Quote Originally Posted by Patler View Post
Perhaps it should be. What was needed was the winning TD, not the tieing FG, and he failed to deliver that. As was discussed for several days following the game, it can be argued that AR did not make the best choices in the final three plays after getting into FG range.

If you kick the FG to tie because you run out of time, that's one thing. But if you kick the FG to tie because the drive stalled, it's not much to brag about. GB still had plenty of time left.
a drive for a tie works both ways, obviously. "What was needed was the winning TD" - absolutely wrong: what was NEEDED was the tie. That keeps you alive. What was optimal, what you wanted, was the win. The tie is better than no points and a loss, and gives you a chance to win with a score on a subsequent drive. Yes a TD there probably wins and a TD in overtime wins, without having to depend on defense (assuming you get the ball). But it's a team game, and sometimes a QB has to depend on teammates to get him the ball. I seem to recall Brady needed his defense in 2001 - he tied and won with a collection of FGs in that post-season. But I guess that's not much to brag about, because he didn't win those with TDs.