Do you go for the tie?

[JoeyBoy718]

You know how people say it's a "cheap move" to deliberately lose games? Some instances of deliberately losing games would be to get a higher draft pick or to block a team from making the playoffs.

Well, would it then be a cheap move to deliberately tie a game? Let's say the Cowboys and Giants both win or both lose this upcoming week, so when they play each other in the final game of the season the Cowboys will be up a game, and the winner of the game will win the division. However, since the Cowboys would be up a game, they could also finish with a tie and still win the division. So let's say the Cowboys have a chance to win at the end of regulation but they deliberately let the clock run out so the game can go to overtime, and then in overtime the Cowboys deliberately eat up the clock to allow the game to finish in a tie. I know it's a long shot and it's probably never happened before...but would that be a cheap shot on the same scale or on a higher scale than deliberately losing a game?

 

[casmith07]

[youtube]IMk5sMHj58I[/youtube]

 

[Galian Beast]

Worst thread EVER

 

[tayloner]

I understand the sentiment, but we all know what happens when you play not to lose. EDIT: In case I wasn't clear, YOU LOSE.

The only possible way I could see this coming into play is if somehow the Cowboys had the ball with less than 2 minutes to go in OT, then it MIGHT be wise to run down the clock. There's no way 2 teams like the Giants and Cowboys don't score in the first 13 minutes of an overtime quarter, though.

 

[Chuck 54]

.So let's say the Cowboys have a chance to win at the end of regulation but they deliberately let the clock run out so the game can go to overtime, and then in overtime the Cowboys deliberately eat up the clock to allow the game to finish in a tie.

So...there may have been a little merit in a discussion about Playing it safe in the final minutes of overtime since the tie wins the division, but the route you went above makes no sense at all.

 

[Tricericon]

You play to win the game, period.

However, in this scenario, a tie is the same as a win so late in overtime running the clock is as valid or more than trying to drive for a field goal. Not gonna happen though.

 

[links18]

There is no way a team with a chance to score in regulation would play for a tie, because there is no way to know what would happen in OT. However, if it is late in OT and the game is still tied and a tie is just as good as a win in terms of making the playoffs, seeding, etc. then yes it makes sense and the team would be stupid not to do it. That's a heck of a lot of ifs there.

 

[JD_KaPow]

So let's say the Cowboys have a chance to win at the end of regulation but they deliberately let the clock run out so the game can go to overtime, and then in overtime the Cowboys deliberately eat up the clock to allow the game to finish in a tie.

I don't know if it would be "cheap", but it would be astonishingly stupid. How in the world do you "deliberately eat up the clock" in overtime? You can't control the coin flip; you can't run a 15 minute drive.

If we happen to find ourselves tied with the Giants in OT, and they have no time outs, and we can run down the clock by taking a knee? Absolutely take the knee and guarantee the playoff berth.

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Lol Wut?

 

[The Natural]

Worst thread EVER

easily

 

[GRD]

Thank God that fans are not coaches in the NFL..

What a terrible post :bang2:

 

[JBS]

you have a chance to win the game in regulation..but you deliberately let the clock run out so you can take it to OT and try to burn 15 minutes of game time? are you serious here? worst thread ever is the understatement of 2011

 

[JoseyWales]

May God have mercy on our souls...

 

[Red Dragon]

If it's late in OT, and the Cowboys have the ball, and a tie would wrap up the division - then, yes, of course you play it safe and settle for the tie.




If Garrett were to "go for the win" and the Cowboys committed a turnover that ultimately cost them a playoff berth, Garrett would be absolutely, absolutely blasted. 20 times worse than he was over icing Bailey in Arizona. The media would be merciless.

 

[links18]

If it's late in OT, and the Cowboys have the ball, and a tie would wrap up the division - then, yes, of course you play it safe and settle for the tie.




If Garrett were to "go for the win" and the Cowboys committed a turnover that ultimately cost them a playoff berth, Garrett would be absolutely, absolutely blasted. 20 times worse than he was over icing Bailey in Arizona. The media would be merciless.

Not to mention taking the tie improves your draft position (assuming you don't make the Super Bowl).

 

[Doomsday101]

you have a chance to win the game in regulation..but you deliberately let the clock run out so you can take it to OT and try to burn 15 minutes of game time? are you serious here? worst thread ever is the understatement of 2011

I agree depending on the situation. If in regulation we have the ball inside our own 5 or 10 yard line with 30 sec or less then chances are I'm going into overtime instead of risking a mistake that will cost you the game quickly.

The thread I agree is a pretty big what if but if this comes about where you are on the field, how much time and time out situations would have to be looked at and considered before you make a choice

 

[jswalker1981]

So let's say the Cowboys have a chance to win at the end of regulation but they deliberately let the clock run out so the game can go to overtime, and then in overtime the Cowboys deliberately eat up the clock to allow the game to finish in a tie. I know it's a long shot and it's probably never happened before...but would that be a cheap shot on the same scale or on a higher scale than deliberately losing a game?

You seriously think we could do that? Let's actually say we "deliberately" NOT win the game in regulation, the Giants aren't going to deliberately play bad so we can deliberately run out the clock. Giants score, we lose, and don't go into the playoffs. Might I remind you fans were calling for Garrett's head because he called a timeout on his kicker. Now you want him to pass up a win to possibly get a tie?!?

Hey armchair GM, don't quit your day job.

 

[Stautner]

I don't get what advantage would be gained by intentionally playing for the tie rather than playing for the win. What is there to gain?

On the other hand, there is everything to lose because by playing for the tie we would be opening the door for the Giants to make a few plays and steal the game away from us.

The only possible way this would make sense is if we played the game to win up to the very end of overtime and could run out the clock with a few safe kneel downs rather than attempt a FG or other play that could allow the Giants defense an outside chance of making a play and returning it for a game winning score.

 

[links18]

The only possible way this would make sense is if we played the game to win up to the very end of overtime and could run out the clock with a few safe kneel downs rather than attempt a FG or other play that could allow the Giants defense an outside chance of making a play and returning it for a game winning score.

Yeah, that is about the only circumstances in which it makes sense. But it does make sense in those circumstances--as long as taking the tie does not affect playoff seeding. The only thing to gain would be a possibly better draft position.

 

[EchoBrain22]

You know how people say it's a "cheap move" to deliberately lose games? Some instances of deliberately losing games would be to get a higher draft pick or to block a team from making the playoffs.

Well, would it then be a cheap move to deliberately tie a game? Let's say the Cowboys and Giants both win or both lose this upcoming week, so when they play each other in the final game of the season the Cowboys will be up a game, and the winner of the game will win the division. However, since the Cowboys would be up a game, they could also finish with a tie and still win the division. So let's say the Cowboys have a chance to win at the end of regulation but they deliberately let the clock run out so the game can go to overtime, and then in overtime the Cowboys deliberately eat up the clock to allow the game to finish in a tie. I know it's a long shot and it's probably never happened before...but would that be a cheap shot on the same scale or on a higher scale than deliberately losing a game?

This is the most asinine thing I've read here in awhile. People should try thinking before they post...