• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Bradsha'w's TD, should he or shouldn't he?

liveanddiedeac said:
Honestly under those scenerios I'll take number 1. Having to score the TD I think makes a big difference. If all you need is a field goal, even with just 20 seconds left, you're having to defend the whole field, not just the endzone.
Click to expand...

Just curious, if you're the coach and you need to go from your own 20 to their 30 in 20 seconds w/ no timeouts, what plays do you run?

That is extremely difficult as after your first play, you can't throw to the middle of the field at all.
 
AnonymousDeac said:
Just curious, if you're the coach and you need to go from your own 20 to their 30 in 20 seconds w/ no timeouts, what plays do you run?

That is extremely difficult as after your first play, you can't throw to the middle of the field at all.
Click to expand...

I don't know, both situations are extremely difficult. I guess the thing is to get into field goal range it's possible you can do it with one throw, granted the receiver pretty much has to get out of bounds. I just don't like of being behind and not taking a walk-in touchdown that puts you up by 4 points and settling on a field goal attempt, where it's possible ( not probable, but possible) something could go wrong. Let's say Bradshaw had fallen down at the 1 yard line, the Giants line up for the FG and it's missed for whatever reason. Can you imagine the media today????
 
scooter84 said:
This. I don't care if the field goal has a 99% chance of success, his running into the end zone had a 100% chance of success. You take the points - definitely because they were behind.

If they were already ahead by a point or something, then you might kneel, force them to use their last timeout, and take more time to kick the field goal, leaving them no time to score.
Click to expand...

The object is to win the game, not just take a lead. You have to take the Patriots following possession into account.
 
SCDeac13 said:
The object is to win the game, not just take a lead. You have to take the Patriots following possession into account.
Click to expand...

Taking the lead is probably the most important part of winning though. :thumbsup:
 
liveanddiedeac said:
I don't know, both situations are extremely difficult. I guess the thing is to get into field goal range it's possible you can do it with one throw, granted the receiver pretty much has to get out of bounds. I just don't like of being behind and not taking a walk-in touchdown that puts you up by 4 points and settling on a field goal attempt, where it's possible ( not probable, but possible) something could go wrong. Let's say Bradshaw had fallen down at the 1 yard line, the Giants line up for the FG and it's missed for whatever reason. Can you imagine the media today????
Click to expand...

There could be a bobbled snap. Remember the Tony Romo play from a few years ago? Numerous things could happen. You take the points. If you are NE, you let them score to give yourself a shot.
 
tos said:
Mike and Mike brought up a good point this morning: forgotten in all of this is how much time Nicks gave the Patriots by not fighting to stay in bounds after his completion inside the 10.
Click to expand...
True, but Nicks got the first down thus giving the Giants 3 more downs to (potentially) waste more time. It was a 2nd and 3 and Nicks scrambled to the sidelines getting 4 yards for the first down. If Nicks stays in bounds, he doesn't get the first down.
 
Heard this argument on 610 the fan this morning...

It's not manly to kneel the ball at the one. If you win the Super Bowl you've gotta be the manliest team, no questions!
 
If you are going to negrep me for "atrocious logic", tell me why it is atrocious... Signing your negrep would be nice too. This board is really frequented by lots of immature asses.
 
deacondamo said:
There could be a bobbled snap. Remember the Tony Romo play from a few years ago? Numerous things could happen. You take the points. If you are NE, you let them score to give yourself a shot.
Click to expand...

You are claiming that the optimal play for both teams is the same. That is faulty logic.
 
AnonymousDeac said:
You are claiming that the optimal play for both teams is the same. That is faulty logic.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If you trust you're defense to be able to keep a team out of the endzone when the opponent has to go 80 yards with under a minute and 1 timeout, you could feel it's the best play for you. The other side can feel it's the best play for them, so they at least get the ball back. I don't think one is completely mutually exclusive of the other.
 
dont get to play in the Super Bowl too often. get your TD and put it on the D.
 
tintinisahottie said:
The giants won guys. Don't know if some of you are aware
Click to expand...

I think we're all aware that it is a moot point, but it's kind of a fun debate. I relate it to Wake and Coach Grobe, what would we want him to do in the same situation?
 
The options were:
a) 57 seconds, 1 TO for 80 yards, and
b) 9 seconds, no timeouts, need a FG.

I know what the announcers said, but they botched it. The TD was scored with 57 ticks left. Even assuming the timeout is called immediately, the next play takes 4 seconds, running down to 53, then 40 off the play clock to 13, then 4 seconds for the FG play, so you're at 9 seconds maximum. So the logic looks even worse scoring than it would at 20 seconds remaining.

When you have a 98% chance of winning by taking a knee and kicking in that situation or approximately 85% chance of Brady not scoring, you take the 98% chance. Running the clock out is the best and only correct call there. As a Pats fan, I was thrilled they let them score and honestly had been yelling at them to do it once they got under the 2 minute warning. That they won anyways doesn't make it the right call when you are giving yourself a lesser chance to win.
 
Statistical analysis be damned, you take the points there. You go over to your defense and you go "Hey, guess what, they just let us score because they think you're not good enough to stop their offense from driving the length of the field and winning this game, are you going to let them do that to you, or are you going to dig deep and show them what you're made of?"
 
liveanddiedeac said:
I think we're all aware that it is a moot point, but it's kind of a fun debate. I relate it to Wake and Coach Grobe, what would we want him to do in the same situation?
Click to expand...

The difference is that college kickers botch those far more often because they're not as good. The chance of Newman making that kick may be less than 85% in that situation, in which case scoring is the correct option. Even when it bucks convention, you have to play the percentages.
 
Haros said:
The difference is that college kickers botch those far more often because they're not as good. The chance of Newman making that kick may be less than 85% in that situation, in which case scoring is the correct option. Even when it bucks convention, you have to play the percentages.
Click to expand...

That's exactly right, college snappers, holders, and kickers aren't as reliable, but how many quick touchdowns has our defense given up through the years? It's an interesting debate at any level anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top