?  I don't know.  But by then?  I had a lot more faith in the Pats D than in Atlanta's offense.  

 

The Falcons offense was moving the ball all game. Who knows, maybe they would have continued to shoot themselves in the foot. Without a doubt, however, the additional time that Atlanta's defense would have gotten to catch their breaths would have been made a difference.  Because when the Pats won that coin toss, everyone watching knew that the Falcons defense was too gassed to mount any resistance and the game was over.

 

15 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

The first quarter when they didn't score? (No turnover ended drives)  The 4th quarter when they didn't score? (only one turnover and 3 punts) The third quarter when they only scored once? (No turnover). Half their drives (not counting the one going into halftime) they barely moved the ball.

The Falcons only had 5 drives of more than 30 yards, one of which barely meets that and resulted in a punt, and one of which should have resulted in a FG). The Pats had 8 (plus a ninth where they went the maximum possible), 2 of which were likely to lead to scores before turnovers. 

 

Again, this is just bizarre. Go look at the play by play. They moved the ball extremely well the entire game. They averaged almost 9 yards per play. Their first 6 drives resulted in 3 long touchdown drives. That's phenomenal.  The last 25 minutes they moved the ball, they just shot themselves in the foot.

 

The coaching mismatch ultimately won that game.  New England put themselves in a position where if they got some lucky bounces, and the Falcons fucked up, they could sneak back into it. Both of those things happened, and the Patriots are champs. Winning as a team that is physically outmatched is an extremely impressive accomplishment, and is a testimony to the greatness of Belichick and Brady.

[JonSnow4President]

8 minutes ago, sperry said:

Again, this is just bizarre. Go look at the play by play. They moved the ball extremely well the entire game. They averaged almost 9 yards per play. Their first 6 drives resulted in 3 long touchdown drives. That's phenomenal.  The last 25 minutes they moved the ball, they just shot themselves in the foot.

In the second half, the Falcons drives:

3 for for 4, Punt

8 for 82, TD

3 for -15, Punt

3 for -2, Fumble

6 for 45, Punt

4 for 16, Punt

 

Yup, "moved the ball extremely well the entire game." They had 2 decent drives the entire second half. 

If you look at the first half, they're elite in the second quarter, and decent despite not scoring in the first.  But the second quarter is the only time I'd describe them as moving the ball "extremely well" and it certainly doesn't extend to all game.

4 for 32, punt

5 for 24, punt

5 for 71, TD

5 for 62, TD

[sperry]

5 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

In the second half, the Falcons drives:

3 for for 4, Punt

8 for 82, TD

3 for -15, Punt

3 for -2, Fumble

6 for 45, Punt

4 for 16, Punt

 

Yup, "moved the ball extremely well the entire game." They had 2 decent drives the entire second half. 

If you look at the first half, they're elite in the second quarter, and decent despite not scoring in the first.  But the second quarter is the only time I'd describe them as moving the ball well all game.

4 for 32, punt

5 for 24, punt

5 for 71, TD

5 for 62, TD

 

Again, you aren't looking at the play by play, where they do things like gain 9 yards on first down and follow that up with a holding penalty, or get to 3rd and 1 and inexplicably completely miss a blocking assignment resulting in a strip-sack.

 

It's kind of mind-boggling how many times the Falcons had inexcusable fuck-ups that allowed the Patriots to complete 0.1% likelihood comeback.

[DanteGabriel]

1 hour ago, Mya Stone said:

This made me laugh a little too hard. 

 

I'm just coming out of semi-board retirement to thank @Rockroi for his epic post-game post, to say hey to @DanteGabriel and to say HOLY SHIT I can not believe that happened. 

Glad you surfaced, Mya. I've wondered how you and the family were faring. Hope everyone is well.

It's still hard for me to process how this happened. Even if the Patriots remembered how to play offense, I thought, they wouldn't be able to stop Atlanta from scoring. And yet they did. With an assist from Kyle Shanahan, who I suspect was trying to avoid McCarthying the game.

As to the debate on offensive efficiency... It's clear now that Belichick rope-a-doped the Falcons, and indeed the whole world. Let them pick up chunk plays so they zoomed down the field on enough drives to get overconfident, while quietly snuffing them on third down. Let the Pats put together small gains on drives and then fuck things up further down field so the Falcons ended up with a tired defense that had no will to react when the Pats started their rally. And they let the score get far enough out of hand that Trump abandoned them! Truly, this was some Baron Harkonnen shit. 

 

[JonSnow4President]

8 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Again, you aren't looking at the play by play, where they do things like gain 9 yards on first down and follow that up with a holding penalty.

That's part of moving the ball.  

Regardless, the Falcons only had 2 offensive drives where they had any sort of penalty.  One was the -15 yard drive above, where they gained zero yards on other plays.  The other was the holding penalty in the 4th quarter on that 45 yard drive. 

If you actually look at what happened, besides getting caught up in the 28-3 score, Atlanta struggled to move the ball for a large portion of the game, barely sustained any long drives in terms of play number (only two drives the entire game with more than 5 plays).  They had 2 GREAT drives in the second quarter where they moved the ball in chunks and scored. Outside of those, their offense was "meh" to the 10th degree.

[sperry]

2 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

That's part of moving the ball.  

Regardless, the Falcons only had 2 offensive drives where they had any sort of penalty.  One was the -15 yard drive above, where they gained zero yards on other plays.  The other was the holding penalty in the 4th quarter on that 45 yard drive. 

If you actually look at what happened, besides getting caught up in the 28-3 score, Atlanta struggled to move the ball for a large portion of the game, barely sustained any long drives in terms of play number (only one drives the entire game with more than 5 plays).  They had 2 GREAT drives in the second quarter where they moved the ball in chunks and scored. Outside of those, their offense was "meh" to the 10th degree.

What in the actual fuck. The -15 yard drive they got a 9 yard gain on 1st down, and then a holding penalty on 2nd and 1, which got them into field goal range. They followed that up by losing 19 yards courtesy of a holding penalty on 2nd down followed up by a sack. That's the exact drive I'm talking about.

 

The next drive they had a 3rd and 1 and missed a blocking assignment leading to a strip-sack. The next drive they gained 67 yards, and followed that up by losing 23 over the next 3 plays to get out of field goal range.

 

The number of unforced errors is just shocking.

[JonSnow4President]

2 minutes ago, sperry said:

What in the actual fuck. The -15 yard drive they got a 9 yard gain on 1st down, and then a holding penalty on 2nd and 1, which got them into field goal range. They followed that up by losing 19 yards courtesy of a holding penalty on 2nd down followed up by a sack. That's the exact drive I'm talking about.

 

The next drive they had a 3rd and 1 and missed a blocking assignment leading to a strip-sack. The next drive they gained 67 yards, and followed that up by losing 23 over the next 3 plays to get out of field goal range.

 

The number of unforced errors is just shocking.

Unless the drive chart I'm using is unreliable, that's incorrect. (it's from the AP, so not like it should be)

 

http://wtop.com/nfl/2017/02/super-bowl-drive-chart-3/

[sperry]

2 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

Unless the drive chart I'm using is unreliable, that's incorrect. (it's from the AP, so not like it should be)

 

http://wtop.com/nfl/2017/02/super-bowl-drive-chart-3/

 

Use this: http://www.espn.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=400927752   It tells you the result of each individual play.

[JonSnow4President]

3 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Use this: http://www.espn.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=400927752   It tells you the result of each individual play.

Moving the ball 9 yards and then being sacked for -9 is still zero yards and not "moving the ball extremely well."  

No matter how pretty the trees are, the forest is telling the story here.

[sperry]

3 minutes ago, JonSnow4President said:

Moving the ball 9 yards and then being sacked for -9 is still zero yards and not "moving the ball extremely well."  

No matter how pretty the trees are, the forest is telling the story here.

 

It was an inexcusable holding penalty. Again, they moved the ball, and then lost the yards with inexcusable, avoidable negative plays. Those negative plays are why simply moving the ball well is not enough.  You can't shoot yourself in the foot, which the Falcons did repeatedly.

[Rockroi]

Just now, sperry said:

 

It was an inexcusable holding penalty. Again, they moved the ball, and then lost the yards with inexcusable, avoidable negative plays. Those negative plays are why simply moving the ball well is not enough.  You can't shoot yourself in the foot.

What makes you think penalties are avoidable?  Its not like an actual unforced error in tennis or doing something actually uncontested- like golfing or a free throw in basketball.

Sometimes, guys commit penalties because they are not that good; or because the guys they are going against are making them commit a penalty?  Its not like these guys rolled the dice and it came up "penalty,"  Penalties are sometimes the result of getting beat.  There is no question this was happening with the Atlanta D with the 3 penalties for first downs in the first half.  

In the second half, that O line was starting to quiver.  That hold on Long was basically half strangle-hold, half WWE clothesline.  That is a holding call 999 times out of 1,000 (the one time its not? 2007 Superbowl, of course).  You can't just look at penalties and just say "Bad luck" or "unforced errors" or whatever euphemism that absolves the offense of their responsibility.  They committed the penalties themselves; that's as bad as anything else.  

Because of that it shows that they were not playing as well as maybe people thought they were.  

[JonSnow4President]

6 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

It was an inexcusable holding penalty. Again, they moved the ball, and then lost the yards with inexcusable, avoidable negative plays. Those negative plays are why simply moving the ball well is not enough.  You can't shoot yourself in the foot, which the Falcons did repeatedly.

My point is that those are part of moving the ball well, particularly when referring to the team (I'd have much less of an issue is someone were to take the stance that Freeman was moving the ball well). Outside of the second quarter, they failed to move the ball particularly well as a team. 

There were also only a handful of penalties to begin with.

[sperry]

11 minutes ago, Rockroi said:

What makes you think penalties are avoidable?  Its not like an actual unforced error in tennis or doing something actually uncontested- like golfing or a free throw in basketball.

Sometimes, guys commit penalties because they are not that good; or because the guys they are going against are making them commit a penalty?  Its not like these guys rolled the dice and it came up "penalty,"  Penalties are sometimes the result of getting beat.  There is no question this was happening with the Atlanta D with the 3 penalties for first downs in the first half.  

In the second half, that O line was starting to quiver.  That hold on Long was basically half strangle-hold, half WWE clothesline.  That is a holding call 999 times out of 1,000 (the one time its not? 2007 Superbowl, of course).  You can't just look at penalties and just say "Bad luck" or "unforced errors" or whatever euphemism that absolves the offense of their responsibility.  They committed the penalties themselves; that's as bad as anything else.  

Because of that it shows that they were not playing as well as maybe people thought they were.  

 

Why it's avoidable is because the offensive lineman has to know when a holding penalty is simply not acceptable. When you are in field goal range and have a second and 1, it is okay to get beat and give up a 1 yard loss. What is not okay is getting a holding penalty and getting out of field goal range. That's an unforced mental error, and an extremely costly one.  The absolving the offense argument is a complete strawman, since I'm doing the exact opposite of absolving the offense, I'm putting the blame directly on them. Hence me repeatedly saying they made errors, mistakes, and shot themselves in the foot. Another example of an unforced mental error penalty is the Pats d-linemen jumping over the line on the missed PAT.  An example of a penalty that wasn't a mental error was the PI on Bennett in overtime: that was a guy who was beat and his only option was to run through the play to avoid the easy touchdown.

[Rockroi]

4 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Why it's avoidable is because the offensive lineman has to know when a holding penalty is simply not acceptable. When you are in field goal range and have a second and 1, it is okay to get beat and give up a 1 yard loss. What is not okay is getting a holding penalty and getting out of field goal range. That's an unforced mental error, and an extremely costly one.  The absolving the offense argument is a complete strawman, since I'm doing the exact opposite of absolving the offense, I'm putting the blame directly on them. Hence me repeatedly saying they made errors, mistakes, and shot themselves in the foot.

Again, that's a HUGE assumption.  In fact, common sense makes me think otherwise- that the reason o-line man (and DBs) hold and interfere etc is because they HAVE to risk it; in other words, they look at the situation they are in and in that instant realize "If I don't hold.grab/interfere - whatever - right here, it has a high probability of resulting in a huge negative play.  However, if I HOLD here, the ref has to see me; and if there is a 50% chance of having the Defensive player Blow the play up. but only a 20% chance of getting caught holding ... FUCK I'M HOLDING!"  

So, no its not some sort of "mistake" or "unforced error" - and yes these are ABSOLUTE EUPHEMISMS you are putting up in an attempt to absolve responsibility - its the offense being outplayed by the D.  And to try to account for that, the O-line committed a lot of penalties because, well, otherwise they would have been outplayed.  

[sperry]

Just now, Rockroi said:

Again, that's a HUGE assumption.  In fact, common sense makes me think otherwise- that the reason o-line man (and DBs) hold and interfere etc is because they HAVE to risk it; in other words, they look at the situation they are in and in that instant realize "If I don't hold.grab/interfere - whatever - right here, it has a high probability of resulting in a huge negative play.  However, if I HOLD here, the ref has to see me; and if there is a 50% chance of having the Defensive player Blow the play up. but only a 20% chance of getting caught holding ... FUCK I'M HOLDING!"  

So, no its not some sort of "mistake" or "unforced error" - and yes these are ABSOLUTE EUPHEMISMS you are putting up in an attempt to absolve responsibility - its the offense being outplayed by the D.  And to try to account for that, the O-line committed a lot of penalties because, well, otherwise they would have been outplayed.  

 

Yes, those calculations happen. You have to know the situation, and the guy didn't. Whether that was his fault, or poor coaching, I don't know. But taking yourself out of field goal range on 2nd and 1 is not justifiable.

 

So was Devonta Freeman very clearly fucking up his blocking assignment not a mistake? Or was that just the vaunted Patriots defense?

[Altherion]

38 minutes ago, Rockroi said:

“You don’t think, just run the ball and make your guy kick a 50-yard field goal,” Shanahan told reporters after the game. But wait — why wouldn’t you think that?

Running two more times, even for no gain, would have forced the Patriots to burn two timeouts. The Falcons were on the Patriots’ 23-yard line; a field-goal attempt from there would have been 40 yards, not 50. Falcons kicker Matt Bryant has made 78.2 percent of his career kicks from between 40 and 49 yards. With the score 28-20, going up by 11 with less than four minutes to play would likely have been as effective a dagger as going up by 15.

So, hey great- Atlanta was really efficient. Good job; but efficiency there was almost assuredly over-rated.  They should have shot for being inefficient and with a three-point lead increase.

I think all of the criticism towards Shanahan is not entirely fair. People are thinking of the alternative to what he did as an automatic 3 points, but consider all the ways that this could have gone wrong. For example:

1) Running back fumbles the ball.

2) Missed field goal. Not everybody has the nerves of steel required to handle the pressure.

3) The most cinematic: the Patriots do that jumping play they tried before (or some other trick play), but this time they don't get flagged for it and the kick is blocked.

Bonus points if either the fumble or blocked kick is returned for a touchdown or at least deep into Falcon territory. Shanahan would never hear the end of it: "You have the season MVP as quarterback and you are settling for a field goal against the king of trick plays?!" Of course, these scenarios are not very likely, but neither is what happened: Matt Ryan is MVP for a reason and it is very rare for him to lose yards like this when it matters. Shanahan's strategy of leaning on arguably the strongest part of his team didn't work out, but I don't think it deserves that much criticism.

[Rockroi]

22 minutes ago, sperry said:

 

Yes, those calculations happen. You have to know the situation, and the guy didn't. Whether that was his fault, or poor coaching, I don't know. But taking yourself out of field goal range on 2nd and 1 is not justifiable.

So was Devonta Freeman very clearly fucking up his blocking assignment not a mistake? Or was that just the vaunted Patriots defense?

1. What makes you think he didn't know the situation?  And then you say "Whether it was his fault or poor coaching, I don't know" which is fascinating because you are arguing as if you DO know.  And it doesn't matter - penalties who that you did something wrong.  I would agree with you to a point if the O line was constantly committing False Start penalties- that could just be mental errors (or guys getting beat and resorting to trying to get a quick jump/ getting antsy).  But these were guys just getting beat and then thinking "Okay, better cheat!"  

I think these are - IN NO WAY-  "unforced errors;" these are good old fashioned forced errors!  These are guys getting beat and getting caught.  So, yeah- that's on the offense!  It goes to show that they were not running as efficiently as maybe people would want to claim. 

2. Devonta Freeman didn't just fuck up his blocking assignment; he was not properly prepared and it showed why the Atlanta offense could have been sharper.  

A little back ground on that play- Coleman was injured on the previous play so its possible that Freeman was not supposed to be in there but that they had no choice now that Coleman was done.  Well, if that's the case- THAT'S ON THE OFFENSE FOR NOT PREPPING THE PLAYER!  You have to have these guys know that they need to know the situation and what may happen. 

Next, what's fascinating is that Freeman is looking at his guy- Kyle van Noy (IIRC) the whole time; he knew who to black.  The Pats rarely blitz Hightower; he is an athletic beast so he can roam that interior line and cover guys etc.  So when he ran up, Freeman was looking in the opposite direction because, well, that's where he was probably told where the pressure was going to come from.  So, there is a chance the D was like, "You know what?  We bet Freeman is overwhelmed right now; too much going on; send the guy they don't expect and get to the QB because, well, WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO GET TO THE QB!"  

And somebody, maybe, should have told Freeman that. 

I can't say for certain if that happened; but in that moment it showed that the Falcons were not as prepared as maybe they should have been. And that is offensive inefficiency.