[CardinalSagehen]

Shaw's many conservative tendencies have been well chronicled - for example, his love of the punt on 4th-and-short from the opponent's 40.  But one thing I know about Coach Shaw is that he would never fail to run the ball when leading by two scores in the 4th quarter, as the Falcons did yesterday.  He would see the unneeded risk of negative plays, turnovers and failure to bleed the clock as cardinal sins (sorry, couldn't resist!)

Never mind that the Falcons had been averaging 8.2 ypc on the ground, or that they were in very makable field goal range on 2nd down from the Patriots' 23.  Shaw would have dialed-up running play after running play in that 4th quarter, purely reflexively, and without a second thought.  There's comfort in knowing that.  By contrast, and not just in hindsight, Shanahan's 4th quarter calls yesterday were highly undisciplined and maybe even hubristic!

The 538 did an interesting writeup today on Shanahan missing the forest for the trees:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abo...lay-calls/

[CardinalSagehen]

Shaw's many conservative tendencies have been well chronicled - for example, his love of the punt on 4th-and-short from the opponent's 40.  But one thing I know about Coach Shaw is that he would never fail to run the ball when leading by two scores in the 4th quarter, as the Falcons did yesterday.  He would see the unneeded risk of negative plays, turnovers and failure to bleed the clock as cardinal sins (sorry, couldn't resist!)

Never mind that the Falcons had been averaging 8.2 ypc on the ground, or that they were in very makable field goal range on 2nd down from the Patriots' 23.  Shaw would have dialed-up running play after running play in that 4th quarter, purely reflexively, and without a second thought.  There's comfort in knowing that.  By contrast, and not just in hindsight, Shanahan's 4th quarter calls yesterday were highly undisciplined and maybe even hubristic!

The 538 did an interesting writeup today on Shanahan missing the forest for the trees:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/abo...lay-calls/

[needle]

I went back and looked at the play-by-play for the 2013 Stanford - AZ State game.

With 10:49 left in the fourth quarter and a 39-14 Stanford lead, the Stanford play calls were:

Run
Run
Run
Punt
Run
Run
Run
Punt
Run
Run
Run
Run
QB Run
Run
Run
QB Run
FG

End result:  Stanford wins, 42-28

http://www.espn.com/college-football/pla...=332640024

[needle]

I went back and looked at the play-by-play for the 2013 Stanford - AZ State game.

With 10:49 left in the fourth quarter and a 39-14 Stanford lead, the Stanford play calls were:

Run
Run
Run
Punt
Run
Run
Run
Punt
Run
Run
Run
Run
QB Run
Run
Run
QB Run
FG

End result:  Stanford wins, 42-28

http://www.espn.com/college-football/pla...=332640024

[OutsiderFan]

Why do people continue to blame Shanahan?  Is Dan Quinn not the Head Coach?  Does the Head Coach not have veto power over play calls as the top decision maker in the chain of command?  By allowing passes to be called, Quinn was more responsible, IMO.

[OutsiderFan]

Why do people continue to blame Shanahan?  Is Dan Quinn not the Head Coach?  Does the Head Coach not have veto power over play calls as the top decision maker in the chain of command?  By allowing passes to be called, Quinn was more responsible, IMO.

[stupac2]

Why do people continue to blame Shanahan?  Is Dan Quinn not the Head Coach?  Does the Head Coach not have veto power over play calls as the top decision maker in the chain of command?  By allowing passes to be called, Quinn was more responsible, IMO.

The real question is why people continue to cite 8.2 ypc as though it means something. In the second half Atlanta was averaging 2.4 ypc, and had something like half their runs go for no gain or a loss. The Patriots adjusted and were keying on the run. Passing right there makes a lot of sense!

We don't know what play Shanny called, but really it was Mr MVP who made the completely idiotic decisions. He was the one hiking the ball with 15+ seconds on the clock. He was the one who took a horrific sack (it was straight up the middle, he really couldn't throw away the ball there?). He was the one who threw to a well-covered guy on 3rd-and-need-10-yards-to-try-a-FG. The LT took a completely horrible holding call.

I get that what happened was essentially a second-worst-case scenario (with a turnover being worse), but imagine if Shannahan calls 3 runs, they each lose a yard or two, and then Bryant shanks the FG. Do you think people would be saying "HE HAD THE MVP AND JULIO JONES! THROW THE BALL!" This is all hindsight and outcome bias.

[stupac2]

Why do people continue to blame Shanahan?  Is Dan Quinn not the Head Coach?  Does the Head Coach not have veto power over play calls as the top decision maker in the chain of command?  By allowing passes to be called, Quinn was more responsible, IMO.

The real question is why people continue to cite 8.2 ypc as though it means something. In the second half Atlanta was averaging 2.4 ypc, and had something like half their runs go for no gain or a loss. The Patriots adjusted and were keying on the run. Passing right there makes a lot of sense!

We don't know what play Shanny called, but really it was Mr MVP who made the completely idiotic decisions. He was the one hiking the ball with 15+ seconds on the clock. He was the one who took a horrific sack (it was straight up the middle, he really couldn't throw away the ball there?). He was the one who threw to a well-covered guy on 3rd-and-need-10-yards-to-try-a-FG. The LT took a completely horrible holding call.

I get that what happened was essentially a second-worst-case scenario (with a turnover being worse), but imagine if Shannahan calls 3 runs, they each lose a yard or two, and then Bryant shanks the FG. Do you think people would be saying "HE HAD THE MVP AND JULIO JONES! THROW THE BALL!" This is all hindsight and outcome bias.

[OutsiderFan]

Nobody would have complained if they made the decisions that gave them the best chance to win while avoiding the most risk.  If a guy shanks a FG, it happens.  If a RB fumbles, it happens.  But to do things that have a realistic chance of taking the FG opportunity away, is just plain bad judgment. 

Even if ATL lost 1 yard on every carry after running three times from the 22, it's still a 42 yd FG with a good chance to leave NE down 11 with one timeout, and about 3 mins left.  The worst case scenario for ATL is give up 8 points and force NE to recover an onside kick. By taking the risks they did, ATL's worst case scenario became give up 8 pts, have OT forced, lose coin toss and game.  The Head Coach should have realized this. 

The OC's job is to move the ball and put up points, while outwitting the defense.  So from Shanahan's perspective, seeing what he saw, passing may have appeared to best way to move the ball from the 23.  But they didn't need to move the ball then.  They needed to run time off the clock, make NE use timeouts, and get 3 points.  The Head Coach had to ensure this happened, not the OC.

This is the exchange that should have happened and didn't, on the ATL headsets after Jones caught the ball at the 22:

HC: Kyle, only runs now.  Run clock, make them use their timeouts, and lets get 3.
OC: OK

[OutsiderFan]

Nobody would have complained if they made the decisions that gave them the best chance to win while avoiding the most risk.  If a guy shanks a FG, it happens.  If a RB fumbles, it happens.  But to do things that have a realistic chance of taking the FG opportunity away, is just plain bad judgment. 

Even if ATL lost 1 yard on every carry after running three times from the 22, it's still a 42 yd FG with a good chance to leave NE down 11 with one timeout, and about 3 mins left.  The worst case scenario for ATL is give up 8 points and force NE to recover an onside kick. By taking the risks they did, ATL's worst case scenario became give up 8 pts, have OT forced, lose coin toss and game.  The Head Coach should have realized this. 

The OC's job is to move the ball and put up points, while outwitting the defense.  So from Shanahan's perspective, seeing what he saw, passing may have appeared to best way to move the ball from the 23.  But they didn't need to move the ball then.  They needed to run time off the clock, make NE use timeouts, and get 3 points.  The Head Coach had to ensure this happened, not the OC.

This is the exchange that should have happened and didn't, on the ATL headsets after Jones caught the ball at the 22:

HC: Kyle, only runs now.  Run clock, make them use their timeouts, and lets get 3.
OC: OK

[RedShift]

The Falcon's implosion in the second half may be blamed on several individuals starting at the top with Quinn. Shahanan clearly stayed with his mandate of aggressive play-calling. With 3-4 minutes to go in the game, the onus was on Quinn to decide  whether to make the tactical change to run a couple of times for a few yards (or even for zero gain) thus chewing up the clock and then kicking a 40-yard field goal by a kicker who was, IIRC, 16/17 field goals for the season. It's likely Bellichick would call at least one time out. So if the field goal was made, Falcons would be ahead by 2 scores with just over 2 minutes to play with 1-2 time outs -- a pretty unreachable goal even for Brady. That, and the fact that the center was playing with a broken leg that had to affect his mobility (I think the Hightower blitz on the sack came thru the A gap) should probably have dictated a run outside the tackles.

The biggest blame goes to the players for their meltdown and failing to close out the game. The RB whiffs spectacularly on a blitz pickup. The tackle, son a Hall of Fame lineman, has a holding penalty. And Matt Ryan reverts to being the Matt Ryan of old with poor decision-making.

As a Niner fan, I'm glad that Shanahan learned his lessons, if any, on Atlanta's dime. Comparing with Shaw is moot since, IMO, a Shawgren offense would not take an average NFL team to the play-offs, let along the Super Bowl.

[RedShift]

The Falcon's implosion in the second half may be blamed on several individuals starting at the top with Quinn. Shahanan clearly stayed with his mandate of aggressive play-calling. With 3-4 minutes to go in the game, the onus was on Quinn to decide  whether to make the tactical change to run a couple of times for a few yards (or even for zero gain) thus chewing up the clock and then kicking a 40-yard field goal by a kicker who was, IIRC, 16/17 field goals for the season. It's likely Bellichick would call at least one time out. So if the field goal was made, Falcons would be ahead by 2 scores with just over 2 minutes to play with 1-2 time outs -- a pretty unreachable goal even for Brady. That, and the fact that the center was playing with a broken leg that had to affect his mobility (I think the Hightower blitz on the sack came thru the A gap) should probably have dictated a run outside the tackles.

The biggest blame goes to the players for their meltdown and failing to close out the game. The RB whiffs spectacularly on a blitz pickup. The tackle, son a Hall of Fame lineman, has a holding penalty. And Matt Ryan reverts to being the Matt Ryan of old with poor decision-making.

As a Niner fan, I'm glad that Shanahan learned his lessons, if any, on Atlanta's dime. Comparing with Shaw is moot since, IMO, a Shawgren offense would not take an average NFL team to the play-offs, let along the Super Bowl.

[stupac2]

Nobody would have complained if they made the decisions that gave them the best chance to win while avoiding the most risk.

Do you actually believe that? I don't think you do, because the only way that would be possible if you've never had any exposure whatsoever to the average fan.

Do I think that Atlanta would have been better off running the ball? Yes. Do I think it's as mind-blowingly obvious as apparently everyone else in the universe? No, not even close. Maybe 60-40, but I think it's probably more like 55-45.

Comparing with Shaw is moot since, IMO, a Shawgren offense would not take an average NFL team to the play-offs, let along the Super Bowl.

I don't think a coaching staff of Belichick, Walsh, Landry, Shula, and Lombardi all combined into one super-coach could lead an average team to the Super Bowl without a ridiculous amount of luck. The difference between an average team (say the Colts or Ravens, who both went 8-8 this year) and the best teams is enormous. No coach is worth 4 WAR (for what they do on Sundays, anyway, which is what we're talking about here, Atlanta's gameplan was obviously pretty darn good).

[stupac2]

Nobody would have complained if they made the decisions that gave them the best chance to win while avoiding the most risk.

Do you actually believe that? I don't think you do, because the only way that would be possible if you've never had any exposure whatsoever to the average fan.

Do I think that Atlanta would have been better off running the ball? Yes. Do I think it's as mind-blowingly obvious as apparently everyone else in the universe? No, not even close. Maybe 60-40, but I think it's probably more like 55-45.

Comparing with Shaw is moot since, IMO, a Shawgren offense would not take an average NFL team to the play-offs, let along the Super Bowl.

I don't think a coaching staff of Belichick, Walsh, Landry, Shula, and Lombardi all combined into one super-coach could lead an average team to the Super Bowl without a ridiculous amount of luck. The difference between an average team (say the Colts or Ravens, who both went 8-8 this year) and the best teams is enormous. No coach is worth 4 WAR (for what they do on Sundays, anyway, which is what we're talking about here, Atlanta's gameplan was obviously pretty darn good).

[Farm93]

I went back and looked at the play-by-play for the 2013 Stanford - AZ State game.

End result:  Stanford wins, 42-28

We probably could find a number of games like that over the last five years.  Big lead.  Team transforms into a super low risk team at half and then wins by a smaller, but still comfortable margin. 

FWIW - The 2016 Rose Bowl had a similar vibe.  The team was up 35-0 and then basically did nothing for the entire second half.  Still a win.  :)

Though many would love the full throttle for 60 minute approach, there are plenty of Pac-12 meltdowns to show that can backfire.  Teams used to winning big with ever more crushing margins often start to panic if the second half is not going well.  Then those teams get their nicknames linked to their epic collapses (see: Cougs, Bears). 

[Farm93]

I went back and looked at the play-by-play for the 2013 Stanford - AZ State game.

End result:  Stanford wins, 42-28

We probably could find a number of games like that over the last five years.  Big lead.  Team transforms into a super low risk team at half and then wins by a smaller, but still comfortable margin. 

FWIW - The 2016 Rose Bowl had a similar vibe.  The team was up 35-0 and then basically did nothing for the entire second half.  Still a win.  :)

Though many would love the full throttle for 60 minute approach, there are plenty of Pac-12 meltdowns to show that can backfire.  Teams used to winning big with ever more crushing margins often start to panic if the second half is not going well.  Then those teams get their nicknames linked to their epic collapses (see: Cougs, Bears). 

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16559.msg188297#msg188297 date=1486490114]Nobody would have complained if they made the decisions that gave them the best chance to win while avoiding the most risk.

Do you actually believe that? I don't think you do, because the only way that would be possible if you've never had any exposure whatsoever to the average fan.

Do I think that Atlanta would have been better off running the ball? Yes. Do I think it's as mind-blowingly obvious as apparently everyone else in the universe? No, not even close. Maybe 60-40, but I think it's probably more like 55-45.[/quote]

I'll admit there are some people who would claim the wrong decision was made in any circumstance that led to defeat.  But if a fumble or missed FG occurred, the guilty parties would most likely be equated to Jackie Smith (or maybe Lewis Billups, though he doesn't get as much flak as he should for dropping an interception of a Joe Montana pass in the EZ that would have sealed the win for Cincy and precluded the TD to Taylor on the next play) if the Patriots won.  Almost nobody would be letting those guys off the hook and claimed the Falcons should have passed the ball.

[OutsiderFan]

[quote author=OutsiderFan link=topic=16559.msg188297#msg188297 date=1486490114]Nobody would have complained if they made the decisions that gave them the best chance to win while avoiding the most risk.

Do you actually believe that? I don't think you do, because the only way that would be possible if you've never had any exposure whatsoever to the average fan.

Do I think that Atlanta would have been better off running the ball? Yes. Do I think it's as mind-blowingly obvious as apparently everyone else in the universe? No, not even close. Maybe 60-40, but I think it's probably more like 55-45.[/quote]

I'll admit there are some people who would claim the wrong decision was made in any circumstance that led to defeat.  But if a fumble or missed FG occurred, the guilty parties would most likely be equated to Jackie Smith (or maybe Lewis Billups, though he doesn't get as much flak as he should for dropping an interception of a Joe Montana pass in the EZ that would have sealed the win for Cincy and precluded the TD to Taylor on the next play) if the Patriots won.  Almost nobody would be letting those guys off the hook and claimed the Falcons should have passed the ball.

[teejers1]

I completely reject stupac's notion that complaints about ATL's play calling are all hindsight bias.  That's just dead wrong.  Real time, after the Jones catch (the throw and catch were both spectacular, btw), weren't you saying "run the ball and kick the FG?"  If not, then you were (a) in the minority of viewers, and (b) in the extreme minority of viewers with a clue.  Sorry for any ruffled feathers, but based on your posting history, I'm sure you can take it.

[teejers1]

I completely reject stupac's notion that complaints about ATL's play calling are all hindsight bias.  That's just dead wrong.  Real time, after the Jones catch (the throw and catch were both spectacular, btw), weren't you saying "run the ball and kick the FG?"  If not, then you were (a) in the minority of viewers, and (b) in the extreme minority of viewers with a clue.  Sorry for any ruffled feathers, but based on your posting history, I'm sure you can take it.

[stupac2]

I completely reject stupac's notion that complaints about ATL's play calling are all hindsight bias.  That's just dead wrong.  Real time, after the Jones catch (the throw and catch were both spectacular, btw), weren't you saying "run the ball and kick the FG?"  If not, then you were (a) in the minority of viewers, and (b) in the extreme minority of viewers with a clue.  Sorry for any ruffled feathers, but based on your posting history, I'm sure you can take it.

I'm not saying that it's all hindsight bias, I even specifically said that running the ball was likely the right call! I am saying that the intensity of this reaction is entirely because of the outcome, and that the outcome wasn't even really the playcaller's fault. (Since "don't take a sack in FG range" is something every NFL QB, let alone the ostensible MVP, should just know, and Ryan had plenty of time to throw that ball away.) And, really, that was the only call on that drive that's questionable, because:

1) On first down they DID run, and lost a yard.
2) On 3rd and 23 they were looking at a ~53-yard field goal, which is probably a 50-50 shot, so they basically had no choice but to try to move up, and it nearly worked! They got 9 yards, which turns it into something like a 75% shot, but then there was the hold. You can't really blame the playcaller for that.
3) On 3rd and 33 it doesn't much matter what they do, but at least a pass play gives you a chance of getting the FG.

Anyway, I think it's completely ridiculous to suggest that an offense with the best receiver in the NFL, the MVP of the league at QB, and that was getting stuffed all half should obviously and definitely have run the ball. There's more to it than that, but at this point it's clear you're never going to even try to listen to these arguments.

[stupac2]

I completely reject stupac's notion that complaints about ATL's play calling are all hindsight bias.  That's just dead wrong.  Real time, after the Jones catch (the throw and catch were both spectacular, btw), weren't you saying "run the ball and kick the FG?"  If not, then you were (a) in the minority of viewers, and (b) in the extreme minority of viewers with a clue.  Sorry for any ruffled feathers, but based on your posting history, I'm sure you can take it.

I'm not saying that it's all hindsight bias, I even specifically said that running the ball was likely the right call! I am saying that the intensity of this reaction is entirely because of the outcome, and that the outcome wasn't even really the playcaller's fault. (Since "don't take a sack in FG range" is something every NFL QB, let alone the ostensible MVP, should just know, and Ryan had plenty of time to throw that ball away.) And, really, that was the only call on that drive that's questionable, because:

1) On first down they DID run, and lost a yard.
2) On 3rd and 23 they were looking at a ~53-yard field goal, which is probably a 50-50 shot, so they basically had no choice but to try to move up, and it nearly worked! They got 9 yards, which turns it into something like a 75% shot, but then there was the hold. You can't really blame the playcaller for that.
3) On 3rd and 33 it doesn't much matter what they do, but at least a pass play gives you a chance of getting the FG.

Anyway, I think it's completely ridiculous to suggest that an offense with the best receiver in the NFL, the MVP of the league at QB, and that was getting stuffed all half should obviously and definitely have run the ball. There's more to it than that, but at this point it's clear you're never going to even try to listen to these arguments.

[dabigv13]

Stupac has it right. I do think the second down call should have been a run, but if they run it twice and get stuffed, they have a makeable but not gimme field goal.

A pass in that scenario could be a good call. It's only a bad call because it ended up as a sack, but that's on the players more than the coaches.

[dabigv13]

Stupac has it right. I do think the second down call should have been a run, but if they run it twice and get stuffed, they have a makeable but not gimme field goal.

A pass in that scenario could be a good call. It's only a bad call because it ended up as a sack, but that's on the players more than the coaches.

[DC 86]

Stupac has it right. I do think the second down call should have been a run, but if they run it twice and get stuffed, they have a makeable but not gimme field goal.

If they get stuffed on both second and third down then Atlanta is facing a 40 yard FG from the NW 23. Even if they are lose yardage they are probably facing no worse than a 42-43 yard FG.

Matt Bryant was 31-32 on FG under 50 yards this season. His only miss was a block, outdoors on the road. By definition nothing is a "gimme", but indoors in a dome a kicker who is 97% on the season from under 50 yards is a gigantic favorite to be successful from 40-43 yards, more accurately described as "almost certain" rather than "makeable".

[DC 86]

Stupac has it right. I do think the second down call should have been a run, but if they run it twice and get stuffed, they have a makeable but not gimme field goal.

If they get stuffed on both second and third down then Atlanta is facing a 40 yard FG from the NW 23. Even if they are lose yardage they are probably facing no worse than a 42-43 yard FG.

Matt Bryant was 31-32 on FG under 50 yards this season. His only miss was a block, outdoors on the road. By definition nothing is a "gimme", but indoors in a dome a kicker who is 97% on the season from under 50 yards is a gigantic favorite to be successful from 40-43 yards, more accurately described as "almost certain" rather than "makeable".

[dabigv13]

Funny things happen in big games like this ( my first thought is Pete Stoyanovich, a great kicker, missing from 42 against the Chargers in the playoffs, but there are plenty of other examples)...if they could pass for a first down, something they have also done very well this season, they're really set. Listen, I think a run would've been smarter, it's what I would have picked in Madden. But I don't think it's an indefensible call, and ultimately the blame is more on the players who didn't execute than the call.

[dabigv13]

Funny things happen in big games like this ( my first thought is Pete Stoyanovich, a great kicker, missing from 42 against the Chargers in the playoffs, but there are plenty of other examples)...if they could pass for a first down, something they have also done very well this season, they're really set. Listen, I think a run would've been smarter, it's what I would have picked in Madden. But I don't think it's an indefensible call, and ultimately the blame is more on the players who didn't execute than the call.

[BostonCard]

Two more quick comments:

1) These are the same coaches that got the Falcons to the Superbowl and went up 28-3 on the Patriots.  They made a call I wouldn't have made, but they aren't dolts.
2) A lot of things have to go wrong for a team to blow a 28-3 lead.  The call was one of them, but it was neither necessary (three runs and a missed field goal, while less probable, would have been just as bad), nor sufficient (the strip sack, the defense that just could not get a stop, and even the friggin coin toss in overtime all played a role).

Still, they should have run the ball.

BC

[BostonCard]

Two more quick comments:

1) These are the same coaches that got the Falcons to the Superbowl and went up 28-3 on the Patriots.  They made a call I wouldn't have made, but they aren't dolts.
2) A lot of things have to go wrong for a team to blow a 28-3 lead.  The call was one of them, but it was neither necessary (three runs and a missed field goal, while less probable, would have been just as bad), nor sufficient (the strip sack, the defense that just could not get a stop, and even the friggin coin toss in overtime all played a role).

Still, they should have run the ball.

BC

[Ratmandoo]

There's also the difference between execution vs. play call. On strip sack turnover (probably the pivotal play the Patriots' comeback), the Falcons are a split second away from a brobdingnagian gain.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-...strip-sack

If you look at the video link, at the 39 second mark, it shows the endzone view. Just as Ryan is getting ready to throw the ball (and is sacked), Julio Jones is breaking wide open on a crossing route. This is the same play route that Jones scored his 70+ yard catch and run touchdown against Green Bay in the NFC Championship game (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWbh3Wpl85M). The running back Freeman was supposed to pick up the blitzing linebacker Hightower but Freeman thought he was suppose to release into a route. If Freeman tries to block Hightower and gives Ryan even a split second more time, Ryan probably completes this pass to Jones and the game might be over right then. Was this the wrong play call because of the time left in the game and the lead that Atlanta has? Or were the Falcons staying aggressive as they had been all year and going to the kill shot to end the game? Great play call with terrible execution or a play too risky to call with a big lead late in the game?

[Ratmandoo]

There's also the difference between execution vs. play call. On strip sack turnover (probably the pivotal play the Patriots' comeback), the Falcons are a split second away from a brobdingnagian gain.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-cant-miss-...strip-sack

If you look at the video link, at the 39 second mark, it shows the endzone view. Just as Ryan is getting ready to throw the ball (and is sacked), Julio Jones is breaking wide open on a crossing route. This is the same play route that Jones scored his 70+ yard catch and run touchdown against Green Bay in the NFC Championship game (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWbh3Wpl85M). The running back Freeman was supposed to pick up the blitzing linebacker Hightower but Freeman thought he was suppose to release into a route. If Freeman tries to block Hightower and gives Ryan even a split second more time, Ryan probably completes this pass to Jones and the game might be over right then. Was this the wrong play call because of the time left in the game and the lead that Atlanta has? Or were the Falcons staying aggressive as they had been all year and going to the kill shot to end the game? Great play call with terrible execution or a play too risky to call with a big lead late in the game?

[stupac2]

If they get stuffed on both second and third down then Atlanta is facing a 40 yard FG from the NW 23. Even if they are lose yardage they are probably facing no worse than a 42-43 yard FG.

Matt Bryant was 31-32 on FG under 50 yards this season. His only miss was a block, outdoors on the road. By definition nothing is a "gimme", but indoors in a dome a kicker who is 97% on the season from under 50 yards is a gigantic favorite to be successful from 40-43 yards, more accurately described as "almost certain" rather than "makeable".

Keep in mind that NE was selling out to stop the run, and they already lost a yard on 1st and 10, so it's entirely possible (I would say likely) that they either get more losses or even a holding penalty or similar that pushed them back in a manner like the sack. People are saying "JUST RUN IT TWICE AND KICK THE FG!!!!!" while ignoring that the other team is still playing, you can't just do nothing for those downs. Even taking two knees pushes you back at least 4 yards. (Remember two super bowls ago when NE got the goal-line interception and Brady had to draw Seattle offside to take a knee? Knees lose yardage!)

Also worth noting that NE had already blocked an XP on a stunt that was incorrectly ruled a penalty, and accounted for Justin Tucker's only FG miss of the year on a similar block. There's no guarantee at all that they don't do that again. Even from the 23, the best outcomes there are:

1) Get a first down.
2) Get a touchdown. (I put this after first down because two first downs for Atl wins the game, a fast TD leaves NE with some tiny chance of winning.)
3) Gain yardage for the FG attempt.
4) Lose yardage for FG attempt.
5) Lose yardage and have to punt.
6) Miss FG.
7) Turnover.

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, but it forces NE to use all their TOs and makes it so another first down ends the game. If they think that passing is the best chance to get a first down, then it makes sense to pass at least once. The problem was Ryan taking the sack despite plenty of time to throw it away, which was really on him, not on Shanahan. (And I've seen a lot of people saying "BUT WHY CALL FOR A SEVEN STEP DROP????" That's not how the WC offense works. Reads are timed with steps, but each play with have multiple reads, and so if the earlier reads are covered, most plays can end up getting to seven steps because that's how it works. Presumably there are plays where the first reads are 5-7 steps, but it would be pretty surprising if that's what was called, and unless you know the WC system Shanahan's running it would be hard to tell even from all-22.)

[stupac2]

If they get stuffed on both second and third down then Atlanta is facing a 40 yard FG from the NW 23. Even if they are lose yardage they are probably facing no worse than a 42-43 yard FG.

Matt Bryant was 31-32 on FG under 50 yards this season. His only miss was a block, outdoors on the road. By definition nothing is a "gimme", but indoors in a dome a kicker who is 97% on the season from under 50 yards is a gigantic favorite to be successful from 40-43 yards, more accurately described as "almost certain" rather than "makeable".

Keep in mind that NE was selling out to stop the run, and they already lost a yard on 1st and 10, so it's entirely possible (I would say likely) that they either get more losses or even a holding penalty or similar that pushed them back in a manner like the sack. People are saying "JUST RUN IT TWICE AND KICK THE FG!!!!!" while ignoring that the other team is still playing, you can't just do nothing for those downs. Even taking two knees pushes you back at least 4 yards. (Remember two super bowls ago when NE got the goal-line interception and Brady had to draw Seattle offside to take a knee? Knees lose yardage!)

Also worth noting that NE had already blocked an XP on a stunt that was incorrectly ruled a penalty, and accounted for Justin Tucker's only FG miss of the year on a similar block. There's no guarantee at all that they don't do that again. Even from the 23, the best outcomes there are:

1) Get a first down.
2) Get a touchdown. (I put this after first down because two first downs for Atl wins the game, a fast TD leaves NE with some tiny chance of winning.)
3) Gain yardage for the FG attempt.
4) Lose yardage for FG attempt.
5) Lose yardage and have to punt.
6) Miss FG.
7) Turnover.

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, but it forces NE to use all their TOs and makes it so another first down ends the game. If they think that passing is the best chance to get a first down, then it makes sense to pass at least once. The problem was Ryan taking the sack despite plenty of time to throw it away, which was really on him, not on Shanahan. (And I've seen a lot of people saying "BUT WHY CALL FOR A SEVEN STEP DROP????" That's not how the WC offense works. Reads are timed with steps, but each play with have multiple reads, and so if the earlier reads are covered, most plays can end up getting to seven steps because that's how it works. Presumably there are plays where the first reads are 5-7 steps, but it would be pretty surprising if that's what was called, and unless you know the WC system Shanahan's running it would be hard to tell even from all-22.)

[Ratmandoo]

Even from the 23, the best outcomes there are:

1) Get a first down.
2) Get a touchdown. (I put this after first down because two first downs for Atl wins the game, a fast TD leaves NE with some tiny chance of winning.)
3) Gain yardage for the FG attempt.
4) Lose yardage for FG attempt.
5) Lose yardage and have to punt.
6) Miss FG.
7) Turnover.

Stupac - I agree with you on this but you need to add keep the clock running to this list of outcomes (and forcing New England to use timeouts - otherwise it might take more than 2 first downs to end the game).

[Ratmandoo]

Even from the 23, the best outcomes there are:

1) Get a first down.
2) Get a touchdown. (I put this after first down because two first downs for Atl wins the game, a fast TD leaves NE with some tiny chance of winning.)
3) Gain yardage for the FG attempt.
4) Lose yardage for FG attempt.
5) Lose yardage and have to punt.
6) Miss FG.
7) Turnover.

Stupac - I agree with you on this but you need to add keep the clock running to this list of outcomes (and forcing New England to use timeouts - otherwise it might take more than 2 first downs to end the game).

[stupac2]

Well sure, but "run as much clock as possible" is implicit in all of them, and only getting at least one first down lets them run anywhere close to enough. I think that the desire to both make the FG easier and get a first down if possible means that passing at least once is a very reasonable decision, despite the odds of a sack/incompletion. Unfortunately for Atlanta they got the second-worst outcome of that series of downs.

[stupac2]

Well sure, but "run as much clock as possible" is implicit in all of them, and only getting at least one first down lets them run anywhere close to enough. I think that the desire to both make the FG easier and get a first down if possible means that passing at least once is a very reasonable decision, despite the odds of a sack/incompletion. Unfortunately for Atlanta they got the second-worst outcome of that series of downs.

[teejers1]

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.

[teejers1]

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.