PDA

View Full Version : That's not football.



feltdizz
02-05-2012, 10:46 PM
Giving up a TD and the RB trying not to score. Play the }^|{|## game!

MaxAMillion
02-05-2012, 10:56 PM
Number one it was smart because it was the only chance the Pats had to win. Number two, the Packers did the same thing against the Broncos in the Super Bowl. Anyway I am happy it worked out and the Giants won.

feltdizz
02-05-2012, 11:00 PM
Number one it was smart because it was the only chance the Pats had to win. Number two, the Packers did the same thing against the Broncos in the Super Bowl. Anyway I am happy it worked out and the Giants won.

I understand the strategy but when we look back at the game winning TD from this SB the hilight is pathetic.

D Rock
02-05-2012, 11:01 PM
I'm glad Bradshaw took the touchdown. You score when you can score, because you never know what could happen otherwise.

DukieBoy
02-05-2012, 11:19 PM
Giving up a TD and the RB trying not to score. Play the }^|{|## game!


Looked like some of the plays in the Pro Bowl.

D Rock
02-05-2012, 11:38 PM
It says everything that the Pats players are willing to give up a touchdown in the Super Bowl.

F' strategy. If I'm on the field, I'm making the tackle and trying to rip the ball out with everything I have.

DukieBoy
02-05-2012, 11:43 PM
It says everything that the Pats players are willing to give up a touchdown in the Super Bowl.

F' strategy. If I'm on the field, I'm making the tackle and trying to rip the ball out with everything I have.


Right on! A real dynasty would have more pride than they showed by doing that.

steelreserve
02-06-2012, 03:49 AM
The one thing that's certain is: You never pass up a touchdown. Never mind what the other team *MIGHT* do, there is nothing that helps your team's chances to win more than scoring a touchdown of your own.

Discipline of Steel
02-06-2012, 07:35 AM
IDK, maybe the Pats* were trying on that play and just guessed wrong on the gaps? They didnt look like they werent trying.

Oviedo
02-06-2012, 08:46 AM
The one thing that's certain is: You never pass up a touchdown. Never mind what the other team *MIGHT* do, there is nothing that helps your team's chances to win more than scoring a touchdown of your own.

:Agree Imagine if Bradshaw had sat on the one yard line and the Giants missed the FG. All it would have taken is a bad snap. How stupid would that had been. Game lost because you didn't try to score.

D Rock
02-06-2012, 08:53 AM
IDK, maybe the Pats* were trying on that play and just guessed wrong on the gaps? They didnt look like they werent trying.


I was leaning that way at one point...but watch again. One of their linebackers, although blocked, just stands there really. And I'm pretty sure Vince Wilfork was fist-pumping after the touchdown.

*You just cheered about the other team taking the lead with 1 minute to go in the Super Bowl, you big idiot.*


And I thought maybe Bradshaw was just playing it up and taunting them by falling backwards so he could look at them all as he scored. Turns out he admitted to trying to stop and that Eli was yelling at him to go down.


A Super Bowl deciding moment where the offense doesn't want a touchdown and the defense wants them to get one?

:moon

SteelBucks
02-06-2012, 08:58 AM
IDK, maybe the Pats* were trying on that play and just guessed wrong on the gaps? They didnt look like they werent trying.


From the Trib....

Belichick was asked if he allowed the Giants to score and replied: "Right." He did not elaborate.

But linebacker Brandon Spikes did when asked how it felt to give that up: "It killed me. When the call came in to let them score, I was like, 'What?' I'm here to do a job. It was tough, though."

Ghost
02-06-2012, 09:21 AM
D Rock is correct. I turned to Mrs. Ghost when they did the replay and said - look at 55, he just stands there. Not even trying. Looked just like the probowl. and 55 is Spikes and Steelbucks just posted that Spikes admitted that was the play call.

It may be the strategy to get the ball back but it's weak and lame.

Sugar
02-06-2012, 10:14 AM
That strategy was neither weak, nor lame. It was what had to be done.

Weak and lame is when your "go-to" receivers suddenly can't catch a cold with the game on the line.

Weak and lame is that ridiculous safety call for intentional grounding because a WR didn't turn up field.

snarky
02-06-2012, 10:20 AM
While I understand the strategy, it makes a mockery of the sport.

feltdizz
02-06-2012, 10:50 AM
That strategy was neither weak, nor lame. It was what had to be done.

Weak and lame is when your "go-to" receivers suddenly can't catch a cold with the game on the line.

Weak and lame is that ridiculous safety call for intentional grounding because a WR didn't turn up field.

when people look back at the game winning TD...

it's weak....

and lame.

weak and lame is letting a guy who already fumbled waltz into the endzone instead of trying to force a fumble or block the FG.

SteelBucks
02-06-2012, 10:59 AM
That strategy was neither weak, nor lame. It was what had to be done.

Weak and lame is when your "go-to" receivers suddenly can't catch a cold with the game on the line.

Weak and lame is that ridiculous safety call for intentional grounding because a WR didn't turn up field.

when people look back at the game winning TD...

it's weak....

and lame.

weak and lame is letting a guy who already fumbled waltz into the endzone instead of trying to force a fumble or block the FG.

:Agree

I also think taking a knee at the 1 yard line would have been weak and lame, so I'm glad Bradshaw fell into the endzone. A lot can happen without scoring there...penalties, fumble, blocked FG, etc. Could you imagine if they took a knee and the FG was blocked or shanked? Several would be out of a job in NY this morning.

RuthlessBurgher
02-06-2012, 11:24 AM
Ask yourself, if you were Belichick, would you rather be down 4 and give Tom Brady 1 minute and a timeout in his pocket, or be down 1 with only 20 seconds left and no timeouts? Granted, Brady has only ever lead his team on game-winning FG drives in Super Bowls (never game winning TD drives), but how it went down gave him the best chance to possibly have a winning drive. I'm glad it didn't materialize, but it was smart.

For those who are saying "That's not football!" if Nicks didn't go out of bounds on the catch where he got the Giants a first down inside the 10, then the Giants could have just taken a knee 3 times, NE would have used both of their timeouts, and they could have kicked a game winning FG (wouldn't have been much more than a PAT distance) for the win as time expired...would that have been football? Would have been smart...

feltdizz
02-06-2012, 11:36 AM
Ask yourself, if you were Belichick, would you rather be down 4 and give Tom Brady 1 minute and a timeout in his pocket, or be down 1 with only 20 seconds left and no timeouts? Granted, Brady has only ever lead his team on game-winning FG drives in Super Bowls (never game winning TD drives), but how it went down gave him the best chance to possibly have a winning drive. I'm glad it didn't materialize, but it was smart.

For those who are saying "That's not football!" if Nicks didn't go out of bounds on the catch where he got the Giants a first down inside the 10, then the Giants could have just taken a knee 3 times, NE would have used both of their timeouts, and they could have kicked a game winning FG (wouldn't have been much more than a PAT distance) for the win as time expired...would that have been football? Would have been smart...

yes... taking a knee is football...

taking a knee so the other team can score a TD and the RB trying not to score isn't football.

FG's are missed, snaps are fumbled.... percentages are low but we know first hand about crazy endings to games.

and a FG winner as time expires looks much better on film. :wink:

Oviedo
02-06-2012, 11:56 AM
Ask yourself, if you were Belichick, would you rather be down 4 and give Tom Brady 1 minute and a timeout in his pocket, or be down 1 with only 20 seconds left and no timeouts? Granted, Brady has only ever lead his team on game-winning FG drives in Super Bowls (never game winning TD drives), but how it went down gave him the best chance to possibly have a winning drive. I'm glad it didn't materialize, but it was smart.

For those who are saying "That's not football!" if Nicks didn't go out of bounds on the catch where he got the Giants a first down inside the 10, then the Giants could have just taken a knee 3 times, NE would have used both of their timeouts, and they could have kicked a game winning FG (wouldn't have been much more than a PAT distance) for the win as time expired...would that have been football? Would have been smart...

yes... taking a knee is football...

taking a knee so the other team can score a TD and the RB trying not to score isn't football.

FG's are missed, snaps are fumbled.... percentages are low but we know first hand about crazy endings to games.

and a FG winner as time expires looks much better on film. :wink:

:Agree No FG is a sure thing.

Keyplay1
02-06-2012, 12:02 PM
1. That strategy was neither weak, nor lame. It was what had to be done.

2. Weak and lame is when your "go-to" receivers suddenly can't catch a cold with the game on the line.

3. Weak and lame is that ridiculous safety call for intentional grounding because a WR didn't turn up field.

1. Get your computers out everyone. [probably have to borrow one of those giant size ones from Carnegie Mellon U.]

The chances of kicking the ball through the uprights with the ball just about whereever you would prefer it anywhere around the 5yd line. Kick it and kick off to the other team[now with no timeouts] with between 12-15 seconds left leading l8-17. OR Kickoff to the other team with 57seconds and 1 timeout left leading by at least 4pts. \

2. Say you had a king size investment on the moneyline needing the Giants to win the game. Were you breathing nice and easy while this was going on? NE could easily have been at the 30 or better with more than enough time for 3 plays for sure and maybe 4.

3. Are the officials now supposed to include a plays intent in their decisions? The call had to be made.

Does anyone question anything when a player either steps out of bounds or stays in bounds whichever one is most helpful to his team winning? Of course not. Why would the best chance of winning in this situation be questioned?

I can see where feltdizz is coming from here and sort of agree BUT----

Hmm! Actually the Giants did win the game so apparently what they did was the correct move.

What I was thinking was if this exact situation came up 100 times which course of action would win the most times. I wasn't going to make a guess but now I think kicking the FG would win more times than the other option.

steelz09
02-06-2012, 12:11 PM
The one thing that's certain is: You never pass up a touchdown. Never mind what the other team *MIGHT* do, there is nothing that helps your team's chances to win more than scoring a touchdown of your own.

:Agree Imagine if Bradshaw had sat on the one yard line and the Giants missed the FG. All it would have taken is a bad snap. How stupid would that had been. Game lost because you didn't try to score.

I agree... I couldn't believe Collinsworth's comments about Bradshaw scoring was a mistake.

If you can run the ball up the middle to take a lead w/ approx 1 minute left, you do it. It required the pats to score a TD to win. It wasn't like there was 2 minutes left! There was 1 minute. Kickers are 'head cases'. No way would I risk the game on 1 FG when I have the opportunity to score the TD from 1 yard out. To many bad things can happen.

steelz09
02-06-2012, 12:11 PM
The one thing that's certain is: You never pass up a touchdown. Never mind what the other team *MIGHT* do, there is nothing that helps your team's chances to win more than scoring a touchdown of your own.

:Agree Imagine if Bradshaw had sat on the one yard line and the Giants missed the FG. All it would have taken is a bad snap. How stupid would that had been. Game lost because you didn't try to score.

I agree... I couldn't believe Collinsworth's comments about Bradshaw scoring was a mistake.

If you can run the ball up the middle to take a lead w/ approx 1 minute left, you do it. It required the pats to score a TD to win. It wasn't like there was 2 minutes left! There was 1 minute. Kickers are 'head cases'. No way would I risk the game on 1 FG when I have the opportunity to score the TD from 1 yard out. To many bad things can happen.

ikestops85
02-06-2012, 12:43 PM
Let's look at it this way ... which is more likely to happen?

1) The Giants kicking what amounts to a PAT to take the lead and then the Cheats drive down and kick a game winner in under 20 seconds

or

2) Brady leading the Cheats on a TD drive given 57 seconds.

While neither is probable I think #2 is more likely. I play the odds and have the runner kneel down at the 1 yard line. I think thats what the Giants were thinking also.

aggiebones
02-06-2012, 12:48 PM
From the immortal Herminator:
You play to win the game.

Within the confines of the rules, you use any strategy to win. Do you think the Pats should have just sat there and let the Giants run the clock to zero and kick the game winner.

Would you rather rely on a 95% success rate by the other kicker from the 5 yard line, knowing you wouldn't see the ball again since you were out of TOs.
OR
Give your future HoF QB a chance to score a TD with 1 full minute?

Even conservatively Brady probably has a 20% success rate from that distance which is better than the maximum 5% chance of the kicker missing.


The alternative would be for someone to jump offsides and level the holder 2-3 times til he can't kneel anymore. Then hope the backup guy misses the snap.

D Rock
02-06-2012, 01:28 PM
and what if the Pats give him the TD and he doesn't take it?

Then you look like a bunch of sissies AND the clock runs out.


Bottom line is the defense put themselves in that position. They should of at least had the balls to try and play themselves out of it.

NW Steeler
02-06-2012, 03:56 PM
I think it would be completely assinine to let a team score willingly or to stop at the one to run the clock. You score a TD when you can. You stop the the other team when you can. Period.

Sugar
02-06-2012, 03:59 PM
I think it would be completely assinine to let a team score willingly or to stop at the one to run the clock. You score a TD when you can. You stop the the other team when you can. Period.

That's an interesting opinion. :roll:

feltdizz
02-06-2012, 04:31 PM
I think it would be completely assinine to let a team score willingly or to stop at the one to run the clock. You score a TD when you can. You stop the the other team when you can. Period.

That's an interesting opinion. :roll:

Not sure why he gets the eye roll.

We talk about the NFL not being what it used to be and now we see teams lying down or contemplating falling at the 1.

The next trick will be opponents carrying the RB into the end zone so he can't fall at the GL. :roll: :roll:

NW Steeler
02-06-2012, 05:42 PM
I think it would be completely assinine to let a team score willingly or to stop at the one to run the clock. You score a TD when you can. You stop the the other team when you can. Period.

That's an interesting opinion. :roll:

Not sure why he gets the eye roll.

We talk about the NFL not being what it used to be and now we see teams lying down or contemplating falling at the 1.

The next trick will be opponents carrying the RB into the end zone so he can't fall at the GL. :roll: :roll:

Yeah, I didn't get the eye roll thing either.

Sugar
02-06-2012, 06:15 PM
I think it would be completely assinine to let a team score willingly or to stop at the one to run the clock. You score a TD when you can. You stop the the other team when you can. Period.

That's an interesting opinion. :roll:

Not sure why he gets the eye roll.

We talk about the NFL not being what it used to be and now we see teams lying down or contemplating falling at the 1.

The next trick will be opponents carrying the RB into the end zone so he can't fall at the GL. :roll: :roll:

The eye roll has to do with the opinion of an internet poster like him or you or me v experienced and championship level coaches and their strategies. Any of us can say that it isn't football, but it obviously is- like it or not.

NW Steeler
02-06-2012, 06:28 PM
I think it would be completely assinine to let a team score willingly or to stop at the one to run the clock. You score a TD when you can. You stop the the other team when you can. Period.

That's an interesting opinion. :roll:

Not sure why he gets the eye roll.

We talk about the NFL not being what it used to be and now we see teams lying down or contemplating falling at the 1.

The next trick will be opponents carrying the RB into the end zone so he can't fall at the GL. :roll: :roll:

The eye roll has to do with the opinion of an internet poster like him or you or me v experienced and championship level coaches and their strategies. Any of us can say that it isn't football, but it obviously is- like it or not.

So you are rolling your eyes at YOUR opinion as well? I thought that was what this board was for, to express people's opinions. Correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that had Tomlin had been in the Pats position yesterday and had allowed the Giants to score he would have been flamed mercilessly on this board today. But that is just my opinion. :roll:

NC Steeler Fan
02-06-2012, 06:38 PM
Count me among those that understand you might CONSIDER what
would happen if you leave 50+ seconds on the clock for your opponent.

However, by NO MEANS do you pass up a sure TD.

And, by NO MEANS do you not try to stop a TD.

THAT AIN'T FOOTBALL, PERIOD.

And, what message are you sending your defense to even call that on the field?

Kudos for the runner for taking the points...

DukieBoy
02-06-2012, 06:44 PM
That strategy was neither weak, nor lame. It was what had to be done.

Weak and lame is when your "go-to" receivers suddenly can't catch a cold with the game on the line.

Weak and lame is that ridiculous safety call for intentional grounding because a WR didn't turn up field.

when people look back at the game winning TD...

it's weak....

and lame.

weak and lame is letting a guy who already fumbled waltz into the endzone instead of trying to force a fumble or block the FG.

:Agree

I also think taking a knee at the 1 yard line would have been weak and lame, so I'm glad Bradshaw fell into the endzone. A lot can happen without scoring there...penalties, fumble, blocked FG, etc. Could you imagine if they took a knee and the FG was blocked or shanked? Several would be out of a job in NY this morning.

Right. Remember Bettis' goal-line fumble in that city some years back?

NW Steeler
02-06-2012, 06:53 PM
Right. Remember Bettis' goal-line fumble in that city some years back?

That was the first thing I thought of too.

Sugar
02-06-2012, 06:54 PM
[quote="NW Steeler":1t1hxgky]I think it would be completely assinine to let a team score willingly or to stop at the one to run the clock. You score a TD when you can. You stop the the other team when you can. Period.

That's an interesting opinion. :roll:

Not sure why he gets the eye roll.

We talk about the NFL not being what it used to be and now we see teams lying down or contemplating falling at the 1.

The next trick will be opponents carrying the RB into the end zone so he can't fall at the GL. :roll: :roll:

The eye roll has to do with the opinion of an internet poster like him or you or me v experienced and championship level coaches and their strategies. Any of us can say that it isn't football, but it obviously is- like it or not.

So you are rolling your eyes at YOUR opinion as well? I thought that was what this board was for, to express people's opinions. Correct me if I'm wrong. I believe that had Tomlin had been in the Pats position yesterday and had allowed the Giants to score he would have been flamed mercilessly on this board today. But that is just my opinion. :roll:[/quote:1t1hxgky]

In some ways, yes, I was. The strident language against some of the brightest minds in football is silly, IMO. I'm sure that Tomlin would, indeed, have been "flamed" had he pulled the same thing- whatever that is worth. He still would have been right. Of course, that's just my opionion. 8)

SanAntonioSteelerFan
02-06-2012, 07:16 PM
This apparently isn't a newfangled strategy or a sign that the apocalypse is upon us. I read today that Green Bay also let Denver score in a Superbowl long ago, with the same strategy the Patriots* had yesterday. Same results (it didn't work). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/sport ... gy.html?hp (http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/07/sports/football/super-bowl-46-after-giants-surreal-touchdown-debates-on-the-strategy.html?hp)

FWIW, my family up in NJ was moaning and cursing big time when he scored ... everybody thought he should have layed down or something ... "Oh, no, Marcia's* gonna beat us now!!".

I texted them, don't worry. He doesn't have the answers to the test this time!!

Steelerphile
02-06-2012, 07:23 PM
Letting the player score was the right move. It was a lower percentage play to block a FG than it was to get the ball back to Brady with more than a minute. The only problem was that I think Brady was dinged up from a prior sack and wasn't oeprating at full capactiy. Still Welker dropped a very catchable ball. You never know what happens if he makes that play.

You do things in the last throes o9f a game that you wouldn't during normal play. It doesn't make it not "Real Football" by letting the player go into the
EZ in that situation.