Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

In defense of conservative play calling..


CamMoon

Recommended Posts

On average an NFL teams will see the ball about 10-14 times a game. Since it was already halftime at best the Seahawks could have hoped for 7 more chances to score, barring turnovers or anything of that nature. The problem with being aggressive is that if you do turn the ball over, especially in your own territory the game is lengthened. Quick scores are killers when trying to maintain a lead so playing it safe was the best option. So, giving 10 yard cushions isn't a bad idea since time will continue to run off of the clock. There was literally no way for Seattle to come back unless we turned the ball over or they got a quick score.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is nearly impossible to hold on to a big lead for an entire 30 minutes of football against a team like Seattle.  We did it once all season (home against  ATL).  That being said, basically Russell Wilson just made some sick throws under duress and they mounted a comeback.

The conservative play calling is definitely designed to not give up the big play and to run out the clock.  It worked.  We won.  It wasn't pretty, but the coaches did enough.  The players did enough.  One thing that may go overlooked:  We never trailed in that game.

The biggest problem was that our offense didn't really sustain much.  If we could have scored even 2 FGs in that entire half, the game would have been out of reach.  Not enough first downs.  That was a problem that put all the pressure on the defense to hold a huge lead with tons of time.  However, and this is huge:  We did not turn the ball over!

Everyone complains about the pattern of the Indy, GB, and NYG games.  It was the same today.  Point is: We won all of them.  4-0 in games that go like this one.

In the end we did enough things right to win the game.  That was Rivera's line.  I think he's exactly right.

Arizona is a team that can score fast and often and score 24 points in a half, so...

Would you rather have a close game that goes down to the wire?

Or

Have one team get out to a big lead only to have the game come down to an onside kick?

Either way it's the NFL.  You win the game, you go on to the next round.

We are on to the next round.  Doesn't matter how.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Get over it already.

get over what? Ohhhh you mean the we won thing.  No poo.  And no one was even talking about that.  I made a comment on his post, not the game.  He was pointing out that Seattle wouldn't have had enough time/possessions to comeback. which isnt true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, pantherclaw said:

Get over it already.

But he's right. From a 31 point lead to a single-possession game hinging on an onside kick is silly when a team doesn't score a single point for an entire half in the playoffs. No one is saying Carolina should have gone for 60, but a minimum of a field goal changes everything. 

That said, a win is a win. If Seattle had recovered, however...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The only thing missing that kept me from believing I was suffering from a degenerative memory condition was a 3rd and 7 draw play. 

Other than that, it looked like John Fox and Dan Henning were making guest appearances as second half coaches. 

And say all you want along the lines of, "I knew we had it all along," or, "There was never any doubt." Yeah okay, but there were 70,000 plus in that stadium yesterday who were dead silent for the last 25 minutes of that game who weren't convinced.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • If you look at almost all Daniels stats, they are as good or better than last year minus perhaps Completion Percentage. I don't think Daniels himself is having very much less individual success than the Redskins are reverting to the mean.  https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/46003861/nfl-teams-likely-decline-lose-more-games-2025-season-predictions-vikings-chiefs-commanders-lions-colts#wsh Barnwell wrote about them in the preseason as a team that had an inordinate amount of luck or success in one score games that wasn't very likely to be repeated.
    • We thinking of the same Mike White? He probably won’t even make it off the practice squad.
    • I would heavily push back on the notion of Tomlin and Cowher inheriting "collapsed teams." From 1980 to 1991(prior to Cowher and after their Super Bowl victories) the Steelers experienced just 4 sub .500 seasons. In fact the winning percentage for those years was 0.505. At most that was relatively mediocre, something fairly akin to the pre-Tepper Panthers. From Cowher through Tomlin(1992 to Present) it has been the NFL's best franchise. 22 playoff appearances, 4 Super Bowl Appearances, 2 Titles, 15 times winning the division. In fact they have only experienced 3 sub .500 records in that 34 season span.  That isn't ever a scenario where rebuilding happens. It's constant and consistent retooling so that your franchise floor is always high. It's smart business decisions, exceptional drafting and quality personnel moves that create a situation where that floor STAYS high.  It was precisely BECAUSE we opted to go through a complete teardown and "rebuild" without any of that competence being in the organization at all that led us to where we are currently. A situation that will more than likely continue for well over a decade longer.  Long term successful franchises do not "rebuild." They are in a constant state of competent flux that sustains them through some leaner periods without ripping the foundation completely out that led to that success in the first place. 
×
×
  • Create New...