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!
At the end of the game, when Seattle was driving for a tying FG, they were about to run a play with, I believe, seven seconds left in the game (and no TOs). It looked like they were hoping to catch Atlanta napping and run a quick out to the sideline to pick up a few more yards. Atlanta called time out, and Seattle just settled for a FG attempt (which, fittingly, came up short).
He did lose the game by 3 and the misuse of the time-outs earlier prevented then from getting closer. The bolded is effectively true.
Hmm, I remember you posting where you went to HS, since I went to the same. With this, I could probably figure out who you are (or at least have about a 50/50 shot).He went to Columbia and transferred to Princeton, after his father was fired as Columbia's football coach. I'm a Princeton guy so this matters to me.
Even if they had a TO left, 7 seconds isn’t long enough.
That’s the underrated dumb call of the week. That play had none chance of getting overturned. None. So totally obviously none.
Also my conclusion - if you’re gonna go for it, why try the trickery with that player grouping, unless you really, really want the least possible chance of success?
I don’t remember posting my HS, but maybe I did. (Said school has no football team, and never did.) Feel free to PM me a guess if you’d like.
Ned: Hey, hey! Now, don't you tell me you don't remember me because I sure as heckfire remember you.
My guess is that some coaches do that in case they get a hold or procedure penalty on the kick. If that happens and the clock runs out, the half is over and you don't get to attempt it again. In that situation, with the attempt being from so far back, I agree that it was bizarre.
I was thinking the exact same thing while listening to the game on the radio. It probably won't matter, but why take the chance of leaving time on the clock?Gawain said:
I don't even get it. Did he really say that? Why? Something taken out of context? He's usually not the type of coach to say something that dumb.
He said it. He was also quoted as already talking about when they play the Patriots in two weeks and alluded to their eventual matchup against NE in the playoffs. Nothing like looking far ahead, eh?
Can you please link the exact quotes? ETA - I want to post it in the Steelers thread this week when I go on my rant.
And then McCarthy did the exact same thing (though that one was more on Williams for going out of bounds).
Yeah after watching the entire interview, it really wasn't that bad. I have no problem with the "we should win it all" comment. I want that type of confidence in a coach. It's a very talented team so why shouldn't he feel that way? I just don't like the part where he starts talking about New England. Focus on one game at a time and worry about New England in 3 weeks. However, a lot of the Steelers fans in this forum had no issues with any of it.
Came in to say this. I was really confused at why he didn’t just go for it there. FG literally does nothing for them at that point.
In the "by the book" mindset, it means you can now tie the game with a TD/FG. The problem with this thinking is that your goal is not to tie, it's to win; tying only gives you a 50/50 shot at that. But it does allow you to "stay in the game", "live to fight another day", and other tired cliches.
But they were down 10 now in the 4th so they were riding on 2 more defensive stops and also scoring twice in such a short time frame. If they go and succeed it’s just one stop and scoring once. Without their best corners it seemed like a tall order even at the time to ask for 2 defensive stops in a row.
I'm with you. I was just trying to explain the likely mindset. On the Bill Barnwell Podcast, he'll occasionally have Daniel Adler, former analytics guy for the Jags, on as a guest. It's very clear that Adler lost a lot of these arguments when he was with the team, but as a result, he helps shed light on how the "traditional" football guys approach decision making. One of the things he said one time was that when their teams are behind, coaches generally treat tying the game up as the same as taking the lead, even though by definition it has 50% lower win expectancy. So in that situation, Payton was probably thinking that kicking the FG would make it "easier" to tie the game (though as you point out, not all that much easier, since you still have to score twice).
Worst case scenario you're down two scores and the Rams are pinned back near their own goal line
