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.
In Week 1? Absolutely a stupid move (and this is the second time in three years he benched his Week 1 starter before the end of the first game).
Yeah, except we know how the Texans owner feels about Keepernick. That would never happen. But Kaep is probably better than Savage, and it sure woulda been fun to see what he could do with Hopkins.
Tom Savage bad at football. News at 11.
Week 1 I understand even more because he was not wanting to throw his rookie to the lions too early. Savage was that horrible in week 1 that he couldn't ignore it.
Interesting theory about Week 1. I'm also reminded that no one realized at the time just how good Jax D was. I guess this year's was more excusable than 2015, when he started off with the right guy, benched him for Ryan Mallett, and then had to go back to him a few weeks later.
That is what I don't understand. They started the season with a QB who was entering his 4th year with the team and who had never thrown a TD pass and a QB who was an unproven rookie. They gave the rookie no 1st team reps in the preseason. Yet after 1/2 a game he was the starting QB. What the Texans have done at QB the last 4 years (other than finally drafting Watson) has been criminal, especially with the quality of their defense. Obviously most of the blame goes to Rick Smith (who McNair won't fire) but I have to think Bill O'Brien has some input into who the Texans get at QB.
O’Brien seems to be the quintessential too loyal coach. He absolutely will not admit fault but will rush to take credit.dhockster said:
OK, so we're all agreed that the overall way O'Brien has handled the QB position ever since he arrived in Houston is "obviously stupid". And yet ...
That non-challenge was mystifying. The rule of thumb for when to challenge is weigh a) the likelihood that you'll win it, and b) the value of winning the challenge. That play was a slam dunk on both accounts.
Pederson had a terrible challenge earlier in the game (Torry Smith was 1-yard short of a first down, and Pederson thought that replay would magically make that 1-yard appear. WRONG.) So it's likely that he was gun-shy after already losing a timeout.
That play was actually really close (definitely was not 1 yard short IMO) but I agree that it was a bad challenge. I don't see how they could have reversed the call on the field. Also, the odds of them making it on 4th down anyways was pretty high
"I screwed up this meaningless challenge earlier, so I better avoid this obvious one now."
I agree it was a REALLY stupid challenge and he should be smacked for that.
Exactly. Using the balancing test I mentioned earlier, it was low probability of success, medium stakes (since they were going for it on 4th anyway).
I thought the ball landed close enough to the TE there. I can't find any video of it to reassess.
While I agree the ball went forward (and that a challenge was the correct move because of the stakes), I'm not sure the refs would have overturned it. I thought it was clear Wilson attempted a legal lateral.
That was awful. The Saints throwing on 3rd should have told him they would go for it on 4th.
I blame the ref. Payton was trying to call a timeout and the ref wasn't responding. So he ran on the field to call it. So weird.
Is the determining factor simply whether or not the ball ends up ahead of where it begins? Because I don’t think that is the definition of a legal forward pass.
Posted this quickly right before I went to bed. Having thought about it some more, it was clearly a dumb move. Let's decision-tree this MFer out:zftcg said:
It was.Walking Boot said:
I don’t know why, but I think something feels wrong about that interpretation of the rules. If you attempt a forward pass but the wind were blowing so hard that the ball travelled backward, it would still be a forward pass. If it hit the ground it would be ruled incomplete.
I've never read the NFL rule book so I can't quote you the specific rule - I just know that's how the rule has always been interpreted
It's pretty clear. NFL Rulebook, rule 8, section 1, article 1.
Your own movement doesn't matter at all, nor does the position of your body. The movement of the ball is what matters.
Thanks. I looked at that earlier and was hung up on the “forward initially” part and wasn’t reading through part b.
Wasn't there a famous play in a game in the '40s where a pass (or maybe it was a punt) got blown back by a heavy wind through the back of the end zone? I think it was ruled a safety but it was considered a controversial call.
Maybe this?
No, it was even earlier than that:
On The Ringer NFL podcast, Mike Lombardi made an additional point about that decision: even if simple logic doesn't suggest the Saints would go for it on 4th, Payton also gave Quinn a big hint when he passed on third down, which would suggest he considered it four-down territory.
I always thought the mantra was “play for the tie at home, play for the win on the road”.
The home team win percentage in OT games from 1975-2011 was .523. Since 2012 it's .584, but that increase is probably a statistical anomaly.
I think the more important point is that kicking the FG there isn't really "playing for the tie", it's "playing for the tie as a best-case scenario". Giving the Falcons the ball back with 2:00 and all their timeouts lowers your win expectancy to well below 50%. Converting the first both gives you a chance to win with a TD and run the clock down to ensure the Falcons don't get a chance at a final drive. In other words, playing for a tie as a worst-case scenario (well, other than the scenario where your HoF QB throws an INT into triple coverage).
Not to be outdone, Steelers throwing (to Grimble!) on second and 8 there was pretty dumb, too.Ravens leading by 2, they get the ball back with 3:25 to play. Steelers have all their TOs. Ravens have one of the hottest RBs in the league, who has already put up a buck-13 on the Steelers. Their QB, meanwhile, is named Joe Flacco.
So obviously you run it three times, and hope that if Collins doesn't bully his way to the first, you at least force the Steelers to burn all their time---WAIT, WHY ARE YOU THROWING?!?!?!
Three and out with two incompletions (sandwiched between a six yard Collins run) Steelers get the ball back with all their time outs and the 2min warning.
I don't know how you can coach in the NFL and make blunders like that. It cost the Falcons the SB and then these idiots copied it but got lucky enough to be in FG range.
And keep in mind that a 45-yarder in Pittsburgh in December is no gimme. It's an absolute no-brainer to run Bell a few more times, get it closer, and run down some clock.
