Some facts regarding the decision to throw the ball on that infamous 3rd-and-2

[SmootsDaddy89]

Lost in all of the tard anger is the fact that the Saints had scored a total of three points the entire half up until that point. The adjustments we made at halftime worked. Rivera had no reason NOT to trust his defense to close out the game if the offense couldn't.

[Sloth]

So we shouldn't have run it because lol John Fox.

[cptx]

Lost in all of the tard anger is the fact that the Saints had scored a total of three points the entire half up until that point. The adjustments we made at halftime worked. Rivera had no reason NOT to trust his defense to close out the game if the offense couldn't.

howd that go?

[Dont Check My Chicken]

Fact: the defense has been terrible all year

Fact: it is a TERRIBLE idea to put a game in their hands

Did anyone doubt the Saints would come and score on our defense? Seriously how can you put the game on a defense that has been terrible all year.

The very reason this thread has any merit is because we all understood our defense couldn't stop Brees. As a result, that 3rd and two play was VERY important and we knew its' significance. How could we possibly game plan a victory from such an expectation of failure with stopping Brees? Answer: We didn't! Everyone knew we HAD TO SCORE in order to win and we neither.

[SmootsDaddy89]

Either call would have been okay with me. My argument is that taking a risk is not bad, as long as it's not a dumb risk. Unless you want to argue whether or not Smitty had beaten his man, it wasn't a dumb risk. It was a dumb throw.

[jramsey4]

Fact: Just because Fox would have called a certain play does not mean it would automatically mean it would be a bad call. Similarly just because Chud/RR calls a play does not make it divine.

It was a bad call stop making excuses for it.

[SmootsDaddy89]

howd that go?

Not sure what point you're trying to prove here. Did you know that the Saints were going to score as soon as they got the ball back?

[jramsey4]

Either call would have been okay with me. My argument is that taking a risk is not bad, as long as it's not a dumb risk. Unless you want to argue whether or not Smitty had beaten his man, it wasn't a dumb risk. It was a dumb throw.

I'm fine with taking risks on 1st and 2nd downs but on a 3rd and 2 with a 2 headed monster at RB you do not call a bomb with the game on the line. Thats as stupid as Fox's affinity for running draws on 3rd and long. We've traded one extreme for another.

[Darth Biscuit]

It was a gamble for sure... and not the call I would've made. I know they were hoping that the Saints would play run and we'd put the dagger in, and I'm certainty not against being aggressive but a run there (not a draw play) was the call.

My only other criticism of offensive play calling is that I think they need to be a bit more creative in the red zone... they seem to be very predictable.

Overall you can't complain too much about the offense these season.

[Fox007]

better coach than you = better playcaller than you = his call was better than the one you made on the coach. cam missed the throw to a wide open receiver.

So I would be a 0-5 type of coach? Instead of 1-4?

I'd hope he would aspire to be better than me at coaching, yet at best he is 1 game better than I could be at worst.

Let's see.

1. Run the ball and possibly pick up like 3 yards, and still have to hope that you can keep running the clock down assuming you even GET the first down in the first place.

2. Throw a bomb that no one is expecting to Steve Smith, resulting in a huge play and possible a dagger of a TD if your QB connects.

Hmm *chews gum and claps* which one is the better option?

But you guys are right. Rivera is a huge doucher for having faith that his defense could stop Brees from scoring again even if the gamble didn't pay off. I mean, it's not like they had done it just one series before or anything. You guys aren't total morons at all you sound totally reasonable.

Actually if you believed our defense was going to hold them you were kidding yourself.

And yes it is absolutely a terrible idea to put the game in the hands of the unit who has blown assignments, coverages, and has had mental lapses all year long.

[beastson]

Stop being greedy

^ Its not about killer extinct. Packers nor Saints doesn't have that. They call the correct, COMMON SENSE plays. If something is working, they stay with it. If they need 1-2 yards they either run or throw short. More than likely run, if its working. Throwing deep with a ROOKIE QB when we have 2 pro bowl RB's isn't the correct call, period

[PhillyB]

if cam had connected with smitty (who was wide open; chudz's bet that the defense would ignore him was spot on) it would've been a huge touchdown, the game would've been iced, and 4th-string posters on here would be clamoring for bandwidth to create the next "i hope chudz doesn't get offered a head coaching position next year" thread.

this play hinges on the quarterback making the easy completion, in the same vein that running it hinges on the offensive line and running backs executing properly. in this case the guy under center goofed.

...which goes back to the original point: when cam gets experience in the system, that play goes for a completion, TD, and win all in one tidy package.

[Dilla]

"Killer Instinct" only effectively applies with veteran teams and coaches.

[SmootsDaddy89]

So I would be a 0-5 type of coach? Instead of 1-4?

I'd hope he would aspire to be better than me at coaching, yet at best he is 1 game better than I could be at worst.

Actually if you believed our defense was going to hold them you were kidding yourself.

And yes it is absolutely a terrible idea to put the game in the hands of the unit who has blown assignments, coverages, and has had mental lapses all year long.

By that logic, Rivera should have went for it on 4th and 2. Since our defense was so untrustworthy. Hindsight is 20/20.