Playcalling on the final drive...

[xav8tor]

you proved my point because I said no matter what people were going to be unhappy, clearly you're quite butthurt over the issue

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.

[Davidson Deac II]

IMO, one of the most underrated plays was on the last New Orleans TD when the d stopped the Saints at the goal line, and caused the clock to get down to the two minute warning, guaranteeing that we would be able to run a substantial amount of time off the clock if we did get it back. It was at that point I felt the game was in the bag.

And yes, I do feel that the playcalling on the last series, (actually the next to last series) when we ran out the clock was correct. In that situation, you play the odds. And the odds are that even the best offense in the NFL can't put it in the endzone with 50 seconds left and no timeouts. The chances of a fumble or some other similar bad thing happening are greater imo.

[panthers55]

How would this scenario not be the defense's fault? You're telling me if the defense allows Brees to complete a Hail Mary for a score, we're going to look straight towards Chud and say he cost us the game? The defense doesn't need to have their hands held, they proved that throughout the game. We put them in the right position to end the game, and they deserved the benefit of the doubt. If the defense lets Drew Brees lead an 80 yard drive without any timeouts, that is completely on them. To all the people that are saying "we shouldn't have given Drew Brees a chance"......we didn't.

If we make a first down then the defense doesn't even need to be in the position to give up a touchdown. Can you see Belicheck just running straight ahead on 3 plays for example?

We did give their offense a chance to move them and it isn't as if we were holding them all day. Didn't we just give up a TD 2 minutes earlier on a drive that took all of 2 minutes??

That was John Fox ball at the end and it will come back to bite us in the butt if we keep doing it.

We had a bunch of plays we could have run which were basically extended handoffs which could have moved the ball. I am glad we won but it is plain stupid to give Brees any time on the clock if you can avoid it. And we could have.

[Growl]

The 3rd down draw was retarded.

[panthers55]

IMO, one of the most underrated plays was on the last New Orleans TD when the d stopped the Saints at the goal line, and caused the clock to get down to the two minute warning, guaranteeing that we would be able to run a substantial amount of time off the clock if we did get it back. It was at that point I felt the game was in the bag.

And yes, I do feel that the playcalling on the last series, (actually the next to last series) when we ran out the clock was correct. In that situation, you play the odds. And the odds are that even the best offense in the NFL can't put it in the endzone with 50 seconds left and no timeouts. The chances of a fumble or some other similar bad thing happening are greater imo.

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.

[Chaos]

Of course I'm thrilled with the outcome, but if anyone here can say they had no anxiety with giving the ball back to Brees and company one last time, they are lying.

It doesn't always work as designed, but I would have loved to see us finish this game the same way we finished off the Texans on the road last season. With our offense picking up the crucial conversions and running out the clock. I don't disagree with the play calling (obviously run, do not pass), but the execution seemed to lack the will to put them away on our terms, not by hoping for a defensive stop.

[thefuzz]

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

[SOJA]

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.

[Mother Grabber]

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.

[Davidson Deac II]

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.

[xav8tor]

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.

[Fiz]

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.

[xav8tor]

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.

[panthers55]

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.