Den scoring in the last minute of the PHI game (1 Viewer)

[MSULions]

beat me to it!! THat ####er Cowher!!!

 

[Ghost Rider]

Evilgrin 72's explanation for this should be good.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Are you guys serious?1) This was a 13 point lead with over 2 minutes left - in other words, surmountable. A 21-point lead with 30 seconds left is insurmountable. Situation is not even the same. The TD came after the Browns had just kicked onsides - they were still not out of it and were still desperately trying to win, as evidenced by the ensuing drive where they chucked the ball downfield on every down. I would never advocate handing the ball back to an opponent when they had enough time to score, recover an onside kick, score again, and win the game. There is a HUGE difference between a situation where the opponent still believes it can win the game and a game that is clearly over, as the Denver-Philly game was. You'll note than in the play-by-play example I posted earlier where the Steelers kneeled it out in a 27-3 game with 2 minutes left, Reid and the Eagles made no attempt to come back on them after Pittsburgh handed them the ball back. They simply ran out the clock, rather than trying to get a last score to make the final more palatable. Bottom line : the game was over and both sides knew it. This was the same situation as the Denver-Philly game, but decidedly different than last night.2) The Steelers had their 4th string running back in the game. As I said several times earlier in the thread - if the Broncos had their scrubs in the game at the time they scored their last TD, I would have understood it. Read post #146 where I say : "They could have put in the backups and continued to run plays to get them some reps and I'd have had no issue with it." Why expose your starters (and you can say Mike Anderson is the starter, but it's obviously an RBBC and Tatum Bell is their best offensive threat) to injury in a game that is already in the books unless you're trying to put more points up? Where's the motivation? THAT is why it smacked of running up the score to me - if the Broncos had Dayne or Johnson or Sapp back there carrying the ball, I wouldn't have even brought it up to begin with.The situations were completely different, and aren't even worth comparing. You guys are really reaching here.

 

[Brewdude]

The situations were completely different, and aren't even worth comparing. You guys are really reaching here.

Why go for the TD? Why not kick the FG and make it a 16 point game? The TD made it 20 points and was a smack in the face of the Browns.When the Broncos ran the last five minutes off the clock with their drive, a run up the middle was so predictable that everyone except the Philly D knew what was coming.

Last night, I was thinking "WTF are they doing?"; and I'm sure I'm not the only one wondering that.

The only reason to run that play and risk turning the ball over on downs is to demoralize your opponent if you are successful.

Bottom line, your team demonstrated they aren't as classy as you claim they are.

Oh, and I have no problem with the call. Football isn't a game of kindness.

 

[Keys Myaths]

The situations were completely different, and aren't even worth comparing. You guys are really reaching here.

Why go for the TD? Why not kick the FG and make it a 16 point game? The TD made it 20 points and was a smack in the face of the Browns.

16 point game: 2 possessions.20 point game: 3 possessions.

 

[thesurfshop19]

To be fair, Shanahan had the exact same situation in the 1998 AFC Championship game against the Jets. He did the same thing as Cowher.Leading 23-10 on 4th down, he called a long pass into the end zone (Elway just barely overthrew McCaffrey).

 

[Evilgrin 72]

The situations were completely different, and aren't even worth comparing.  You guys are really reaching here.

Why go for the TD? Why not kick the FG and make it a 16 point game? The TD made it 20 points and was a smack in the face of the Browns.

16 point game: 2 possessions.20 point game: 3 possessions.

Thank you, Keys - you saved me the effort of pointing that out. They were either going to put the game out of reach, or give the ball back on downs. That's the only reason you call a toss sweep with your fourth-string back on 4th and 10.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

To be fair, Shanahan had the exact same situation in the 1998 AFC Championship game against the Jets. He did the same thing as Cowher.

Leading 23-10 on 4th down, he called a long pass into the end zone (Elway just barely overthrew McCaffrey).

This is not the same thing, but I would not fault Shanahan for trying to score in that instance. A two-possession game is not out of reach until you get down to about 30-40 seconds left to play, and even then it's pushing it.

 

[thesurfshop19]

To be fair, Shanahan had the exact same situation in the 1998 AFC Championship game against the Jets.  He did the same thing as Cowher.

Leading 23-10 on 4th down, he called a long pass into the end zone (Elway just barely overthrew McCaffrey).

This is not the same thing, but I would not fault Shanahan for trying to score in that instance. A two-possession game is not out of reach until you get down to about 30-40 seconds left to play, and even then it's pushing it.

True, but it's similar is I guess what I'm trying to say. I'm on your side! IIRC there was more time on the clock, but not a whole lot more.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

To be fair, Shanahan had the exact same situation in the 1998 AFC Championship game against the Jets.  He did the same thing as Cowher.

Leading 23-10 on 4th down, he called a long pass into the end zone (Elway just barely overthrew McCaffrey).

This is not the same thing, but I would not fault Shanahan for trying to score in that instance. A two-possession game is not out of reach until you get down to about 30-40 seconds left to play, and even then it's pushing it.

True, but it's similar is I guess what I'm trying to say. I'm on your side! IIRC there was more time on the clock, but not a whole lot more.

I know...just trying to be fair about it. I would have had no problem with Pittsburgh passing the ball on 4th and 10 last night with 2:00 left, trying to put the game out of reach, but there was no way they were risking that with Maddox in the game. He had already thrown one interception that was called back because of a facemask and threw a few other balls that could have been picked. Are they going to kick a field goal, which at best leaves it a two-possession game, and at worst could get the Browns right back in it (remember, they had already blocked one FG attempt and returned it for a TD just minutes before)? No chance. They run the ball - either Haynes scores and puts things out of reach, or they leave Cleveland the ball inside their own 10 needing to go the length of the field to score and get it to a one possession game.It was by far the best and most logical call to make, which is not at all the same as the situation I took issue with to begin this thread. Denver easily could have kneeled on that ball and kept the score as is, they were in no risk of losing. Pittsburgh was not in the same situation last night, and that's the bottom line. When they were in the situation Denver was in, they kneeled on it. There is no arguing this - I posted the play-by-play.

 

[Wooderson]

The situations were completely different, and aren't even worth comparing. You guys are really reaching here.

Why go for the TD? Why not kick the FG and make it a 16 point game? The TD made it 20 points and was a smack in the face of the Browns.

16 point game: 2 possessions.20 point game: 3 possessions.

Thank you, Keys - you saved me the effort of pointing that out. They were either going to put the game out of reach, or give the ball back on downs. That's the only reason you call a toss sweep with your fourth-string back on 4th and 10.

Not sure if this put the game out of reach. Remember they went for it on 4th down. If they get stopped they are only up by 13. Still 2 possessions but it's a TD and FG now. Also they can loose with to TD's. If they kick the FG there up by 16 and pretty much can not loose. The worse they could do was overtime and that is if the Browns score 2 TD's with 2 two point conversions.

I say it was bush league because the better move would have been to kick the FG.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

The situations were completely different, and aren't even worth comparing.  You guys are really reaching here.

Why go for the TD? Why not kick the FG and make it a 16 point game? The TD made it 20 points and was a smack in the face of the Browns.

16 point game: 2 possessions.20 point game: 3 possessions.

Thank you, Keys - you saved me the effort of pointing that out. They were either going to put the game out of reach, or give the ball back on downs. That's the only reason you call a toss sweep with your fourth-string back on 4th and 10.

Not sure if this put the game out of reach. Remember they went for it on 4th down. If they get stopped they are only up by 13. Still 2 possessions but it's a TD and FG now. Also they can loose with to TD's. If they kick the FG there up by 16 and pretty much can not loose. The worse they could do was overtime and that is if the Browns score 2 TD's with 2 two point conversions.

I say it was bush league because the better move would have been to kick the FG.

I could not disagree more. First, how is a 13-point lead a TD and a FG? Last I checked, that was 11 points max. Second, as I said, they had just had a FG blocked and run back for a TD. I wouldn't have taken that route either, especially when it would have left it a 2-possession game. I would have done exactly what Cowher did, run the ball. Either you score and effectively end the game, or you run some more time off and give the Brownies the ball at their 5 and make them drive 95 yards on your defense with 2 minutes left. No kick block possibility, no kickoff return possibility - make them use the clock and use their time outs. The odds of them driving 95 yards quickly enough to score, get the ball back and score again are slim. Cowher made the right call.

 

[Wooderson]

The situations were completely different, and aren't even worth comparing. You guys are really reaching here.

Why go for the TD? Why not kick the FG and make it a 16 point game? The TD made it 20 points and was a smack in the face of the Browns.

16 point game: 2 possessions.20 point game: 3 possessions.

Thank you, Keys - you saved me the effort of pointing that out. They were either going to put the game out of reach, or give the ball back on downs. That's the only reason you call a toss sweep with your fourth-string back on 4th and 10.

Not sure if this put the game out of reach. Remember they went for it on 4th down. If they get stopped they are only up by 13. Still 2 possessions but it's a TD and FG now. Also they can loose with to TD's. If they kick the FG there up by 16 and pretty much can not loose. The worse they could do was overtime and that is if the Browns score 2 TD's with 2 two point conversions.

I say it was bush league because the better move would have been to kick the FG.

I could not disagree more. First, how is a 13-point lead a TD and a FG? Last I checked, that was 11 points max. Second, as I said, they had just had a FG blocked and run back for a TD. I wouldn't have taken that route either, especially when it would have left it a 2-possession game. I would have done exactly what Cowher did, run the ball. Either you score and effectively end the game, or you run some more time off and give the Brownies the ball at their 5 and make them drive 95 yards on your defense with 2 minutes left. No kick block possibility, no kickoff return possibility - make them use the clock and use their time outs. The odds of them driving 95 yards quickly enough to score, get the ball back and score again are slim. Cowher made the right call.

My mistake on the TD and FG = 13 ponts. But I still think the smart play is to kick the FG.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

The situations were completely different, and aren't even worth comparing.  You guys are really reaching here.

Why go for the TD? Why not kick the FG and make it a 16 point game? The TD made it 20 points and was a smack in the face of the Browns.

16 point game: 2 possessions.20 point game: 3 possessions.

Thank you, Keys - you saved me the effort of pointing that out. They were either going to put the game out of reach, or give the ball back on downs. That's the only reason you call a toss sweep with your fourth-string back on 4th and 10.

Not sure if this put the game out of reach. Remember they went for it on 4th down. If they get stopped they are only up by 13. Still 2 possessions but it's a TD and FG now. Also they can loose with to TD's. If they kick the FG there up by 16 and pretty much can not loose. The worse they could do was overtime and that is if the Browns score 2 TD's with 2 two point conversions.

I say it was bush league because the better move would have been to kick the FG.

I could not disagree more. First, how is a 13-point lead a TD and a FG? Last I checked, that was 11 points max. Second, as I said, they had just had a FG blocked and run back for a TD. I wouldn't have taken that route either, especially when it would have left it a 2-possession game. I would have done exactly what Cowher did, run the ball. Either you score and effectively end the game, or you run some more time off and give the Brownies the ball at their 5 and make them drive 95 yards on your defense with 2 minutes left. No kick block possibility, no kickoff return possibility - make them use the clock and use their time outs. The odds of them driving 95 yards quickly enough to score, get the ball back and score again are slim. Cowher made the right call.

My mistake on the TD and FG = 13 ponts. But I still think the smart play is to kick the FG.

That's open to interpretation, but if I were the coach, I'd have done exactly what Cowher did. I doubt the play called was even intended to score a TD as much as it was to pin the Browns deep and make sure they had to go the length of the field to score.

 

[Wooderson]

The situations were completely different, and aren't even worth comparing. You guys are really reaching here.

Why go for the TD? Why not kick the FG and make it a 16 point game? The TD made it 20 points and was a smack in the face of the Browns.

16 point game: 2 possessions.20 point game: 3 possessions.

Thank you, Keys - you saved me the effort of pointing that out. They were either going to put the game out of reach, or give the ball back on downs. That's the only reason you call a toss sweep with your fourth-string back on 4th and 10.

Not sure if this put the game out of reach. Remember they went for it on 4th down. If they get stopped they are only up by 13. Still 2 possessions but it's a TD and FG now. Also they can loose with to TD's. If they kick the FG there up by 16 and pretty much can not loose. The worse they could do was overtime and that is if the Browns score 2 TD's with 2 two point conversions.

I say it was bush league because the better move would have been to kick the FG.

I could not disagree more. First, how is a 13-point lead a TD and a FG? Last I checked, that was 11 points max. Second, as I said, they had just had a FG blocked and run back for a TD. I wouldn't have taken that route either, especially when it would have left it a 2-possession game. I would have done exactly what Cowher did, run the ball. Either you score and effectively end the game, or you run some more time off and give the Brownies the ball at their 5 and make them drive 95 yards on your defense with 2 minutes left. No kick block possibility, no kickoff return possibility - make them use the clock and use their time outs. The odds of them driving 95 yards quickly enough to score, get the ball back and score again are slim. Cowher made the right call.

My mistake on the TD and FG = 13 ponts. But I still think the smart play is to kick the FG.

That's open to interpretation, but if I were the coach, I'd have done exactly what Cowher did. I doubt the play called was even intended to score a TD as much as it was to pin the Browns deep and make sure they had to go the length of the field to score.

I agree with you that it wasn't intended to score but that is the same as the Broncos there play wasn't intended to score either.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

The situations were completely different, and aren't even worth comparing.  You guys are really reaching here.

Why go for the TD? Why not kick the FG and make it a 16 point game? The TD made it 20 points and was a smack in the face of the Browns.

16 point game: 2 possessions.20 point game: 3 possessions.

Thank you, Keys - you saved me the effort of pointing that out. They were either going to put the game out of reach, or give the ball back on downs. That's the only reason you call a toss sweep with your fourth-string back on 4th and 10.

Not sure if this put the game out of reach. Remember they went for it on 4th down. If they get stopped they are only up by 13. Still 2 possessions but it's a TD and FG now. Also they can loose with to TD's. If they kick the FG there up by 16 and pretty much can not loose. The worse they could do was overtime and that is if the Browns score 2 TD's with 2 two point conversions.

I say it was bush league because the better move would have been to kick the FG.

I could not disagree more. First, how is a 13-point lead a TD and a FG? Last I checked, that was 11 points max. Second, as I said, they had just had a FG blocked and run back for a TD. I wouldn't have taken that route either, especially when it would have left it a 2-possession game. I would have done exactly what Cowher did, run the ball. Either you score and effectively end the game, or you run some more time off and give the Brownies the ball at their 5 and make them drive 95 yards on your defense with 2 minutes left. No kick block possibility, no kickoff return possibility - make them use the clock and use their time outs. The odds of them driving 95 yards quickly enough to score, get the ball back and score again are slim. Cowher made the right call.

My mistake on the TD and FG = 13 ponts. But I still think the smart play is to kick the FG.

That's open to interpretation, but if I were the coach, I'd have done exactly what Cowher did. I doubt the play called was even intended to score a TD as much as it was to pin the Browns deep and make sure they had to go the length of the field to score.

I agree with you that it wasn't intended to score but that is the same as the Broncos there play wasn't intended to score either.

There's a good chance that it wasn't, but why even run it then? Why is Tatum Bell still in the game? Why not just kneel on it when the game was 100% out of reach? The difference here is that in last night's game, the outcome was still in doubt when that play was called. In the Denver/Philly game, it absolutely was not. That makes an enormous difference. Add to that that the Steelers had their third-string QB (albeit by necessity) and 4th string RB in the game at that point, not their first team - the situations are simply not comparable in any way.

 

[Urine_Idiot]

The situations were completely different, and aren't even worth comparing.  You guys are really reaching here.

Why go for the TD? Why not kick the FG and make it a 16 point game? The TD made it 20 points and was a smack in the face of the Browns.

16 point game: 2 possessions.20 point game: 3 possessions.

Thank you, Keys - you saved me the effort of pointing that out. They were either going to put the game out of reach, or give the ball back on downs. That's the only reason you call a toss sweep with your fourth-string back on 4th and 10.

Not sure if this put the game out of reach. Remember they went for it on 4th down. If they get stopped they are only up by 13. Still 2 possessions but it's a TD and FG now. Also they can loose with to TD's. If they kick the FG there up by 16 and pretty much can not loose. The worse they could do was overtime and that is if the Browns score 2 TD's with 2 two point conversions.

I say it was bush league because the better move would have been to kick the FG.

I could not disagree more. First, how is a 13-point lead a TD and a FG? Last I checked, that was 11 points max. Second, as I said, they had just had a FG blocked and run back for a TD. I wouldn't have taken that route either, especially when it would have left it a 2-possession game. I would have done exactly what Cowher did, run the ball. Either you score and effectively end the game, or you run some more time off and give the Brownies the ball at their 5 and make them drive 95 yards on your defense with 2 minutes left. No kick block possibility, no kickoff return possibility - make them use the clock and use their time outs. The odds of them driving 95 yards quickly enough to score, get the ball back and score again are slim. Cowher made the right call.

My mistake on the TD and FG = 13 ponts. But I still think the smart play is to kick the FG.

That's open to interpretation, but if I were the coach, I'd have done exactly what Cowher did. I doubt the play called was even intended to score a TD as much as it was to pin the Browns deep and make sure they had to go the length of the field to score.

I agree with you that it wasn't intended to score but that is the same as the Broncos there play wasn't intended to score either.

But the benefits of that play outweighed the benifits of scoring a FG or just taking a knee. I really don't understand how this play is even mentioned in the same breath as the TD in Denver Philly.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

The situations were completely different, and aren't even worth comparing.  You guys are really reaching here.

Why go for the TD? Why not kick the FG and make it a 16 point game? The TD made it 20 points and was a smack in the face of the Browns.

16 point game: 2 possessions.20 point game: 3 possessions.

Thank you, Keys - you saved me the effort of pointing that out. They were either going to put the game out of reach, or give the ball back on downs. That's the only reason you call a toss sweep with your fourth-string back on 4th and 10.

Not sure if this put the game out of reach. Remember they went for it on 4th down. If they get stopped they are only up by 13. Still 2 possessions but it's a TD and FG now. Also they can loose with to TD's. If they kick the FG there up by 16 and pretty much can not loose. The worse they could do was overtime and that is if the Browns score 2 TD's with 2 two point conversions.

I say it was bush league because the better move would have been to kick the FG.

I could not disagree more. First, how is a 13-point lead a TD and a FG? Last I checked, that was 11 points max. Second, as I said, they had just had a FG blocked and run back for a TD. I wouldn't have taken that route either, especially when it would have left it a 2-possession game. I would have done exactly what Cowher did, run the ball. Either you score and effectively end the game, or you run some more time off and give the Brownies the ball at their 5 and make them drive 95 yards on your defense with 2 minutes left. No kick block possibility, no kickoff return possibility - make them use the clock and use their time outs. The odds of them driving 95 yards quickly enough to score, get the ball back and score again are slim. Cowher made the right call.

My mistake on the TD and FG = 13 ponts. But I still think the smart play is to kick the FG.

That's open to interpretation, but if I were the coach, I'd have done exactly what Cowher did. I doubt the play called was even intended to score a TD as much as it was to pin the Browns deep and make sure they had to go the length of the field to score.

I agree with you that it wasn't intended to score but that is the same as the Broncos there play wasn't intended to score either.

But the benefits of that play outweighed the benifits of scoring a FG or just taking a knee. I really don't understand how this play is even mentioned in the same breath as the TD in Denver Philly.

The only reason it's being mentioned is because the Shanahan supporters took offense to my insinuation that he was running up the score. They are now trying to correlate a move Cowher made to it in order to invalidate my claims that Cowher is a classy coach who avoids embarrassing his opponents whenever possible. The argument and the example are patently absurd, but I guess it was "close enough" to warrant this desperate comparison.

 

[Wooderson]

For the record I have no problem with either play. I just get kick out of your opinion that Cowher is such a classy coach. That can do no wrong. At least this is how you come off to me.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

For the record I have no problem with either play. I just get kick out of your opinion that Cowher is such a classy coach. That can do no wrong.

At least this is how you come off to me.

My previous post wasn't directed at you, Wooderson - you're at least trying to make legitimate points and not just piling on with the Cowher-bashers.I don't see why you "get a kick" out of my opinion that Cowher is a classy coach. He IS a classy coach. It's the primary reason why I like the guy so much, why I'm proud he coaches my team, and why his face is in my avatar. In my opinion, he represents what the game is supposed to be about - he respects the players, he respects ownership, he respects his opponents, and he respects the game. I don't think you'll find a coach in the NFL who disagrees. The Rooneys wouldn't have it any other way - the Steelers as an organization have always been about character, community, and class. There are other organizations that are the same way, and I respect those teams as well. I didn't just pick Cowher's name out of a hat and decide to like and defend the guy. I've had coaches of teams that I root for that really sucked and I would be the first to call for a coach's head if I didn't think he was the guy for the job. I defend Cowher because I believe in what he stands for, not because I have some "man-crush" on him. I'm not sure why you find that so funny.

 

[Brewdude]

For the record I have no problem with either play. I just get kick out of your opinion that Cowher is such a classy coach. That can do no wrong.

At least this is how you come off to me.

That's exactly why I ressurected this post.I don't have a problem with either play and IMO, niether was designed to run up the score.

 

[Brewdude]

For the record I have no problem with either play. I just get kick out of your opinion that Cowher is such a classy coach. That can do no wrong.

At least this is how you come off to me.

My previous post wasn't directed at you, Wooderson - you're at least trying to make legitimate points and not just piling on with the Cowher-bashers.I don't see why you "get a kick" out of my opinion that Cowher is a classy coach. He IS a classy coach. It's the primary reason why I like the guy so much, why I'm proud he coaches my team, and why his face is in my avatar. In my opinion, he represents what the game is supposed to be about - he respects the players, he respects ownership, he respects his opponents, and he respects the game. I don't think you'll find a coach in the NFL who disagrees. The Rooneys wouldn't have it any other way - the Steelers as an organization have always been about character, community, and class. There are other organizations that are the same way, and I respect those teams as well. I didn't just pick Cowher's name out of a hat and decide to like and defend the guy. I've had coaches of teams that I root for that really sucked and I would be the first to call for a coach's head if I didn't think he was the guy for the job. I defend Cowher because I believe in what he stands for, not because I have some "man-crush" on him. I'm not sure why you find that so funny.

And Shannahan is classless? He doesn't respect players, owners, his opponents, or the game?FTR, I'm a Bronco fan. I'm glad Shanny is here. Although I know he has his faults, I certainly never considered him classless.

Oh, I also like Cower, but I'm pretty sure he has some faults. For example, the call yesterday was bad. If they don't make it, the Browns have posession and can win with 2 TDs and 2 XPs. Kick the FG and you make them pull off 2 TDs and 2 2-pointers. If the game was still in reach, the smart move is a FG.

Then again, I like the call of completely destroying your opponent to leave them no chance. I personally oppose ever willingly handing the ball to your opponent--which is what Shannahan would have had to do to satisfy you.

Not your style? That's fine, but it's not classless either.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

For the record I have no problem with either play. I just get kick out of your opinion that Cowher is such a classy coach. That can do no wrong.

At least this is how you come off to me.

My previous post wasn't directed at you, Wooderson - you're at least trying to make legitimate points and not just piling on with the Cowher-bashers.I don't see why you "get a kick" out of my opinion that Cowher is a classy coach. He IS a classy coach. It's the primary reason why I like the guy so much, why I'm proud he coaches my team, and why his face is in my avatar. In my opinion, he represents what the game is supposed to be about - he respects the players, he respects ownership, he respects his opponents, and he respects the game. I don't think you'll find a coach in the NFL who disagrees. The Rooneys wouldn't have it any other way - the Steelers as an organization have always been about character, community, and class. There are other organizations that are the same way, and I respect those teams as well. I didn't just pick Cowher's name out of a hat and decide to like and defend the guy. I've had coaches of teams that I root for that really sucked and I would be the first to call for a coach's head if I didn't think he was the guy for the job. I defend Cowher because I believe in what he stands for, not because I have some "man-crush" on him. I'm not sure why you find that so funny.

And Shannahan is classless? He doesn't respect players, owners, his opponents, or the game?FTR, I'm a Bronco fan. I'm glad Shanny is here. Although I know he has his faults, I certainly never considered him classless.

Oh, I also like Cower, but I'm pretty sure he has some faults. For example, the call yesterday was bad. If they don't make it, the Browns have posession and can win with 2 TDs and 2 XPs. Kick the FG and you make them pull off 2 TDs and 2 2-pointers. If the game was still in reach, the smart move is a FG.

Then again, I like the call of completely destroying your opponent to leave them no chance. I personally oppose ever willingly handing the ball to your opponent--which is what Shannahan would have had to do to satisfy you.

Not your style? That's fine, but it's not classless either.

Shanahan has been accused many times in the past of running up the score on people. He also has drawn a lot of ire because opponents believe he coaches cut-blocking, which has been known to cause a lot of career-ending injuries. I just don't care for the guy. I watch the Steelers and I see the way Cowher operates, and he's on the same page that I am as a fan on how to conduct oneself. I thought it was a classy move to turn the ball back over to the Eagles in a game that was out of reach rather than running up the score. Reid and the Eagles agreed, they didn't take it as a slap in the face, as some implied it was tantamount to. So, that's what I am used to.Thus, when I see another team in the same situation, up 21 in a game that's out of reach with 30 seconds left, I don't see the harm in just kneeling on the ball rather than even risk embarrassing your opponent by punching in another TD to make it 49-21. I didn't see the merits of having your first string offense on the field, running plays at that juncture. Obviously, you liked the call and like this style of coaching. Hey, that's cool, you can like whatever you want to like. To me, in comparison, it smacked of running it up, especially from a coach whom even Broncos fans on this board have acknowledged has a track record of such. It seemed bush league to me - if you disagree, I respect that. We're both entitled to an opinion on it. However, comparing what happened last night is really grasping. The two situations were completely different... if you like what Shanahan does/did, just say so. You shouldn't need to try to disparage Cowher to prop up Shanahan. Just say you support what he did and leave it at that.

 

[Brewdude]

I thought it was a classy move to turn the ball back over to the Eagles in a game that was out of reach rather than running up the score

Like I've said before, I don't feel you should ever hand the ball to your opponent. Having been on the bad side of a few lopsided games, I didn't want a sympathy play. A predictable play is fine, but not a "here, let me give it to you because you can't take it on your own" play. I'd be offended.

if you like what Shanahan does/did, just say so.

I have...repeatedly. You just responded with something like "BS, it's bush league, he's a loser." My point here was that we do have different opinions with you looking through you yellow-tinted glasses and me with my orange-tinted glasses.

Nothing more to say. Out...

 

[Ghost Rider]

Shanahan has been accused many times in the past of running up the score on people.

He has? By whom? You? Fans of teams who just lost to the Broncos? And once again, there is no such thing as running the score up in the NFL. This is not like college football where certain teams have no chance of beating certain other teams. Hence, a 1-7 team (GB) winning on a 6-2 team's home field (Atlanta).

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I thought it was a classy move to turn the ball back over to the Eagles in a game that was out of reach rather than running up the score

Like I've said before, I don't feel you should ever hand the ball to your opponent. Having been on the bad side of a few lopsided games, I didn't want a sympathy play. A predictable play is fine, but not a "here, let me give it to you because you can't take it on your own" play. I'd be offended.

if you like what Shanahan does/did, just say so.

I have...repeatedly. You just responded with something like "BS, it's bush league, he's a loser." My point here was that we do have different opinions with you looking through you yellow-tinted glasses and me with my orange-tinted glasses.Nothing more to say. Out...

We can just agree to disagree on this.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

I clearly am biased on this issue but it seems like most in here don't feel it was blatant running up the score, if at all. I also agree that Shanahan's been guilty of worse running up the score than this.

Ghost Rider, it just seems Shanahan has a rep for running it up. Here, a Broncos fan echoes that - it isn't just me. I have heard this before, and while I don't follow the Broncos closely enough to remember an example off the top of my head, I am sure that this pervading sentiment influenced my take on the play.

 

[Ghost Rider]

Ghost Rider, it just seems Shanahan has a rep for running it up. Here, a Broncos fan echoes that - it isn't just me. I have heard this before, and while I don't follow the Broncos closely enough to remember an example off the top of my head, I am sure that this pervading sentiment influenced my take on the play.

Perception is not always reality, though. Remember that. And I can remember a bunch of games in '98 where Terrell Davis was pulled early since the game was already in hand. Heck, if Shanny was an advocate of running up the score or padding stats (same thing), he would left TD in to pad his rushing total. Heck, he could have had 2300 or 2400 rushing yards that season. I remember a game against the Eagles where they led like 42-3 or something like that at the half. I am not sure TD even saw the field in the second half.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

Ghost Rider, it just seems Shanahan has a rep for running it up.  Here, a Broncos fan echoes that - it isn't just me.  I have heard this before, and while I don't follow the Broncos closely enough to remember an example off the top of my head, I am sure that this pervading sentiment influenced my take on the play.

Perception is not always reality, though. Remember that. And I can remember a bunch of games in '98 where Terrell Davis was pulled early since the game was already in hand. Heck, if Shanny was an advocate of running up the score or padding stats (same thing), he would left TD in to pad his rushing total. Heck, he could have had 2300 or 2400 rushing yards that season. I remember a game against the Eagles where they led like 42-3 or something like that at the half. I am not sure TD even saw the field in the second half.

Fair enough - it could be that reputation is totally unfounded. It was just a different style than I am used to and it rubbed me the wrong way. I can't believe we're even still discussing it to be honest, what the hell does my opinion on Shanahan really matter? I had to take issue with those comparing last night's game to the play that prompted this thread, though - you have to admit the situations were completetly different.

 

[Ghost Rider]

what the hell does my opinion on Shanahan really matter?

It doesn't.

I had to take issue with those comparing last night's game to the play that prompted this thread, though - you have to admit the situations were completetly different.

They were different, yes, but in both cases, it was obvious a running play was going to be called and both defenses sucked at stopping an obvious running play, so instead of accusing Denver or Pittsburgh of running up the score (neither of which did), I say the defenses of Philly and Cleveland should catch the heat for failing to stop a play everyone in the world knew was coming.

 

[Evilgrin 72]

  what the hell does my opinion on Shanahan really matter? 

It doesn't.

I had to take issue with those comparing last night's game to the play that prompted this thread, though - you have to admit the situations were completetly different.

They were different, yes, but in both cases, it was obvious a running play was going to be called and both defenses sucked at stopping an obvious running play, so instead of accusing Denver or Pittsburgh of running up the score (neither of which did), I say the defenses of Philly and Cleveland should catch the heat for failing to stop a play everyone in the world knew was coming.

I agree that Philly absorbs a lot of blame for allowing the TD, I just thought the gentleman's move would be to kneel. Most people disagree, so I guess I'm in the minority here. The difference is, if Cowher would have kneeled with 2 minutes left in a 13 point game, that could have been suicide.

 

[CaptainHucklebuck]

I guess I just don't understand what this conversation is about. If you take a knee on 4th down, it's a turnover. If you turn the ball over with time left on the clock, you're being sloppy. You run the ball as long as you can. Kneeling doesn't help on 4th down.

 

[thesurfshop19]

Ghost Rider, it just seems Shanahan has a rep for running it up.  Here, a Broncos fan echoes that - it isn't just me.  I have heard this before, and while I don't follow the Broncos closely enough to remember an example off the top of my head, I am sure that this pervading sentiment influenced my take on the play.

Perception is not always reality, though. Remember that. And I can remember a bunch of games in '98 where Terrell Davis was pulled early since the game was already in hand. Heck, if Shanny was an advocate of running up the score or padding stats (same thing), he would left TD in to pad his rushing total. Heck, he could have had 2300 or 2400 rushing yards that season. I remember a game against the Eagles where they led like 42-3 or something like that at the half. I am not sure TD even saw the field in the second half.

I don't think Shanahan's done it very much with the Broncos -- he definitely did it more under Seifert (so maybe it's Seifert) in San Francisco.In 1998, I agree that he definitely didn't run it up much in the 4th, pulling TD in numerous games. And you're right about the Philly game, when they took TD out after it was 35-2 at halftime and then took Brister out when it was 41-2 after 3 quarters.

It seems like there's been more of it since he hasn't had his horses, and particularly against the Chiefs and Raiders IMO. That said, I agree that I can't think of any really blatant cases.