How BYU football could have changed the Super Bowl

And New Endland could be celebrating right now, rather than lamenting.



http://www.bluecougarfootball.com/2012/02/dear-bill-belichick-watch-more-byu.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Should have forced the FG, and/or drafted Pitta.

Y12 wrote:
And New Endland could be celebrating right now, rather than lamenting.



http://www.bluecougarfootball.com/2012/02/dear-bill-belichick-watch-more-byu.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;



Should have forced the FG, and/or drafted Pitta.

I've seen 2 superbowls were one team (seemingly)allowed the other to take the lead with a touchdown in order to preserve time on the clock. Both teams lost. Giving up a TD in order to preserve time is a stupid thing to do. If that RB had dropped on the 1 yard line like the announcers wanted him to do instead of score it would have been a big mistake. If he had dropped on the one yard line, they ran another play and were stopped, they would have only had a 1 point lead instead of 5 and it would have changed the patriots strategy on offense since all they needed to win was a FG. ALWAYS score when you have the chance and then play defense. i couldn't believe that the announcers were calling scoring a touchdown a "huge" mistake. If Belichic called for the defense to allow that TD, he is an idiot.

Take points when you can get them.

hawkwing wrote:
Take points when you can get them.

Never give up points for free.

Negative. Good move by Patriots. Period.

Its all about probability. Gmen would have controlled the clock and run it down to 20 seconds and kicked a field goal. 85-95 probability of success. Probability of stopping that by the Patriots? 5-15%.They couldn't stop them on must stop situations all the way down the field. What makes you think they would or could stop them. Their D was gassed. Good coaching who knows his players.

Chances were better to get the ball back in their hands with one of the best QB's of all time and score. 30-35% probability, IMO.

how many cases has a team actually won by giving up a score?



If we're going to have probability we need some actual data, not guesses as to what the chance of scoring is.



We need the number of teams on defense that were in the lead with under a minute to go and the opposing team in the blue zone. How many times did the team play full defense and win, how many times did they give up the score and come back to win?

I liked the call. It's hard to do ANYTHING with 20 seconds, no TOs, and no stops to move the chains.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I'm glad BYU didn't let UCLA score in the 2007 LV Bowl just to give Max Hall more time to try and regain the lead.



BYU blocked the chip shot, extra-point length FG and won.

What the Pats should have done, is picked up Hakeem Nicks and carried him into the endzone.



Then they would have had two time outs and about 70 seconds to work with. THAT would have been epic as well.

How soon you forget the Miracle bowl of 1980. We didn't give up that TD on purpose but it allowed us to get the ball back and then score and then get an onside kick and score again and then block their punt and then hail mary for the win. Something like that. It has been awhile and I might have forgotten some of the details.

for every miracle let the other team score and get the ball back and score again for the win story, there's probably an equal we held them and forced a turnover or blocked field goal story.



Maybe it's 6s?

This thread reminds me of the seen in Tower Heist when Shaw tells Josh about the most famous chess move of all time "The Marshall Swindle" where the Queen is sacrificed for the win.



Fortuanately both the movie and the game had happy endings.



I think the best idea was to carry the ball carrier into the endzone. The truth is the Pats were toast either way. 1 minute to score a touchdown or <20 seconds to score a fieldgoal.

But the TOAST either way is why they should bet the farm on the bad snap or fumbled snap, or fumble by RB trying to get the ball to the middle of the field or the blocked kick or the kickoff return after the field goal going to the house or whatever other thing that could get your odds slightly higher than toast. Did I mention stripping the ball carrier.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Never give up points for free. A FG kick while 80+% probablility is not 100%. letting a guy walk into the end zone is 100% probablilty. That Pats were up by 2, they went down by 5 and couldn't score, lost the game. If I am head coach, I play defense and then go for the block on the fg. If they kick the FG and go up by one, I try to drive the field and get into FG range myself before the clock runs out. If I don't, we lost to a better team. Belechic is only a coaching genius when he has spies video tape the opposing teams practices before a game. I am so glad the Giants won, I hate the Pats. The Pats are 02 in superbowls since they had to quit cheating.

Tha Patriots defense stinks. The Giants were moving the ball at will.



They made the correct choice at the wrong time. They NEEDED to let them score a lot sooner.



Brady needed more time to move the ball, and they're very good in the hurry up offense. Especially when Brady is on fire. He completed 14 straight completions(SB record).



No dis on Pitta, but Gronk is clearly the better TE at the moment. Pitta loves to drop as soon as he catches the ball, always has. Gronk is impressively fast for his size. It takes 2-3 men to drag him down. He definitely wasn't on his A-game with his ankle sprain.



The Patriots drafted the best TE for THEIR system. I ogten wonder how well Pitta would have done there.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I'm sticking with my pick up the Giant player and carry him into the endzone.

SpiffCoug wrote:
I'm sticking with my pick up the Giant player and carry him into the endzone.

You'd have to grab him and carry him while he's up, otherwise once you touch him he'd be down by contact.

hawkwing wrote:

I'm sticking with my pick up the Giant player and carry him into the endzone.

You'd have to grab him and carry him while he's up, otherwise once you touch him he'd be down by contact.

Exactly. You don't tackle him, you pick him up and carry him into the endzone. IF the Patriots had done this on the Hakeem Nicks catch, they would have had about a minute thirty and two timeouts.

SpiffCoug wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:
I'm sticking with my pick up the Giant player and carry him into the endzone.

You'd have to grab him and carry him while he's up, otherwise once you touch him he'd be down by contact.

Exactly. You don't tackle him, you pick him up and carry him into the endzone. IF the Patriots had done this on the Hakeem Nicks catch, they would have had about a minute thirty and two timeouts.

I think hawk's point is you can't pick him up unless he's down and if he's down he can't be picked up because he's already downed and so you need to carry him into the end zone without picking him up so he's not down. Does that clear it up? ;)



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Why can't you pick him up? Is that a rule? I honestly don't know.