Late in the game and time is running out........

[cardiackat88.]

I have a question for all of you.................it pertains to when a team has a lead with only 1 or 2 points and the opposing team has the ball with anywhere from 3 to 4 minutes left in the game with the intend to go down the field use up the clock and kick a FG to win............

Now this is what we had with the Philly game last night when the Saints had the ball...........

Once the Saints were in field goal range you know they would just keep a conservative run game going to eat the clock up getting closer and closer if possible for a chip shot field goal with no time left on the clock.

At that point in the game it is near impossible for Philly to change their fate...........

Except for this.............its bold and very risky but do you want a chance to win the game or not??

When there is still 2 to 3 minutes left on the clock and the Saints are in FG range why not just let them score a touchdown and get the ball back for at least the chance to drive and win or tie with a TD.

Now some of you will say that is foolish but is it???

How foolish is it to just watch them eat the clock................

I'd rather have one chance with 2 minutes left on the clock to tie or win the game with a TD with an extra point conversion or two point conversion if needed.........than to die a millions deaths by paper cuts trying to sack Saints out of a FG range when they are just running the ball.......

Is this nuts or is there a time when everything Is on the line to take such a risk??

When we played Atlanta this is exactly the fate we were facing except Atlanta wasn't in FB range yet but we luck out with that crazy center snap............

Your thoughts......

Did you not watch the Giants/Patriots most recent Super Bowl?

The RB has enough awareness to just fiddle raddled around the plane of the endzone and fall down and be touched.l, killing much more clock and making a way easier FG.

[footballisasport]

It really does depends on who you have under center and whether that person can do magic with a few throws with a minute or less on the clock. 

 

I was honestly hoping the Eagles would have taken their time and eaten up most of the clock, and force Drew to make snap judgments when he got back the ball with very little time left. He was already intercepted twice, so it showed the Eagles defense was on their toes with him. Unfortunately, the Eagles offense gave the Saints back the ball with enough time on the clock where he didn't need to force balls to make yards. After awhile it was clear to see the Saints was just eating up the clock and forced the eagle's offense to play more conservative so not to cause any unnecessary fouls. Game over.

 

 

[Judo Thoreau]

I'm pretty sure that the odds of the Saints missing the GW FG were high enough to justify making them attempt it. It wasn't a gimme by any means.

[cookinbrak]

When they got a first down under 2 minutes, thet should have let them score. They had a rookie RB and a shaky kicker, it was a definate possibility.

[JJT]

pats did it against somebody last year, i forget who. gave themselves about 40 seconds to score a touchdown rather than 2 seconds to stop a field goal.

 

there are times when it makes sense

 

We did that against the Bears, I think, at Ericsson Stadium when Siefert was the coach.  It almost worked, but we missed the 2 point conversion.

 

[chknwing]

pop quiz, hotshot. There's a bomb on a bus. Once the bus goes 50 miles an hour, the bomb is armed. If it drops below 50, it blows up. What do you do? What do you do?

[Eazy-E]

Players and coaches are smart enough to take a knee or slide down. This isn't a game of Madden.

[Khaki Lackey]

You would only hava a chance if you were down by 1. Philly was down by 2. Regardless, the chances of blocking or the opposition missing a short FG are slim, but probably still more likely than the presented scenario. I get what you are saying, though. I would rather lose with the ball, trying to score.