Week 13 against Detroit all over again. Un-freakin'-believable!

Larry Fitzgerald says hi!

And then there was the rest of the story...

INSANE GAME!

(01-16-2016 11:49 PM)PirateTreasureNC Wrote:  And then there was the rest of the story...

INSANE GAME!

Pro Football at it finest....

Dumb clock management by Arians. Why is he passing before the FG try to put the Cards up by 7 before regulation? Spin the clock!

(01-17-2016 10:37 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Dumb clock management by Arians. Why is he passing before the FG try to put the Cards up by 7 before regulation? Spin the clock!

It is a catch 22. Run it three times and punt it, and if GB scores people complain they shouldn't have been so conservative when they had the ball. Much like people complain about teams playing a prevent defense when a team marches down and scores, and wonders why they played so conservative. And again Arizona, on both big plays, specifically did not play conservative and was aggressive, and actually blitzed them, and GB caught big passes. And people complained about not playing a prevent.

In terms of the throw, the problem was not the call: the problem was the execution. Palmer needs to know the call was to catch them off guard, and if his man was not wide open (and Fitzgerald wasn't even close to being a little open), then you tuck and run to keep the clock going.

Sometimes people want to blame the coaches when it is on the players (see the Bengals fumbling last week, then penalties).

Its getting too easy to catch Hail Mary's. Between college and pros, that's at least the 15th one I've seen this year.

(01-17-2016 11:07 AM)_C2_ Wrote:  Its getting too easy to catch Hail Mary's. Between college and pros, that's at least the 15th one I've seen this year.

The standard defense on those plays seems to be to put the defenders in the end zone and tell them to not let the offensive receivers get behind them. So there have been a few of these where the ball is caught by a receiver backing into the end zone (both GB HMs this season), or a receiver catches the ball in the field of play and walks into the end zone (like ASU against USC last season).

And speaking of GB's HM on Saturday, my first thought after it was that GB should have tried to win the game with a 2-pt conversion. I'm not the only one who thought so: See this article and scroll down to the section titled "McCarthy's mistake".

(01-17-2016 11:05 AM)adcorbett Wrote:  

(01-17-2016 10:37 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Dumb clock management by Arians. Why is he passing before the FG try to put the Cards up by 7 before regulation? Spin the clock!

It is a catch 22. Run it three times and punt it, and if GB scores people complain they shouldn't have been so conservative when they had the ball. Much like people complain about teams playing a prevent defense when a team marches down and scores, and wonders why they played so conservative. And again Arizona, on both big plays, specifically did not play conservative and was aggressive, and actually blitzed them, and GB caught big passes. And people complained about not playing a prevent.

In terms of the throw, the problem was not the call: the problem was the execution. Palmer needs to know the call was to catch them off guard, and if his man was not wide open (and Fitzgerald wasn't even close to being a little open), then you tuck and run to keep the clock going.

Sometimes people want to blame the coaches when it is on the players (see the Bengals fumbling last week, then penalties).

They were already in FG range though- which changes the equation considerably. Instead of getting the ball back with 1:50 to go, they would have gotten the ball back at 1:10 at the most- still needing 80+ yards for the TD.

If they got the first down, GB NEVER gets the ball back period. And if Palmer sees he is not open, and by open I mean wide open, play fooled them, type thing (as it was designed), and just tucks and run, you get the same result (clock wise) as a designed run.

Note that Bill Belechick did the same thing in the earlier game in almost the same situation, and got the first down and won the game. EXACT same situation, same play call, and no one said a word.

(01-17-2016 12:17 PM)Wedge Wrote:  The standard defense on those plays seems to be to put the defenders in the end zone and tell them to not let the offensive receivers get behind them. So there have been a few of these where the ball is caught by a receiver backing into the end zone (both GB HMs this season), or a receiver catches the ball in the field of play and walks into the end zone (like ASU against USC last season).

And speaking of GB's HM on Saturday, my first thought after it was that GB should have tried to win the game with a 2-pt conversion. I'm not the only one who thought so: See this article and scroll down to the section titled "McCarthy's mistake".

You don't go for 2 there unless you know you can't stop the other team's offense. And even then, given the change in the OT rules, you still don't and take your chances in OT.

To your point C2, the only time you really go for two in that case is if you feel you unloaded all of your bullets making a come back, or if in college, you are up against a vastly superior team and you feel depth will come into play. The main reason you go for the tie is, it gives the other team a chance to F up before you have to make a move. Now if they get the ball first and go down and score a TD, like Arizona did, then it happens. But it wasn't even like Green Bay was playing bad, hell on that big play by Fitz, they had Palmer dead to rights for a sack, and he found Fitz way across the field while Palmer was running the other direction, and made a throw most QB's don't even attempt, that just resulted in a wild play. But to me, that wasn't a sign that the defense was too gassed to play.

Now had the defense been gassed, or even the offense worn out from the comeback I could see it. For example had Seattle recovered that onside kick, and gone down and scored, I could see them going for two, because going 35-0 in one half is enough to wear out both sides of the ball, and you may feel you either have to do it now, or Carolina would do it in OT.

Good explanation of why the Packers should have gone for 2, and why the Chiefs should have gone for 2 against the Pats:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nfl-...hool-math/

(01-21-2016 11:39 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Good explanation of why the Packers should have gone for 2, and why the Chiefs should have gone for 2 against the Pats:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/nfl-...hool-math/

I could not even read the entire article. It stopped me here:

Quote:Much more quiet, but no less frustrating, was the call after Kansas City — which never seemed like much of a threat to New England — scored a touchdown with 1:13 left in the game that cut its deficit to 8. No one outside of sports nerd Twitter raised an eyebrow as the Chiefs kicked the extra point to draw within 7, and after they failed to recover their attempted onside kick, it’s likely that no one will ever care. But failing to go for two in this exact situation is one of the clearest and easiest-to-demonstrate mistakes in all of football, and how coaches continue to make this error virtually 100 percent of the time is a melancholy mystery.

Do they not understand basic football? In that situation, KC, if they were go for two, and I am not even sure that is the best option in that case for an offensively challenged team, you don't do it on the first TD, when missing it can kill your momentum, then force you to go for a second 2pt conversion just to tie, you keep your momentum going, try for the second TD, THEN see how the game feels and do it. By not going for two then, they did not hurt themselves at all.

I glanced thru the rest, but most of it is nonsensical, and when I saw Survivor references, I was done.