Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

megadeth078

Playcalling on the final drive...

64 posts in this topic

Honestly, I would have just preferred Stew or Tolbert be out there instead of DWill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm nearly an "old man." I don't get "butt hurt" over anything anymore, especially a forum like this one. You said having the the defense on the field again was a SMART DECISION. I called BS. What is it about the fact that it was not "smart," and more importantly, that it was not a "decision," that you don't get? Regardless of the reason, the smart DECISION was to get a first while running the clock down to 1:15 or lower, then take the knees to end the game. Our QB said so. Read the whole thread. Aside from you, there are other posts either explicitly saying, or implying, that being ultra conservative and/or intentionally putting the ball back in Brees' hands with Graham out there (ALWAYS a threat) was OK. That is pure unadulterated BS. I don't care whether it was calling plays or poor execution, it should NOT have happened.

So maybe you are right on one thing now that I think about it. Until the interception, sitting right on the goal line, my six was pretty puckered when NO got the ball again and actually did hurt a bit.

"Making them use their timeouts and relying on the defense...was a smart decision."

If you actually meant to say something different, sorry. Otherwise, say what you mean, don't mean what you say.

you seem pretty upset, which was my original point. Thus, point proven. I understand your logic in not playing conservative, but what we did worked so I can't, in my own mind, be too flustered about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how it handing it off to Williams straight ahead less risky then Cam holding it on an end around which require no handoff?? And how it going outside more risky than running it up the middle? I can see the whole being safe thing but honestly running plays up the middle are not safer than other plays which don't involve a pitch.

They are safer because you can cover up the ball with both hands and even get in a half tuck. It's as safe as you can get, other than a kneel down. Running outside will hold the ball with one hand. It's not much, but it's the only option at that point. We had to force them to use the time outs, and then burn the clock as much as possible.

A first down would have sealed the game, but a turnover would have given them a legitimate shot. The risk-reward ratio just isn't in our favor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So how it handing it off to Williams straight ahead less risky then Cam holding it on an end around which require no handoff?? And how it going outside more risky than running it up the middle? I can see the whole being safe thing but honestly running plays up the middle are not safer than other plays which don't involve a pitch.

As someone else explained earlier, running around the end is a little riskier than up the middle. Going up the middle, a back normally has two hands on the ball, where as around the end, they are carrying one handed. Also, Cam fumbles a little bit more than Williams does. Not significantly more, but I think there is a slightly greater chance of Cam being stripped than Deangelo. Rivera did what most successful NFL coaches would do in that situation.

There are times to play conservative, and times that you shouldn't. When you have the ball and an 8 point lead with under two minutes left and the oppent only has two timeouts, thats the time to play conservative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you seem pretty upset, which was my original point. Thus, point proven. I understand your logic in not playing conservative, but what we did worked so I can't, in my own mind, be too flustered about it.

No, just trying to put forth facts and reasoned analysis in a place where some responders to a question either think they, "simple and plain," know better than the team/coaches/FO, or worse IMHO, are accepting of mediocrity, and worse still, embrace a loser's mentality (e.g., It's just one game/play). I was there. It was a lot closer than it looked on TV. We easily could have faced a tie, and subsequent win by the Saints***. If that had been due to poor play calls or execution, these discussions would be much different.

The fact that we won makes ZERO difference in terms of improving play/coaching. Ask Cam. If giving the ball back was, in any way, intentional (which it wasn't), then it was stupid. If it was due to mistake(s), then it needs attention. While you can't dwell on the past, a wise man once said, "Those who do not remember their mistakes are doomed to repeat them."

PS - Speaking of how it looked on TV, Breezus did NOT score on that TD. He was stopped two feet short. Too bad the replacement refs didn't see what everyone in the stands in that corner saw. The final score should have been 35-20.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not going to read this thread but there's a good argument to be made for what they did. They knew they could kill their timeouts and leave them with 80 yards in 49 seconds. The odds on that aren't very good, and they played them. You know that big sheet Rivera holds over his mouth when he talks on the headset? It's just a big list of situational football, game theory'd out.

Fans don't like it because they want to see the Panthers go deep on every play or whatever, but they played the percentages. Yes, Sherrod Martin could have been distracted by the color of the grass and given up a game tying touchdown, but Cam could also have lost the ball on an off tackle run like he did in the first quarter.

Basically don't get hung up on it.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know that big sheet Rivera holds over his mouth when he talks on the headset? It's just a big list of situational football, game theory'd out.

I always thought that was a menu from the chinese restaurant they were going to order take out from after the game.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They are safer because you can cover up the ball with both hands and even get in a half tuck. It's as safe as you can get, other than a kneel down. Running outside will hold the ball with one hand. It's not much, but it's the only option at that point. We had to force them to use the time outs, and then burn the clock as much as possible.

A first down would have sealed the game, but a turnover would have given them a legitimate shot. The risk-reward ratio just isn't in our favor.

Not sure I agree on your analysis. while you can hold the ball with both hands, you are going into a pile where half a dozen people are trying to hold you up and strip the ball. When you run outside you can see who is coming, you switch the ball to your outside hand and when contact is near you cradle the ball with both hands or go down. Again just as safe and much more likely to get a first down.

The risk reward was better going for the first down as the risk was not any greater but the reward was. If all you wanted to do was burn clock then kneeling down was much safer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As someone else explained earlier, running around the end is a little riskier than up the middle. Going up the middle, a back normally has two hands on the ball, where as around the end, they are carrying one handed. Also, Cam fumbles a little bit more than Williams does. Not significantly more, but I think there is a slightly greater chance of Cam being stripped than Deangelo. Rivera did what most successful NFL coaches would do in that situation.

There are times to play conservative, and times that you shouldn't. When you have the ball and an 8 point lead with under two minutes left and the oppent only has two timeouts, thats the time to play conservative.

Again I disagree with your analysis and I think Belicheck is more successful than Rivera and I promise you he wouldn't have done that. So honestly your post fails on all levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again I disagree with your analysis and I think Belicheck is more successful than Rivera and I promise you he wouldn't have done that. So honestly your post fails on all levels.

And Tom Coughlin would have done it, and he beat Belicheck twice in the Superbowl, so your post fails on all levels and in multiple dimensions, and into infinity.

Seriously, you don't really know what Belicheck would do, and are only guessing. But of all the top coaches in NFL history (some of who are better than Belicheck), most did exactly the same as Rivera did when they were faced with a similar situation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And Tom Coughlin would have done it, and he beat Belicheck twice in the Superbowl, so your post fails on all levels and in multiple dimensions, and into infinity.

Seriously, you don't really know what Belicheck would do, and are only guessing. But of all the top coaches in NFL history (some of who are better than Belicheck), most did exactly the same as Rivera did when they were faced with a similar situation.

Actually I do know what he has done multiple times in the past. Get real here, I saw him go for it on 4 and 2 on his own 30 yard line. And when they asked him about it, he said that the best way to stop the other team from scoring is to keep the ball and get first downs. They didn't make it but he said he would do it again. And you think he would play conservative and run it up the middle and not ggo for the first down?? Seriously???

And I don't know where you got most coaches. I watch as much football as most people and I have seen as many go for it and throw screens or pitch it out to ice it as they do run it up the middle knowing they are giving it back to a prolific offense that scored a TD 1 minute earlier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, just trying to put forth facts and reasoned analysis in a place where some responders to a question either think they, "simple and plain," know better than the team/coaches/FO, or worse IMHO, are accepting of mediocrity, and worse still, embrace a loser's mentality (e.g., It's just one game/play). I was there. It was a lot closer than it looked on TV. We easily could have faced a tie, and subsequent win by the Saints***. If that had been due to poor play calls or execution, these discussions would be much different.

The fact that we won makes ZERO difference in terms of improving play/coaching. Ask Cam. If giving the ball back was, in any way, intentional (which it wasn't), then it was stupid. If it was due to mistake(s), then it needs attention. While you can't dwell on the past, a wise man once said, "Those who do not remember their mistakes are doomed to repeat them."

PS - Speaking of how it looked on TV, Breezus did NOT score on that TD. He was stopped two feet short. Too bad the replacement refs didn't see what everyone in the stands in that corner saw. The final score should have been 35-20.

A) We won

B.) That doesn't make sense.

C) Our d possibly would have had to play anyway if we had gone for it on third by throwing (which would have given them more time- you can't act like passing or doing something different would have 100% guaranteed a first)

D) Of course Cam is going to say he wanted the ball

E) If anything it was a close call, the initial effort was not "2 feet short", however since you were AT the game, that immediately makes you a more reliable resource than multiple video replays.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites