Skip to content

It “killed” Spikes to let Bradshaw score

Giants running back Bradshaw comes in to score the winning touchdown as Patriots outside linebacker Spikes looks on in the NFL Super Bowl XLVI football game in Indianapolis Reuters

We noted before last night’s game that Patriots linebacker Brandon Spikes was rather fired up to play in his first Super Bowl.

It’s no surprise, then, that he wasn’t as thrilled about allowing the game’s go-ahead touchdown go right by him late in the fourth quarter.

“It killed me,” said Spikes of the decision to let Ahmad Bradshaw score to give the ball back to the Patriots offense. “When the call came in to let them score, I was kind of like, ‘What? I’m here to do my job and it’s my job to play defense and let them score?’ It was tough. It definitely was tough.”

It was a gutsy choice by Bill Belichick, but the right one. The obvious one. We doubt that many head coaches would have had the stones to do the same thing, although Mike Holmgren also famously did it in the Super Bowl.

There were no easy choices for Belichick at that point. Either watch Lawrence Tynes attempt a chip shot field goal for the win or give one of the game’s greatest all-time quarterbacks a shot with the ball in his hand with under a minute left.

“I respect Tom Brady and the New England Patriots,” Brandon Jacobs told the Associated Press. “He does a great job with the guys he has. But if that was Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers on the other side, with those big play outfits, 57 seconds would have been plenty enough time for those guys.”

Jacobs pointed out the Patriots struggle to push the ball down the field.

“They needed a helluva lot more than 57 seconds to be able to win the football game,” Jacobs said. “So I wasn’t worried at all.”

Belichick’s job is to give his team the best chance to win. Letting the Giants score did that.

Permalink 65 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: New England Patriots, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
65 Responses to “It “killed” Spikes to let Bradshaw score”
  1. rcb0424 says: Feb 6, 2012 7:14 PM

    I agreed with scoring the TD as a Giants fan. We knew the pats had no deep threats and they would have 57 seconds and 1 timeout. I’d much rather do that and put it on our defense who were pretty stout all day then leave it up to our kicker, and even if we make the kick, the pats have 20 seconds to have a good return or 1 mid/long pass to get a 65 yard fg to win the game outright. I’d much rather put it on our defense to hold them.

    During Sundays interview with Brady, they asked him ‘would you rather have the ball down by 4 with 2 minutes left or be up by 4 and eli have the ball?’ He said he’d rather have the ball.

    I saw this as the mentality of someone who doesnt trust his teammates. I’m a die hard Giants fan and know how good Eli is at the end but I’d still take being up by 4 with our defense on the field and 2 minutes to go. I trust our defense. Brady doesn’t and I guess for good reason since we torched them late once again.

  2. melikefootball says: Feb 6, 2012 7:17 PM

    57 tics goes awful fast even for Tom Brady and the Pats. The first two playes were critical and they went no where, had to throw over the middle and then time was moving. getting the ball to the 40 is not what I would call very productive.

  3. pjgrannan says: Feb 6, 2012 7:18 PM

    The question that I have is – if you think the best strategy is to let the Giants score to save as much time for your own QB – and I think it probably was – then why not let them score on 1st down. That way you would have two timeouts left instead of just one. Maybe could not communicate the message without the first TO ??? Seems the biggest error was Belichick wasting one of two remaining TOs before giving the order to let the Giants score.

  4. hedleykow says: Feb 6, 2012 7:21 PM

    Tebow could have scored with 57 seconds.

  5. dolfan1 says: Feb 6, 2012 7:27 PM

    Could even tell they let him go! That’s how they always play!

  6. jpb12 says: Feb 6, 2012 7:30 PM

    Brandon Jacobs. All class.

    Represents New York pretty well.

  7. afc22 says: Feb 6, 2012 7:30 PM

    Pats wouldn’t have had the ball with 20 seconds left in good field position if the Giants keep it for a FG. Pats would call a T.O. at 57 seconds, the next play would take off more than 40 seconds and then the FG would take another 5 seconds off. Right there you’re at 12 seconds left on the clock. If they get that “good return” it’ll eat up another 5+ seconds and they have the ball at the 35 with less than 7 seconds left and no time outs. basically they can run one play

    that’s a preferable situation than what Bradshaw put them in, but it doesn’t matter, Pats weren’t meant to win. The bad karma from Spygate continues and Brady’s window is closing

  8. gregbeau says: Feb 6, 2012 7:31 PM

    @rebo424: The question was “up by 3/down by 3″, not 4. And if he had answered the other way, you could have said he had no confidence in himself.

  9. daroc88 says: Feb 6, 2012 7:31 PM

    I disagree with the sentiment of many of the commentators and experts on the game. I think Bradshaw did the right thing by scoring when he did. If it’s one thing this season has taught us it’s that a kicker’s game should not be taken for granted. No guarantee that everything would have went 100% smooth with that kick. Brady didn’t get it done downfield with the one of the greatest downfield threats ever (Moss in 07) and he showed me nothing last night that had me believing he could get it done with his current recieving corps. I think the game suffers today from too many people trying to do the ‘smartest’ thing and overlooking common sense.

  10. deadeye says: Feb 6, 2012 7:32 PM

    The NFL is finally getting to the point where rationality trumps all the macho bs. So many times when this strategy is suggested, idiotic fans trott out the cliched responses like “You never let the other team score!” or “Take the TD and if your defense can’t stop them you don’t deserve to win!” Of course these types of responses fail to take into account that the object of the game is to score more points than the opponent, regardless of how you accomplish it.

    I guarantee, if Brady had found a way to pull out a game winning TD, Bradshaw would be the biggest Super Bowl goat for failing to stay out of the end zone. And yes, BB probably should have done it on first down to save the time out.

  11. pftcensorsrretards says: Feb 6, 2012 7:32 PM

    Don’t worry Spikes, they were gonna score whether you let them or not. Can’t mess with destiny son.

  12. baywatchboy says: Feb 6, 2012 7:33 PM

    @rebo424

    Great athletes want the ball when the game is on the line, not so much because they don’t trust their teammates (or the defense they’re going against), but because they trust themselves that much. Brady said he wanted the ball because he has seen what Eli has been able to do at the end of games and didn’t want to give him the opportunity. He also said that he wanted to be down 3.

    @pigrannan

    You try to make a play at first on defense and hope for maybe a turnover or something. Belichick wasted one of his TO’s challenging the catch along the sidelines. That also factored into the decision.

  13. rollteal says: Feb 6, 2012 7:36 PM

    Jacobs needs to know his role !

  14. bick54 says: Feb 6, 2012 7:44 PM

    Giants fan here…

    Nicks also didn’t stay in bounds after catching his first down on the previous play. Would have forced NE to burn their 2nd TO.

    I get how it all worked out in the end, but the fact is NYG was sloppy down the stretch. Had to burn 2 timeouts because the plays weren’t getting in on time, Nicks goes out of bounds, and Bradshaw scores instead of going down at the 1.

    But here’s the real rub, if the coaching staff didn’t want him to score, why risk giving him the ball in the first place? He’d fumbled earlier deep in NYG territory. Why not just take a knee?

  15. stopthehate15bowdown says: Feb 6, 2012 7:53 PM

    I understand the move as a strategy but it really cheapens the game and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Goodell and the competition committee looks at this. He should definitely say that its not the right way to play the game. This game is about effort on the field not coaching trickery. How is it different than throwing a fight or faking an injury to gain an advantage? And for those that want to argue that it’s the right thing to do based on probabilities, name 1 high profile game in which this strategy has actually worked? It’s 0-2 in Super Bowls. Karma’s gonna’ get ya’!

  16. truthhammer says: Feb 6, 2012 8:03 PM

    Should have done it a lot earlier. Up only 2 points with 3:30 to go, they should have realized they were better off with the Giants either scoring immediately or not at all, and switched to a really aggressive blitz/bump-n-run/cover zero defense. They either get burned deep and give Brady 2+ minutes or they stop them right there.

    With only 1 minute left they probably weren’t much better off just hoping Tynes shanked it, or they could block it.

  17. hedleykow says: Feb 6, 2012 8:04 PM

    How is that play called in the defensive huddle?

    “Let ‘em Score . . . Ready, Break”

  18. randomguy9999 says: Feb 6, 2012 8:05 PM

    ‘let’ them score, Spikes? you guys weren’t stopping anything but Brady from getting the ball back.

    BB was right to get the ball back as fast as possible…

    and Bradshaw ignored the play call, scored, and gave the ball back to Brady down by 4 with nearly a minute and a TO left. I hate Brady and I have the sense to know that was a MONSTER risk…

    Bradshaw was a small bobble on a hail mary away from committing the dumbest mistake in SB history….

  19. blackqbwhiterb says: Feb 6, 2012 8:12 PM

    Never willingly give up the lead. Name one time it worked. Defense must do their job, and specials too. Never never never. When has anyone done that successfully?? Pats had 3 strips in this game, Giants were lucky to recover all 3. No way I would let the opponent score, taking the lead. Ever. Of course, Bill has 3 more rings than I do, but…..

  20. u4iadman says: Feb 6, 2012 8:13 PM

    If you are going to let them get in close enough for a high probability FG, then let them score a TD quickly. Bill didnt understand this. Hubris caused them to lose once again.
    As someone said, paying the price for cheating.

  21. bearsstillsuck says: Feb 6, 2012 8:34 PM

    Spikes is dead?

  22. bick54 says: Feb 6, 2012 8:47 PM

    Everyone on the Giants…Coughlin, Gilbride, Manning, and Bradshaw himself, didn’t want Bradshaw to score.

    The Pats WANTED him to score because it was their best shot at a win.

    How is it that so many here know better than BOTH head coaches and are arguing that it was good for NYG that Bradshaw score at that point?

  23. tdk24 says: Feb 6, 2012 8:55 PM

    My sources are telling me, that because 57 seconds was not enough time for Brady to win the game and cement his legacy, the NFL is considering 2 new rules for next season.

    1. If the team that was just scored on has one timeout left, they can choose to keep the timeout and receive a normal kickoff or they can elect to use the timeout and start their drive at the 50 yard line.

    2. If the receivers intent is to catch the ball and pull it into his body but somehow manages to drop the ball, the tuck rule will be applied and the pass will be considered a completion at the spot of said drop.

  24. rcb0424 says: Feb 6, 2012 8:55 PM

    As a Giants fan I trust Tynes as fas as I can throw him/kick him even with him sending us to 2 superbowls (the packers game in 07 with his two missed FGs at the end of regulation) before nailing the OT kick to seal it still get me worried, not to mention his terrible end to the season this year and missed easy attempt vs Atlanta.

    Also, scoring the td made it so Brady had to go the length of the field with 1 timeout. I guess with the time, had we made the FG, then I’d rather do that since it’d be near impossible. BUT, I would rather it play out like that then leave it to a kicker where several things could go wrong (snap, kick, block).

  25. laeaglefan says: Feb 6, 2012 9:03 PM

    The problem as I see it is that the Patriots have limited options on offense. They’ve got the two Tight Ends (Gronkowski and Hernandez) and they’ve got Welker. They have NO deep threat whatsoever and their running game is mediocre at best. I’m surprised that Belechick provided Brady with no wide receivers than can stretch the field. That Brady was able to win so many games with that offense is a testament to his skills.

  26. justwinbaby29 says: Feb 6, 2012 9:09 PM

    You have to let ‘em score there. It was the right call by the hoodie. Players don’t like it of course because it goes against everything in their football DNA.

    But you have to play the clock there.

    NYG should have bleed more time off. Thankfully it did not come back to haunt them.

  27. vincentbojackson says: Feb 6, 2012 9:18 PM

    That TD hurt Giselle more than it hurt Spikes.

  28. supersuckers3 says: Feb 6, 2012 9:23 PM

    Absolutely the right call to let them score. Playing the percentages is done all the time in baseball. The chances the Giants miss a kick that short is about 6 percent. The chances of New England converting on the heave alone is about 20 percent. Thats a 14 percent better chance of winning the game then letting them take the time down to a last second field goal. You put your players in the best position to win games. In this case they had a significantly increased chance of winning doing what they did then watching NY milk the clock out. And thatsa just on the heave. This doesnt take a kick return or a solid 5 play drive so the differential was probably close to 30 percent. Its no different then intentionally fouling a basketball player at the end of the game. You need the ball back and the clock is your enemy.

  29. TheWizard says: Feb 6, 2012 9:27 PM

    A tight game that came down to the last 5 minutes…………but the Pats lost because of…..spygate

    Idiots.

  30. mybrunoblog says: Feb 6, 2012 9:38 PM

    Pats played it right by letting a few plays roll by and hope for a turnover. Getting the ball with 57 seconds left was a long shot to score but I think belicheck did it right. Face it. Pats did not execute well and lost. Giants git it done…..

  31. greenman660 says: Feb 6, 2012 9:39 PM

    I’m becoming a much bigger Jacobs fan real fast, let ‘em have it baby! The freakin’ cheating overrated jokers!

  32. bspurloc says: Feb 6, 2012 9:49 PM

    .
    odd facts

    Giants super bowl wins come in 4′s heh
    21 then won 25

    this time it was 42 and 46
    17 year lay over between heh

  33. ppc50 says: Feb 6, 2012 9:51 PM

    Jacobs is a back-up running back, easy to tackle (for a NFL RB), is an underachiever for his size and big mouth. He talks too much and, if not with the Giants, it will be interesting what team will want him as a backup, if any. He is not worth the trouble.

  34. philyeagles5 says: Feb 6, 2012 10:06 PM

    stopthehate15bowdown says:
    Feb 6, 2012 7:53 PM
    I understand the move as a strategy but it really cheapens the game and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Goodell and the competition committee looks at this. He should definitely say that its not the right way to play the game. This game is about effort on the field not coaching trickery. How is it different than throwing a fight or faking an injury to gain an advantage? And for those that want to argue that it’s the right thing to do based on probabilities, name 1 high profile game in which this strategy has actually worked? It’s 0-2 in Super Bowls. Karma’s gonna’ get ya’!
    ===============================
    what other choice did they have?

  35. rhymeswithpunt says: Feb 6, 2012 10:08 PM

    One rule the NFL should change is the 12th man on defense penalty. Play should automatically stop if there’s too many men. Offenses can’t snap the ball with 12 men. If theres too many men it should be a dead ball flag, stopping the clock and not allowing the offense to run a play. If you’re worried that defenses may intentionally violate the rule, make it a 10 yd penalty and automatic 1st down. Or something like that. The way the rule is now, it’s too advantageous to the offense, just like everything else in the NFL. Giants and Pats both got called for 12 men wasting about 45 seconds.

  36. clevername1 says: Feb 6, 2012 10:09 PM

    Jealous haters….this site is ALMOST unbearable due to the comments. 75% of you did NOT watch the same game as I. I thought it was a great game with no BS calls. Tough to see my 12 year old son cry, but congrats to the GMEN and their sane fans. Lets do it again next year.

  37. xtb3 says: Feb 6, 2012 10:19 PM

    Belichick’s job is to give his team the best chance to win. Letting the Giants score did that.

    No it did NOT! Had Patriots stopped Bradshaw on the 10 as they could have and used their final timeout right after the play with just over a minute left. Giants would have run the ball one more time and used up about 40 seconds then attempted a 27 yard field goal from the 17 yardline . Giants once lost a playoff game vs. 49ers on a cinch field goal bad snap to end the game, Tynes has missed short field goals enogh times. Tynes has missed point after touchdowns for the Giants. FGs have been blocked in this league by the line. Just 2 weeks back Cundiff missed a cincg FG. Early this year running down the clock vs. KC to prepare for FG from close in to win the game RIVERS FUMBLED AND LOST THE BALL.

    9 years ago Fassel on 3rd down called a timeout with 13 seconds left to kick the field goal to take the lead over dallas saying he left the extra time on the clock in case snap was fumbled and giants recovered so theyd try it again on 4th down- a real genius. Well the FG was good and Dallas got the ball with 11 seconds left. One pass into long field goal range and the sa,me billy cundiff than hits his 6th field goal of that game to send it to overtime. 11 seconds. brady would have had aboyt 20-25 and only needed a FG not a hail mary to win the 2 point game it would have been had Tynes hit. Cundiff kicked his 7th FG in overtime that day back then.

    Belichick AGAIN in Indy made the WRONG decision.

  38. jerseypatriot76 says: Feb 6, 2012 10:32 PM

    Ah, Brandon Jacobs, no one puts up 37 yards and talks more garbage than you. I guarantee that guy will be broke in 5 years.

  39. allsportsnyfan says: Feb 6, 2012 10:39 PM

    But if that was Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers on the other side, with those big play outfits, 57 seconds would have been plenty enough time for those guys.”.
    -–—————————————————————————
    Ouch!!!!

  40. mcs040 says: Feb 6, 2012 10:46 PM

    I don’t care about either of these teams but Brandon Jacobs talks way too much. This guy needs to shut his mouth already. First of all Tom Brady is as good as Rodgers and Brees, if not better! Which quarterback made it to the super bowl?2nd Jacobs had 37 total yards, so y are u talking. 3rd Tom Brady did his part in the end but the receivers couldn’t hold onto the ball.

  41. jimmer2372 says: Feb 6, 2012 10:59 PM

    Awww poor jerseypatriot.

  42. supersuckers3 says: Feb 6, 2012 11:06 PM

    xtb3 says:Feb 6, 2012 10:19 PM

    Belichick’s job is to give his team the best chance to win. Letting the Giants score did that.

    No it did NOT! Had Patriots stopped Bradshaw on the 10 as they could have and used their final timeout right after the play with just over a minute left. Giants would have run the ball one more time and used up about 40 seconds then attempted a 27 yard field goal from the 17 yardline . Giants once lost a playoff game vs. 49ers on a cinch field goal bad snap to end the game, Tynes has missed short field goals enogh times. Tynes has missed point after touchdowns for the Giants. FGs have been blocked in this league by the line. Just 2 weeks back Cundiff missed a cincg FG. Early this year running down the clock vs. KC to prepare for FG from close in to win the game RIVERS FUMBLED AND LOST THE BALL.

    9 years ago Fassel on 3rd down called a timeout with 13 seconds left to kick the field goal to take the lead over dallas saying he left the extra time on the clock in case snap was fumbled and giants recovered so theyd try it again on 4th down- a real genius. Well the FG was good and Dallas got the ball with 11 seconds left. One pass into long field goal range and the sa,me billy cundiff than hits his 6th field goal of that game to send it to overtime. 11 seconds. brady would have had aboyt 20-25 and only needed a FG not a hail mary to win the 2 point game it would have been had Tynes hit. Cundiff kicked his 7th FG in overtime that day back then.

    Belichick AGAIN in Indy made the WRONG decision

    You’re an idiot

  43. gator2006 says: Feb 6, 2012 11:27 PM

    stopthehate15bowdown says:
    Feb 6, 2012 7:53 PM
    I understand the move as a strategy but it really cheapens the game and I wouldn’t be surprised if the Goodell and the competition committee looks at this . . .

    1) You must really hate basketball then. I actually hate that basketball does not allow teams to decline fouls.

    2) It seems that when time is under 30 seconds with the ball deep in offenses own territory, you should always trot out 22 defenders and let the play unfold for 10 seconds or so. Yesterday, they did not reset the clock after the “free” play for 12 men.

  44. cmgww says: Feb 6, 2012 11:54 PM

    Sort of reminded me of when Belichick went for it against the Colts on 4th and 2 from his own 28 yard line….gutsy call that backfired. But he had the stones to try something radical…unconventional. Just like in that Colts game when he knew his D couldnt stop Manning’s offense…this time he knew his best shot was giving Brady a chance. And stop with all the ” the Giants could have missed the kick” nonsense. You play the percentages; and while thers are some examples of blocked/missed FGs from close range, 99% of the time that is a gimme FG. This coming from a Colts fan who watched Sean Payton pull the most insane onside kick out off his azz to swing momentum in SB 44

  45. raiderlyfe510 says: Feb 7, 2012 1:11 AM

    Good game, but bad Superbowl. I can’t walk away from that game believing that I saw football being played at its highest level. Those were two fairly good teams, not championship caliber compared to past Superbowl champs though.

    2011 was a weird NFL season. So glad it’s over. Although Im going to miss the Hue Jackson era. 8-8, but damn good offensive football. Now we enter the Greg Knapp era……again. Goody Gumdrops.

  46. savilo831 says: Feb 7, 2012 1:14 AM

    Mark my words ” the giants will not make the playoffs next year !”

  47. yesiamasteelerfan says: Feb 7, 2012 2:03 AM

    I will say this is what the NFL has come to – letting people score to get the ball back. The future of the NFL is the Pro Bowl. The NFL will look more like the Pro Bowl every year. For 80 years you could say the more physical team would win. I don’t think that is the case anymore.

  48. wave222 says: Feb 7, 2012 2:11 AM

    Leave Jacobs alone. He is on the team that won !!
    Ran hard when he had to this year.
    Most of these guys play hurt all year.
    Talk is just that, talk!!
    Play the game.

  49. bleedgreen11 says: Feb 7, 2012 2:44 AM

    Coming from an Eagles fan, it’s time to put Eli up there with Tom Brady and stop comparing him to his brother. The guy has more than earned the right to have his own spotlight and not be shadowed by his brother.

    Costas really p***ed me off when started comparing Eli to Peyton. Let the kid enjoy his second super bowl title. You gonna ask Peyton how it feels to finally catch up to his brother if he ever wins another SB? Probably not.

  50. jcdavey2011 says: Feb 7, 2012 4:08 AM

    i think it was smart to let ny score, but i also think it was smart to actually score for ny

    57 seconds isn’t alot of time when the other team only has 1 timeout left, so brady or not, i take the gift td.

    if he lays down on the one and tynes pulls a cundiff, then that’s something you really never live down.

  51. tatum064 says: Feb 7, 2012 4:35 AM

    hedleykow says:
    Feb 6, 2012 7:21 PM
    Tebow could have scored with 57 seconds.
    ==============================

    Not while lying on his back and 3 or 4 Patriots sacking him. Which is what happened.

    He would’ve played the Giants, not the Steelers.

  52. deep64blue says: Feb 7, 2012 5:08 AM

    It was an idiotic decision to let them score – forcing you to need a TD. There’s a reason you never let an opponent score – they might fumble a handoff, they might miss a FG. You keep trying on Defence until your last breath.

    It would have been even worse if Bradshaw had gone down at the 1 which is what all Coaches are telling their players now.

    Can’t believe anyone is defending Belichick on this.

  53. eigglesnosuperbowls says: Feb 7, 2012 6:05 AM

    Don’t worry about it there spiky ! The G-men were winning the game no matter what ! Go pop bottles and get a couple more tats you will feel good again!

  54. nflofficeadmin says: Feb 7, 2012 7:40 AM

    Brandon Jacobs and Antrel Rolle are two of the vocal leaders on this team. So you can hate it as much as you want, but that is the reality – along with the fact that they are Superbowl Champs. I know if kills a lot to swallow that pill, but that’s what it is.

    Jacobs role as a leader on this team is really unquestionable at this point. He has been an important piece on 2 championship teams.

  55. marinephinfan says: Feb 7, 2012 8:01 AM

    Jacobs is right, Brady isn’t as good as Brees or Rodgers. As another poster wrote, Brady couldn’t move the ball down the field with Randy Moss either.

    It’s about time people opened their eyes about Brady. He’s a HoF QB, but he’s on the same level as Bradshaw and Aikman…not Unitas, Marino, Montana, or Graham

  56. Rockets GM says: Feb 7, 2012 8:04 AM

    Patriots had a better regular season record, but they were NOT a better team than the Giants. The Giants had a much tougher schedule and route through the playoffs. The Patriots (once again) had a cupcake schedule against the lowly AFC East. Yeah, they can’t control their level of competition but the better team and RIGHT team WON on Sunday.

  57. dabreesknees says: Feb 7, 2012 8:04 AM

    Coulda-woulda-shoulda might not be the beat way to assess things, but remember the safety at the beginning of the game was the difference between the Pats needing 2 or 4 points to tie the game.
    I guarantee that if Brady only needed to get Gostowsky into FG range, they would have won. Then again, you never know.

  58. tundey says: Feb 7, 2012 8:31 AM

    I think the Patriots should have adopted this strategy once the Giants had the ball with 3 minutes left and their defense couldn’t stop Eli. It’s gutsy call either way but why not make it with more time left on the clock (especially when your deep threats are lumbering TEs that can gain YAC but aren’t exactly fleet footed).

  59. bucforever says: Feb 7, 2012 8:58 AM

    Brady would have had a lot less time if the extra point play had been a little more creative. It could have been drawn out to clear a few extra seconds off the clock. Hey the Giants could have used the 12 man rule here. Just sayin’!

  60. hoochbcs says: Feb 7, 2012 9:08 AM

    This probably happens more often the we think. It’s just not as obvious. However, once a week somebody seemingly “scores too soon.” Sometimes, they win and other times they lose. I think in college especially. This happens alot in the Big 12. Baylor won a few games this way.

  61. patsfiend says: Feb 7, 2012 12:06 PM

    Ballsy call by Belichick. He would have had another T.O. if he didn’t waste a challenge on that Manningham catch.

    That’s a B.S. comment by Jacobs, though. Idiot.

    Bigger question…. did Coughlin intentionally send out 12 guys on the penalty on the last drive? A lot of time wore off, and only a 5 yd penalty. That would have been pretty smart.

    57 secs enough for a field goal… but that’s pushing it for a TD. If only that safety hadn’t happened… one of about 100 story lines that make me sick to my stomach. (Enjoy, haters and Giants fans!!)

  62. xtb3 says: Feb 7, 2012 12:49 PM

    supersuckers3 says:
    -
    xtb3 says:Feb 6, 2012 10:19 PM
    Belichick’s job is to give his team the best chance to win. Letting the Giants score did that.

    No it did NOT!


    You’re an idiot

    An idiot is one who thinks scoring a touchdown from 80 yards away with one time-out and one minute left and against a New York Giants defense that allowed an average of 13 points a game for their last SIX virtual elimination games which were against top offenses like Packers, Patriots, even Atlanta and 3 others an idiot is one who thinks that is preferable in order to win than allowing the other team to not fumble the next 3rd down play and not make a bad snap or a mishold of that snap or a bad kick by the kicker a hicker who has hit goalposts, been wide and had kicks blocked in the past including point after touchdowns plural. Just one of all those possibilities that have routinely
    occurred. AND I REPEAT all Pats would have needed was a FG and they have a good kicker. Dallas that game I mentioned did not have a Brady at QB who easily could have got the ball up to the GTiants 35 with 20 to 25 seconds. Dallas did it that day with only 11 seconds. Amd had Pats kicked that FG they were champs. I

    I thought Belichick made the wrong decision and stated my reasons. He was also wrong that game vs. Colts trying on 4th and 2 from his own 28 while up less than a converted touchdown. As brilliant as he is hestill makes mistakes. Once the media the knowledgeable media said Belichick was an “idiot” when coaching the Browns.

  63. CKL says: Feb 7, 2012 1:26 PM

    marinephinfan says:
    Feb 7, 2012 8:01 AM
    Jacobs is right, Brady isn’t as good as Brees or Rodgers. As another poster wrote, Brady couldn’t move the ball down the field with Randy Moss either.
    –––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––
    This is a perfect example of how hatred of someone makes reading comprehension fail so miserably.

    Jacobs WAS NOT saying BRADY isn’t as good as those guys, he was saying that they don’t have a quick strike offense like those guys. And that is the 100% truth. Don’t forget that as great as Brees and Rodgers are (and they are great players) neither of them has ever thrown for 50 TDs like TB has so a WR who can stretch the field is important as are YAC guys (which is more what the Pats guys are). The Pats O was also hurt a bunch by having crap field position all day and having to make looooong drives to score. They’re built to have to do that but by the NYG keeping the FP so poor, they ensured the Pats had to do that EVERY TIME. Good job by the NYG on that. It was another way to shorten the game which benefitted them.

    I’m a Pats fan and don’t always like what Jacobs has to say but I don’t let that bias me towards thinking he’s always talking mess.

  64. neatz says: Feb 7, 2012 1:38 PM

    afc22 says:
    Feb 6, 2012 7:30 PM
    ****
    *******
    The bad karma from Spygate continues and Brady’s window is closing.

    If bad karma was the reason then what would hapen to NYC it is city of Thieves and crooks as they have stolen billions from hard working and honest Americans, who have lost their entire savings and houses as well… Most of New Yorkers work for them.

  65. bozosforall says: Feb 7, 2012 8:24 PM

    jpb12 says:
    Feb 6, 2012 7:30 PM
    Brandon Jacobs. All class.

    Represents New York pretty well.

    __
    New England sports fans. No class.

    Represent New England to a T.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!