Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
I can’t say I agree with your take in the slightest. It doesn’t suck giving it your all and going down swinging IMO, especially for a team that only won 4 games last year. So maybe just a philosophical disagreement on this and agree to disagree.
On second thought, the Broncos red-zone offense may be the worst I've ever seen. They should probably just kick the FG on first down.
he's special, but he has friends in here
It's called throwing in the towel. Tomlin just wants to get out of there. This offense scoring 9 points in 4 minutes is virtually impossible. He probably just wanted to get them out healthy.
I thought the kick was long enough and just missed to the left. I thought it showed that he had the distance and just needed to dial in the direction a bit. I didn't think it was a miserable fail at all. Then McManus kicked it the exact same and missed just to the left again. No adjustment.
I thought it could actually help them. More room for the WR's to work and to spread everyone out to let Kyler improvise. I think some teams benefit from being out a few more yards than everything being crammed in 2 yds out.
He was playing a team that gave up 14 points in two minutes to Joe Flacco last week!
I disagree entirely with this. They’re still compressed in the red zone, defense is every bit as rough - it’s not like the difference between 5 yards out and 25.
I would have gone for it. The D did get the ball back though.
If it wasn't done on purpose then I agree it was inexcusable.
Actually, that kind of proves the point. The defense did just about everything that could have been asked of them, holding the Browns to two straight three-and-outs. And it got the Steelers offense one scoring drive and one where they got the ball back on their own 4 with 9 seconds left.
Their best chance to win at that point was probably a Brown's turnover.
It certainly didn't appear to be on purpose in the moment. Exasperated frustration all around.
Well of course not, because Chubb is on the Browns.
3 even better!
You all laugh, but we're only a couple years away from Bruce Arians announcing that he deliberately took a delay of game penalty because he thought the longer FGA would be better for Matt Gay (Gay ended up shanking the potential game winner).
Hanlan’s Razor: never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity
I wasn't trying to say it was done deliberately or there was some sort of conspiracy. I was only stating I don't think it hurt them for the 2pt attempt.
I’m not disagreeing with you. I posted it in the game thread immediately that it made no sense. Just saying that with how bad the offense is, it probably makes no difference. But still doesn’t excuse the decision.
I didn't get that either. I guess the thinking is that you don't want to leave any time for the Patriots in case you miss the FG, but a bad snap seems more likely than the Patriots pulling off a miracle 75-year play with a 3rd string QB, but I am sure the analytics told LaFleur to do it that way.
Romo also disagreed in a kind way on the broadcastI didn't get that either. I guess the thinking is that you don't want to leave any time for the Patriots in case you miss the FG, but a bad snap seems more likely than the Patriots pulling off a miracle 75-year play with a 3rd string QB, but I am sure the analytics told LaFleur to do it that way.
That makes me second guess myself. Romo is good as an announcer, but his advice and comments at the end of halves/games are good reminders of why he often struggled at the end of games. His announcing is like his QB play: really good for most of the game, but head scratching at the end.Romo also disagreed in a kind way on the broadcastI didn't get that either. I guess the thinking is that you don't want to leave any time for the Patriots in case you miss the FG, but a bad snap seems more likely than the Patriots pulling off a miracle 75-year play with a 3rd string QB, but I am sure the analytics told LaFleur to do it that way.
I didn’t have the volume on.Romo also disagreed in a kind way on the broadcastI didn't get that either. I guess the thinking is that you don't want to leave any time for the Patriots in case you miss the FG, but a bad snap seems more likely than the Patriots pulling off a miracle 75-year play with a 3rd string QB, but I am sure the analytics told LaFleur to do it that way.
Dumbest thing I’ve seen a coach do in awhile. Couldn’t believe it live
I didn't see it, but if that actually happened as described, just wow.
I saw that Browns play too.
Yes
This doesn't really make sense. If they took a couple shots to the end zone, they could either (1) score, game over; (2) incomplete, no problem; (3) throw an interception, bad outcome. Why not try to make a couple safe play calls targeting the end zone? Especially with a veteran QB.I didn't get that either. I guess the thinking is that you don't want to leave any time for the Patriots in case you miss the FG, but a bad snap seems more likely than the Patriots pulling off a miracle 75-year play with a 3rd string QB, but I am sure the analytics told LaFleur to do it that way.
Romo started to question not saving time for the botched snap, but quickly went away from it when he realized GB had only the 1 TO left. In order to play for the potential botched snap (I'm assuming you'd save the final TO for that possibility), GB would have to send out the FG unit while the play clock ran. Certainly not a big deal, but probably a little more comfortable to do it after calling a TO. Plus the whole "it leaves the Pats no time if it misses" thing.Romo also disagreed in a kind way on the broadcastI didn't get that either. I guess the thinking is that you don't want to leave any time for the Patriots in case you miss the FG, but a bad snap seems more likely than the Patriots pulling off a miracle 75-year play with a 3rd string QB, but I am sure the analytics told LaFleur to do it that way.
Despite being someone who thinks NFL coaches settle way too quickly for the winning FG attempt instead of going for the TD, I believe LaFleur got this one right. Yes with Rodgers, you feel safer going for the TD than probably anyone else. But his receivers are pretty inexperienced. And there are a few other bad things that could happen that you didn't mention. Botched snap, sack, fumble, penalty, etc. Sure they're fairly unlikely.This doesn't really make sense. If they took a couple shots to the end zone, they could either (1) score, game over; (2) incomplete, no problem; (3) throw an interception, bad outcome. Why not try to make a couple safe play calls targeting the end zone? Especially with a veteran QB.I didn't get that either. I guess the thinking is that you don't want to leave any time for the Patriots in case you miss the FG, but a bad snap seems more likely than the Patriots pulling off a miracle 75-year play with a 3rd string QB, but I am sure the analytics told LaFleur to do it that way.
Your response is assuming they try a FG and miss. Why not try to win the game with a TD and fall back to FG?
That said, the coaching staff must have had the same perspective you are representing here.
As listed, I'd agree that kicking FG makes more sense. But it was actually about 4:30 left and 4th and goal from the 2 and a half yard line. To me, this is really close. And going up against probably the best team in the league, you should be more likely to take the higher variance play, aka go for it.
I had been wondering what the 4th Down Bot would say.
Yeah I was really unclear what happened, I almost thought that the chyron was wrong and it couldn't be fourth down. So dumb. And then the pick touchback so they aren't even pinned at the 2 or wherever. That was icing on the cake.
Because he went for it on 4th down at the end? That’s absolutely the right call. One yard wins you the game.
