I don't think it does in today's NFL.
If you are punting with 7 minutes left, that means you will need to get the ball back twice to score. According to football outsiders, the average drive time is 2 minutes 45 seconds so far this year.
Depending on when you use your timeouts, the opponent will be able to kill 2 minutes 45 seconds on one of their two drives without a first down, which basically leaves about 3 minutes to score two touchdowns on presumably long fields.
Conversely, you could try an onside kick to eliminate a possession. However, with the new kick-off rules, the chances of recovering an onside kick are lower than ever.
If the NFL was seriously considering replacing the onside kick with a 4th and 15 scenario, IMO going for it on fourth down even on your own side of the field instead of punting has a higher percentage of conversion than recovering an onside kick.
It eliminates the need for that extra possession presumably with no timeouts to go and score a low probability touchdown. Yeah if you don't make it the game is pretty much over, but I think the odds of converting a 4th and X to keep a drive alive to cut the score to one is a lot better than trying to get two scoring drives together in the last two minutes.
I know the winning % stuff they show on Sunday Night Football is not an exact science, but it would be interesting to see the winning percentage of the following decision: successful 4th down, failed fourth down, punt. I would bet that the failed fourth down and punt would be similar percentages meaning that you really dont gain anything by not going for it.
Thoughts?
They weren’t winning anyway but Shurmur is gutless.
Then he went for it on 4th with two yards to go on the goaline. It's way harder to get two yards on the goaline.
The last one he had to go for it but only because he had not kicked the first two.
So he was super bold and aggressive against a ferocious Vikings D.
Then he punts down TDS and puts his tired D on the field.
Lack of conssitency, doing one thing one game and another the next game, is the mark of a poor coach.
Yet somehow, you're going to get a number of people defending him and this particular decision. It's odd.
Based on how he uses them, it's apparent that Shurmur believes teams are allotted ten timeouts per half.
It killed any momentum and probably demoralized the D to have to go right back out on the field.
To expect the D to get a three and out was not a very high probability imo.
Truthfully I felt as though he was just playing to keep the score more respectable.
Jones is struggling with reads so let's play faster and put him under more intense pressure? Makes no sense.
Down 14 with 7 minutes and a 4th and 2 so let's punt? Mind bogglingly stupid.
Featuring Hilliman over Penny after the rookie has already had fumbles in previous games? He should have minimized this kids exposure. Illogical at best, idiotic at worst and cost us 7 points.
I've supported Shurmur but each week my trust erodes. Gameplan, playcalling, personnel decisions, time management, situational strategies...he's failed in every area.
Jones is struggling with reads so let's play faster and put him under more intense pressure? Makes no sense.
Down 14 with 7 minutes and a 4th and 2 so let's punt? Mind bogglingly stupid.
Featuring Hilliman over Penny after the rookie has already had fumbles in previous games? He should have minimized this kids exposure. Illogical at best, idiotic at worst and cost us 7 points.
I've supported Shurmur but each week my trust erodes. Gameplan, playcalling, personnel decisions, time management, situational strategies...he's failed in every area.
Well said. I can easily see the players turning soon. Even with a very talented team I am not sure he ever wins big games.
The only reason where I can see this not happening is a ridiculous defense where you are guaranteed to force two three and outs. A first down by the opponent on one of their last two drives basically ends the game.
Since the game is titled towards the O, I think it always makes sense to possess the ball rather than punt away and rely on your D.
Then he went for it on 4th with two yards to go on the goaline. It's way harder to get two yards on the goaline.
The last one he had to go for it but only because he had not kicked the first two.
So he was super bold and aggressive against a ferocious Vikings D.
Then he punts down TDS and puts his tired D on the field.
Lack of conssitency, doing one thing one game and another the next game, is the mark of a poor coach.
I hated not trying the long FGs against the Vikings too. Every possession you have the opportunity get points I think you need to take, especially against a good D. So punting instead of trying 55+ FG is the wrong move. That is a whole new thread, haha.
I don't think it turned the game, but yeah, shoulda taken the chance. What was there to lose, really?
Here's a look at the Patriots previous three possessions:
11 plays, 75 yards, 4:02 (TD)
16 plays, 60 yards, 9:25 (missed FG)
9 plays, 48 yards, 5:32 (downs)
Punting with 7 minutes left down 2 scores is indefensible. It's not hindsight, it's a real time game management mistake.
Not really. You are looking at getting the ball back with less than minute and no timeouts to score. Or potentially trying an onside kick. If you are going to go the onside kick route, IMO you are better off going for it on 4th down as it has a higher chance of success.
just a terrible coach
Quote:
its not like they were at the 50 yd line. You could argue either way. Last ditch effort at 7 minutes or try to stop them quickly which they had done several/many times in the game. It's just a captain hindsight type of decision that you can argue all day about.
Not really. You are looking at getting the ball back with less than minute and no timeouts to score. Or potentially trying an onside kick. If you are going to go the onside kick route, IMO you are better off going for it on 4th down as it has a higher chance of success.
I hear you, but 7 min is alot of time left to automatically dismiss his decision as wrong. I don't like any decision that counts on an onside kick, so yea, my chart would have gone for it, but there are valid reasons to punt.
Having said that the original question was does it EVER make sense. The answer to that is yes. Had this been 1986 with the Giants defense then you absolutely punt it because the chances were whatever offense we faced the Giants D would stop them. In fact, I would have bet the other offense would end up with less than 5 yards after 3 plays.
But this isn't 1986 and I didn't see LT, Carson, Banks, Martin, Marshall or any other guys out there of that quality. So... you know... he should have gone for it.
Ugh. - ( New Window )
Yet somehow, you're going to get a number of people defending him and this particular decision. It's odd.
It's also odd people are calling him gutless and a loser. But people are odd.
What was even more infuriating for me was this was in direct contrast to him calling the TO with 2:30 ish left and the Pats having a 3rd down.
One move showed confidence and coaching to win and the other screamed waving the white flag and conceding the game was over.
There's no way with the D on the field so much he could've expected them to make a stop or two there. I think if was more punt it away and keep the score more respectable, where if he didn't get the 4th and 2, the Pats were in position make the final score worse. Turns out they scored anyway, lol
You know its near impossible to get an onside kick now and the game has changed drastically since 1997 right?
that play was going for 20 if Zeitler doesn't whiff his block.
Tampa game convinced me, but several times I questioned his decisions. In the Tampa game, we should have been using up some clock and instead he has Jones coming to the line and snapping the ball with 20 seconds left on the play clock. We all knew you don’t want to leave them with enough time to get into FG range. But we sure did.....
Stuff like this and others.
Tampa game convinced me, but several times I questioned his decisions. In the Tampa game, we should have been using up some clock and instead he has Jones coming to the line and snapping the ball with 20 seconds left on the play clock. We all knew you don’t want to leave them with enough time to get into FG range. But we sure did.....
Stuff like this and others.
isn't that on the QB? Shurmur sends in the play, its up to Jones to run down the playclock
I remember something similar in a Niner game that year Jim Tomsula coached. Against Seattle, down 16 with probably 5 minutes to play and punting.
I forgave it as avoiding a bigger defeat, but still. That's probably worse than a QB who never throws the ball downfield.
The Pats team high percentage passes and even ran the ball to keep the clock moving so that we wouldn't get the ball back with any real time. In Tampa we should have lost because this moron called higher risk passes at the Tampa 12 yard line with a minute left in the game.
If Shurmur is the coach next season we are guaranteed a sub .500 record even if all out draft picks and FAs pan out.
There's no doubt there would be people bitching either way. Had they went and failed, and NE scored on a short field after taking a few minutes off the clock, we'd all still be reading about it.
Fans love to call this coach a loser and demand a firing 21 games into a rebuild. After a game against the Goats with a 16+ pointspread with your JV skill guys and a rookie QB.
Losers are in perpetual new coaching tenures. Keep drafting well. Keep coaching these schemes that are proven in this league. Give this group time.
Flame away you impatient bastids
It seems to me to be a bad decision and I have not heard a single good argument for punting in this situation. Last year Shurmur made a lot of questionable calls and he is continuing this year.
I hope DG and Shurmur are not best buddies.
I think you still go for it on fourth and 10....the premise being it's still a higher percentage than recovering an onsides kick or trying to score with less than a minute and no timeouts
So IMO no matter the distance on 4th down, you need to score THIS drive in a 2 possession game to have any chance (as unlikely as it is at 4th & long). Even w/ the old onside rules I don't think this would change much. It's surely desperation, but really the best last shot
I was bothered most by the fact that it was a kick into the wind. That was the worst part of the decision.
They weren’t winning anyway but Shurmur is gutless.
The way I looked at it the only way they had any chance to win was to go for it and make it. They had to score on that possession to have any real chance. If they go for it and don’t get it the game’s over and by punting it away Shurmur was basically waving the white flag and forfeiting the game.
The question we should be asking is why did Shurmur defy logic and convention in that situation? Was he trying to temper the margin of defeat? Did he have some other reason to give up on trying to win? Or is he simply an imbecile that has no business coaching an NFL team?
The fact that his decision in New England legitimately raises the last of those questions alarms me.
I'm still giving him the benefit of the doubt for now, but another howler like that and I'm reaching for the torch and pitchfork.