Haimerej
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 5,083
- Reaction score
- 6,776
If you believe that, and it's a fine argument to make, then there is no difference to go for two on the first or second td right? Right?
Right. Did I say otherwise?
If you believe that, and it's a fine argument to make, then there is no difference to go for two on the first or second td right? Right?
That's what your defense is for. So you'd handicap your offense by slowing their tempo when that's arguably what got them back in the game.
But these go to 11
Again, then why do teams let the clock to run down before scoring the game winning point?
Perhaps you did not but the LARGE majority of non-believers are saying exactly that, even calling the decision dumb. If you at least understand what is being said, then one can have a more nuanced but accurate discussion about it. Problem is most people on here have no clue what they are saying.Right. Did I say otherwise?
"Again"? You didn't ask it once before.
You snarked about running the clock to kick a FG as if that's the same scenario as scoring a TD.
Perhaps you did not but the LARGE majority of non-believers are saying exactly that, even calling the decision dumb. If you at least understand what is being said, then one can have a more nuanced but accurate discussion.
Problem is most people on here have no clue what they are saying.
Okay, it's 4th and 1 on the goal line. Do you run it with 30 seconds left and give the ball back or do you let the clock run down?
Alright, so let's go at it then. Go for two early (and miss like we did in this case) does a few things. First, it makes the path to victory crystal clear. You know you need two scores and you know it early. Everything you do from then on is with that in mind. Singular goal; you're hell bent on scoring as quickly as possible. You're not even remotely thinking about running any clock in case you do tie the score. You say you wouldn't but I can assure you that you would be in the minority of fans (though I can't speak for the coaches), many that would want us to run clock too. God forbid we give atl the ball back with two mins left.Look through the thread. My position hasn't changed.
I'm not most people.
Down 7? Run it. If you fail you have a chance to get a safety.
IMO, i think the argument is feelings based because a coach has feelings to account for. Each of these decisions will impact the humans involved, and while in a vacuum I understand the argument, games don't happen in a vacuum.Right, you like how it feels to be down 1 score, even if gives you a worse chance of winning. . .
Down 7? Run it. If you fail you have a chance to get a safety.
You can go read about if you really want. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27969581what is theory
You know what feelings missing the two point conversion brings? It makes me feel, man we really need a stop here. Man, we better score as quickly as we can so we get a chance to get the ball back. If I'm atl, I'm thinking, whoo, we got this now!IMO, i think the argument is feelings based because a coach has feelings to account for. Each of these decisions will impact the humans involved, and while in a vacuum I understand the argument, games don't happen in a vacuum.
Hmm, I'm guessing that's Gregg you're talking to?How is that personal? You seem to side with a HC that you KNOW what they'll do. Problem is, so did our opponents.
Please stop with the personal nonsense. If you're that sensitive in a discussion just ignore me, it may do you some good through these hard times.
I'm not tired. You are the one arguing against math.Arent you tired yet? There is nothing you can do to convince me and nothing I can do to convince you. You guys have done a good job explaining your side, but that is definitely NEVER the way that I go. Maybe we will see more coaches doing it, but I doubt it.
Alright, so let's go at it then.
Go for two early (and miss like we did in this case) does a few things. First, it makes the path to victory crystal clear.
You know you need two scores and you know it early.
Everything you do from then on is with that in mind. Singular goal; you're hell bent on scoring as quickly as possible. You're not even remotely thinking about running any clock in case you do tie the score. You say you wouldn't but I can assure you that you would be in the minority of fans (though I can't speak for the coaches), many that would want us to run clock too. God forbid we give atl the ball back with two mins left.
One other thing is does, IMO, is relax the defense to some degree. They also know that you need two scores and, perhaps intentionally or not, are in a little more of a prevent than they might have been otherwise. They are not worried about a tie game and figure, get the onside and it's game over.
Agree or disagree with either of these points?
Now, is this the reason the team won? Of course not. Getting the onside kick was extremely unlikely and unaffected by any of this. We still needed two td's, an onside kick, and a FG. That is why we won. But understanding the path to victory early on could only help.
IndeedHmm, I'm guessing that's Gregg you're talking to?
I'm talking about the go-ahead score. Do you want to win on the last play of the game, or do you want to give your opponent another shot? That's why it's an advantage to go for two early, because then you know exactly how much time to use at the end. If you don't have possession on the last drive, you probably lost anyway.
You don't want to pull a Chiefs: https://www.masslive.com/sports/erry-2018/10/5bd4eea9885857/chiefs-scored-too-fast-fans-kn.html
Actually, according to the chart, he should have gone for one. But that chart is just a basic guideline, and certainly not meant as a concrete law.Found this:
So by the chart, going for 2 was the "right" call...