KB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > PARTICULARLY, since we had been giving up what
> > seemed like a record number of sacks all day
> > BEFORE that point.
>
> True, you have a long but pretty make-able FG, no
> time outs and Tanny was being sacked like a bag of
> potatoes all day, especially on drop backs. So
> what do you do? Drop him straight back of course.
> IDK just seems like a dumb risk to take, sort of
> like the third and an inch against NO. No problem
> with trying to win the game but don't do something
> that could give up the field position you already
> have at such a game critical time. Seems
> sometimes like the game is going to fast for our
> coaching staff.


At the 34 yard line you are looking at a 51 or 52 Yard FG attempt.

Historically, that is basically a 50/50 proposition as a FG attempt.

Playing to turn a 52 yard fg into a 48 or 50 yard FG is pointless. The goal has to be to get it under 40 yards where its almost automatic. You can't accomplish that from where we were with our running game.

Playing for a long FG there is playing not to win. There is very little difference for a kicker with Sturgis leg strength between 48 and 52. The goal there has to be to get MUCH closer, not a few yards closer. It should be to try to win.

Taking a sack (or effectively high-risking it based on out OL VS. Ravens rush) when you're in FG range to tie the game and take your chances in OT is absolutely a HORRIBLE decision (on ALL parties involved).

My opinion. Of course.

BNF.

Listen guys, just my opinion but Philbin seems to be reliving the day he was signed as our coach.

His predecessor, Sparano, was rightfully criticized for being too conservative and playing for field goals, even when the team was already inside the opponent's 30 yard line.

It's just like politics. After Nixon/Ford (pardoned Nixon), Jimmy Carter said "I'll never lie to you." But he was voted out for being too weak in favor of tough guy, Ronald Reagan.

I think Philbin is trying so hard NOT to be Sparano that he is going off the other end.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ChyrenB Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > PARTICULARLY, since we had been giving up
> what
> > > seemed like a record number of sacks all day
> > > BEFORE that point.
> >
> > True, you have a long but pretty make-able FG,
> no
> > time outs and Tanny was being sacked like a bag
> of
> > potatoes all day, especially on drop backs. So
> > what do you do? Drop him straight back of
> course.
> > IDK just seems like a dumb risk to take, sort
> of
> > like the third and an inch against NO. No
> problem
> > with trying to win the game but don't do
> something
> > that could give up the field position you
> already
> > have at such a game critical time. Seems
> > sometimes like the game is going to fast for
> our
> > coaching staff.
>
>
> At the 34 yard line you are looking at a 51 or 52
> Yard FG attempt.
>
> Historically, that is basically a 50/50
> proposition as a FG attempt.
>
> Playing to turn a 52 yard fg into a 48 or 50 yard
> FG is pointless. The goal has to be to get it
> under 40 yards where its almost automatic. You
> can't accomplish that from where we were with our
> running game.
>
> Playing for a long FG there is playing not to win.
> There is very little difference for a kicker with
> Sturgis leg strength between 48 and 52. The goal
> there has to be to get MUCH closer, not a few
> yards closer. It should be to try to win.

Bird in the hand Truth. Given the circumstances of the horrid pass blocking, the sacks and Sturgis having hit 5 fg's in the 50 yd range this year, dropping Tannehill straight back was dumb. That 6-8 yards made a BIG difference for a ROOKIE kicker trying for a game saver. He missed because he tried to over kick for the reason mentioned. Play calling and scheming has SUCKED the last two games. had they rolled him out or done something creative where he could have perhaps gotten rid of it I may think differently.

KB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > KB Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > ChyrenB Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > PARTICULARLY, since we had been giving up
> > what
> > > > seemed like a record number of sacks all
> day
> > > > BEFORE that point.
> > >
> > > True, you have a long but pretty make-able
> FG,
> > no
> > > time outs and Tanny was being sacked like a
> bag
> > of
> > > potatoes all day, especially on drop backs.
> So
> > > what do you do? Drop him straight back of
> > course.
> > > IDK just seems like a dumb risk to take,
> sort
> > of
> > > like the third and an inch against NO. No
> > problem
> > > with trying to win the game but don't do
> > something
> > > that could give up the field position you
> > already
> > > have at such a game critical time. Seems
> > > sometimes like the game is going to fast for
> > our
> > > coaching staff.
> >
> >
> > At the 34 yard line you are looking at a 51 or
> 52
> > Yard FG attempt.
> >
> > Historically, that is basically a 50/50
> > proposition as a FG attempt.
> >
> > Playing to turn a 52 yard fg into a 48 or 50
> yard
> > FG is pointless. The goal has to be to get it
> > under 40 yards where its almost automatic.
> You
> > can't accomplish that from where we were with
> our
> > running game.
> >
> > Playing for a long FG there is playing not to
> win.
> > There is very little difference for a kicker
> with
> > Sturgis leg strength between 48 and 52. The
> goal
> > there has to be to get MUCH closer, not a few
> > yards closer. It should be to try to win.
>
> Bird in the hand Truth. Given the circumstances
> of the horrid pass blocking, the sacks and Sturgis
> having hit 5 fg's in the 50 yd range this year,
> dropping Tannehill straight back was dumb. That
> 6-8 yards made a BIG difference for a ROOKIE
> kicker trying for a game saver. He missed because
> he tried to over kick for the reason mentioned.
> Play calling and scheming has SUCKED the last two
> games. had they rolled him out or done something
> creative where he could have perhaps gotten rid of
> it I may think differently.


First off, rolling him out wouldn't have made a difference when your OT's are destroyed the way they were down the stretch. Suggs had those guys on their heals and completely off balance . You roll out from there and he sheds them like they were tissue paper and devours RT on the sack.

So here's the problem with the "bird in the hand" philosophy.

Its a 51-52 yard kick that you have in your hand. Yes, our kicker can make that kick, but statistically, he's long over due to miss one.

Even so, lets play out your line of reasoning a bit further...

Lets say you run twice because you believe that our Oline is in such bad straights and the offense so anemic at that point that its your only "reasonable" choice to take. You gain your two yards per carry we've been averaging and turn it into a 47-48 yard FG (hardly a chip shot). Then you make the kick.

How are you planning on winning the game in OT? Or are you hoping for a tie?

I mean if our offense is THAT pathetic that you have to play to turn a 51 yard FG into a 47 yard FG with SIXTY ONE seconds on the clock how do you figure to get in scoring range ever again?

Sorry. But I'd rather play to win when I have the chance to win.


And another thing, everybody is pointing to the sack as the back breaker and no doubt it hurt and NEVER should have been allowed to happen, but if the receiver doesnt drop the damn ball on 3rd down we get all that yardage back PLUS a couple of more.

The point is, its not that we did the wrong thing, its that we executed the entire last minute as poorly as humanly possible. Except for the spike that we pulled off in textbook fashion. After that...zero execution by the O-line, the receiver (I think it was Clay) and our very good kicker.

I disagree. Quite simply you keep running the ball and use your timeouts to stop the clock and if you've still got a 3rd down left, then UNLESS you are STILL NOT in makeable field goal range do you try a pass.

But if you are NOT in makeable field goal range (which we were from on the first down at the 34 and then the spike), you have to get there when you are only 3 points behind.

TT's logic is really wrong unless you are more than a field goal behind.

Your goal is WHATEVER MANY POINTS IS NECESSARY TO LIVE ANOTHER DAY.

You treat as if you were dealing with your life and the lives of your family.

You do everything possible to live another day.

You don't recklessly gamble their lives on something that will end the danger immediately.

If you have a safe path of avoiding IMMEDIATE destruction, you do it FIRST.

Only AFTER AVOIDING ANNIHILATION do you THEN go for winning.

But it is wrong to risk your life on ALL OR NOTHING unless you HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO OTHER CHOICE.

We were out of timeouts chyrem, you should really start using the google function a bit more bud

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > THE Truth Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > KB Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > ChyrenB Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > PARTICULARLY, since we had been giving up
> > > what
> > > > > seemed like a record number of sacks all
> > day
> > > > > BEFORE that point.
> > > >
> > > > True, you have a long but pretty make-able
> > FG,
> > > no
> > > > time outs and Tanny was being sacked like a
> > bag
> > > of
> > > > potatoes all day, especially on drop backs.
>
> > So
> > > > what do you do? Drop him straight back of
> > > course.
> > > > IDK just seems like a dumb risk to take,
> > sort
> > > of
> > > > like the third and an inch against NO. No
> > > problem
> > > > with trying to win the game but don't do
> > > something
> > > > that could give up the field position you
> > > already
> > > > have at such a game critical time. Seems
> > > > sometimes like the game is going to fast
> for
> > > our
> > > > coaching staff.
> > >
> > >
> > > At the 34 yard line you are looking at a 51
> or
> > 52
> > > Yard FG attempt.
> > >
> > > Historically, that is basically a 50/50
> > > proposition as a FG attempt.
> > >
> > > Playing to turn a 52 yard fg into a 48 or 50
> > yard
> > > FG is pointless. The goal has to be to get
> it
> > > under 40 yards where its almost automatic.
> > You
> > > can't accomplish that from where we were with
> > our
> > > running game.
> > >
> > > Playing for a long FG there is playing not to
> > win.
> > > There is very little difference for a kicker
> > with
> > > Sturgis leg strength between 48 and 52. The
> > goal
> > > there has to be to get MUCH closer, not a few
> > > yards closer. It should be to try to win.
> >
> > Bird in the hand Truth. Given the
> circumstances
> > of the horrid pass blocking, the sacks and
> Sturgis
> > having hit 5 fg's in the 50 yd range this year,
> > dropping Tannehill straight back was dumb.
> That
> > 6-8 yards made a BIG difference for a ROOKIE
> > kicker trying for a game saver. He missed
> because
> > he tried to over kick for the reason mentioned.
>
> > Play calling and scheming has SUCKED the last
> two
> > games. had they rolled him out or done
> something
> > creative where he could have perhaps gotten rid
> of
> > it I may think differently.
>
>
> First off, rolling him out wouldn't have made a
> difference when your OT's are destroyed the way
> they were down the stretch. Suggs had those guys
> on their heals and completely off balance . You
> roll out from there and he sheds them like they
> were tissue paper and devours RT on the sack.
>
> So here's the problem with the "bird in the hand"
> philosophy.
>
> Its a 51-52 yard kick that you have in your hand.
> Yes, our kicker can make that kick, but
> statistically, he's long over due to miss one.
>
> Even so, lets play out your line of reasoning a
> bit further...
>
> Lets say you run twice because you believe that
> our Oline is in such bad straights and the offense
> so anemic at that point that its your only
> "reasonable" choice to take. You gain your two
> yards per carry we've been averaging and turn it
> into a 47-48 yard FG (hardly a chip shot). Then
> you make the kick.
>
> How are you planning on winning the game in OT?
> Or are you hoping for a tie?
>
> I mean if our offense is THAT pathetic that you
> have to play to turn a 51 yard FG into a 47 yard
> FG with SIXTY ONE seconds on the clock how do you
> figure to get in scoring range ever again?
>
> Sorry. But I'd rather play to win when I have the
> chance to win.
>
>
> And another thing, everybody is pointing to the
> sack as the back breaker and no doubt it hurt and
> NEVER should have been allowed to happen, but if
> the receiver doesnt drop the damn ball on 3rd down
> we get all that yardage back PLUS a couple of
> more.
>
> The point is, its not that we did the wrong thing,
> its that we executed the entire last minute as
> poorly as humanly possible. Except for the spike
> that we pulled off in textbook fashion. After
> that...zero execution by the O-line, the receiver
> (I think it was Clay) and our very good kicker.

Well Truth what the heck is your reasoning??? You say we can't run, we can't straight up pass block and we can't even block well enough to roll out an athletic QB. So HOW do you purpose to win the game in regulation????? Dropping straight back was the riskiest of all calls at that point being already on the edge of reasonable FG range. This ain't Madden, you don't risk your chance to fight another day if your hay maker doesn't work to win the game? When facing a monster pass rush you roll out (Dolphins vs bears 1985). May not have worked but neither did dropping straight back THe players have to make plays but that dosen't excuse the coaches from unimaginative tactical blunders anymore than bad calls excuse the players poor play.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2013 04:57AM by KB.

KB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > KB Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > THE Truth Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > KB Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > ChyrenB Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > PARTICULARLY, since we had been giving
> up
> > > > what
> > > > > > seemed like a record number of sacks
> all
> > > day
> > > > > > BEFORE that point.
> > > > >
> > > > > True, you have a long but pretty
> make-able
> > > FG,
> > > > no
> > > > > time outs and Tanny was being sacked like
> a
> > > bag
> > > > of
> > > > > potatoes all day, especially on drop
> backs.
> >
> > > So
> > > > > what do you do? Drop him straight back
> of
> > > > course.
> > > > > IDK just seems like a dumb risk to take,
> > > sort
> > > > of
> > > > > like the third and an inch against NO.
> No
> > > > problem
> > > > > with trying to win the game but don't do
> > > > something
> > > > > that could give up the field position you
> > > > already
> > > > > have at such a game critical time. Seems
> > > > > sometimes like the game is going to fast
> > for
> > > > our
> > > > > coaching staff.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > At the 34 yard line you are looking at a 51
> > or
> > > 52
> > > > Yard FG attempt.
> > > >
> > > > Historically, that is basically a 50/50
> > > > proposition as a FG attempt.
> > > >
> > > > Playing to turn a 52 yard fg into a 48 or
> 50
> > > yard
> > > > FG is pointless. The goal has to be to
> get
> > it
> > > > under 40 yards where its almost automatic.
>
> > > You
> > > > can't accomplish that from where we were
> with
> > > our
> > > > running game.
> > > >
> > > > Playing for a long FG there is playing not
> to
> > > win.
> > > > There is very little difference for a
> kicker
> > > with
> > > > Sturgis leg strength between 48 and 52.
> The
> > > goal
> > > > there has to be to get MUCH closer, not a
> few
> > > > yards closer. It should be to try to win.
> > >
> > > Bird in the hand Truth. Given the
> > circumstances
> > > of the horrid pass blocking, the sacks and
> > Sturgis
> > > having hit 5 fg's in the 50 yd range this
> year,
> > > dropping Tannehill straight back was dumb.
> > That
> > > 6-8 yards made a BIG difference for a ROOKIE
> > > kicker trying for a game saver. He missed
> > because
> > > he tried to over kick for the reason
> mentioned.
> >
> > > Play calling and scheming has SUCKED the last
> > two
> > > games. had they rolled him out or done
> > something
> > > creative where he could have perhaps gotten
> rid
> > of
> > > it I may think differently.
> >
> >
> > First off, rolling him out wouldn't have made a
> > difference when your OT's are destroyed the way
> > they were down the stretch. Suggs had those
> guys
> > on their heals and completely off balance .
> You
> > roll out from there and he sheds them like they
> > were tissue paper and devours RT on the sack.
> >
> > So here's the problem with the "bird in the
> hand"
> > philosophy.
> >
> > Its a 51-52 yard kick that you have in your
> hand.
> > Yes, our kicker can make that kick, but
> > statistically, he's long over due to miss one.
> >
> > Even so, lets play out your line of reasoning a
> > bit further...
> >
> > Lets say you run twice because you believe that
> > our Oline is in such bad straights and the
> offense
> > so anemic at that point that its your only
> > "reasonable" choice to take. You gain your
> two
> > yards per carry we've been averaging and turn
> it
> > into a 47-48 yard FG (hardly a chip shot).
> Then
> > you make the kick.
> >
> > How are you planning on winning the game in OT?
>
> > Or are you hoping for a tie?
> >
> > I mean if our offense is THAT pathetic that you
> > have to play to turn a 51 yard FG into a 47
> yard
> > FG with SIXTY ONE seconds on the clock how do
> you
> > figure to get in scoring range ever again?
> >
> > Sorry. But I'd rather play to win when I have
> the
> > chance to win.
> >
> >
> > And another thing, everybody is pointing to the
> > sack as the back breaker and no doubt it hurt
> and
> > NEVER should have been allowed to happen, but
> if
> > the receiver doesnt drop the damn ball on 3rd
> down
> > we get all that yardage back PLUS a couple of
> > more.
> >
> > The point is, its not that we did the wrong
> thing,
> > its that we executed the entire last minute as
> > poorly as humanly possible. Except for the
> spike
> > that we pulled off in textbook fashion. After
> > that...zero execution by the O-line, the
> receiver
> > (I think it was Clay) and our very good kicker.
>
> Well Truth what the heck is your reasoning??? You
> say we can't run, we can't straight up pass block
> and we can't even block well enough to roll out an
> athletic QB. So HOW do you purpose to win the game
> in regulation????? Dropping straight back was the
> riskiest of all calls at that point being already
> on the edge of reasonable FG range. This ain't
> Madden, you don't risk your chance to fight
> another day if your hay maker doesn't work to win
> the game? When facing a monster pass rush you
> roll out (Dolphins vs bears 1985). May not have
> worked but neither did dropping straight back
> THe players have to make plays but that dosen't
> excuse the coaches from unimaginative tactical
> blunders anymore than bad calls excuse the players
> poor play.

There are a few things wrong with your logic.

First off, your "chance to fight another day" is a 52 yard fg with a 50/50 shot of being good.

Secondly, you presume that we would have gained yardage and not lost any running the ball despite the fact that we couldn't run the ball all day and our Oline was getting destroyed on our last two drives. That a huge assumption.

Next, who said anything about a "haymaker"? (I presume that means going deep.) the play there with 61 seconds, at their 34, with no timeouts, 2nd and 10 is to throw the ball. You have two chances to get a 1st down that would make the fg a virtual lock (under 40 yrds). If you get that then you have plenty of time to try for the td and the win.

The right call there is to work to gain 12+ yards to make the fg a layup and still leave yourself time and a chance to win. It's not to gain or lose 2 or 3 yards running the ball twice and then settle for a 49+ yard fg to tie.

You throw twice on quick plays. If your players can't pass protect under those circumstances then they aren't winning the game for you later either.

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> KB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > THE Truth Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > KB Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > THE Truth Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > KB Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > ChyrenB Wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > PARTICULARLY, since we had been
> giving
> > up
> > > > > what
> > > > > > > seemed like a record number of sacks
> > all
> > > > day
> > > > > > > BEFORE that point.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > True, you have a long but pretty
> > make-able
> > > > FG,
> > > > > no
> > > > > > time outs and Tanny was being sacked
> like
> > a
> > > > bag
> > > > > of
> > > > > > potatoes all day, especially on drop
> > backs.
> > >
> > > > So
> > > > > > what do you do? Drop him straight back
> > of
> > > > > course.
> > > > > > IDK just seems like a dumb risk to
> take,
> > > > sort
> > > > > of
> > > > > > like the third and an inch against NO.
> > No
> > > > > problem
> > > > > > with trying to win the game but don't
> do
> > > > > something
> > > > > > that could give up the field position
> you
> > > > > already
> > > > > > have at such a game critical time.
> Seems
> > > > > > sometimes like the game is going to
> fast
> > > for
> > > > > our
> > > > > > coaching staff.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > At the 34 yard line you are looking at a
> 51
> > > or
> > > > 52
> > > > > Yard FG attempt.
> > > > >
> > > > > Historically, that is basically a 50/50
> > > > > proposition as a FG attempt.
> > > > >
> > > > > Playing to turn a 52 yard fg into a 48 or
> > 50
> > > > yard
> > > > > FG is pointless. The goal has to be to
> > get
> > > it
> > > > > under 40 yards where its almost automatic.
>
> >
> > > > You
> > > > > can't accomplish that from where we were
> > with
> > > > our
> > > > > running game.
> > > > >
> > > > > Playing for a long FG there is playing
> not
> > to
> > > > win.
> > > > > There is very little difference for a
> > kicker
> > > > with
> > > > > Sturgis leg strength between 48 and 52.
> > The
> > > > goal
> > > > > there has to be to get MUCH closer, not a
> > few
> > > > > yards closer. It should be to try to
> win.
> > > >
> > > > Bird in the hand Truth. Given the
> > > circumstances
> > > > of the horrid pass blocking, the sacks and
> > > Sturgis
> > > > having hit 5 fg's in the 50 yd range this
> > year,
> > > > dropping Tannehill straight back was dumb.
> > > That
> > > > 6-8 yards made a BIG difference for a
> ROOKIE
> > > > kicker trying for a game saver. He missed
> > > because
> > > > he tried to over kick for the reason
> > mentioned.
> > >
> > > > Play calling and scheming has SUCKED the
> last
> > > two
> > > > games. had they rolled him out or done
> > > something
> > > > creative where he could have perhaps gotten
> > rid
> > > of
> > > > it I may think differently.
> > >
> > >
> > > First off, rolling him out wouldn't have made
> a
> > > difference when your OT's are destroyed the
> way
> > > they were down the stretch. Suggs had those
> > guys
> > > on their heals and completely off balance .
> > You
> > > roll out from there and he sheds them like
> they
> > > were tissue paper and devours RT on the sack.
> > >
> > > So here's the problem with the "bird in the
> > hand"
> > > philosophy.
> > >
> > > Its a 51-52 yard kick that you have in your
> > hand.
> > > Yes, our kicker can make that kick, but
> > > statistically, he's long over due to miss
> one.
> > >
> > > Even so, lets play out your line of reasoning
> a
> > > bit further...
> > >
> > > Lets say you run twice because you believe
> that
> > > our Oline is in such bad straights and the
> > offense
> > > so anemic at that point that its your only
> > > "reasonable" choice to take. You gain your
> > two
> > > yards per carry we've been averaging and turn
> > it
> > > into a 47-48 yard FG (hardly a chip shot).
> > Then
> > > you make the kick.
> > >
> > > How are you planning on winning the game in
> OT?
> >
> > > Or are you hoping for a tie?
> > >
> > > I mean if our offense is THAT pathetic that
> you
> > > have to play to turn a 51 yard FG into a 47
> > yard
> > > FG with SIXTY ONE seconds on the clock how
> do
> > you
> > > figure to get in scoring range ever again?
> > >
> > > Sorry. But I'd rather play to win when I
> have
> > the
> > > chance to win.
> > >
> > >
> > > And another thing, everybody is pointing to
> the
> > > sack as the back breaker and no doubt it hurt
> > and
> > > NEVER should have been allowed to happen, but
> > if
> > > the receiver doesnt drop the damn ball on 3rd
> > down
> > > we get all that yardage back PLUS a couple of
> > > more.
> > >
> > > The point is, its not that we did the wrong
> > thing,
> > > its that we executed the entire last minute
> as
> > > poorly as humanly possible. Except for the
> > spike
> > > that we pulled off in textbook fashion.
> After
> > > that...zero execution by the O-line, the
> > receiver
> > > (I think it was Clay) and our very good
> kicker.
> >
> > Well Truth what the heck is your reasoning???
> You
> > say we can't run, we can't straight up pass
> block
> > and we can't even block well enough to roll out
> an
> > athletic QB. So HOW do you purpose to win the
> game
> > in regulation????? Dropping straight back was
> the
> > riskiest of all calls at that point being
> already
> > on the edge of reasonable FG range. This ain't
> > Madden, you don't risk your chance to fight
> > another day if your hay maker doesn't work to
> win
> > the game? When facing a monster pass rush you
> > roll out (Dolphins vs bears 1985). May not
> have
> > worked but neither did dropping straight back
>
> > THe players have to make plays but that dosen't
> > excuse the coaches from unimaginative tactical
> > blunders anymore than bad calls excuse the
> players
> > poor play.
>
> There are a few things wrong with your logic.
>
> First off, your "chance to fight another day" is a
> 52 yard fg with a 50/50 shot of being good.
>
> Secondly, you presume that we would have gained
> yardage and not lost any running the ball despite
> the fact that we couldn't run the ball all day and
> our Oline was getting destroyed on our last two
> drives. That a huge assumption.
>
> Next, who said anything about a "haymaker"? (I
> presume that means going deep.) the play there
> with 61 seconds, at their 34, with no timeouts,
> 2nd and 10 is to throw the ball. You have two
> chances to get a 1st down that would make the fg a
> virtual lock (under 40 yrds). If you get that
> then you have plenty of time to try for the td and
> the win.
>
> The right call there is to work to gain 12+ yards
> to make the fg a layup and still leave yourself
> time and a chance to win. It's not to gain or lose
> 2 or 3 yards running the ball twice and then
> settle for a 49+ yard fg to tie.
>
> You throw twice on quick plays. If your players
> can't pass protect under those circumstances then
> they aren't winning the game for you later either.

Captain, your thinking is MOST illogical (in my best Mr. Spock voice)

You begin with the premise that at the time, we couldn't run block, couldn't pass block and that the OLine was getting 'destroyed' the last few series. And your RIGHT! But then you call 'logical' the idea that, given those circumstances, a straight drop back play, the one that carries the risk of losing the MOST yards and therefore the MOST valuable field position for any tying FG attempt 'the 'right call'?

Na! (In my best Si Robertson voice)



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 10/08/2013 12:35PM by KB.

To KB

KB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > KB Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > THE Truth Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > KB Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > THE Truth Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > KB Wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > ChyrenB Wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > > PARTICULARLY, since we had been
> > giving
> > > up
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > seemed like a record number of
> sacks
> > > all
> > > > > day
> > > > > > > > BEFORE that point.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > True, you have a long but pretty
> > > make-able
> > > > > FG,
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > time outs and Tanny was being sacked
> > like
> > > a
> > > > > bag
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > potatoes all day, especially on drop
> > > backs.
> > > >
> > > > > So
> > > > > > > what do you do? Drop him straight
> back
> > > of
> > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > IDK just seems like a dumb risk to
> > take,
> > > > > sort
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > like the third and an inch against NO.
>
> > > No
> > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > with trying to win the game but don't
> > do
> > > > > > something
> > > > > > > that could give up the field position
> > you
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > > have at such a game critical time.
> > Seems
> > > > > > > sometimes like the game is going to
> > fast
> > > > for
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > coaching staff.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At the 34 yard line you are looking at
> a
> > 51
> > > > or
> > > > > 52
> > > > > > Yard FG attempt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Historically, that is basically a 50/50
> > > > > > proposition as a FG attempt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Playing to turn a 52 yard fg into a 48
> or
> > > 50
> > > > > yard
> > > > > > FG is pointless. The goal has to be
> to
> > > get
> > > > it
> > > > > > under 40 yards where its almost
> automatic.
> >
> > >
> > > > > You
> > > > > > can't accomplish that from where we
> were
> > > with
> > > > > our
> > > > > > running game.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Playing for a long FG there is playing
> > not
> > > to
> > > > > win.
> > > > > > There is very little difference for a
> > > kicker
> > > > > with
> > > > > > Sturgis leg strength between 48 and 52.
>
> > > The
> > > > > goal
> > > > > > there has to be to get MUCH closer, not
> a
> > > few
> > > > > > yards closer. It should be to try to
> > win.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bird in the hand Truth. Given the
> > > > circumstances
> > > > > of the horrid pass blocking, the sacks
> and
> > > > Sturgis
> > > > > having hit 5 fg's in the 50 yd range this
> > > year,
> > > > > dropping Tannehill straight back was dumb.
>
> > > > That
> > > > > 6-8 yards made a BIG difference for a
> > ROOKIE
> > > > > kicker trying for a game saver. He
> missed
> > > > because
> > > > > he tried to over kick for the reason
> > > mentioned.
> > > >
> > > > > Play calling and scheming has SUCKED the
> > last
> > > > two
> > > > > games. had they rolled him out or done
> > > > something
> > > > > creative where he could have perhaps
> gotten
> > > rid
> > > > of
> > > > > it I may think differently.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > First off, rolling him out wouldn't have
> made
> > a
> > > > difference when your OT's are destroyed the
> > way
> > > > they were down the stretch. Suggs had
> those
> > > guys
> > > > on their heals and completely off balance .
>
> > > You
> > > > roll out from there and he sheds them like
> > they
> > > > were tissue paper and devours RT on the
> sack.
> > > >
> > > > So here's the problem with the "bird in the
> > > hand"
> > > > philosophy.
> > > >
> > > > Its a 51-52 yard kick that you have in your
> > > hand.
> > > > Yes, our kicker can make that kick, but
> > > > statistically, he's long over due to miss
> > one.
> > > >
> > > > Even so, lets play out your line of
> reasoning
> > a
> > > > bit further...
> > > >
> > > > Lets say you run twice because you believe
> > that
> > > > our Oline is in such bad straights and the
> > > offense
> > > > so anemic at that point that its your only
> > > > "reasonable" choice to take. You gain
> your
> > > two
> > > > yards per carry we've been averaging and
> turn
> > > it
> > > > into a 47-48 yard FG (hardly a chip shot).
> > > Then
> > > > you make the kick.
> > > >
> > > > How are you planning on winning the game in
> > OT?
> > >
> > > > Or are you hoping for a tie?
> > > >
> > > > I mean if our offense is THAT pathetic that
> > you
> > > > have to play to turn a 51 yard FG into a 47
> > > yard
> > > > FG with SIXTY ONE seconds on the clock how
> > do
> > > you
> > > > figure to get in scoring range ever again?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry. But I'd rather play to win when I
> > have
> > > the
> > > > chance to win.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And another thing, everybody is pointing to
> > the
> > > > sack as the back breaker and no doubt it
> hurt
> > > and
> > > > NEVER should have been allowed to happen,
> but
> > > if
> > > > the receiver doesnt drop the damn ball on
> 3rd
> > > down
> > > > we get all that yardage back PLUS a couple
> of
> > > > more.
> > > >
> > > > The point is, its not that we did the wrong
> > > thing,
> > > > its that we executed the entire last minute
> > as
> > > > poorly as humanly possible. Except for
> the
> > > spike
> > > > that we pulled off in textbook fashion.
> > After
> > > > that...zero execution by the O-line, the
> > > receiver
> > > > (I think it was Clay) and our very good
> > kicker.
> > >
> > > Well Truth what the heck is your reasoning???
>
> > You
> > > say we can't run, we can't straight up pass
> > block
> > > and we can't even block well enough to roll
> out
> > an
> > > athletic QB. So HOW do you purpose to win the
> > game
> > > in regulation????? Dropping straight back
> was
> > the
> > > riskiest of all calls at that point being
> > already
> > > on the edge of reasonable FG range. This
> ain't
> > > Madden, you don't risk your chance to fight
> > > another day if your hay maker doesn't work to
> > win
> > > the game? When facing a monster pass rush
> you
> > > roll out (Dolphins vs bears 1985). May not
> > have
> > > worked but neither did dropping straight back
> >
> > > THe players have to make plays but that
> dosen't
> > > excuse the coaches from unimaginative
> tactical
> > > blunders anymore than bad calls excuse the
> > players
> > > poor play.
> >
> > There are a few things wrong with your logic.
>
> >
> > First off, your "chance to fight another day" is
> a
> > 52 yard fg with a 50/50 shot of being good.
> >
> > Secondly, you presume that we would have
> gained
> > yardage and not lost any running the ball
> despite
> > the fact that we couldn't run the ball all day
> and
> > our Oline was getting destroyed on our last two
> > drives. That a huge assumption.
> >
> > Next, who said anything about a "haymaker"?
> (I
> > presume that means going deep.) the play
> there
> > with 61 seconds, at their 34, with no timeouts,
>
> > 2nd and 10 is to throw the ball. You have two
> > chances to get a 1st down that would make the fg
> a
> > virtual lock (under 40 yrds). If you get that
> > then you have plenty of time to try for the td
> and
> > the win.
> >
> > The right call there is to work to gain 12+
> yards
> > to make the fg a layup and still leave yourself
> > time and a chance to win. It's not to gain or
> lose
> > 2 or 3 yards running the ball twice and then
> > settle for a 49+ yard fg to tie.
> >
> > You throw twice on quick plays. If your
> players
> > can't pass protect under those circumstances
> then
> > they aren't winning the game for you later
> either.
>
> Captain, your thinking is MOST illogical (in my
> best Mr. Spock voice)
>
> You begin with the premise that at the time, we
> couldn't run block, couldn't pass block and that
> the OLine was getting 'destroyed' the last few
> series. And your RIGHT! But then you call
> 'logical' the idea that, given those
> circumstances, a straight drop back play, the one
> that carries the risk of losing the MOST yards and
> therefore the MOST valuable field position for any
> tying FG attempt 'the 'right call'?
>
> Na! (In my best Si Robertson voice)

*****************************************************

A roll out would have been the better call because even if a defender broke away from our tackle, RT is out in space and could either hit someone downfield or could have just thrown it away. If it was open enough, RT could have run it along the sideline and got out of bounds before contact.

KB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> THE Truth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > KB Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > THE Truth Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > > > KB Wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > > -----
> > > > > THE Truth Wrote:
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > > -----
> > > > > > KB Wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > ChyrenB Wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > -----
> > > > > > > > PARTICULARLY, since we had been
> > giving
> > > up
> > > > > > what
> > > > > > > > seemed like a record number of
> sacks
> > > all
> > > > > day
> > > > > > > > BEFORE that point.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > True, you have a long but pretty
> > > make-able
> > > > > FG,
> > > > > > no
> > > > > > > time outs and Tanny was being sacked
> > like
> > > a
> > > > > bag
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > potatoes all day, especially on drop
> > > backs.
> > > >
> > > > > So
> > > > > > > what do you do? Drop him straight
> back
> > > of
> > > > > > course.
> > > > > > > IDK just seems like a dumb risk to
> > take,
> > > > > sort
> > > > > > of
> > > > > > > like the third and an inch against NO.
>
> > > No
> > > > > > problem
> > > > > > > with trying to win the game but don't
> > do
> > > > > > something
> > > > > > > that could give up the field position
> > you
> > > > > > already
> > > > > > > have at such a game critical time.
> > Seems
> > > > > > > sometimes like the game is going to
> > fast
> > > > for
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > > coaching staff.
> > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > At the 34 yard line you are looking at
> a
> > 51
> > > > or
> > > > > 52
> > > > > > Yard FG attempt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Historically, that is basically a 50/50
> > > > > > proposition as a FG attempt.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Playing to turn a 52 yard fg into a 48
> or
> > > 50
> > > > > yard
> > > > > > FG is pointless. The goal has to be
> to
> > > get
> > > > it
> > > > > > under 40 yards where its almost
> automatic.
> >
> > >
> > > > > You
> > > > > > can't accomplish that from where we
> were
> > > with
> > > > > our
> > > > > > running game.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Playing for a long FG there is playing
> > not
> > > to
> > > > > win.
> > > > > > There is very little difference for a
> > > kicker
> > > > > with
> > > > > > Sturgis leg strength between 48 and 52.
>
> > > The
> > > > > goal
> > > > > > there has to be to get MUCH closer, not
> a
> > > few
> > > > > > yards closer. It should be to try to
> > win.
> > > > >
> > > > > Bird in the hand Truth. Given the
> > > > circumstances
> > > > > of the horrid pass blocking, the sacks
> and
> > > > Sturgis
> > > > > having hit 5 fg's in the 50 yd range this
> > > year,
> > > > > dropping Tannehill straight back was dumb.
>
> > > > That
> > > > > 6-8 yards made a BIG difference for a
> > ROOKIE
> > > > > kicker trying for a game saver. He
> missed
> > > > because
> > > > > he tried to over kick for the reason
> > > mentioned.
> > > >
> > > > > Play calling and scheming has SUCKED the
> > last
> > > > two
> > > > > games. had they rolled him out or done
> > > > something
> > > > > creative where he could have perhaps
> gotten
> > > rid
> > > > of
> > > > > it I may think differently.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > First off, rolling him out wouldn't have
> made
> > a
> > > > difference when your OT's are destroyed the
> > way
> > > > they were down the stretch. Suggs had
> those
> > > guys
> > > > on their heals and completely off balance .
>
> > > You
> > > > roll out from there and he sheds them like
> > they
> > > > were tissue paper and devours RT on the
> sack.
> > > >
> > > > So here's the problem with the "bird in the
> > > hand"
> > > > philosophy.
> > > >
> > > > Its a 51-52 yard kick that you have in your
> > > hand.
> > > > Yes, our kicker can make that kick, but
> > > > statistically, he's long over due to miss
> > one.
> > > >
> > > > Even so, lets play out your line of
> reasoning
> > a
> > > > bit further...
> > > >
> > > > Lets say you run twice because you believe
> > that
> > > > our Oline is in such bad straights and the
> > > offense
> > > > so anemic at that point that its your only
> > > > "reasonable" choice to take. You gain
> your
> > > two
> > > > yards per carry we've been averaging and
> turn
> > > it
> > > > into a 47-48 yard FG (hardly a chip shot).
> > > Then
> > > > you make the kick.
> > > >
> > > > How are you planning on winning the game in
> > OT?
> > >
> > > > Or are you hoping for a tie?
> > > >
> > > > I mean if our offense is THAT pathetic that
> > you
> > > > have to play to turn a 51 yard FG into a 47
> > > yard
> > > > FG with SIXTY ONE seconds on the clock how
> > do
> > > you
> > > > figure to get in scoring range ever again?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry. But I'd rather play to win when I
> > have
> > > the
> > > > chance to win.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > And another thing, everybody is pointing to
> > the
> > > > sack as the back breaker and no doubt it
> hurt
> > > and
> > > > NEVER should have been allowed to happen,
> but
> > > if
> > > > the receiver doesnt drop the damn ball on
> 3rd
> > > down
> > > > we get all that yardage back PLUS a couple
> of
> > > > more.
> > > >
> > > > The point is, its not that we did the wrong
> > > thing,
> > > > its that we executed the entire last minute
> > as
> > > > poorly as humanly possible. Except for
> the
> > > spike
> > > > that we pulled off in textbook fashion.
> > After
> > > > that...zero execution by the O-line, the
> > > receiver
> > > > (I think it was Clay) and our very good
> > kicker.
> > >
> > > Well Truth what the heck is your reasoning???
>
> > You
> > > say we can't run, we can't straight up pass
> > block
> > > and we can't even block well enough to roll
> out
> > an
> > > athletic QB. So HOW do you purpose to win the
> > game
> > > in regulation????? Dropping straight back
> was
> > the
> > > riskiest of all calls at that point being
> > already
> > > on the edge of reasonable FG range. This
> ain't
> > > Madden, you don't risk your chance to fight
> > > another day if your hay maker doesn't work to
> > win
> > > the game? When facing a monster pass rush
> you
> > > roll out (Dolphins vs bears 1985). May not
> > have
> > > worked but neither did dropping straight back
> >
> > > THe players have to make plays but that
> dosen't
> > > excuse the coaches from unimaginative
> tactical
> > > blunders anymore than bad calls excuse the
> > players
> > > poor play.
> >
> > There are a few things wrong with your logic.
>
> >
> > First off, your "chance to fight another day" is
> a
> > 52 yard fg with a 50/50 shot of being good.
> >
> > Secondly, you presume that we would have
> gained
> > yardage and not lost any running the ball
> despite
> > the fact that we couldn't run the ball all day
> and
> > our Oline was getting destroyed on our last two
> > drives. That a huge assumption.
> >
> > Next, who said anything about a "haymaker"?
> (I
> > presume that means going deep.) the play
> there
> > with 61 seconds, at their 34, with no timeouts,
>
> > 2nd and 10 is to throw the ball. You have two
> > chances to get a 1st down that would make the fg
> a
> > virtual lock (under 40 yrds). If you get that
> > then you have plenty of time to try for the td
> and
> > the win.
> >
> > The right call there is to work to gain 12+
> yards
> > to make the fg a layup and still leave yourself
> > time and a chance to win. It's not to gain or
> lose
> > 2 or 3 yards running the ball twice and then
> > settle for a 49+ yard fg to tie.
> >
> > You throw twice on quick plays. If your
> players
> > can't pass protect under those circumstances
> then
> > they aren't winning the game for you later
> either.
>
> Captain, your thinking is MOST illogical (in my
> best Mr. Spock voice)
>
> You begin with the premise that at the time, we
> couldn't run block, couldn't pass block and that
> the OLine was getting 'destroyed' the last few
> series. And your RIGHT! But then you call
> 'logical' the idea that, given those
> circumstances, a straight drop back play, the one
> that carries the risk of losing the MOST yards and
> therefore the MOST valuable field position for any
> tying FG attempt 'the 'right call'?
>
> Na! (In my best Si Robertson voice)


You are right. We should have taken a knee twice and tried the FG.

captkoi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> **************************************************
> ***
>
> A roll out would have been the better call because
> even if a defender broke away from our tackle, RT
> is out in space and could either hit someone
> downfield or could have just thrown it away. If it
> was open enough, RT could have run it along the
> sideline and got out of bounds before contact.


I'm with you cap.


It would have been a far better call than a straight running play or two. Once out of the pocket he could have run, passed or thrown it away.

The only problem with rolling the QB out when the defense is looking for it is its easy to defend. You basically cut the field in half for them. But it also could have made pass protection a little easier if we caught them off guard with it.

Even so, that's a matter of play selection, not philosophy. its a pass with a run option and the ability to get out of bounds and preserve the clock.

Ultimately you are trying to make the FG automatic with 61 seconds left while, also giving yourself a shot to win with a TD... OR you are curling up in a fetal position with your thumb in your mouth hoping a 50 yard FG gets you to OT and that you somehow get the game handed to you in OT without asking your Oline to do its job.

captkoi Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
> A roll out would have been the better call because
> even if a defender broke away from our tackle, RT
> is out in space and could either hit someone
> downfield or could have just thrown it away. If it
> was open enough, RT could have run it along the
> sideline and got out of bounds before contact.

That would have worked too!

THE Truth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm with you cap.
>
>
> It would have been a far better call than a
> straight running play or two. Once out of the
> pocket he could have run, passed or thrown it
> away.
>
> The only problem with rolling the QB out when the
> defense is looking for it is its easy to defend.
> You basically cut the field in half for them. But
> it also could have made pass protection a little
> easier if we caught them off guard with it.

RESPONSE: but the point is that the straight drop back pass was stupid given not only the circumstances but the history of that particular game.


>
> Even so, that's a matter of play selection, not
> philosophy. its a pass with a run option and the
> ability to get out of bounds and preserve the
> clock.
>
> Ultimately you are trying to make the FG automatic
> with 61 seconds left while, also giving yourself a
> shot to win with a TD... OR you are curling up in
> a fetal position with your thumb in your mouth
> hoping a 50 yard FG gets you to OT and that you
> somehow get the game handed to you in OT without
> asking your Oline to do its job.

Wait a minute. Weren't you a lot harsher above about our thinking that we didn't want to give up any more field position.

Above, your argument was that we were NOT in guaranteed field goal range and had to pass to get there.

Now, granted you NOW make a good suggestion about a rollout with an option to run, pass or throw it away BUT THAT DOES NOT RISK loss of yardage as much as the drop back WHICH YOU DEFENDED TO THE LAST ABOVE.

You make a good suggestion but all this says is that the ROUTE THAT WE ACTUALLY CHOSE....THE DROP BACK PASS sucked. A route you defend above.

Your point being?

Rick

dolphan4545 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your point being?


Quote button Rick...quote button...

dolphan4545 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Your point being?


I re-read it again. What part of "yes, the option would have been better than the drop back pass which you defended" is unclear to you Rick? What's gotten into you today?

BTW Truth is begging you to quote me something that he asked SamSam NOT to do.

My point was, the last 1:00 of that game was called about as poorly as it could have been given the situation. TO me it was like they had a list for a 2:00 drill and they were going down it...the situation be dammed. Unimaginative and predictable.

Sorry. Made this post before I had read the rest of the posts.

Rick

EXAMPLE 3 Thursday night football. NYG vs. Chicago Bears.

NYG was down by 10 points are more for the bulk of the game.

However they get the ball back with about a little less than 2 minutes left in the game DOWN BY ONLY SIX POINTS.

They drive to about mid field.

Eli goes back to pass.

He throws the ball a little too high for his receiver.

His receiver chooses the wrong thing as it turns out. The question is do you go for the ball or do you let it sail over your head?

There is really no right or wrong answer.

The traditional wisdom is you try to catch it, otherwise it's an easy interception for the safety.

But the counter wisdom prevailed that night. By going for it and barely getting his fingertips ON it, he ACTUALLY MADE IT an easy interception for the safety behind him.

Now, that meant game over.

But bringing this back to our discussion, when you're six points down, you've got to play for the pass.

We were only three points down.