This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The left foot didn't come down. It looked like it from the angles up and down the field, but on the one shot they showed from across the field, you can see that the toe never actually touched; you can see the other player's leg below it.
This is the angle of replay I was talking about.
His toe absolutely touched.
That was the third play this weekend (after the two goal-line plays in Denver-Detroit) where I felt like I could have gotten a clearer idea of what happened if they had applied the standard Zapruder-like analysis that they usually show us, but they never did.
Their late-season resurgence likely makes the question moot, but I always thought situations like McDermott's are the ones where coaches shouldn't get fired but often do. Teams should fire their coach when they're absolute dumpster fires (eg, McDaniels) or when it's clear they're not going to turn the team into a winner (Staley). They shouldn't fire winning coaches because "he just can't get us over the hump". The Pittsburgh/Baltimore model where you stick by him through a bad year or two is far better, IMO
They showed it like 5 times.
They didn't focus on whether that foot hit the ground or whether it was on top of Brown's leg. From the angle they kept showing I thought that it did, but I couldn't tell for sure
Yes, they did. They discussed it for several minutes and showed the toe clearly touching the ground.
that did not show the angle @CalBear and I have been referencing. There is a shot from the other side of the field and ground level that shows the toe did not clearly touch. I am not sure if it did or did not but it definitely wasn't conclusive. I saw the replay angle I am speaking of on twitter but I can't find it now. I think it may be a conspiracy for the NFL and they are burying the footage.
I hear ya GB, but again: when we have an angle that *clearly* shows 2 feet down, why do we need an angle that isn’t conclusive?
I don't believe those show it conclusively. It looks like it might but I don't ever see it conclusively. Same with the other angle. It doesn't look like it touches but it doesn't conclusively show that it doesn't. Putting all these angles together and it's inconclusive.
I said that tongue in cheek.
youtube.com
Looks like it touched to me- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music you love, upload original content, and share it all with friends, family, and the world on YouTube.
This is probably the correct answer.
Of course. Everyone knows that claiming the NFL suppressed evidence is a completely implausible conspiracy theory
Slight difference between that and a game that was nationally televised my dude.
I think letting the call stand is probably correct. But in reality, I don't think the toe touched.
And getting back to this thread: A deep ball to Brown is not a bad call in that situation. But Hurts shouldn't have thrown it.
But they only needed like 15 yards to be in FG range in a 3 point game.
A FG doesn't win you the game. And a 55-yard FG attempt will more than likely lose you the game on the spot.
Not when Jake Elliott is kicking it.
Well within Elliott’s range.
Exactly. 55 is well within Elliott’s range.
Elliott is 70% for his career from 50+. So if you get 15 yards and stop the clock (no gimme at all), you have a 70% chance to give yourself a 50% chance to win (OT). Total probability < 20%.
People continue to view "range" as a binary concept
But they had enough time to get 2x 15 yard throws. Or a 15 & a 10. Whatever - they had TOs left & the middle of the field to work with.
The NFL varies so much from year to year that what someone did this year is more relevant to a game this year than what someone did in his career.
In real time it looked an awful lot like making a desperation throw when they didn’t need to.
The idea that Jake Elliott's 8-9 on 50+ yard FGs this year is the result of some transformation from his long-ago performance in the years 2020-2022, when he was 10-14 (71%) on 50+ yard FGSs, is...interesting.
It's not a Hail Mary. There are two receivers finishing routes at the Seattle 40 yard line, another open at the 50, and one go route. Hurts thought he had Brown on a jump ball and didn't read the safety.
It was still a dumb play call when you have time for two throws, and throw up a wish that the refs will bail you out instead.
There are four receivers in the pattern. Hurts went to the one who was double-covered, when there were two single-covered receivers, one clearly open. That's not about the play call.
depends on the read progressions for that play. If the first read was the triple covered guy and the second was the play he made then it could be the play call. I think the point is why are you going 40 yds down the field from the get go when you have time outs and the entire field to utilize to get 15-20 yds at a minimum for a legit FG attempt? As the better team (take away the last drive by Seattle and Philly was the better team that day) and you play for the tie first. Then look for the TD. It was bad clock management, play calling, and decision. All three were dreadful.
You're going 40 yards down the field because if that pass is completed you might win the game. At the end of the play there's 7 seconds left. Brown landed on the 10 yard line. With a completion you'd get at least one legit shot at the end zone on a normal red zone play. Whereas if you completed a pass at the 40 yard line, you can't count on having enough time to chuck it into the end zone, so you have to try the 50+ yard field goal, which even if you make it only gets you the tie.
After blowing the lead like that, the tie was the preferred choice given time, down and distance. Plus as @Gally and I have said, they had time-outs.
I believe the meaning was getting in a position to tie first based on the time and yardage situation was preferred to at least extend the game. Going for a low percentage long play which minimizes your total plays when you have the time outs available to open up other available plays than just the jump ball is not ideal.
We’ll have to agree to disagree.
There was some horrible coaching in that game, but it wasn’t on Detroit’s side of the field. The way McCarthy handled play calls after the late INT was criminal.
But that didn't affect them, they got the penalty and moved closer.
That's the thing, the play worked to perfection. The refs created the mess, not the coach.
