------------------------------------------------------
> ChyrenB Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> > > You are being illogical.

Phinsfan2 Wrote:
->
> Said the guy that blamed a heat of the moment
> brain fart by a player on the offensive strategy
> of the staff....

RESPONSE: Assuming you're right it is me that is being illogical but whether it was a brain fart or offensive strategy by the coaching staff is sorta what we are discussing here right? So are you assuming the very thing you are setting out to prove?

ChyrenB wrote:
> > On one hand, you admit that the staff was
> running
> > a hurry up offense and on the other hand, you
> > blame him for making the decision to try to
> KILL
> > THE CLOCK.
Phinsfan2 Wrote:
->
> Ummm...yes...call it "hurry up" or the "2min
> drill" but either way, its not a circumstance
> these guys haven't been in before.
Either way, I
> don't have aproblem with him trying to get out of
> bounds. I have an issue with him throwing the
> ball out of bounds when he couldn't get there.
> That's just not part of any gameplan and that was
> the brain fart.

RESPONSE: Let me stop you right there. You've said that several times before. What the hell does these guys having been in this situation before do to relieve the coaching staff from creating an atmosphere that should not have been fostered.

I guarantee you if we had been behind by 10 points and needed two scores, no one EVEN YOU would have accused Camarillo of having a "brain fart" for trying the ole fumblerooski.

But we weren't 10 points behind.!!!!! We were in a situation wherein we had to RUN THE CLOCK OUT! Not HURRY UP! THAT idiotic perception of the situation, whether you call it 2 minute drill or hurry up is the responsibility of the coaching staff.

ChyrenB wrote:

> > Conveniently, in your mind, you refuse to even
> > admit the possibility that the coaches told all
> > the receivers "try your best to get out of
> bounds"
> > and Greg thought that, with that dictate in
> mind,
> > he would try the old Raiders "Holy Roller"
> play.
>
Phinsfan2 Wrote:
> Yeah, I'm not buying that.

RESPONSE: Buy what you like. You've already admitted that the coaching staff put the team in the 2 minute drill. What the heck do you think, that Camarillo called the 2 minute drill???????

Phinsfan2 Wrote:
Here's your proof
> that they never said anything like that and that
> your assumption that they did is wrong:

RESPONSE: Well, that's just great. I ask for newspaper articles and you quote your own self saying that they never (publicly?) said anything like that. But you admit that the team was in a 2 minute drill called by WHO???????????????

Phinsfan2 Wrote:
Greg
> caught the 17 yarder over the middle on the play
> before this which moved us to the 44. He made
> absolutely NO EFFORT to get to the sidelines on
> that play. What changed in next 15 seconds?
> Did Sparano communicate his displeasure at
> Camarillio's failure to get out of bounds on that
> play telepathically? Did he do this with such
> impact as to force Camarillio to panic on the next
> play and throw the ball out of bounds in fear?

>
> I think not.
>

RESPONSE: Having been tackled in the middle of the field might have something to do with his lack of effort to get out of bounds. (I'm having fun with this now). "Bad Greg... Bad Greg... you made no effort to get out of bounds on a pass thrown to you in the middle of the field. You couldn't have been running a hurry up offense even though PhinsFan2 says you were in a 2 minute drill."

Phinsfan2 Wrote:
> Occam's Razor is a philosophical/scientific
> principle according to which the best explanation
> of an event is the one that is the simplest, using
> the fewest assumptions or hypotheses.
>
> The simplest explination for Camarillo's dumb
> penalty is that he panicked and messed up.


RESPONSE: No, the simplest explanation was that the coaches told "DO EVERYTHING YOU CAN TO STOP THE CLOCK. WE GOTTA KEEP THE CLOCK FROM RUNNING." and when he saw himself reasonably close to the sidelines UNLIKE THE LAST PLAY WHEN HE WAS TACKLED IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIELD, HE DECIDED TO TAKE A CHANCE AND FUMBLE THE BALL OUT OF BOUNDS.


A CHYRENB coached team would have been told. "Boys, like (Purdue All-American) John Wooden says, 'Be quick but don't hurry.' We don't want to waste anytime but don't get crazy. If two guys have you in their grip, don't struggle forward and get the ball ripped out of your hand. Don't worry about the clock. We have plenty of time. In fact, we've got too much time. We don't want to leave anytime for the Saints to kick a field goal."

and Greg Camarillo would not have tried that trick.

ChyrenB wrote:
> > The only brain cramp was on the coaching
> > sidelines.

Phinsfan2 wrote:
> Seriously? They had us in Saints territory with
> 2min, 2 Timeouts and facing a 2nd and short (2nd
> and 1 if Camarillo doesn't try to get out of
> bounds or 2nd and 3 if he doesn't fling the ball
> out of bounds and take the penalty). I'll take
> coaching like that anytime.

RESPONSE: Err.... it seems like it was A LITTLE TOO GOOD FOR OUR OWN GOOD. At that pace, we were sure to leave the Saints about 1 minute and some small change on the clock. JUST ENOUGH TIME FOR A PASS TO JEREMY SHOCKEY.

ChyrenB wrote:
> > Besides, why in the hell are we in a "hurry up?"
>
> > Now I mean seriously WHY?
>
PHINSFAN2 wrote:


> Let's see...young QB in his 3rd start, anemic
> passing a game with WR's that are alergic to
> pigskin. 3:28 and 80 yards to go for winning TD.
> Your right...pound the ball..

RESPONSE:

You say that sarcastically but what if Ginn had done one of his "tip drill" bouncey bouncey's and they had taken the ball from us.


Duhhhhhhhh!!! People would be saying "Why in the hell weren't Ricky and Ronnie getting the ball with 3:28 left on the clock? That's too much damn time!"

Phinsfan2 Wrote:
>
> BTW...they ran 4 plays up to and including the one
> where Camarillo screwed up. TWO of them were no
> huddle. That's hardly a crazed hurry up
> situation.


RESPONSE: Wait a minute, Don't back out now. You said we were in a 2 minute drill. Oh, but I forgot, it's a 2 minute drill THAT IS NOT A HURRY UP AS OPPOSED TO THE 2 MINUTE DRILL THAT IS A HURRY UP.


Phinsfan2 wrote:
> You go shotgun in that situation because you
> aren't going to run the ball. You do it to give
> your young QB a better read of the defense and a
> chance to get rid of the ball quicker. It's
> really a no-brainer.

RESPONSE: Read the part above where I said that the Wolves were going to come out and interpret me as saying that we should not have passed and YOU JUST DID IT!

There was nothing wrong with us passing, there was nothing wrong with the shot gun formation but there was something wrong with being in the hurry-up offense!

Phinsfan2 wrote:
> You just wanted to pass it slower?

RESPONSE: Errrr... Is every two consecutive passes in the FIRST QUARTER done in a two-minute drill.

Come on, stop trying to divert the conversation. You coaching staff to whom you devote blind loyalty screwed up. ... Admit it!

Chyren B wrote:
> > BUT PASSING THE BALL AND A HURRY UP OFFENSE ARE
> > NOT ALWAYS THE SAME THING.


Phinsfan2 wrote:
> Again...two passes out of the no huddle. Two out
> of a standard huddle. Hardly a rushed and crazy
> scenario.


RESPONSE: Who admitted they were in a 2 minute drill?


ChyrenB wrote:
> >
> > By admitting that the team was in a hurry up
> > offense, you really make my point but you just
> > can't see it.

Phinsfan2 wrote:
> The problem is that for your suggestion to be
> correct it would have to be the case that a group
> of professional football players, specifically
> ours, are incapable of runing a no huddle/2 min
> offense and that our staff is at fault for using a
> strategy that our guys couldn't succeed in.
> That's crazy on several levels.

RESPONSE: We shouldn't have been in the damn 2 minute drill. How is it that you can't get that through your head?


ChyrenB wrote:
> > Sparano's an idiot. I have always thought so.
> He
> > even looks like an idiot.
>

PhinsFan2 wrote:

> I'd like to say that's a case of "the pot calling
> the kettle black"

RESPONSE: You and I go way back and I've always thought the same about You even before you became a moderator. Isn't it nice to have a mutual admiration society?

PhinsFan2 wrote:
>but his timeout at the end of
> the first half was as crazy as your theory that he
> put too much pressure on Camarillo and that forced
> him to throw the ball out of bounds and take a
> penalty.


RESPONSE: I discuss the timeout in a different post. No one said that he put pressure on Camarillo, I said he should not have had the team in a hurry up mode. He should have told the team, "We need to do two things. We need to score and we need to NOT SCORE TOO FAST." Had he done so, I doubt Camarillo would have felt the need to take such a desperate action.
ChyrenB wrote:
> > For some reason, he is too invested in his
> point
> > which is self-contradictory.

PhinsFan2 wrote:
> Excuse me? "Too invested" in what?

ANSWER: The coaching staff for some reason unknown to me.


ChyrenB wrote:
> > Funny enough, he ATTACKS the timeout which I
> think
> > is actually defensible.
> >
> > When they set up for the field goal I said to
> > myself, "I don't believe that for a second!
> It's
> > a trick play. They are going to snap the ball
> and
> > go for the touchdown! We better call timeout."
>
> > And that was BEFORE our coaches called timeout.
>
Phinsfan2 wrote:
> Let them go for the touchdown in that case.
> They'd have been doing us a favor. You'd have had
> our top goalline defensive unit on the field
> against an offense with no RB, no WR and a
> backfield of Mark Brunell and John Carney. So
> long as we don't sell out to try to block what was
> an extra point length kick there's no way they
> score on that play, ESPECIALLY since we were
> coming out of a booth review which was a free
> timeout to prepare for the various possible
> scenarios.

RESPONSE:

Yeah, but this is typical of your lack of logic. The very point in calling the timeout was to assure that the players DID NOT IN FACT "sell out" as they usually do on every field goal attempt as they very well SHOULD. But the point of the timeout was to tell them to watch the fake. If they would then line up to ram the ball (as they did) then it would have been better than to have been tricked out of victory with that fake field goal.

PhinsFans2 wrote:
> Yeah, it was a bad timeout. He should have know
> during the booth review that if it was a TD they
> were kicking an extra point. If it was not a TD
> they would be kicking a gimme FG and would have to
> rush to do it in 5 seconds. If they ran out
> their offensive unit it would be a sneak because
> they wouldnt have time to do anything else.
> Thats not complicated.

RESPONSE: Where in the hell do you get the notion that teams run FAKE FIELD GOALS WITH THEIR REGULAR OFFENSE UNIT????????

PhinsFan2 wrote:
Either way you run out
> your goaline defense and you play for the fake FG
> or the QB sneak and you give them the kick. No
> timeout needed. It was a mistake to give them a
> chance to re-think their options.

RESPONSE: You need to alert your team to watch for the fake. There was not enough time to do that.

Phinsfan2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
-----
> Phinsfan2 wrote:
> > Let them go for the touchdown in that case.
> > They'd have been doing us a favor. You'd have
> had
> > our top goalline defensive unit on the field
> > against an offense with no RB, no WR and a
> > backfield of Mark Brunell and John Carney. So
> > long as we don't sell out to try to block what
> was
> > an extra point length kick there's no way they
> > score on that play, ESPECIALLY since we were
> > coming out of a booth review which was a free
> > timeout to prepare for the various possible
> > scenarios.
>
>CHYRENB WROTE:
>
> Yeah, but this is typical of your lack of logic.
> The very point in calling the timeout was to
> assure that the players DID NOT IN FACT "sell out"
> as they usually do on every field goal attempt as
> they very well SHOULD. But the point of the
> timeout was to tell them to watch the fake. If
> they would then line up to ram the ball (as they
> did) then it would have been better than to have
> been tricked out of victory with that fake field
> goal.

PHINSFAN2 WROTE:
> LOL...dude. They just spent two minutes talking
> to the coaches on the sidleine while the booth
> reviewed the Closton TD. Your telling me they
> needed another 30 seconds to cover the options
> after they reversed the call? WTF were they
> doing during the review? Twittering their
> buddies?
>
> Go watch the replay. The Saints offense was on
> the field and completed a pass to the goaline that
> was ruled a TD. The Officials then called time
> out while they did a booth review for about 2
> minutes. During this time BOTH teams were on the
> sidelines talking to their coaches. If its ruled
> a TD the saints send out their kicking team for
> the PAT. If its ruled down short of the goal
> they have three options: 1) Send out their
> offense and run a play. The clock will wind once
> the ball is set so they can't throw the ball since
> he won't have time to read the defense.
> THEREFORE it has to be a sneak or a run. Option
> 2) send out the FG unit and kick a fg. Option 3)
> send out the kicking team to run the fake FG that
> you were worried about.
>
> THEY HAD they ENTIRE official timeout to cover
> that. It would have taken 15 seconds to say
> "Guys...if they run the FG team out there watch
> for the fake and let them have the the FG. If
> the offense comes out, call a timeout."

RESPONSE: It was obviously anticipated by the coaching staff YOU put such stock in that New Orleans would go for the maximum points. When they lined up for the field goal, that was unanticipated from the standpoint of the coaching staff and they wanted to make sure our players were ready.


>
> My lack of knowledge...that's a hoot. We should
> have anticipated them using the FG unit and
> discussed the idea to play the fake during the
> official timeout, we should only have called a
> timeout if they put Brees back on the field. But
> stick to your crazy theories, even if Sparano
> admitted he F'd up, that can't possibly mean you
> are wrong...

RESPONSE: And just what is your theory for the reason that the timeout was called. Like I said with the Purdue-Notre Dame game at least there was a BONEHEAD reason of trying to leave Purdue more time on the clock IF Notre Dame scored a touchdown although calling that timeout on third down gave Notre Dame the very opportunity to have two tries for that touchdown.

There with Purdue THERE WAS A REASON!!!! A STUPID REASON BUT AT LEAST A REASON!!!

Tell us O'GREAT PhinsFan2 (I always wondered why you didn't put yourself number 1 but I guess you know best), WHAT WAS THE REASON? Stupid or not. And don't ignore this question again!

The only possible reason was to prepare for the fake.

Should they have prepared the team in advance? Yes. Should they have simply ASSUMED that the Saints would come out with their regular offense. No..

FAR BE IT FROM ME OF ALL PEOPLE TO DEFEND THE COACHING STAFF.

Yeah, they could have prepared in advance for the fake but ONCE THEY WERE IN THAT SITUATION....NOT HAVING PREPARED.....then what do they do? You say "trust it that the Saints would kick." I say, "call the timeout."
>
> >
RESPONSE: Where in the hell do you get the
> notion
> > that teams run FAKE FIELD GOALS WITH THEIR
> REGULAR
> > OFFENSE UNIT????????

> > PhinsFans2 wrote: >
> WTF are you talking about? Seriously. How do
> you draw that conclusion from the attached
> paragraph? If brees is on the field they are
> running a sneak or a running play since a pass
> would be risky without looking at the defense
> first.

RESPONSE: Are you insane? Do you really think they would put Brees on the field with the hopes that the other team would not suspect something. THIS IS WHERE I DREW THAT CONCLUSION FROM!

> > PhinsFans2 wrote:
If the kicking team is on (Brunell and
> Carney) and they want to run the ball...let them.
> We should be ready for it coming out of the
> official timeout and they shouldln't even get to
> the line of scrimmage. It's really not that
> complicated.

RESPONSE: Did you forget that Brees had scored a touchdown on a quarterback sneak previously? Now if Brees could score a touchdown on a quarterback sneak from the one yard line where do you get your confidence that a snap to the holder who takes off straight ahead would not succeed against a team that went for a fake punt earlier in the season?
>
CHYRENB: You need to alert your team to watch
> > for the fake. There was not enough time to do
> > that.

> > PhinsFans2 wrote: >
> Bullpucky. As I said, they spent two minutes on
> the sidline grabassing during the booth review.
> That was MORE THAN ENOUGH TIME to say "hey...play
> the fake FG, let them kick it." Heck, it was
> enough time to say if 50 times.
> The didn't need the timeout, and as Coach Sparano
> said today...IT WAS A MISTAKE TO CALL ONE THERE.

RESPONSE: I addressed this above.

You guys need to talk about an issue at a time, or find some way to shorten the copy and responses.

Two things I noticed. One you never said what Sparano's reason for calling the timeout was.

Secondly, you abandoned the original argument about Camarillo and the Holy Roller.

Yes, I'll reply and you do what you want.

YOU SAID:
I clearly said there are 3 options after the time out. 1) is Bress comes out with the offense and runs a play. 2) is they kick a fg. 3 ) is the fake a FG with either Carney or Brunell trying to run it in against or goaline defense.

I SAY: First, obviously these are the ONLY THREE POSSIBLE OPTIONS. If that's all you were saying then I guess my fault is trying to see more complexity in the simple mind. Translation: you need not have mentioned that.


YOU SAID:
I NEVER said or implied Brees would be involved in a fake FG. That was NEVER an option since he wasn't on the field with the FG unit when Sparano called the timeout.

I SAY:
Somehow, to your uncomplicated mind Brees' absence on the field at that time is ASSURANCE that there would be no fake.

PhinsFan2, you should always seek advice from your relatives if someone approaches you with an offer to sell you a bridge.


WHEN I SAID:
> When teams run FAKE FIELD GOALS, THEY DO IT WITH
> THEIR REGULAR FIELD GOAL UNIT SO NOT AS TO TIP OFF
> THEIR OPPONENTS.

YOU SAID:
Duh...

I SAY:
I was thinking about putting Duh... behind that statement but I had used it too often prior to that.


The point is that most likely, despite what the announcers were saying (and I have no doubt that you formed your opinion that it was a bad call because the announcers prejudiced you into thinking that New Orleans was DETERMINED to kick a field goal until the timeout gave Brees time to talk the coaching staff into going for it.)

Not being as gullible as you, I NEVER FOR A SECOND THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE GOING TO GO FOR A FIELD GOAL. AS I said in my first post on the subject, probably, in another thread, I never believed it for a moment.

I will see if you will post again AND STILL NOT EXPRESS YOUR THEORY ON WHAT SPARANO WAS THINKING.