Playmaker247
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 1,177
- Reaction score
- 2,285
I agree, you shouldn't, but I think most teams do. Regardless, the sense of urgency will be lessened, so while they may not consciously run the clock, they'll probably use more time by virtue of not hurrying.
Maybe that's why Belichick runs the score up so often, because of his days in Cleveland.Missing it definitely affected ATL's sense of urgency. Ryan's got to be so damaged by these collapses he'll be audibling out of victory formations to try and score again, "just in case."
YesThe onside kick would be an attempt to avoid OT. I think you knew that but just misspoke.
Holding the Falcons to a FG (assuming they got the first possession) still means you have to score at least a FG on your possession. I don't have that much confidence in this team yet.
Yeah, I think it really becomes a thought experiment at that point. You may be right that the coaches would treat everything the same regardless (though MM himself said he'd rather know sooner than later so he might disagree). I challenge you though on the fans. If we're coming in for the chance to tie, I can virtually guarantee that many would be concerned about scoring too early. On the flip side, if we made the conversion and WERE coming in for the tie, the thought would still be there. So touche.Correct. I take issue with the notion that clock management comes into play in either scenario. Make it, miss it, kick the FG- you're still down by another TD and the opposing team has another possession.
Not reallyBut you are arguing exactly for why you go for 2 early. The odds are the same regardless of when you go for two, so you do it first in order to know what you are up against. We needed a miracle to win regardless of when we go for two -- but missing early means we know we need to hurry to score again and try to get a FG somehow. What's the clock management like if we hold off on making that decision?
Maybe that's why Belichick runs the score up so often, because of his days in Cleveland.
Correct. I take issue with the notion that clock management comes into play in either scenario. Make it, miss it, kick the FG- you're still down by another TD and the opposing team has another possession.
Again, this assumes you make the 2 pt conversion on the 2nd TD. That's exactly the point.Not really
By kicking you still need to convert the 2 points
But you only need that one score
By not making it you almost forced yourself to convert an onside kick which is a very low odds of conversion
Apparently not when you have a secret weapon helicopter kick! LolYes
But the odds of converting the onside in overtime are worse than being able to keep them from scoring a td or being able to answer with atleast a FG
The onside kick is about the worst odds of conversion there is
I get your pointAgain, this assumes you make the 2 pt conversion on the 2nd TD. That's exactly the point.
It's not really a 1 possession game until you know if you made the 2 point conversion. If you miss it you have to kick the onside kick.
Watermelon kick though helicopter more accurately describes itApparently not when you have a secret weapon helicopter kick! Lol
Seriously though, I agree, but I've never even heard of anyone doing an onside kick in OT...at least I can't remember it.
Yeah, I think it really becomes a thought experiment at that point. You may be right that the coaches would treat everything the same regardless (though MM himself said he'd rather know sooner than later so he might disagree).
I challenge you though on the fans.
If we're coming in for the chance to tie, I can virtually guarantee that many would be concerned about scoring too early. On the flip side, if we made the conversion and WERE coming in for the tie, the thought would still be there. So touche.
All that said, I think you realize that your point is not the one that most people are making. Most of those against the decision firmly believe that going for two was a bad decision, what at the very worst it made no difference at all. And they think this because they're stacking the argument incorrectly.
On the one hand, you have two td's and a zero percent chance of making the 2-point conversion (because they already know we missed). On the other hand, you have two td's with a 50% chance of making the conversion. Of course you take the latter in that case but, the discussion has nothing to do with when you go and everything to do with artificially better of making the conversion.
I missed a few replies here and there, but the only time clock management really matters in this scenario is on the very last possession of the game. Going for two early tells you exactly how to play that last drive rather than leaving it up to chance.
And I've never heard of a secret weapon watermelon!Watermelon kick though helicopter more accurately describes it
Eh... not sure I totally agree. Like I've been saying, I still prioritize points when your down by more than a FG over chewing clock. I think you're taking a bigger risk by chewing clock when you still need a TD just to tie.