Note to Patriots: Run the Clock!

by Tom

When time is running out and you’re in range for a game-tying field goal you have two objectives: 1) score a touchdown, or at least a field goal; 2) run time off the clock so that your opponent doesn’t have a lot of time left to mount a game-winning drive.

When the Patriots got into field goal range with three or four minutes left on the clock it was obvious to me that they should run the ball a few times. Even more so when they had first and goal. I was even talking to the TV telling the Patriots to run the ball. They could have easily taken at least a minute more off the clock and as much as two minutes. They might have even forced the Giants to take some timeouts. But they kept on throwing clock-stopping incompletions. They ended up giving the Giants the ball with about 2:45 and all three timeouts left. It took all those timeouts and almost all that time for the Giants to score. If the Patriots had taken another minute off the clock, maybe the Giants run out of time.

Throwing exclusively would make more sense to me if you have no running game. But the Patriots have a decent-to-good running game. They just don’t use it.

I say it was obvious to me at the time that the Patriots should have run the ball, but maybe I’m not thinking right. Should teams in that situation just try to score a touchdown without thinking about the clock? Does being concerned about running time off the clock make scoring a touchdown less likely? I don’t know. I know they would have had a better chance of winning if they had run more time off the clock on their way to a touchdown.

Oh well. It’s a bummer. I was excited to witness history. In an age of free agency, salary caps, and parity 19-0 would have been legendary. 18-1 is amazing, but a season is not legendary without the Superbowl win.

Hats off to the Giants. Their D was tenacious. Attacking Brady was their only chance. If they hadn’t gotten to him it would have been ugly. But they did get to him over and over. Most QB’s are ordinary or worse when pressured. Brady is no exception. The main reason he had the year he had was that he was often able to sit comfortably in the pocket and pick defenses apart. The Giants pass rush was good enough and/or the Patriots pass protection was bad enough that Brady was never able to get comfortable.

I am happy that we got a well-fought, competitive game. It made a great accompaniment to my buffalo wings, nachos, and root beer. The commercials were, once again, underwhelming. I’d go so far as to say that the era of the Superbowl commercial is over.

17 Comments

  1. I only saw the second half but that has to be the best Superbowl in recent years. It seemed like they were kind of boring half the time. Very good game. (And fun episode of House following)

    Comment by clark — February 3, 2008 @ 11:48 pm

  2. As a former football coach I can tell you that in that situation, by far your biggest concern is just scoring. It does you no good to take a lot of time off the clock if you don’t actually score. Remember that the Patriots were hardly scoring at will in this game. They had the ball many many times and came up empty. They were thinking about getting in the end-zone, then trusting their defense to stop the Giants. It didn’t work out that way, but it took a few pretty amazing clutch plays by the Giants to pull out the win.

    Comment by MCQ — February 3, 2008 @ 11:56 pm

  3. MCQ,
    I see your point. But I don’t know why they would feel like throwing it on first and second and goal would give them a better chance than running it. Their passing game wasn’t exactly running on all cylinders. If you run it you have a good chance of scoring or getting closer, plus you keep the clock running if you don’t make it in, which at that point is an unmitigated good since you’re in no danger of running out of time.

    But I suppose the coaches thought throwing it gave them the best chance of scoring. And definitely, running the clock is of secondary importance.

    Comment by Tom — February 4, 2008 @ 12:10 am

  4. The running game wasn’t getting the job done. They were going to Moss as their weapon of choice because they liked the matchups. They were right about that. It was only through double teaming Moss and playing great defense that the Giants stopped the Patriots from scoring again in the last thirty seconds.

    Comment by MCQ — February 4, 2008 @ 1:14 am

  5. Here’s another thought. Looking at those plays at the goal line, it looked to me like the Pats were taking what the defense was giving them. The Giants were playing run first and trusting their DBs to cover the receivers in man coverage. You saw the result of that when Moss faked his defender literally out of his jock strap on the TD catch.

    I think if the Pats had called running plays in that situation, they might never have scored, because the defense was packing the box in order to stop the run at all costs.

    The TD play also employed a play action fake (actually a double fake) which, when combined with the run-stopping mentality of the defense, allowed Moss to be alone in the end-zone for the pass. That call was based on the idea that, when your opponent is looking for you to do one thing, you should let them think you are going to do just that, then go the other way. It was a great call and great execution by the Pats. They thought they had it sewn up. The Giants just outplayed them after that.

    Comment by MCQ — February 4, 2008 @ 1:29 am

  6. I was much more interested in the Puppy Bowl.

    Comment by Brian V — February 4, 2008 @ 5:23 am

  7. MCQ,
    You’ve won me over to your side, but I would quibble with this: “The running game wasn’t getting the job done.”

    The running game wasn’t NOT getting the job done. It wasn’t given a chance to get the job done. That’s pretty much been the Pats’ M.O. all year and it’s worked for them so I can’t second guess too much. Maroney had some good gains last night, though, and he’s a pretty good talent. I don’t think that handing off to him a couple more times would have significantly hurt their chances of scoring a TD. And maybe more running earlier in the game would have slowed the pass rush. Ultimately the Pats’ inability to somehow neutralize the pass rush was their downfall.

    I suppose as I was watching the Pats’ TD drive I had the same mindset as if the Pats were down by two. In that situation a field goal is an acceptable outcome so as soon as you get in comfortable field goal range you milk the clock as much as possible while still trying to score a TD. But down by three, a field goal is not a very good outcome so if you think that milking the clock decreases your chances of scoring a TD you have to forget about the clock.

    Comment by Tom — February 4, 2008 @ 8:58 am

  8. Amen Brian V.

    Comment by Supergenius — February 4, 2008 @ 11:26 am

  9. Holy crap, my wife made me watch Puppy Bowl IV and all I can say is what is the world coming to? After about four minutes I wanted to die. If that is what TV has come to, I am speechless in dismay.

    When the ref came out on his knees and said, “Puppy Touchdown!” I just about disemboweled myself in a fit of TV agony.

    Plus, I think the Giants could have stopped the Pats if they had decided to run in order to run down the clock. If they could pressure Brady, they could have stopped the run.

    Comment by Brian G — February 4, 2008 @ 12:37 pm

  10. I wish we got Animal Planet.

    Comment by Susan M — February 4, 2008 @ 12:49 pm

  11. Brian,
    Doesn’t a focus on rushing the passer usually come at the expense of solid run defense? Usually there’s a tradeoff between those two strategies. We don’t know if the Patriots could have run effectively against the Giants D because they didn’t give it more than a token effort. Sure, Maroney got shut down a couple of times. But he also had some good gains.

    Which makes me wonder if the Patriots’ year-long pass pass pass strategy didn’t come back to bite them. An established run game gives D linemen something to worry about besides crushing the QB. The traditional response to a rabid pass rush is a solid running game and screen passes. The Pats succeeded on some screens but made no effort on the run.

    Anyways, I wasn’t thinking that the Patriots needed to run exclusively. If all they did was replace two incompletions with two no-gain runs, they take at least one more minute off the clock and have a much better chance of stopping the Giants.

    Comment by Tom — February 4, 2008 @ 1:08 pm

  12. Maybe, Tom, I think it’s in the category of we’ll never know, but if you’re going to criticize the Pats coaching, I think they made bigger mistakes, like going for it on 4 and 13 instead of kicking a field goal.

    Comment by Brian G — February 4, 2008 @ 1:17 pm

  13. Yeah, what the hell was that all about?

    Comment by Tom — February 4, 2008 @ 1:20 pm

  14. 45 yds. on 16 attempts = not getting the job done. That’s less than three yds per carry. You keep doing that and you punt every time.

    Comment by MCQ — February 5, 2008 @ 12:36 am

  15. btw, 16 attempts = 25% of their total plays. So they tried the run, it just wasn’t working.

    Comment by MCQ — February 5, 2008 @ 1:01 am

  16. Statistics! Don’t bring facts into this conversation. I was doing fine with my impression of things.

    I’m surprised they ran that much. It felt like they ran 10 times, max.

    Comment by Tom — February 5, 2008 @ 7:20 am

  17. Oh, also, re #13, the field goal would have been a 48 yd attempt. Apparently, the Pats had more confidence in Brady’s ability to move the ball 13 yds than in their kicker’s ability to kick a 48 yd FG. Not a crazy choice, IMO.

    Comment by MCQ — February 7, 2008 @ 3:17 pm