For people getting on Lovie Smith's case (1 Viewer)

[Chase Stuart]

Smith definitely goofed by not calling a timeout at the end of the game on Sunday, but I think people are really overreacting to this one.

In week 11, against the Chiefs, the Colts were tied and at the Kansas City one-yard line with 1:43 remaining. Kansas City was out of timeouts, so on 1st and goal Manning kneeled the ball. With 1:03 remaining, Manning kneeled it again. Manning kneeled it on 3rd and goal with 22 seconds left. The Colts then called timeout, on 4th and goal, with six seconds remaining. They kicked the field goal, and three ticks remained on the clock. The Colts then had to kick it off to the Chiefs -- and Vinatieri booted it out of bounds. So the Chiefs had the ball at the 40, down three, with three seconds left.

That is just as bad as the Smith blunder, except it took an active error versus a passive one. There was no reason at all for Dungy to call a timeout with anything more than one second remaining.

The point? Even Super Bowl winning coaches make stupid decisions sometimes. Manning had a 6 INT game this year. I think Smith is taking a bit too much heat for this one.

 

[scott72]

I don't see anything wrong with what Dungy did there at all. If Vinatieri doesn't knock it out of bounds it probably gets squib kicked around the 25-30 or so. Nothing they can do at that point. Even with the ball at the 40 with 3 ticks left it's going to take a hail mary. Dungy played it right imo..Lovie totally f'd his situation up. No way in hell do you take a timeout home with you being down by one score. There would have been a few seconds left for something to happen. Thats all you can hope for, especially when your fighting for a playoff chance, is for a chance to make a play. He never even gave his team a chance. Horrible coaching.

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't see anything wrong with what Dungy did there at all. If Vinatieri doesn't knock it out of bounds it probably gets squib kicked around the 25-30 or so. Nothing they can do at that point. Even with the ball at the 40 with 3 ticks left it's going to take a hail mary. Dungy played it right imo..Lovie totally f'd his situation up. No way in hell do you take a timeout home with you being down by one score. There would have been a few seconds left for something to happen. Thats all you can hope for, especially when your fighting for a playoff chance, is for a chance to make a play. He never even gave his team a chance. Horrible coaching.

If you call timeout with one second left, you have no chance of losing (if you make the field goal). If you call timeout with six seconds left, you open yourself up to a kick return TD (Music City Miracle?), or a kickoff out of bounds and a hail mary or lateral attempt.I don't understand how you don't see what Dungy did was awful. He could have guaranteed that his team wouldn't lose; instead, he gave the opponent a chance.

 

[eom]

he's a classy guy like that.

 

[scott72]

I don't see anything wrong with what Dungy did there at all. If Vinatieri doesn't knock it out of bounds it probably gets squib kicked around the 25-30 or so. Nothing they can do at that point. Even with the ball at the 40 with 3 ticks left it's going to take a hail mary. Dungy played it right imo..Lovie totally f'd his situation up. No way in hell do you take a timeout home with you being down by one score. There would have been a few seconds left for something to happen. Thats all you can hope for, especially when your fighting for a playoff chance, is for a chance to make a play. He never even gave his team a chance. Horrible coaching.

If you call timeout with one second left, you have no chance of losing (if you make the field goal). If you call timeout with six seconds left, you open yourself up to a kick return TD (Music City Miracle?), or a kickoff out of bounds and a hail mary or lateral attempt.I don't understand how you don't see what Dungy did was awful. He could have guaranteed that his team wouldn't lose; instead, he gave the opponent a chance.

I don't disagree that I probably would have let a 2-3 more seconds burn off before calling the TO, but I hardly see that a bigger blunder than what Lovie did. Not even close. Lovie simply packed it in. Lovie isn't even close to Dungy's level of coaching imo..

 

[Chase Stuart]

I don't see anything wrong with what Dungy did there at all. If Vinatieri doesn't knock it out of bounds it probably gets squib kicked around the 25-30 or so. Nothing they can do at that point. Even with the ball at the 40 with 3 ticks left it's going to take a hail mary. Dungy played it right imo..Lovie totally f'd his situation up. No way in hell do you take a timeout home with you being down by one score. There would have been a few seconds left for something to happen. Thats all you can hope for, especially when your fighting for a playoff chance, is for a chance to make a play. He never even gave his team a chance. Horrible coaching.

If you call timeout with one second left, you have no chance of losing (if you make the field goal). If you call timeout with six seconds left, you open yourself up to a kick return TD (Music City Miracle?), or a kickoff out of bounds and a hail mary or lateral attempt.I don't understand how you don't see what Dungy did was awful. He could have guaranteed that his team wouldn't lose; instead, he gave the opponent a chance.

I don't disagree that I probably would have let a 2-3 more seconds burn off before calling the TO, but I hardly see that a bigger blunder than what Lovie did. Not even close. Lovie simply packed it in. Lovie isn't even close to Dungy's level of coaching imo..

Lovie Smith gave his team no chance to win, when they had a very, very small chance to win.Tony Dungy gave his team a very, very small chance to lose, when they had no chance to lose.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Isn't there a difference between screwing up and giving up?

Dungy just messed up. Lovie said screw it, I'm going home.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Isn't there a difference between screwing up and giving up?Dungy just messed up. Lovie said screw it, I'm going home.

Sure, but isn't the important thing how you maximize your team's chances of winning?For example, let's say you're down by 1 and you're inside the other team's 20 with twenty seconds left and no time outs. If you don't get a field goal attempt off, because you screwed up, that's really bad. I'd say that's worse than say, kneeling on the ball on your own 10 with two seconds to go and down by 8. The second situation involves you "giving up", but it doesn't affect your team's chances of winning as much.For me, the distinction between screwing up and giving up isn't worth much. All that matters is winning.

 

[mad sweeney]

I don't see anything wrong with what Dungy did there at all. If Vinatieri doesn't knock it out of bounds it probably gets squib kicked around the 25-30 or so. Nothing they can do at that point. Even with the ball at the 40 with 3 ticks left it's going to take a hail mary. Dungy played it right imo..Lovie totally f'd his situation up. No way in hell do you take a timeout home with you being down by one score. There would have been a few seconds left for something to happen. Thats all you can hope for, especially when your fighting for a playoff chance, is for a chance to make a play. He never even gave his team a chance. Horrible coaching.

If you call timeout with one second left, you have no chance of losing (if you make the field goal). If you call timeout with six seconds left, you open yourself up to a kick return TD (Music City Miracle?), or a kickoff out of bounds and a hail mary or lateral attempt.I don't understand how you don't see what Dungy did was awful. He could have guaranteed that his team wouldn't lose; instead, he gave the opponent a chance.

The same chance that people are clamoring that Smith didn't give his own team.

 

[Schrute]

I don't see anything wrong with what Dungy did there at all. If Vinatieri doesn't knock it out of bounds it probably gets squib kicked around the 25-30 or so. Nothing they can do at that point. Even with the ball at the 40 with 3 ticks left it's going to take a hail mary. Dungy played it right imo..Lovie totally f'd his situation up. No way in hell do you take a timeout home with you being down by one score. There would have been a few seconds left for something to happen. Thats all you can hope for, especially when your fighting for a playoff chance, is for a chance to make a play. He never even gave his team a chance. Horrible coaching.

If you call timeout with one second left, you have no chance of losing (if you make the field goal). If you call timeout with six seconds left, you open yourself up to a kick return TD (Music City Miracle?), or a kickoff out of bounds and a hail mary or lateral attempt.I don't understand how you don't see what Dungy did was awful. He could have guaranteed that his team wouldn't lose; instead, he gave the opponent a chance.

I don't disagree that I probably would have let a 2-3 more seconds burn off before calling the TO, but I hardly see that a bigger blunder than what Lovie did. Not even close. Lovie simply packed it in. Lovie isn't even close to Dungy's level of coaching imo..

Lovie Smith gave his team no chance to win, when they had a very, very small chance to win.Tony Dungy gave his team a very, very small chance to lose, when they had no chance to lose.

Fine, Dungy made a mistake. Those happen. But Lovie Smith GAVE UP. He quit on his team. Big, BIG difference.

 

[Schrute]

Isn't there a difference between screwing up and giving up?

Dungy just messed up. Lovie said screw it, I'm going home.

Sure, but isn't the important thing how you maximize your team's chances of winning?For example, let's say you're down by 1 and you're inside the other team's 20 with twenty seconds left and no time outs. If you don't get a field goal attempt off, because you screwed up, that's really bad. I'd say that's worse than say, kneeling on the ball on your own 10 with two seconds to go and down by 8. The second situation involves you "giving up", but it doesn't affect your team's chances of winning as much.

For me, the distinction between screwing up and giving up isn't worth much. All that matters is winning.

OK. Dungy's team won. Case closed.

 

[[scooter]]

The difference is that Dungy's choice only looks bad if he loses the game. Dungy still gave his team a chance to win.

Smith's choice looks bad no matter what.

 

[NJ]

Is there any type of scenario where say the Colts make the FG, but get a holding penalty or something along those lines where if there was only 1 second on the clock, regulation would end and the game would go into OT, but with 6 seconds left, there would still be 2-3 seconds left to attempt the FG again after the penalty is assessed? Not sure, just asking...

 

[Schrute]

Is there any type of scenario where say the Colts make the FG, but get a holding penalty or something along those lines where if there was only 1 second on the clock, regulation would end and the game would go into OT, but with 6 seconds left, there would still be 2-3 seconds left to attempt the FG again after the penalty is assessed? Not sure, just asking...

Yes, that could happen. Not sure if that's why Dungy did it or not.

 

[bcr8f]

Us Packer fans would love to see him leave.

 

[Phurfur]

Smith definitely goofed by not calling a timeout at the end of the game on Sunday, but I think people are really overreacting to this one.

In week 11, against the Chiefs, the Colts were tied and at the Kansas City one-yard line with 1:43 remaining. Kansas City was out of timeouts, so on 1st and goal Manning kneeled the ball. With 1:03 remaining, Manning kneeled it again. Manning kneeled it on 3rd and goal with 22 seconds left. The Colts then called timeout, on 4th and goal, with six seconds remaining. They kicked the field goal, and three ticks remained on the clock. The Colts then had to kick it off to the Chiefs -- and Vinatieri booted it out of bounds. So the Chiefs had the ball at the 40, down three, with three seconds left.

That is just as bad as the Smith blunder, except it took an active error versus a passive one. There was no reason at all for Dungy to call a timeout with anything more than one second remaining.

The point? Even Super Bowl winning coaches make stupid decisions sometimes. Manning had a 6 INT game this year. I think Smith is taking a bit too much heat for this one.

This is not even close, Dungy was going for the win and Lovie was going for the lose. Quit fishing.

 

[pizzatyme]

Smith definitely goofed by not calling a timeout at the end of the game on Sunday, but I think people are really overreacting to this one.

In week 11, against the Chiefs, the Colts were tied and at the Kansas City one-yard line with 1:43 remaining. Kansas City was out of timeouts, so on 1st and goal Manning kneeled the ball. With 1:03 remaining, Manning kneeled it again. Manning kneeled it on 3rd and goal with 22 seconds left. The Colts then called timeout, on 4th and goal, with six seconds remaining. They kicked the field goal, and three ticks remained on the clock. The Colts then had to kick it off to the Chiefs -- and Vinatieri booted it out of bounds. So the Chiefs had the ball at the 40, down three, with three seconds left.

That is just as bad as the Smith blunder, except it took an active error versus a passive one. There was no reason at all for Dungy to call a timeout with anything more than one second remaining.

The point? Even Super Bowl winning coaches make stupid decisions sometimes. Manning had a 6 INT game this year. I think Smith is taking a bit too much heat for this one.

Wow Chase, quite the fishing trip here. Lovie GAVE UP. Dungy gave his tam an out in case of an offensive penalty on the kick. And what does Manning's 6 INT performance have anything to do with your argument here?

Take the thinly veiled Colts bashing elsewhere please.

TIA

 

[SSOG]

Is there any type of scenario where say the Colts make the FG, but get a holding penalty or something along those lines where if there was only 1 second on the clock, regulation would end and the game would go into OT, but with 6 seconds left, there would still be 2-3 seconds left to attempt the FG again after the penalty is assessed? Not sure, just asking...

Yes, that could happen. Not sure if that's why Dungy did it or not.

If there's an offensive penalty at the end of the game, there's a clock runoff. Whether there was 6 seconds left or 1 second left, an offensive penalty ends the game and sends it to overtime.If the Colts were on 3rd down instead of 4th down, there'd be a legit reason to save time- if the snap was bad, the holder could have simply picked it up, spiked it, and tried again on 4th down. On 4th down, though, I don't think there's any situation where the extra time would make any difference, because you either get the kick off or it's a turnover on downs.

 

[Schrute]

Is there any type of scenario where say the Colts make the FG, but get a holding penalty or something along those lines where if there was only 1 second on the clock, regulation would end and the game would go into OT, but with 6 seconds left, there would still be 2-3 seconds left to attempt the FG again after the penalty is assessed? Not sure, just asking...

Yes, that could happen. Not sure if that's why Dungy did it or not.

If there's an offensive penalty at the end of the game, there's a clock runoff. Whether there was 6 seconds left or 1 second left, an offensive penalty ends the game and sends it to overtime.If the Colts were on 3rd down instead of 4th down, there'd be a legit reason to save time- if the snap was bad, the holder could have simply picked it up, spiked it, and tried again on 4th down. On 4th down, though, I don't think there's any situation where the extra time would make any difference, because you either get the kick off or it's a turnover on downs.

I think there's only a runoff if the offensive team doesn't have any timeouts left.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Isn't there a difference between screwing up and giving up?Dungy just messed up. Lovie said screw it, I'm going home.

Sure, but isn't the important thing how you maximize your team's chances of winning?For example, let's say you're down by 1 and you're inside the other team's 20 with twenty seconds left and no time outs. If you don't get a field goal attempt off, because you screwed up, that's really bad. I'd say that's worse than say, kneeling on the ball on your own 10 with two seconds to go and down by 8. The second situation involves you "giving up", but it doesn't affect your team's chances of winning as much.For me, the distinction between screwing up and giving up isn't worth much. All that matters is winning.

Well, now you're comparing one extreme longshot with one major screwup. In the case at hand, we're comparing a longshot with a minor screwup.If you want to compare not getting a FG off in time as the screwup, then a more apt comparison for "giving up" would be electing to take a knee and run out the clock while in FG range down only 2 .When comparing two situations that are equal longshots, or not longshots, giving up is WAY worse than screwing up. Obviously we can come up with any number of screwups that are a bigger deal than Lovie Smith giving up if we want to just start inventing them, but that's not what you started the thread about.

 

[blenderfrog]

I don't see anything wrong with what Dungy did there at all. If Vinatieri doesn't knock it out of bounds it probably gets squib kicked around the 25-30 or so. Nothing they can do at that point. Even with the ball at the 40 with 3 ticks left it's going to take a hail mary. Dungy played it right imo..Lovie totally f'd his situation up. No way in hell do you take a timeout home with you being down by one score. There would have been a few seconds left for something to happen. Thats all you can hope for, especially when your fighting for a playoff chance, is for a chance to make a play. He never even gave his team a chance. Horrible coaching.

If you call timeout with one second left, you have no chance of losing (if you make the field goal). If you call timeout with six seconds left, you open yourself up to a kick return TD (Music City Miracle?), or a kickoff out of bounds and a hail mary or lateral attempt.I don't understand how you don't see what Dungy did was awful. He could have guaranteed that his team wouldn't lose; instead, he gave the opponent a chance.

The only time you should call a time out with more than 2 seconds, is if you're going to kick on 3rd down. That way you can recover from a bad snap and try another FG. If you're going to kick on 4th down, there's no reason to keep time on the clock.

 

[redman]

Smith definitely goofed by not calling a timeout at the end of the game on Sunday, but I think people are really overreacting to this one.

In week 11, against the Chiefs, the Colts were tied and at the Kansas City one-yard line with 1:43 remaining. Kansas City was out of timeouts, so on 1st and goal Manning kneeled the ball. With 1:03 remaining, Manning kneeled it again. Manning kneeled it on 3rd and goal with 22 seconds left. The Colts then called timeout, on 4th and goal, with six seconds remaining. They kicked the field goal, and three ticks remained on the clock. The Colts then had to kick it off to the Chiefs -- and Vinatieri booted it out of bounds. So the Chiefs had the ball at the 40, down three, with three seconds left.

That is just as bad as the Smith blunder, except it took an active error versus a passive one. There was no reason at all for Dungy to call a timeout with anything more than one second remaining.

The point? Even Super Bowl winning coaches make stupid decisions sometimes. Manning had a 6 INT game this year. I think Smith is taking a bit too much heat for this one.

I agree that was a mistake by Dungy, but it represents a hasty decision rather than a coach waving the proverbial white flag even though his team had one more chance (and not a bad one with Hester!) to make a big play to win a game. The two situations really aren't comparable IMHO. Smith gave up - nothing about Dungy's decision even remotely resembles that . . . unless you're suggesting he intentionally allowed KC go get another chance to win the game.

 

[[scooter]]

Is there any type of scenario where say the Colts make the FG, but get a holding penalty or something along those lines where if there was only 1 second on the clock, regulation would end and the game would go into OT, but with 6 seconds left, there would still be 2-3 seconds left to attempt the FG again after the penalty is assessed? Not sure, just asking...

Yes, that could happen. Not sure if that's why Dungy did it or not.

If there's an offensive penalty at the end of the game, there's a clock runoff. Whether there was 6 seconds left or 1 second left, an offensive penalty ends the game and sends it to overtime.If the Colts were on 3rd down instead of 4th down, there'd be a legit reason to save time- if the snap was bad, the holder could have simply picked it up, spiked it, and tried again on 4th down. On 4th down, though, I don't think there's any situation where the extra time would make any difference, because you either get the kick off or it's a turnover on downs.

I think there's only a runoff if the offensive team doesn't have any timeouts left.

The 10-second rule only applies to a false start, illegal shift or illegal motion. And it can't occur if the clock was already stopped.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Smith definitely goofed by not calling a timeout at the end of the game on Sunday, but I think people are really overreacting to this one.

In week 11, against the Chiefs, the Colts were tied and at the Kansas City one-yard line with 1:43 remaining. Kansas City was out of timeouts, so on 1st and goal Manning kneeled the ball. With 1:03 remaining, Manning kneeled it again. Manning kneeled it on 3rd and goal with 22 seconds left. The Colts then called timeout, on 4th and goal, with six seconds remaining. They kicked the field goal, and three ticks remained on the clock. The Colts then had to kick it off to the Chiefs -- and Vinatieri booted it out of bounds. So the Chiefs had the ball at the 40, down three, with three seconds left.

That is just as bad as the Smith blunder, except it took an active error versus a passive one. There was no reason at all for Dungy to call a timeout with anything more than one second remaining.

The point? Even Super Bowl winning coaches make stupid decisions sometimes. Manning had a 6 INT game this year. I think Smith is taking a bit too much heat for this one.

Totally agree that the field goal attempt should have been attempted with 2 seconds on the clock, don't understand why they gave them a chance at all to come back.I still don't think that would ever equate to just giving up like Smith did. Even though they are both mistakes, the mind set behind each one is different.

Dungy was trying to win the game, he just made a mistake, he's human. Lovie Smith gave up, he wasn't trying to win and that's what is inexcusable in people's eyes.

Because they both made a mistake isn't equal in this particular case.

 

[Da Guru]

Dungy called his TO on first down, Smith had three downs to think "Should I be calling a TO?"

Both were blunders..Lovies was worse.

 

[Chase Stuart]

Smith definitely goofed by not calling a timeout at the end of the game on Sunday, but I think people are really overreacting to this one.

In week 11, against the Chiefs, the Colts were tied and at the Kansas City one-yard line with 1:43 remaining. Kansas City was out of timeouts, so on 1st and goal Manning kneeled the ball. With 1:03 remaining, Manning kneeled it again. Manning kneeled it on 3rd and goal with 22 seconds left. The Colts then called timeout, on 4th and goal, with six seconds remaining. They kicked the field goal, and three ticks remained on the clock. The Colts then had to kick it off to the Chiefs -- and Vinatieri booted it out of bounds. So the Chiefs had the ball at the 40, down three, with three seconds left.

That is just as bad as the Smith blunder, except it took an active error versus a passive one. There was no reason at all for Dungy to call a timeout with anything more than one second remaining.

The point? Even Super Bowl winning coaches make stupid decisions sometimes. Manning had a 6 INT game this year. I think Smith is taking a bit too much heat for this one.

Totally agree that the field goal attempt should have been attempted with 2 seconds on the clock, don't understand why they gave them a chance at all to come back.I still don't think that would ever equate to just giving up like Smith did. Even though they are both mistakes, the mind set behind each one is different.

Dungy was trying to win the game, he just made a mistake, he's human. Lovie Smith gave up, he wasn't trying to win and that's what is inexcusable in people's eyes.

Because they both made a mistake isn't equal in this particular case.

Let me go back to my example:You're down by 1 and you're inside the other team's 20 with twenty seconds left and no time outs. Because of a mistake, you don't get a field goal attempt off and you lose.

Another example: You kneel on the ball on your own 10 with two seconds to go and down by 8. You "give up".

Which is worse, in your opinion? For me, I'd be a lot more unhappy with my head coach in the first situation. Would you be more upset with the coach that gave up?

 

[Chase Stuart]

Smith definitely goofed by not calling a timeout at the end of the game on Sunday, but I think people are really overreacting to this one.

In week 11, against the Chiefs, the Colts were tied and at the Kansas City one-yard line with 1:43 remaining. Kansas City was out of timeouts, so on 1st and goal Manning kneeled the ball. With 1:03 remaining, Manning kneeled it again. Manning kneeled it on 3rd and goal with 22 seconds left. The Colts then called timeout, on 4th and goal, with six seconds remaining. They kicked the field goal, and three ticks remained on the clock. The Colts then had to kick it off to the Chiefs -- and Vinatieri booted it out of bounds. So the Chiefs had the ball at the 40, down three, with three seconds left.

That is just as bad as the Smith blunder, except it took an active error versus a passive one. There was no reason at all for Dungy to call a timeout with anything more than one second remaining.

The point? Even Super Bowl winning coaches make stupid decisions sometimes. Manning had a 6 INT game this year. I think Smith is taking a bit too much heat for this one.

I agree that was a mistake by Dungy, but it represents a hasty decision rather than a coach waving the proverbial white flag even though his team had one more chance (and not a bad one with Hester!) to make a big play to win a game. The two situations really aren't comparable IMHO. Smith gave up - nothing about Dungy's decision even remotely resembles that . . . unless you're suggesting he intentionally allowed KC go get another chance to win the game.

Well it is Herm on the other sidelines... But how do you feel about the hypo I gave Iwannabeacowboybaby! ?

 

[nygalltheway]

I was watching the Monday Night game with the Bears and Vikings and was confused when the Viking were kneeling the ball and Lovie didn't call time out. I'm not sure but is this what happened?:

There was about 1:30 on the clock and the Vikes were kneeling and the Bears had one timeout.

1st Down: Kneel

2nd Down: Kneel

3rd Down (with under :40 seconds left): Kneel

Lovie could have called a timeout and made the Vikes go for a 4th down with about 20 seconds left. I am really confused and I'm not sure if I'm right. If that is what happened, it is not a matter of giving up, it is a matter of common sense. Please somebody tell me if what I said is correct...

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I was watching the Monday Night game with the Bears and Vikings and was confused when the Viking were kneeling the ball and Lovie didn't call time out. I'm not sure but is this what happened?:There was about 1:30 on the clock and the Vikes were kneeling and the Bears had one timeout.1st Down: Kneel2nd Down: Kneel3rd Down (with under :40 seconds left): KneelLovie could have called a timeout and made the Vikes go for a 4th down with about 20 seconds left. I am really confused and I'm not sure if I'm right. If that is what happened, it is not a matter of giving up, it is a matter of common sense. Please somebody tell me if what I said is correct...

That's right, so what exactly about not wanting the ball back while trailing with a few seconds at the end to try and win the game is a matter of common sense?

 

[nygalltheway]

I was watching the Monday Night game with the Bears and Vikings and was confused when the Viking were kneeling the ball and Lovie didn't call time out. I'm not sure but is this what happened?:

There was about 1:30 on the clock and the Vikes were kneeling and the Bears had one timeout.

1st Down: Kneel

2nd Down: Kneel

3rd Down (with under :40 seconds left): Kneel

Lovie could have called a timeout and made the Vikes go for a 4th down with about 20 seconds left. I am really confused and I'm not sure if I'm right. If that is what happened, it is not a matter of giving up, it is a matter of common sense. Please somebody tell me if what I said is correct...

That's right, so what exactly about not wanting the ball back while trailing with a few seconds at the end to try and win the game is a matter of common sense?

Assuming that CHI stopped the Vikes on what would have been a 4th and 10+, the Bears would have had the ball down by 7 in good field position with maybe :15...It's not like it is even a long shot to win the game...I feel like there should be morescrutiny on him...

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I was watching the Monday Night game with the Bears and Vikings and was confused when the Viking were kneeling the ball and Lovie didn't call time out. I'm not sure but is this what happened?:

There was about 1:30 on the clock and the Vikes were kneeling and the Bears had one timeout.

1st Down: Kneel

2nd Down: Kneel

3rd Down (with under :40 seconds left): Kneel

Lovie could have called a timeout and made the Vikes go for a 4th down with about 20 seconds left. I am really confused and I'm not sure if I'm right. If that is what happened, it is not a matter of giving up, it is a matter of common sense. Please somebody tell me if what I said is correct...

That's right, so what exactly about not wanting the ball back while trailing with a few seconds at the end to try and win the game is a matter of common sense?

Assuming that CHI stopped the Vikes on what would have been a 4th and 10+, the Bears would have had the ball down by 7 in good field position with maybe :15...It's not like it is even a long shot to win the game...I feel like there should be morescrutiny on him...

Ah, I misread your first post. I thought you were saying it was common sense to let the clock run out.

 

[nygalltheway]

I was watching the Monday Night game with the Bears and Vikings and was confused when the Viking were kneeling the ball and Lovie didn't call time out. I'm not sure but is this what happened?:

There was about 1:30 on the clock and the Vikes were kneeling and the Bears had one timeout.

1st Down: Kneel

2nd Down: Kneel

3rd Down (with under :40 seconds left): Kneel

Lovie could have called a timeout and made the Vikes go for a 4th down with about 20 seconds left. I am really confused and I'm not sure if I'm right. If that is what happened, it is not a matter of giving up, it is a matter of common sense. Please somebody tell me if what I said is correct...

That's right, so what exactly about not wanting the ball back while trailing with a few seconds at the end to try and win the game is a matter of common sense?

Assuming that CHI stopped the Vikes on what would have been a 4th and 10+, the Bears would have had the ball down by 7 in good field position with maybe :15...It's not like it is even a long shot to win the game...I feel like there should be morescrutiny on him...

Ah, I misread your first post. I thought you were saying it was common sense to let the clock run out.

I thought you were being sarcastic. I was confused when you asked what the common sense was...

 

[redman]

Smith definitely goofed by not calling a timeout at the end of the game on Sunday, but I think people are really overreacting to this one.

In week 11, against the Chiefs, the Colts were tied and at the Kansas City one-yard line with 1:43 remaining. Kansas City was out of timeouts, so on 1st and goal Manning kneeled the ball. With 1:03 remaining, Manning kneeled it again. Manning kneeled it on 3rd and goal with 22 seconds left. The Colts then called timeout, on 4th and goal, with six seconds remaining. They kicked the field goal, and three ticks remained on the clock. The Colts then had to kick it off to the Chiefs -- and Vinatieri booted it out of bounds. So the Chiefs had the ball at the 40, down three, with three seconds left.

That is just as bad as the Smith blunder, except it took an active error versus a passive one. There was no reason at all for Dungy to call a timeout with anything more than one second remaining.

The point? Even Super Bowl winning coaches make stupid decisions sometimes. Manning had a 6 INT game this year. I think Smith is taking a bit too much heat for this one.

Totally agree that the field goal attempt should have been attempted with 2 seconds on the clock, don't understand why they gave them a chance at all to come back.I still don't think that would ever equate to just giving up like Smith did. Even though they are both mistakes, the mind set behind each one is different.

Dungy was trying to win the game, he just made a mistake, he's human. Lovie Smith gave up, he wasn't trying to win and that's what is inexcusable in people's eyes.

Because they both made a mistake isn't equal in this particular case.

Let me go back to my example:You're down by 1 and you're inside the other team's 20 with twenty seconds left and no time outs. Because of a mistake, you don't get a field goal attempt off and you lose.

Another example: You kneel on the ball on your own 10 with two seconds to go and down by 8. You "give up".

Which is worse, in your opinion? For me, I'd be a lot more unhappy with my head coach in the first situation. Would you be more upset with the coach that gave up?

First of all, both of these examples are more egregious than Dungy's error, so my answer has nothing to do with Dungy.Both are bad, though they have a different mix of two different factors: 1) egregiousness of the mental error and 2) how realistic it was that the mistake cost them the game.

The first example (depending upon the circumstances - sometimes the FG team just doesn't/can't rush out onto the field and set up in time) is relatively light on the first factor, but is obviously heavy on the second factor as that is a very makeable FG by any standard.

The second example has the opposite mix - the game is probably not winnable under any circumstances, but the coach giving up his last chance to win it is pretty hard to accept absent some mitigating circumstances (e.g. horrible rash of injuries during the game, and the team wants to avoid more on a frivolous play; they've already clinched home field; etc.)