Kelly the Dog

A few points here. 1. You're right and hardly anyone does it. 2. The only reason anyone would do it is, if you think the % of scoring one two yard play, is greater than the % of you going to overtime and winning. 3. Teams at home are way less likely to make that gamble than teams playing at home. BUT... To me... what is the norm of what every team would do or the odds should be thrown out the window when you are playing the Patriots. The percentage of times THEY score when they have to go the length of the field is WAY above the average team. It's not even close. And it's been true for 20 years. They're incredible at it so the chances against them in OT, especially at home, is WAY different than any other team. So your chance of winning on one two yard play against them, versus taking your chances against them in their stadium in OT may be way different than any other team. I think it is. Now that I think about it, I think it's a no brainer BETTER chance of one play from the two yard line than beating the Pats in OT in New England, which would be in the 30 percentile.

It becomes Rob Johnson. That worked out well.

I like the idea of playing starters about one quarter. They are still in the same schedule. They need to prepare. They should play to win. And then substitute the important guys.

WTF? You just said you didn't think they had any chance whatsoever. That the game was going to end like all these NE games end. Which is a loss. That's exactly what you said. How is this being silly?

Which is why you gamble in this game to win if you can at the end.

The object of the game is to win it all. It's not to win the most games. Sure, you need to win games first and make the playoffs first. McDermott has clearly been able to do that and it should not be underestimated. But the object is to win it all. You have to be aggressive to win it all. I don't think that is even a question.

The actual beating NE in NE in a huge game usurps everything else.

Great, great point BB. He says everyday that the players need to get better every day. And to his credit he says that he and other coaches need to, as well. Let's see if he does it. He has changed a little but not much.

Ha. He was definitely faking it on the ground. I don't know that was why he had to go to the tent.

Not to mention he was always aggressive.

It seems so obvious. The only reason it may not be true.

No. I'm saying against any other team you likely go to overtime. Against them, maybe you go for the 50-50 chance of scoring the two.

That's zero chance. Who were your math teachers?

Because the Patriots almost always score when they need to? Different from all 31 other teams?

Hard to say. I thought it was a huge mistake to go away from the hurry up and 11 against Pitt. They won but it was rewarding bad behavior. The vast majority of good plays were out of the 11 and vast majority of bad plays out of the DiMarco Lee Smith offense with one exception (the bomb to Brown). I think there were several bad tactical errors this game. I also think beating them, regardless of whether they would have won the division would have been huge. I don't at all for the playing possum idea.

Yep. Well said. He's very good. I'm glad we have him. But he is the Nate Peterman guy. He has to change and adjust. If he changes he has a chance to be truly great. If he's stubborn he has the chance to be Marty Shottenheimer. I surely think McD holds Daboll back.

The players love him. And rightfully so. I don't want them questioning his strategy. And especially not in interviews. I also think that players and especially fans ALWAYS want to be more aggressive and blitz more and they are often very wrong. Everyone knows it's risk reward. That said, OUR defense is made for more blitzing. We have a great secondary that misses some tackles but is very sound for the most part. We have two extremely fast linebackers in Edmunds and Milano who are both good blitzers. In the last 4-5 games we have blitzed more and it was an enormous difference in sacks and pressure. A lot of it came from the safeties and corners, all of which are good blitzers. And then we just abandoned it today. The only way to beat Brady is pressure him. We weren't getting it from four. Edelman was the only guy really hurting us in pass game and I was screaming to put Tre on him, KJ and Wallace on Harry and Sanu and pressure Brady. They rarely if ever did and he killed them dinking and dunking like he has forever. I think it was a huge mistake. I was responding to your point that the game was over before that drive, or you thought they had zero chance first down at the 15. Not that they did or didn't score.

I thought he was snazzy.

His biggest problem, the long ball, he threw two perfect passes, one for a score and one to the one.

Got ya. Yeah, it's rare. I'm not a conservative guy but I would rarely do it. But as I said just above because the Pats are so good at scoring when they need to and they get all the calls maybe it's smart to try to win on one play, especially because of the way Josh can run. This may have been exactly the time to buck the trend.

Even though we went right down the field and had a first down at the 15 or so? There was no chance to win?

The Dolphins did it against the Jets this year. I'm pretty sure another team did too.

Is there such a thing as 600%?

1. I don't think they would have. 2. I don't think I would have. 3. There is a decent if not good argument to go for it, if you think you will make it 50% of the time ONLY because you are playing NE who wins at the end and gets all the calls all the time. 4. WTF was Bellichick thinking NOT taking a penalty and going for two from the one instead of the two, just to gain 15 yards on the KO which means nothing. That was a terrible decision even though they made it Lately they have.

Agreed. But they are clearly not that team yet. The object is to win it all. I understand that sometimes, like this season, you play the long game, which they did. The conservative nature clearly helped them to some degree. But THIS GAME, once they already were in the playoffs, was about greatness, and overthrowing the Patriots, and going for broke. The only way you do that, to me, is to go for the kill. This was the easiest game of the season to go for the kill. The loss was meaningless. The gain, however, is potentially immeasurable. That's the whole idea of aggressiveness and gambling. Risk versus reward. There was no risk. McD just genuinely believes he can win it all like this. I'm not sure. That's the point of the thread. That's a very good point. But McD went with Nathan Peterman. He's conservative with a non-conservative QB. He's conservative on D now with explosive blitzers and when he got more aggressive they got WAY better, and then he didn't do it today.