Poll

Is Ahmad Bradshaw a selfish egotist?

Only registered users are allowed to vote for this poll.
14 votes were received.

Yes	5		36%
No.	9		64%

---

Was Ahmad Bradshaw the most selfish guy ever in the 46 SuperBowls?

He first fumbles the ball. Next, when it is obvious his coach tells him NOT TO SCORE A TOUCHDOWN, he does so for his own gratification.

That Hail Mary pass by Brady could have succeeded. Had he just went down on the 1 yard line like he was undoubtedly told, the Giants run out the clock and kick the winning field goal.

In fact, the announcers were speculating that the Patriots, who intentionally let him score, may have been prepared to PUSH HIM INTO THE ENDZONE.

The only difference between winning by one point and winning by 4 is that Bradshaw gets the glory.

As Newton said, "a body in motion tends to stay in motion." When you are bursting through a hole as a RB, do you know how hard it would be to just stop yourself? He didn't know the Pats were going to just let him score. Football is a game of instinct. He wants to hit the hole hard, and when he did, he couldn't stop himself.

He did the right thing. If the game was tied, then running out the clock and taking the FG makes more sense. But, they were behind. Why take the chance of a bad snap or a blocked FG? If he stopped at the one, and the Giants muffed the snap on the FG, Bradshaw would be being vilified as a moron.

The 2 posters above said it best.

The whole fall down at the 1 yard line was just plain stupid. What happens when the Pat's stiffen up and make a goal line stand. How man field goals are missed. Bradshaw did the right thing, score, don't be a p*ssy. Then have your defense go on the field and stop Brady. Guess what standing up and playing like men works some times? I could not believe those guys were taking themselves seriously w/ the fall down crap.

Selfish my *ss its called football. You think Lombardi would have ever told his defense to give up a td.

It does not matter as the Queertriots lost, and all is good in the football world all offseason.

Yeah....Who really cares!?


The Giants won. Game over. End of story.


Let's talk about Wes Welker dropping a Superbowl winning catch.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

I agree that he did the right thing scoring....he looked like he 'forgot' any order to take a dive and/or tried to run an extra second off the clock. I agree with the notion that the kick could have been missed. So he did the right thing.

Re Welker: That was a much more difficult catch to make than it is being made to be. Yes, it hit him in the hands (by Welker's own admission). But he was off balance *and* doing a 180 in mid-air at the time. BUt if he's going to drop one out of how many hundred passes, I"m glad that was the one!

Here at my office, one of the most vocal Pats fans has to wear Giants gear all week, which he is doing. Another two DIDN'T SHOW UP TO WORK..haha...oh man, bad hangovers all around, it is a glorious Monday morning in Boston.

I think he was trying to stop on the one foot line and his momentum simply carried him over the line into the end zone. Also, I believe that he was exceting to get hit and that played a part in him and his momentum.

I don't think he was being selfish at all. Trying to run the clock out was the right call...history has shown time an time again that you don't leave Brady with time on the clock.

Aside from that...extremely glad the Giants won because I really didn't think they could pull off another one.

yeah i agree, i yell all the time in that situation you should let the guy score to try and preserve the clock but how many coaches have the security to make that call? so who sees that happen? bradshaw tried to stop but by the time he realized what was happening and heard eli he tried to stop but couldnt, cant blame him...

Now what if he does stop and then say the snap is muffed and they miss the fg. Now you would say why did bradshaw not score he is an idiot so he cant win...

ask the ravens about how pressure lastsecond chip shot FGs vs the Pats can go horribly wrong. If he takes a knee and they miss the FG and the Pats win as a result, Bradshaw, the kicker, and anyone involved in not scoring the TD would be the hugest goats in NFL history.

Ask the Ravens about running the clock out to win by a FG.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

LOL...Berk, same post! HAHA!

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

great minds think alike!

I'd rather the Pats have to drive for a TD under a minute then have to kick a FG in 30 seconds.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2012 06:34AM by dolphin.

berkeley223 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ask the ravens about how pressure lastsecond chip
> shot FGs vs the Pats can go horribly wrong. If he
> takes a knee and they miss the FG and the Pats win
> as a result, Bradshaw, the kicker, and anyone
> involved in not scoring the TD would be the hugest
> goats in NFL history.


Of course, had the Ravens been kicking an 18 yard fg (from the one) instead of a 35 yarder, that kick would have been good despite the choke job by their kicker.

You can look at it either way. But for me, I run the clock down at the one.

If I cann't make a FG that is shorter than an extra point I don't deserve to win.

Last thing I want to do in the era of Video Game offense in the NFL is give the ball back to a HOF QB with 3 Super Bowl rings, one time out and 61 seconds to go 70-80 yards to beat me.

Yes you can get a bad snap or bad kick on the shortest of FG's but you can also get a bad snap or fumble going for the score.

Maybe if I had the top defense in the league instead of the 27th I'd have felt differently...but in last nights situation, I make sure my RB knows not to score and I eat the clock.

But that's me.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2012 06:59AM by THE Truth.

I would rather have the patsies *HAVE* to score a TD with 55 seconds left, then have 30 seconds and only need a FG.

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I would rather have the patsies *HAVE* to score a
> TD with 55 seconds left, then have 30 seconds and
> only need a FG.


It would have been 20 seconds, and they would have had no timeouts.

If you start them at the 20 with 20 seconds and no time out they have ZERO chance of attempting a FG unless you committ stupid penalties.

It takes at least 16 seconds to run a play, complete a pass 20 yards down field, let alone 50 yards, and then run up and spike the ball.

1 minute and 1 timeout is a better bargain for the Pats. Why do you think they let them score?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2012 07:28AM by THE Truth.

What ultimately worked?

---------------------

"When you suck long enough, you get a Hickey"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/06/2012 07:10AM by Aqua&Orange.

Miami Reppa Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Now what if he does stop and then say the snap is
> muffed and they miss the fg. Now you would say
> why did bradshaw not score he is an idiot so he
> cant win...


Exactly how I feel. He did the right thing. Instead force the defense to not-be-the-goats.

dolphin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'd rather the Pats have to drive for a TD under a
> minute then have to kick a FG in 30 seconds.


Another great point.

at the time I though it was dumb for them to score the TD but after thinking about it later, you just can't make that call. A fumbled snap (Romo, Rivers), a missed FG (Cundiff), stranger things have happened. You can't risk a SB victory on that. You'd forever be known as the guy who outsmarted himself and cost his team a SB win.

Aqua&Orange Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> What ultimately worked?


Not the point. They both would have worked.

One gives the Pats a better chance to pull out the victory than the other.

Its not like one give the pats the win and the other doesn't.

Its about playing the odds.

The odds that the Pats could go from their 20 to the Giants 40, in 20 seconds with no timeouts, just to try a 57 yard FG are virtually zero.

The odds that a HOF QB could go 80 yards in one minute with one timeout versus the 27th ranked defense in the league are substantially higher than that.

This isn't an either/or situation. There isn't one answer that the Giants win with and one they lose with. Both choices favor the giants in a big way. One just more than the other. Which is exactly why Manning yelled to Bradshaw to go down and why Belechick told his defense to let them score. Both of them knew that the best chance the patys had was 1 min, 1 timeout and the ball at their own 20.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> If I cann't make a FG that is shorter than an
> extra point I don't deserve to win.

But on the other side of the coin, if my kickoff team and defense can't stop an opponent from driving the entire length of the field to score a Touchdown in one minute, *I* don't deserve to win.


>
> Yes you can get a bad snap or bad kick on the
> shortest of FG's but you can also get a bad snap
> or fumble going for the score.
>

Right, but the RB can also fumble whether he's intending to go for the EZ or just to the 1 YD line.



> Maybe if I had the top defense in the league
> instead of the 27th I'd have felt
> differently...but in last nights situation, I make
> sure my RB knows not to score and I eat the
> clock.
>
> But that's me.

No, it's you and a lot of people. It's not a bad argument at all, especially with the defensive stats. Perhaps they were counting on sacking Brady, which they did once early in that drive. I'd love to have seen him get sacked a couple more times to end the drive that way, other than the almost-hail-mary. that was a bit scary.

JC Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > If I cann't make a FG that is shorter than an
> > extra point I don't deserve to win.
>
> But on the other side of the coin, if my kickoff
> team and defense can't stop an opponent from
> driving the entire length of the field to score a
> Touchdown in one minute, *I* don't deserve to
> win.
>


But the Giants defense and kickoff teams are going to have to get their job done in either situation.

The question is...which situation gives the Giants the best chance of getting that job done?

- 20 yard line with 60 seconds, 1 timeout and the Pats needing a TD
or
- 20 yard line with 20 seconds, no timeouts and the Pats needing a FG to win.

Belechick and Manning (and I) think its the second option.

Coughlin and others think its the first one.


>
> >
> > Yes you can get a bad snap or bad kick on the
> > shortest of FG's but you can also get a bad
> snap
> > or fumble going for the score.
> >
>
> Right, but the RB can also fumble whether he's
> intending to go for the EZ or just to the 1 YD
> line.


Very true. My point was that there is risk NO MATTER what option you select. And the risk is miniscule on both sides. Therefore, as a coach, I'm more concerned about what I'm leaving on the table for brady and Company sice they are getting the ball back no matter what.




>
>
>
> > Maybe if I had the top defense in the league
> > instead of the 27th I'd have felt
> > differently...but in last nights situation, I
> make
> > sure my RB knows not to score and I eat the
> > clock.
> >
> > But that's me.
>
> No, it's you and a lot of people. It's not a bad
> argument at all, especially with the defensive
> stats. Perhaps they were counting on sacking
> Brady, which they did once early in that drive.
> I'd love to have seen him get sacked a couple more
> times to end the drive that way, other than the
> almost-hail-mary. that was a bit scary.


That's my ultimate point. Any good QB is going to get you within striking distance of the endzone in 60 seconds with one timeout.

The chances of even getting a FG attempt off,let alone making it, in 20 seconds, with no timeouts, from your own 20 are just about zero.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes you can get a bad snap or bad kick on the
> shortest of FG's but you can also get a bad snap
> or fumble going for the score.




> Maybe if I had the top defense in the league
> instead of the 27th I'd have felt
> differently...but in last nights situation, I make
> sure my RB knows not to score and I eat the
> clock.


Yeah but I'm not sure it matters what your defense is ranked when trying to consider what your chances might be of stopping the Pats offense with 53 seconds left and one timeout, with 80 yards to go AND score a touchdown.

I think what you consider when making that decision is how has your defense handled the Pats offense so far during the game. And the answer to that question is really well. They held them to 17 points through 4 quarters (tying their lowest point total all season) and didn't give up one point since the first 3 minutes of the 3rd quarter.

You missed thre truth of what happened because the announcers had it wrong.

Later on Bradshaw and confirmed by Eli wasn't told to stop at the one. Eli called out to him when he saw that the Patriots were letting him go to stop. Eli later said "I wish I had thought of it in advance to have told them not to score".

When Bradshaw heard Eli, he tried but couldn't stop in time, as his momentum had him going.

In retrospect, I'd rather deal with 57 seconds and a 4 point lead (requiring a TD), and 20 seconds and only a one point lead. The Patriots kicker is one of if tnot the best in the league, with plenty of leg.

Having said all that, I gotta give Bellicheat credit for having the stones to give up a TD for a last ditch chance at securing a win. Not many coaches would have done it.