OT: Do you let the Giants score? If so, when?

Submitted by Erik_in_Dayton on

Not caring much who won yesterday, I thought that the most interesting part of the game was the Patriots' decision to let the Giants score.  Reactions seem to fall anywhere from "That was crazy" to "They should have done it sooner."  The latter makes more sense, I think  - and specifically that the Pats should have let NY score on first down at the 18.

Some quick facts (one based on my memory of the game):

* CNNSI.com lists Giants' kicker Lawrence Tynes' stats on the year as 3-4 from 30-39 and 12-12 from 1-29. 

*IIRC, the Giants had the ball at the 18 on first down with two minutes left. 

*Manning has been historically good in the 4th quarter this year.

*The Patriots had the 31st rated defense in the league, but were much better (15th) when it came to points.

My thoughts: The Giants seemed very unlikely to end up with a 35 yard attempt when they were at the 18 with two minutes left.  They were moving the ball with little trouble.  I don't think, then, that we can look at the situation as one in which giving up a touchdown there is giving surrendering a 25% chance of winning (1/4 being the amount of field goals from 30-39 that Tynes missed).  Even if the Giants had stalled at the 18, they were likely to use up a lot of time before they kicked that 35 yard FG (and/or caused the Pats to exhaust their timeouts).  The Pats would only have needed a FG in response to a NY field goal, of course, but the value of that diminishes as every second ticks off of the clock. 

Letting the Giants score a TD with roughly two minutes left gives you the ball back in Brady's hands with two timeouts and a realistic amount of time.  Letting NY score with one minute, on the other hand, didn't leave you enough time.  Finally, letting Tynes kick a 35-yard field goal as time expires gives you, IMO, the smallest chance of wininning (25% based on his performance during the year?).  

Your thoughts?

Two final notes:  I realize that Bill Belichick's socks know more about football than I do.  I'm just throwing this out for fun.

Second, I realize that this probably came up yesterday at some point on the board.  However, many of us were not on the board then because we were watching the game with friends and family or manning the international space station.

ijohnb

February 6th, 2012 at 1:11 PM ^

score, the sooner the better. 

Also, take your timeout to stop the clock prior to Texas attempting their field goal attempt in the 2004-2005 Rose Bowl please.

bronxblue

February 6th, 2012 at 1:29 PM ^

I'd have let NY score with about 2 minutes - the offense for the Pats had already marched down the field twice on that defense, and Brady and co. are deadly in the 2-minute offense.  Wasting a couple of timeouts and about 1 minute to let the Giants score seemed dumb.

I also think that Bellicheck wasting a timeout on that challenge late was not a good call.  He was right there, and it definitely looked like a catch even in real time.  At that point, I'd rather hang onto that timeout than take a chance on an iffy reversal.  And yes, if it was a closer catch I would have probably challenged, but for whatever reason I would have expected the Giants to score anyway and then save the timeout for my team's last drive.

Tater

February 6th, 2012 at 1:42 PM ^

I would have done it about thirty seconds earlier.  The problem is, though, that there was still a little bit of hope at holding them to a long field goal attempt.  If Belichick had let them score from about ten yards further out, everyone in the media, especially his "home" media, would be blasting him today.  

Ultimately, he made the right call.  His team just didn't have enough of "it" to get the job done on the last drive.  

SysMark

February 6th, 2012 at 1:54 PM ^

I think they should have let them score as soon as they got to the 18 with two minutes left.  A better question however, I think, is whether the Giants should have taken the score or stopped before the end zone.  Bradshaw started to but didn't - guessing instinct took over and he caught himself too late.  I'm a Giant fan and have been torn on this one but I think you do have to take the TD when you can - if you stop intentionally and end up not scoring it would  be worse than having the Patriots come back and win.

RickH

February 6th, 2012 at 1:57 PM ^

The problem is that they waited too long to let them score.  You either do it earlier or don't do it at all.  They wouldn't of even been in that position though if the Pats receivers could catch the ball toward the end of the game.

stankoniaks

February 6th, 2012 at 2:02 PM ^

The flaw in saying the Pats should have let them score once they got to the 18 is twofold.  1)  A 35 yard field goal is not a gimme (see the Ravens).  There were people at the SB party I was at, that were screaming for the Giants to start taking knees when they hit the 30.  Really?  You want to have Tynes try a 47 yard kick, when you can easily scoop up some more yards, possible get a few first downs to run down the clock as well.  You can't assume they'll make a 35 yard field goal.  If the NYG got within the 13 (and thus it was less than a 30 yard field goal), I think I'd let them score.  2) The biggest flaw in saying, oh the Pats should have let them score is assuming that the Giants try and score.  The Giants could run down to the one and take at the one.  They could then take 3 knees, or a couple knees and then try to score a TD on 3rd down.  Regardless, they'd be little time left on the clock even after they called their TOs.

M-Wolverine

February 6th, 2012 at 2:13 PM ^

Tynes was 2-2 from 30-39 in the game. For the season, 3-4.   From 20-29, he was 12-12. So certainly by the time they get to the 11 it's time to let them score.  You could say they might not, but, in fact, they did. 

And even letting them get to the one and take a knee takes less time off the clock because they can't get more first downs.  Or they score on an earlier play if they try to score.

M-Wolverine

February 6th, 2012 at 2:06 PM ^

ttp://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/boxscore?gid=20120205017&page=plays

1st-10, NE34 2:52 E. Manning passed to M. Manningham to the left for 2 yard gain

2nd-8, NE32 2:09 E. Manning passed to H. Nicks to the left for 14 yard gain

1st-10, NE18 2:00 A. Bradshaw rushed up the middle for 7 yard gain

2nd-3, NE11 1:15 E. Manning passed to H. Nicks to the left for 4 yard gain

1st-7, NE7 1:09 A. Bradshaw rushed up the middle for 1 yard gain

2nd-6, NE6 0:57 A. Bradshaw rushed

(Just had this long post not save because "field is required" even though nothing is highlighted, so this is the short version)

 

Probably 1st and 10 from the 18 was the best time.  Goes from a maybe stoppable FG to a pretty sure thing. Certainly by 2nd and 3 from the 11, because that's practically an XP.  Two more plays shouldn't have occurred. Having said that it's hard in real game time to do something so out of the ordinary.  You're still hoping that maybe you cause yet another Giants fumble, and finally they don't recover one of them.  So while I think that might have been the optimal time, I'm not saying he was wrong for when he did it. It's different me thinking on my couch that it's over when they get to the 18, and what a coach has to try and do in the moment.

aiglick

February 6th, 2012 at 2:09 PM ^

Anything can happen. Remember Illinois 2009. That was terrible. The above poster is right that if the Giants somehow couldn't punch the ball in from the one years line that would be almost as bad as the play that led to the creation of the Victory Formation.

M-Dog

February 6th, 2012 at 9:38 PM ^

People kept saying that they would have let the Gaints score once they got inside the 20.  But I don't think the Giants would have let themselves score from there.  It would have been too obvious what NE was doing.

Bradshaw did not mean to score, but was taken by surprise, and once he got momentum from the six he could not stop.  Had that been from the 15 or 20, he would have caught himself.  That would have been it.  

It probably worked out as well as it could have in terms NE having a chance to win.