Sure. Erase 15 years of very close observation of a guy that does some very unconventional things that are often not understood by anybody outside of the inner circle and I'll be glad to join the club.
The man does something like this every year. You can't prove it and nobody would ever admit to it, but there are just too many suspicious games over the years for me to turn my head.
January 1st 2005. The Pats finish the regular season vs. Miami with Brady starting and giving way to rookie Matt Cassell who had thrown 33 passes in college.
We had a chance to win that game with Cassell throwing a suspiciously inaccurate pass OOB in the end zone with seconds remaining. It didn't.....look right but I can't PROVE that Bill told Matt to throw it away. Maybe we'll never know, but it sure looked odd. Staged.
The result? We get Jacksonville in the playoffs. The best result given the other possible scenarios had we won.
Was that a tank job? Without a doubt it was. Otherwise Brady plays and we don't have rookie WR Bam Childress trying to play corner. Here is Bill's interesting comment after the game:
"We played guys to get them experience, get them out there to
play," coach Bill Belichick said, "give them a chance so they
will be better prepared to play if they are called upon."
End game.
Now, why is it so inconceivable that we would, in effect, do the same thing in another game if Bill was convinced that it was the best way to achieving his end game? Of course, the skeptics among us would insist that he's really developing Scott Chandler as a deep threat, but I'm not buying into that.
I could name more examples of this same basic thing. Bill pulls the strings the way he, and only he, sees fit, no matter how nuts it may seem to others who don't win like him. Which is everybody.
Thanks for trying to help me, though. That's why I like you. You mean well.
I don't know if I can equate the last game of the season, where the implications of winning vs losing were black and white with a game in week 12 Hawg.
I agree with you that BB wasn't really interested in winning that game and I wouldn't put it past him to actively try to lose it.
But again, in that particular case there was no probability involved about what the effect would be on winning vs losing, it was clear cut black and white.
Knowing how BB stresses the "situations", I have a hard time envisioning him "tanking" earlier in the season when he doesn't know what could happen in the rest of the games.
Did you miss
my post about Chandler and the RB's being matched up against LB's as the reason that the deep threat was what they were trying?
Is that the "best" option they would have in the passing game?
I don't see Jojo and Martin against the Denver CB's as a matchup that favors us, and after the first drive, Gronk was double teamed so that's not a favorable match up either.
So Chandler and the RB's attacking the LB's in space is a logical option, considering what they have available.
Okay. I'm current in the thread and we've got some respected opinions weighing in that it was just a legit loss due largely to injuries and necessary adjustments to their replacements. Totally understandable.
So, Stan characterized the end of the first half as a "coaching miscue".
For those who also think that my theory is off-base I'd like to hear other opinions as to why we just killed the clock with that much time left and multiple time outs to burn.
Anybody?
Good question.
I'd turn it around.
They get the ball on their own 20 with 2:07 left.
With the options they had on offense, what passing plays could they run?
I don't see anything to Jojo or Martin as being high probability plays.
Gronk up the middle?
Would he be open?
So we're back to Chandler and/or the RB's on the outside.
Now as I've said I think that BB and McD thought those were the best choices of bad options, but as we saw, they were not high probability plays.
So if they run those three times, and don't move the chains, how much time comes off the clock?
30 seconds? 45 seconds? and Denver doesn't have to call a time out to stop the clock.
So if we assume that Ryan gets a 45 yd net punt (his average for the night) the Broncos get the ball at ~ their 45 yard line with ~1:15 to go and two (?) time outs left.
In a 14-7 game, when you get the ball to start the second half, does that meet the risks vs reward criteria to sling it?
:shrug_n:
