04/18/24
January 24, 2016
Denver Beats New England to Reach Super Bowl 50: The Denver Broncos defense bottled up quarterback Tom Brady for three quarters, then had a crucial two-point conversion stop with 12 seconds left to win the AFC Championship Game 20-18 over the New England Patriots. Brady threw for 310 yards but had three interceptions, including one on the conversion attempt with 12 seconds left. Peyton Manning, a backup a month ago, will play in his fourth Super Bowl.
A missed extra point?!
posted by grum@work at 03:48 PM on January 24, 2016
A good example of how far the NFL has come with regards to avoiding injuries was just visible when I was watching. Manning overthrew a receiver enough to make him turn his back on the defender, jump up, stretch, and just get his finger on the ball (before it deflected high and out of bounds). The Patriots defender pulled up in front of the receiver when he came down.
In the old days, the Patriots defender would have blasted the helpless receiver (who, because he touched the ball, would have been "fair game").
posted by grum@work at 03:57 PM on January 24, 2016
Did we get a replay showing why that pass was ruled a lateral? CBS blew it there.
posted by rcade at 04:01 PM on January 24, 2016
😉 MISSING PERSONS unit heading to @SportsAuthField to try & locate Patriots Offense. GO @Broncos Denver Police Dept. (@DenverPolice) January 24, 2016
Little soon, no?
posted by rcade at 04:39 PM on January 24, 2016
The Broncos are going to wish they did more with the three quarters where they kept Brady bottled up. A 5-point lead isn't nearly enough.
posted by rcade at 05:31 PM on January 24, 2016
Why would they show the NE kicker? He isn't going to be involved if the team is down by 8.
posted by grum@work at 06:10 PM on January 24, 2016
How was that not grounding by Brady?
posted by grum@work at 06:26 PM on January 24, 2016
If that's the last Tom/Peyton matchup, it was a doozy finish.
posted by grum@work at 06:34 PM on January 24, 2016
How was that not grounding by Brady?
If you're asking about the 360 spin-around-while-being-sacked throw he did in the final set of downs, I thought that was grounding too.
posted by rcade at 06:47 PM on January 24, 2016
QB playing at home has won all the Brady-Manning title game matchups.
The Pats didn't lose this game in Miami during Week 17, but that's where the first portion of the die was cast.
If I had a dollar for every disparaging comment I ever made about Wade Phillips as a head coach I'd never think about buying a lottery ticket, but lord knows, that man was put on this earth to coordinate a defense.
If Manning and the Broncos win SB 50, the mythology and fable roof will blow off the marble temple of the sporting gods and Goodell might stay in power another 20 years off the comet trail of the rapturous vibes.
posted by beaverboard at 06:48 PM on January 24, 2016
There were a ton of plays where Brady intentionally grounded the ball in practice but not by the letter of the rule. I thought the no calls were correct but as a Bronco fan it was wildly frustrating.
The final touchdown was reminiscent of Seattle's miracle two point conversion in last year's NFC title game. I was angry at those two defenders for about 10 minutes after the game for how shitty and worried I felt in the moments after that play.
posted by tron7 at 07:48 PM on January 24, 2016
If you're asking about the 360 spin-around-while-being-sacked throw he did in the final set of downs, I thought that was grounding too.
That's the one.
posted by grum@work at 08:01 PM on January 24, 2016
Exhibit C that a tenacious pass rush is kryptonite to the Brady-era Patriots offense. Fun game from the neutral's perspective. And yes, that game was close enough that it goes the other way at Foxborough.
posted by holden at 08:05 PM on January 24, 2016
After the game, I felt compelled to email the Broncos to urge them to wear their road whites in the SB. I like orange a lot, but I don't want to see the team look foolish in the big game wearing that color any more.
posted by beaverboard at 08:30 PM on January 24, 2016
Kind of expected Manning to be the QB who had the rough game based upon his season and overall health. He was rock solid.
Probably the worst performance by Brady I've seen. He played scared.
Although the Patriots O line and receivers didn't rate much better.
posted by cixelsyd at 08:58 PM on January 24, 2016
If New England had kicked a field goal on the last three possessions instead of going for touchdowns, they would have won the game.
posted by grum@work at 10:16 PM on January 24, 2016
Stat of the game: Brady took more QB hits today than any other QB in any game all season. He was hit 11 times more than the previous high allowed by the Pats this year.
The Broncos DL flat-out abused the Pats OL.
posted by deflated at 12:23 AM on January 25, 2016
When Marcus Cannon shook Von Miller's hand at the end it was the first time he touched Miller all day.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 08:37 AM on January 25, 2016
then had a crucial two-point conversion stop as time expired to win the AFC Championship Game 20-18 over the New England Patriots
The time wasn't expired when they tried the 2-point conversion. The Patriots had enough time to try an onside kick and, if they recovered, try a Hail Mary.
posted by grum@work at 09:00 AM on January 25, 2016
Did we get a replay showing why that pass was ruled a lateral? CBS blew it there.
They showed a couple of shots that made it pretty apparent that the receiver was behind the QB, while the challenge was being adjudicated, but they never really lined it out and telestrated it.
posted by Etrigan at 09:45 AM on January 25, 2016
The time wasn't expired when they tried the 2-point conversion.
Corrected. Thanks.
posted by rcade at 09:51 AM on January 25, 2016
They briefly mentioned that the challenge was on call about the lateral, and that Denver thought that the reason the ball went backwards was that the defender got a finger on it, deflecting it backwards, and making it an incomplete pass and not a lateral.
What surprised me was so little was made that the refs blew that whistle so fast that it probably cost the Patriots a crucial touchdown. I would have thought they would have been trained to simply swallow the whistle on plays that MIGHT be laterals, and let the instant replay sort it out.
posted by grum@work at 09:55 AM on January 25, 2016
If New England had kicked a field goal on the last three possessions instead of going for touchdowns, they would have won the game.
While that is obviously true, it's hard to say how the game would have played out had the Patriots kicked field goals -- would have made a difference in field position (Denver's starting field position and Patriots field position after Broncos punts) and amount of clock available for the Patriots (at a minimum, due to kickoffs), and might have influenced Bronco's offensive strategy.
posted by holden at 10:00 AM on January 25, 2016
While that is obviously true, it's hard to say how the game would have played out had the Patriots kicked field goals -- would have made a difference in field position (Denver's starting field position and Patriots field position after Broncos punts) and amount of clock available for the Patriots (at a minimum, due to kickoffs), and might have influenced Bronco's offensive strategy.
3rd last drive for NE:
Real last play: Brady threw a pass to Edleman for -1 yards. That gave the ball to Denver at the 17 yard line.
Alternate result: NE kicks the field goal. Then they kick-off through the end zone (no time expires), and Denver starts at the 20 yard line.
Change: Denver starts 3 yards ahead. Negligible difference.
2nd last drive for NE:
Real last play: Brady threw an incomplete pass. That gave the ball to Denver at the 14 yard line.
Alternate result: NE kicks the field goal. Then they kick-off through the end zone (no time expires), and Denver starts at the 20 yard line.
Change: Denver starts 6 yards ahead. Tiny difference.
Last drive for NE:
Real last play: Touchdown pass from the 4 yard line! The two-point conversion fails (no clock change). Then follows an onside kick. Denver gets the ball, but it's inconsequential.
Alternate result: This is where things really go wild with speculation. Since NE only needs a field goal, they probably aren't throwing the ball as far and deep as possible. As well, Denver isn't trying to stop a touchdown, they're trying to stop ANY movement (since NE started with the ball at the 50 (or their own 44 if you assume previous alternate result)). As well, you now have a case where maybe DENVER is the one using timeouts once New England gets past a certain point on the field (to ensure they have time left to counter if the field goal goes through).
Change: Who knows...
posted by grum@work at 10:26 AM on January 25, 2016
That's fair in as far as the clock is concerned (for some reason was under the mistaken impression that the clock ran from boot to whistle on a touchback) and in the field position (for some reason, I had remembered both of those possessions ending inside the ten), but I do think Denver's play-calling would not be so conservative if they did not have the 8-point lead. Seemed their strategy in the last several possessions was "don't do anything stupid."
posted by holden at 10:40 AM on January 25, 2016
Who knows...
Well, the Patriots are not a ball control team. When they win it is because of their passing game racking up big numbers .. or because Pete Carroll is coaching their opposition. Hard to abandon that in a big game.
If the margin was less than 8 points Denver would have run different offensive plays rather than playing prevent offense in the 4th quarter. Denver did have success moving the ball when they needed to.
If they were to play again next week I'm certain the Patriots game plan would be the same with an expectation that the best players will make enough plays to win.
posted by cixelsyd at 11:01 AM on January 25, 2016
That's fair in as far as the clock is concerned (for some reason was under the mistaken impression that the clock ran from boot to whistle on a touchback) and in the field position (for some reason, I had remembered both of those possessions ending inside the ten), but I do think Denver's play-calling would not be so conservative if they did not have the 8-point lead. Seemed their strategy in the last several possessions was "don't do anything stupid."
I agree that simply adding up the field goals is a bit too simple, though I feel like if they were as conservative as they were with an 8-point lead, they would have been even more conservative with 5-point or 2-point leads.
All of that said, there's an argument for kicking the field goal on drive #1 with 6 minutes left. It's not the decision that I would have made, but you can certainly make the point that there is plenty of time to get the ball back and score a touchdown to win. Where this breaks down is that drive #2 had 4th & 6 at the 14 with 2:25 to play. Assuming that NE had kicked the first field goal and was down 5 at the time, kicking a field goal at that point is almost giving up. No coach should be making the decision to kick the field goal under those circumstances. If we take this to the extreme and say it's 4th & goal from the 14, maybe you consider kicking, but this is the AFC Championship Game, and you are playing the #1 defense in the league. When you need a touchdown and you are that close to the endzone, you go for the touchdown.
posted by bender at 11:07 AM on January 25, 2016
[Patriot Field Goal Speculation]
We're into butterfly wing territory here though. You can't rewrite the last six minutes of a football game and only change one team's script.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 11:12 AM on January 25, 2016
We're into butterfly wing territory here though. You can't rewrite the last six minutes of a football game and only change one team's script.
Denver's script after the first two drives (assuming no touchdown) would have probably been pretty much the same: chew up the clock, hold onto the ball, get a couple of first downs.
The play calling would still have been conservative (because the fear of a turnover is much greater than the fear of the drive after a punt), and Denver's defense would still be playing with the same objective (get the ball back ASAP, kill the drive or turnover).
I think a field goal on the first drive would have made a lot of sense because (I have to assume) a 34-yard field goal (from the 17 (+7 for the hold, + 10 for the endzone) has a higher make chance than a 2-point conversion. There was more than enough time to get the ball back after the first drive to get the non-converted touchdown.
posted by grum@work at 11:46 AM on January 25, 2016
"Denver's script after the first two drives (assuming no touchdown) would have probably been pretty much the same: chew up the clock, hold onto the ball, get a couple of first downs."
I don't agree.
Getting the ball back on your 20 with the two minute warning and three opponent timeouts to come doesn't lead to two straight runs up the middle and a sideline throw if you're only two points ahead.
Instead Denver throw the ball on second and third down, if not all three downs, convert for a first down, get to the two minute warning and then run into the line twice, cause New England to use its timeouts and Brady never has another serious chance.
Or, if you prefer, the reason the Pats have to go for two at the end is because Gostkwoski already missed from 32 in the game. So he also misses one of these three extra field goals we're giving him.
This fantasy football stuff is fun!
posted by Mr Bismarck at 12:11 PM on January 25, 2016
Instead Denver throw the ball on second and third down, if not all three downs, convert for a first down, get to the two minute warning and then run into the line twice, cause New England to use its timeouts and Brady never has another serious chance.
Three passing plays when you're trying to chew up clock? Isn't that how coaches get fired?
posted by grum@work at 01:26 PM on January 25, 2016
Running up the middle twice, then throwing sideline and then punting gave the ball to New England at the 50 with one timeout and 1:52 left.
In your scenario, ("don't-get-fired-three-runs-and-a-punt"), even if you cause New England to use their final timeout, the Patriots now have to gain a whopping 17 yards in ~100 seconds to have a chance to win the game.
"Chewing up clock" at your own 20 with a two point lead and at least four clock stoppages to come doesn't involve running into the line three times with a completely ineffectual ground game, it involves getting a first down. Which, for Denver yesterday, means throwing*.
I'll concede that if New England score three more points yesterday, they win, because that's the way maths works, but the second New England make (or miss!) that first kick everything that follows changes.
*50% of Denver's rushing first downs yesterday came from Peyton ambling 12 yards at an amusingly glacial pace.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 02:11 PM on January 25, 2016
*50% of Denver's rushing first downs yesterday came from Peyton ambling 12 yards at an amusingly glacial pace.
MY REACTION TO PEYTON MANNING RUNNING FOR A FIRST DOWN, A One-Act Play
ETRIGAN: "Oh Christ they're gonna kill him his head is gonna snap right the fuck off what the hell is he doing oh Jesus I'm about to watch a murder on live television oh thank God it's done and he's still moving."
FIN
posted by Etrigan at 02:16 PM on January 25, 2016
Running up the middle twice, then throwing sideline and then punting gave the ball to New England at the 50 with one timeout and 1:52 left.
In your scenario, ("don't-get-fired-three-runs-and-a-punt"), even if you cause New England to use their final timeout, the Patriots now have to gain a whopping 17 yards in ~100 seconds to have a chance to win the game.
I didn't suggest three straight rushes. I advocated against three straight passing plays. A<>B in this case.
Also, it wasn't like New England was going to run the ball to get those 17 (probably more, since that would still be a 50 yard field goal) yards (because of time management requirements). So if they were forced to pass, I'll point out that Brady was getting eaten alive by the Denver pass rush. He completed only 9 positive-yard passes in 25 attempts in the fourth quarter, including only 3 in his last 12 attempts.
posted by grum@work at 02:25 PM on January 25, 2016
MY REACTION TO PEYTON MANNING RUNNING FOR A FIRST DOWN, A One-Act Play
"He's started running!"
[head to fridge to grab a drink]
[sit back down]
"Oh, he just finished running. I didn't miss anything."
posted by grum@work at 02:28 PM on January 25, 2016
"Instead Denver throw the ball on second and third down, if not all three downs""Three passing plays when you're trying to chew up clock? Isn't that how coaches get fired?"
"In your scenario, ("don't-get-fired-three-runs-and-a-punt")"
"I didn't suggest three straight rushes. I advocated against three straight passing plays. A<>B in this case."
You're not suggesting they run three times, or pass three times, and they actually did run twice. In real life. In the game that actually happened.
So your suggestion is they run only once instead? Because three passes gets you fired, but two are fine?
I understand the attraction of "what if!?" for sports fans and can happily go along with something like "what if Detroit remembered to defend the end zone against Green Bay!?" Because, (Detroit being a functioning football team aside), it's a reasonable question about a solitary event.
"What if my team kicked field goals while the other team completely ignored these new conditions" in game with six minutes, five timeouts and a two minute warning left clunked really loudly when I read it in the thread.
I'm sorry I picked it up and I would now like to get off this wild ride.
posted by Mr Bismarck at 02:56 PM on January 25, 2016
I like the "shoulda, coulda, woulda" discussion above. It's always fun to play that sort of game during the post mortem.
The real culprit (or at least the one who will bear the brunt of the blame) reportedly has been dismissed from the Patriots' staff. According to several sources, Dave DeGugliemo, offensive line coach for the team in the past 2 seasons, has been fired. The interesting thing about this is that DeGugliemo managed to coach an offensive line of questionable proficiency to a Super Bowl win last season. This season the line could not overcome a series of injuries, trades, and retirements when the time came to face the best opposition. Rebuilding the offensive line will be a difficult task for Patriots.
posted by Howard_T at 11:26 PM on January 25, 2016
Any OL coach is going to have a challenge even with better talent until the New England OC figures out what to do with the RB position. I don't insist on a fully balanced offense, but a more emphatic, well developed commitment to the position would be appreciated. I'm tired of looking at the Pats' 10 1/2 Men offense in its current state.
For a team that once used model citizen Aaron "Shank" Hernandez in the backfield, Mike Vrabel as an eligible receiver, and yeoman Troy Brown as an extra DB, it's not too much to ask that they keep those innovative brain gears whirring and rethink the RB role. Let's have a concept, guys.
And while they're letting position coaches go, they ought to address the training and conditioning staff. The Pats supposedly led the league in number of games missed due to injury in 2015.
posted by beaverboard at 01:29 AM on January 26, 2016
When was the last time Belichick won the toss and took the ball?