IslandBillsFan Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I didn't watch the whole NE/DEN game but read several articles and saw all the highlights. From what I gather the situation is this: It is 3rd and 10, with about 3:10 left in the fourth quarter. NE has the ball on their own 32. NE has a commanding 45-10 lead. They decide to run a "trick" play where the ball is snapped to Brady and he punts it. With no one expecting it and some favorable bounces it ends up on DEN's 10. A 48 yard punt. My question is WHY? With this much of a lead you have to assume NE isn't really threatened with a miraculous Tebow comeback. You have to also assume the priority would be to run the ball and waste more time off the clock. Also, the odds that your regular punter would have it land roughly in the same area. I know the trick eliminated a chance at a return but does it really matter? New England coaches and players have admitted to designing this play and practicing it. Since this is the case, why waste a trick play for the first time in an absolutely useless situation. Why not use it in a crazy 3rd and 19 situation when you realistically are going to punt on 4th anyhow? Unless I missed something, I can only think of this being a play Belichick and crew wanted to try out. Or it is sort of a "lets show what NE can do." type of play? I personally think it was both stupid for wasting it and disrespectful move. Hence, I can see why Denver players were upset. Anyone, have any further information or thoughts on this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 I didn't watch the whole NE/DEN game but read several articles and saw all the highlights. From what I gather the situation is this: It is 3rd and 10, with about 3:10 left in the fourth quarter. NE has the ball on their own 32. NE has a commanding 45-10 lead. They decide to run a "trick" play where the ball is snapped to Brady and he punts it. With no one expecting it and some favorable bounces it ends up on DEN's 10. A 48 yard punt. My question is WHY? With this much of a lead you have to assume NE isn't really threatened with a miraculous Tebow comeback. You have to also assume the priority would be to run the ball and waste more time off the clock. Also, the odds that your regular punter would have it land roughly in the same area. I know the trick eliminated a chance at a return but does it really matter? New England coaches and players have admitted to designing this play and practicing it. Since this is the case, why waste a trick play for the first time in an absolutely useless situation. Why not use it in a crazy 3rd and 19 situation when you realistically are going to punt on 4th anyhow? Unless I missed something, I can only think of this being a play Belichick and crew wanted to try out. Or it is sort of a "lets show what NE can do." type of play? I personally think it was both stupid for wasting it and disrespectful move. Hence, I can see why Denver players were upset. Anyone, have any further information or thoughts on this? They were bored and too many people were complaining they were running it up so they punted on 3rd down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauderswr80 Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Arrogant is all I can think of....how great would it have been if he pulled a hammy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mob16151 Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Its on film now, and it's just one more thing D coordinators have to prepare for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
agardin Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 It was very smart. Punt it away, no one gets hurt. I have always thought the quick punt should be used more in certain situations. If I recall correctly Randall Cuningham had a 73 yarder once on a 3rd and 30 or something like that. Anyway, they didn't care about getting the first down, didn't feel like running it so why not give it back to them without risk of injury. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauderswr80 Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Now what if he was tackled or hit while kicking? Is that roughing the kicker? Personally if your gonna punt hsve the punter just do it....game was well in hand! Again it was arrogant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IslandBillsFan Posted January 15, 2012 Author Share Posted January 15, 2012 It was very smart. Punt it away, no one gets hurt. I have always thought the quick punt should be used more in certain situations. If I recall correctly Randall Cuningham had a 73 yarder once on a 3rd and 30 or something like that. Anyway, they didn't care about getting the first down, didn't feel like running it so why not give it back to them without risk of injury. I don't understand "not feeling like running it." Why not just take a knee or put in some back ups? I think this has to be viewed as an arrogant move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bills!Win! Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Brady wanted to break a record: First player with 6 TD passes AND a punt... hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IslandBillsFan Posted January 15, 2012 Author Share Posted January 15, 2012 I hope against Baltimore he has 6 punts and 1 TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 The same reason Belichick had Flutie attempt a drop kick for an extra point in the final game of the 2005 season. Because Belichick is such a "smart guy." BTW, Flutie's attempt was in his last NFL game and the kick was good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Now what if he was tackled or hit while kicking? Is that roughing the kicker? Personally if your gonna punt hsve the punter just do it....game was well in hand! Again it was arrogant. Yes - the rules are written as "a player in the act of" not position specific. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Just Jack Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Now what if he was tackled or hit while kicking? Is that roughing the kicker? Personally if your gonna punt hsve the punter just do it....game was well in hand! Again it was arrogant. It would fall under the "you looked at Tom Brady" rule that Bills fans are very familar with. Instant first down and half the distance to the goal line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted January 15, 2012 Share Posted January 15, 2012 Its on film now, and it's just one more thing D coordinators have to prepare for. Not really. I'm sure every DC would love it if the Pats punted on 3rd down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mob16151 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 Not really. I'm sure every DC would love it if the Pats punted on 3rd down. Kind of depends on the game situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
syrcuse315 Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I thought it was arrogant for sure. I can't imagine how frustrated the broncos D must have been and then to have brady punt one over your head on 3rd down just shows that they didn't respect you in a playoff game. I was glad to see the broncos players let the pats know how they felt about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I don't get all the whining about this play. Pats didn't need points so why risk a turnover or hit on Brady when you can punt and eliminate any possible big return. As for the whining about Brady playing the whole game, that's what they've done for the last ten years. They play 60 mins. every week regardless of the score. If you aren't used to that by now, I don't know what to tell you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lurker Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I don't get all the whining about this play. Pats didn't need points so why risk a turnover or hit on Brady when you can punt and eliminate any possible big return. As for the whining about Brady playing the whole game, that's what they've done for the last ten years. They play 60 mins. every week regardless of the score. If you aren't used to that by now, I don't know what to tell you. Too much whine, not enough cheese... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I don't get all the whining about this play. Pats didn't need points so why risk a turnover or hit on Brady when you can punt and eliminate any possible big return. As for the whining about Brady playing the whole game, that's what they've done for the last ten years. They play 60 mins. every week regardless of the score. If you aren't used to that by now, I don't know what to tell you. Bingo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stinky finger Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I don't get all the whining about this play. Pats didn't need points so why risk a turnover or hit on Brady when you can punt and eliminate any possible big return. As for the whining about Brady playing the whole game, that's what they've done for the last ten years. They play 60 mins. every week regardless of the score. If you aren't used to that by now, I don't know what to tell you. Agreed. So let the QB play QB and the Punter punt......reeks of arrogance to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
San Jose Bills Fan Posted January 16, 2012 Share Posted January 16, 2012 I don't get all the whining about this play. Pats didn't need points so why risk a turnover or hit on Brady when you can punt and eliminate any possible big return. As for the whining about Brady playing the whole game, that's what they've done for the last ten years. They play 60 mins. every week regardless of the score. If you aren't used to that by now, I don't know what to tell you. I couldn't watch the game so I'm not up to speed on the "quick kick." But when you do a cost-benefit analysis on it (and it's a strategic decision so obviously one was done) what is the real benefit of the kick? I can see where the return threat is reduced and the net gain on the "punt" is improved but the Patsies* also relinquished an opportunity to run more time off the clock. If they were worried about Brady getting hit and turning the ball over, why not run it or just kneel down (again I don't know the particulars). Then they run more time off the clock and then punt it away. It seems for every reason to do this I could come up with a reason that it's a bad idea. And here's what I think is a legit question: if the quick kick is such a great idea, why is it that no other coach ever uses one? Personally without knowing down/distance, field position and time remaining, it seems like just another manifestation of Belichick's "I'm smarter than you are" personality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts