[stupac2]

Stupac, in your effort to defend the extremely illogical choice, you ignore the possibility that the RB can bust one for a first down or a TD. 

The point is as noted above by DC 86:  even if you lose 1 yard on consecutive runs (which I think unlikely, but who cares?), you're still looking at a very makeable - almost a gimme - from a FG kicker who is at 90+ % from that distance . . . and you're indoors.  It's the smart play.  By a country mile.

I don't ignore that, but the Patriots had modified their defense during the second half and the running game had not been working Atlanta. It's possible, sure, but not likely. They only got to where they were by putting the ball in the hands of the MVP and letting him make plays, continuing with that isn't insane, especially against an opponent gearing up to stop the run and especially when most people would call runs.

Also, you're ignoring that the Patriots already blocked a chip shot FG attempt, even though it was incorrectly ruled a penalty. With the game on the line do you think they try that again? They were 2/2 doing it on the year, and had already showed that they could against these specialists! That is worth considering, aside from the fact that there's no way Bryant's true percentage is 97% on that kick (in his time in Atlanta he's 51/63 from that range, but 52/57 from closer in).

This is making me want to play poker with you sometime, because it seems like you aren't willing at all to consider that there can be tactical advantages to defying expectations.

[stupac2]

Stupac, in your effort to defend the extremely illogical choice, you ignore the possibility that the RB can bust one for a first down or a TD. 

The point is as noted above by DC 86:  even if you lose 1 yard on consecutive runs (which I think unlikely, but who cares?), you're still looking at a very makeable - almost a gimme - from a FG kicker who is at 90+ % from that distance . . . and you're indoors.  It's the smart play.  By a country mile.

I don't ignore that, but the Patriots had modified their defense during the second half and the running game had not been working Atlanta. It's possible, sure, but not likely. They only got to where they were by putting the ball in the hands of the MVP and letting him make plays, continuing with that isn't insane, especially against an opponent gearing up to stop the run and especially when most people would call runs.

Also, you're ignoring that the Patriots already blocked a chip shot FG attempt, even though it was incorrectly ruled a penalty. With the game on the line do you think they try that again? They were 2/2 doing it on the year, and had already showed that they could against these specialists! That is worth considering, aside from the fact that there's no way Bryant's true percentage is 97% on that kick (in his time in Atlanta he's 51/63 from that range, but 52/57 from closer in).

This is making me want to play poker with you sometime, because it seems like you aren't willing at all to consider that there can be tactical advantages to defying expectations.

[DC 86]

I think people are completely underrating the fact that what they actually want there is a first down. Not only does that increase the odds of the FG significantly

Their kicker is 97% from under 50 yards this season, and the distance (after the one yard loss on first down) was 40 yards, indoors, on turf. I don't see how you can "significantly" increase the odds of Bryant being successful.

Interestingly, this rationale was the first reason cited by Kyle Shanahan in defending the pass call post-game; he referred to facing a 50-yard FG after losing the yard on first down, so perhaps he was genuinely confused as to their field position, or miscalculated the FG distance in the heat of battle, or was confusing the second down and third down marks while being besieged by reporters post-game.

I do agree that making a first down would have been significant, but the rationale of trying to increase Bryant's chances is faulty. In fact it's the exact opposite: after the first down play they were basically at extra point distance, so the main objective should have been to ensure that they don't lose 10+ yards, such that they faced a 50+ yard FG attempt (still well within Bryant's range but less likely, with severe field position consequences if he missed).

[DC 86]

I think people are completely underrating the fact that what they actually want there is a first down. Not only does that increase the odds of the FG significantly

Their kicker is 97% from under 50 yards this season, and the distance (after the one yard loss on first down) was 40 yards, indoors, on turf. I don't see how you can "significantly" increase the odds of Bryant being successful.

Interestingly, this rationale was the first reason cited by Kyle Shanahan in defending the pass call post-game; he referred to facing a 50-yard FG after losing the yard on first down, so perhaps he was genuinely confused as to their field position, or miscalculated the FG distance in the heat of battle, or was confusing the second down and third down marks while being besieged by reporters post-game.

I do agree that making a first down would have been significant, but the rationale of trying to increase Bryant's chances is faulty. In fact it's the exact opposite: after the first down play they were basically at extra point distance, so the main objective should have been to ensure that they don't lose 10+ yards, such that they faced a 50+ yard FG attempt (still well within Bryant's range but less likely, with severe field position consequences if he missed).

[CTcard]

Generically agree with teejers on this one. I almost get the feeling that Stupac is more working on his rhetorical skills than putting forward a position he really believes in. [Which is a road upon which I occasionally find myself.]

There are some boundary conditions which keep the play call from being the only thing that determined the outcome here.
1. From the point the Falcons have an 8 point lead and first and 10 from the NE 22 with 4:40 left they are highly likely to win.
2. There is no play call that makes it certain they will win.
Thus, in a broad-category sense, one could argue that play calling makes no difference.

But ...
At that point the imperative for Atlanta was first to score at least one point and secondly to use up time. From where they were, a FG is practically a given - 97% based on the season to date. Thus the only ways to fail were to have really bad things happen (a turnover or lose lots of yards). Clearly, any pass play makes those bad things much more likely, even if they also made gaining substantial yards more likely.

---------
Perhaps the larger point is a comment BC made. The Atlanta coaches are not a bunch of blithering idiots despite making the wrong call here (at least on second down). It's just that play calling is hard, particularly under time and situational pressure. Everybody gets it wrong sometimes. That is true for our coach as well.

It is perfectly reasonable to discuss when our coach may have made poor play calls, without assuming that makes him a worse coach than anyone else.

[CTcard]

Generically agree with teejers on this one. I almost get the feeling that Stupac is more working on his rhetorical skills than putting forward a position he really believes in. [Which is a road upon which I occasionally find myself.]

There are some boundary conditions which keep the play call from being the only thing that determined the outcome here.
1. From the point the Falcons have an 8 point lead and first and 10 from the NE 22 with 4:40 left they are highly likely to win.
2. There is no play call that makes it certain they will win.
Thus, in a broad-category sense, one could argue that play calling makes no difference.

But ...
At that point the imperative for Atlanta was first to score at least one point and secondly to use up time. From where they were, a FG is practically a given - 97% based on the season to date. Thus the only ways to fail were to have really bad things happen (a turnover or lose lots of yards). Clearly, any pass play makes those bad things much more likely, even if they also made gaining substantial yards more likely.

---------
Perhaps the larger point is a comment BC made. The Atlanta coaches are not a bunch of blithering idiots despite making the wrong call here (at least on second down). It's just that play calling is hard, particularly under time and situational pressure. Everybody gets it wrong sometimes. That is true for our coach as well.

It is perfectly reasonable to discuss when our coach may have made poor play calls, without assuming that makes him a worse coach than anyone else.

[CardinalSagehen]

It is perfectly reasonable to discuss when our coach may have made poor play calls, without assuming that makes him a worse coach than anyone else.

Totally agree.

The intent of my original point here was mostly that our particular coach would not have made this particular series of mistakes in the 4th Q.  The analysis of that 2nd down situation is only part of the story - the Falcons passed on the prior drive, unnecessarily in my opinion, and got strip-sacked.  Shaw would not have been passing then, either, even with ~10 minutes remaining.  A 3-and-out with only running plays kills ~2 minutes or 3 timeouts, right?  He would have dialed-up running play after running play without a second thought in that situation, and regardless of whether they were getting stuffed.  At a minimum he would have preserved field position and almost certainly would have avoided the fumble, which let the Pats back into the game. 

You can also look at that strip-sack as a fresh reminder of the risks of trying to pass against this Pats defense at this point in this particular game.  That should have been fresh in the Falcons coaches' minds when they made the call on 2nd down at the 23.  It's debatable, and hindsight is 20/20, but to me that 4th quarter was mishandled fairly egregiously by some good coaches that called a great game for the first 3 quarters. 

[CardinalSagehen]

It is perfectly reasonable to discuss when our coach may have made poor play calls, without assuming that makes him a worse coach than anyone else.

Totally agree.

The intent of my original point here was mostly that our particular coach would not have made this particular series of mistakes in the 4th Q.  The analysis of that 2nd down situation is only part of the story - the Falcons passed on the prior drive, unnecessarily in my opinion, and got strip-sacked.  Shaw would not have been passing then, either, even with ~10 minutes remaining.  A 3-and-out with only running plays kills ~2 minutes or 3 timeouts, right?  He would have dialed-up running play after running play without a second thought in that situation, and regardless of whether they were getting stuffed.  At a minimum he would have preserved field position and almost certainly would have avoided the fumble, which let the Pats back into the game. 

You can also look at that strip-sack as a fresh reminder of the risks of trying to pass against this Pats defense at this point in this particular game.  That should have been fresh in the Falcons coaches' minds when they made the call on 2nd down at the 23.  It's debatable, and hindsight is 20/20, but to me that 4th quarter was mishandled fairly egregiously by some good coaches that called a great game for the first 3 quarters. 

[stupac2]

Generically agree with teejers on this one. I almost get the feeling that Stupac is more working on his rhetorical skills than putting forward a position he really believes in. [Which is a road upon which I occasionally find myself.]

Well, no, I think Teejer's point is ridiculous on its face. He's saying that under these circumstances passing the ball is always and forever the absolutely, unequivocally wrong call. I am saying that this is not only obviously wrong, but really short-sighted. I've also said that if I were calling the plays I probably would've ran it, but at the same time, if I were calling the plays they probably wouldn't have been in that position at all since it took two aggressive pass options to get them there so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Also, everyone saying that Bryant is 97% (or whatever) under 50 yards is making an asinine argument. I cited the numbers above, over his career in Atlanta between 40 and 49 yards he's 51/63, which is 80%. Move that to 30-39 and he's 52/57, or 91%. Does anyone actually think that that's a meaningless difference?

[stupac2]

Generically agree with teejers on this one. I almost get the feeling that Stupac is more working on his rhetorical skills than putting forward a position he really believes in. [Which is a road upon which I occasionally find myself.]

Well, no, I think Teejer's point is ridiculous on its face. He's saying that under these circumstances passing the ball is always and forever the absolutely, unequivocally wrong call. I am saying that this is not only obviously wrong, but really short-sighted. I've also said that if I were calling the plays I probably would've ran it, but at the same time, if I were calling the plays they probably wouldn't have been in that position at all since it took two aggressive pass options to get them there so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯



Also, everyone saying that Bryant is 97% (or whatever) under 50 yards is making an asinine argument. I cited the numbers above, over his career in Atlanta between 40 and 49 yards he's 51/63, which is 80%. Move that to 30-39 and he's 52/57, or 91%. Does anyone actually think that that's a meaningless difference?