NFL Thread

Carolina Red said:
What?
Click to expand...

there were like 43 seconds on the clock when gronk was tackled. lets say 40 by the time he gets in the endzone. so thats 40 seconds and 1 timeout for mahomes and company to try and score a touchdown.

meanwhile, teams are 67-69 on FGs between 20 and 29 yards this season, 97%.


so if you tackle him you have a 3% chance of making it to overtime. so the question is: does the kansas city offense have a 3% or more chance of scoring a touchdown with 40 seconds and 1 timeout? i dont know but i would take that chance if i was a chiefs fan
 
They led 17-15 with 1:04 left but had just one timeout as New York faced a second down only 6 yards from the goal line.

If the Patriots tackled Bradshaw, the clock would keep running if they didn’t use the timeout. If they did use it, the Giants could let the clock run after the next play, leaving precious few seconds with Lawrence Tynes setting up for a chip-shot field goal.


A field goal, Belichick said Monday, that had a ”well over 90 percent success rate” from that distance.

And that strategy was used, although it also failed, in the 1998 Super Bowl by Green Bay Packers coach Mike Holmgren against the Denver Broncos.
”He made a good decision,” Brady said. ”We left ourselves with a little bit of time.”

Belichick’s clear-the-way order was similar to Holmgren’s decision in the 1998 Super Bowl. The score was tied at 24 when he let Terrell Davis score on a 1-yard run with 1:45 left rather than allow the Broncos to run down the clock for a short field goal attempt.
Click to expand...
 
Eboue said:
and the patriots won tonight when the chiefs didnt let them score. i guess we are at a stalemate
Click to expand...
No. We’re not.

5 things can happen when a field goal is attempted. 4 of them are bad for the offense.

1 thing can happen when you let them score, all of which are good for the offense.

You’ve used 2 examples so far, both of which resulted in the team who told their defense not to defend losing the game.

Don’t let the opponent score.
 
Carolina Red said:
No. We’re not.

5 things can happen when a field goal is attempted. 4 of them are bad for the offense.

1 thing can happen when you let them score, all of which are good for the offense.

You’ve used 2 examples so far, both of which resulted in the team who told their defense not to defend losing the game.

Don’t let the opponent score.
Click to expand...

jesus dude. the success rate is 97%. 67 makes, 2 misses.


4/5 and 1/2 is incredibly simplistic math and i know youre not an idiot so i think you are just being obtuse
 
Eboue said:
jesus dude. the success rate is 97%. 67 makes, 2 misses.

4/5 and 1/2 is incredibly simplistic math and i know youre not an idiot so i think you are just being obtuse
Click to expand...
I don’t care what the percentages are. He can have a bad snap, a bad hold, a blocked kick, a miss, or a good kick.

There was a guy here in SC who “played the percentages” and literally never punted. Said the percentages showed that going for it on 4th would lead to a higher success rate than punting. He got fired... but he played the percentages.

I’d also like to point out that Belichick won a super bowl by deciding to not just allow the Seahawks to walk in and score when it looked inevitable that they would...
 
Last edited:
Carolina Red said:
I don’t care what the percentages are. He can have a bad snap, a bad hold, a blocked kick, a miss, or a good kick.

There was a guy here in SC who “played the percentages” and literally never punted. Said the percentages showed that going for it on 4th would lead to a higher success rate than punting. He got fired... but he played the percentages.
Click to expand...


thats why your argument isnt very good. the chances of having a bad snap, a bad hold, a blocked kick or a miss are...3%.


theres a coach who does the same thing in arkansas. he is 77-17. there is an article about him in the Washington Post. they are the 4 time defending state champions, plus 2 more in 08 and 11.
 
Carolina Red said:
Ask Belichick about the super bowl he won by not letting Seattle score on purpose.
Click to expand...

ill be sure to bring that up to him next time we chat. im not saying its the only option ever. im saying it is worth considering. holmgren and belichick and brady are on record as saying it is a strategy worth considering. the math backs this up. i dont see why its so controversial. you are saying to never consider it.
 
Eboue said:
feck me. youre going to act as if this is something that would never be considered by anyone who coached football when we've been talking this whole page about the time when the greatest coach ever did it in the freaking super bowl?
Click to expand...
No, but don’t let that stop you.
 
Nothing wrong with considering letting the other team score a TD when they are basically setting up for a game winning chipshot FG (which then allows your own offence time to do something).
Dont see whats so absurd about that?
 
Eboue said:
there were like 43 seconds on the clock when gronk was tackled. lets say 40 by the time he gets in the endzone. so thats 40 seconds and 1 timeout for mahomes and company to try and score a touchdown.

meanwhile, teams are 67-69 on FGs between 20 and 29 yards this season, 97%.


so if you tackle him you have a 3% chance of making it to overtime. so the question is: does the kansas city offense have a 3% or more chance of scoring a touchdown with 40 seconds and 1 timeout? i dont know but i would take that chance if i was a chiefs fan
Click to expand...
I don’t think that was even going through the Chiefs’ mind seeing as Brady was at the 48 when he made that play. Maybe if he was inside the 10 or 20.
 
Last edited:
What a game!! Big win for the Pats, but KC will take confidence from that performance.

Michel has been a great pickup for us, hope he stays healthy.
 
It Pats and Chiefs end up in the AFC championship game, I think it will be at Arrowhead. Pats play the NFC North this year and they already lost to the the weakest team there. It’s not unreasonable to think there is another 2 losses possible there
 
Phil said:
Yeah that was glorious to watch for us, sorry about Cable.
Click to expand...

This might be a bit pointless but I saw loads of people with #12 jersies that had 'London' on the back and the Union Flag under it. Anyone know where I can get one?
 
Kazi said:
I don’t think that was even going through the Chiefs’ mind seeing as Brady was at the 48 when he made that play. Maybe if he was inside the 10 or 20.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Very difficult to plan for something like that. And you still have to play Gronk to not catch the ball. You have to try to make him not catch the ball but once he catches it let him score. That's so difficult but a scenario you have to think about.
 
Andrew~ said:
This might be a bit pointless but I saw loads of people with #12 jersies that had 'London' on the back and the Union Flag under it. Anyone know where I can get one?
Click to expand...
I don't know mate, sorry. There were loads of stands selling merchandise yesterday but the queues were ridiculous so I didn't check it out. Maybe check eBay or something?
 
Seems that Carr has turned into a checkdown-Charlie. Wasn't like that a couple of years ago, but we had a better o-line and he had less fear perhaps. After the broken leg, he just has not been the same player. We got so badly trashed at the o-line that you wonder why it hasn't happened earlier this season. Can't create holes for the run, can't protect the QB. Really does not look good for the rest of the season considering we haven't even played the Chiefs yet.
 
backofthenet said:
Seems that Carr has turned into a checkdown-Charlie. Wasn't like that a couple of years ago, but we had a better o-line and he had less fear perhaps. After the broken leg, he just has not been the same player. We got so badly trashed at the o-line that you wonder why it hasn't happened earlier this season. Can't create holes for the run, can't protect the QB. Really does not look good for the rest of the season considering we haven't even played the Chiefs yet.
Click to expand...
I was reading somewhere (or maybe a podcast) that Gruden has this old school obsession with completions which contrasts significantly with many younger coahes who are looking for big plays.
 
Last edited:
GloryHunter07 said:
I was reading somewhere (or maybe a podcast) that Gruden has this old school obsession with completions which contrasts significantly with many yiunger coahes who are looking for big plays.
Click to expand...
Wouldn't surprise me. There's no subtlety to anything that we're doing at the moment... no misdirection, no artistry. The amount of times I counted Seattle being absolutely ready to swarm us the moment Lynch stepped on the field. They knew what was going to happen the moment we snapped the ball. Even the screen or draw plays we ran were pretty damn obvious.
There's no way we're going to do anything this season. I went in, before the Mack trade, feeling pretty confident and looking forward to the season, but now I already want us to tank it, and use those multiple 1st rounders to start to build. The problem is I have no faith in our draft picks. Saw something yesterday saying that we had only 3 starters yesterday from the 2015 to 2017 drafts. How can we whiff that bad on so many picks?
Certainly puts paid to Mark Davis's suggestion that he wants to win the SB before we leave for Vegas. That's a bloody joke right now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.