30 yard miss or TD in 2 minutes??? | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

30 yard miss or TD in 2 minutes???

wpgfishfan

wpgfishfan

Pro Bowler
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
1,884
Reaction score
179
Age
55
Location
Winnipeg, MB Canada
Just a question?

Would it have been better to let the Jets score a TD after the big play? Here are the options.

1. You force them to run 3 plays with your 1 timeout. So to get into OT you need them to miss a 30 yard field goal.

2. You let them score a TD then you have 2 minutes to drive down and tie the game.

Tonight we went with option 1 and lost. Would any coach choose option 2?

PS: That dumb challenge by Saban cost us a timeout which would have given us 50 seocnds to try and tie the game
 
wtf? its not that simple to just 'let them score a Touchdown." they werent TRYING to score a touchdown. they were running the clock down. what are you smoking...
 
Saban4prez said:
wtf? its not that simple to just 'let them score a Touchdown." they werent TRYING to score a touchdown. they were running the clock down. what are you smoking...
Click to expand...

I believe a team this year (maybe SF) did this.

I'm not saying we should have done it but after that big play the only way we have a cahnce is if they miss the chip shot
 
But they werent TRYING to score. Even if we just 'let' barlow run to the endzone, he probably would have just slid at the 5 or something to run the clock down. its just smart football to give your team the final opportunity to score points in a tied game.
 
I have never seen any team "let them score" just so we get the ball back with hopefully enough time to score. You either shut them down or you don't.
 
wpgfishfan said:
Just a question?

Would it have been better to let the Jets score a TD after the big play? Here are the options.

1. You force them to run 3 plays with your 1 timeout. So to get into OT you need them to miss a 30 yard field goal.

2. You let them score a TD then you have 2 minutes to drive down and tie the game.

Tonight we went with option 1 and lost. Would any coach choose option 2?

PS: That dumb challenge by Saban cost us a timeout which would have given us 50 seocnds to try and tie the game
Click to expand...

Yes, Holmgren did that against Denver in the Super Bowl. I would say the odds are better that you have more control of the situation if you let them score and then for for a tie and OT. As soon as we tackled the guy after the 64 yd play, I thought we should have let them score. I don't know why more coaches don't take this strategy. The goal is to try to win, not hope the other team screws up.
 
I was hoping that Washington would take that 64-yarder the distance so we'd still have some time to get a drive in.. knowing that Saban had just wasted a CRUCIAL TIME OUT to stick with the same damn plan he had in the first place (kicking the FG) :rolleyes2

But no, I'd never agree with simply "letting the other team score"
 
We shouldn't have tackled Washington. That would have given us the best change to extend the game. Cleo was doing a pretty good job driving the field. I hate losing that way. I'd rather lose swinging for the fences.


Also, didn't the Patriots take a safety on purpose in order to give their defense a longer field to protect a few years ago.
 
Saban4prez said:
But they werent TRYING to score. Even if we just 'let' barlow run to the endzone, he probably would have just slid at the 5 or something to run the clock down. its just smart football to give your team the final opportunity to score points in a tied game.
Click to expand...

I think it was with regards to the Washington play, not what they did after that.
 
I have never seen any team "let them score" just so we get the ball back
Click to expand...

Then you didn't watch Super Bowl XXXII did you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXII

Denver vs Green Bay

Packers coach Mike Holmgren told his team to let the Broncos score to maximise the time the Packers would have on the clock for a potentially game-tying drive. He admitted later that he had thought that it was first and goal rather than second and goal, crucial to clock management decisionmaking on the play[1]. Davis did score his third rushing touchdown on second and goal, leaving 1:45 on the clock. The Broncos now had a one touchdown lead, at 31-24.
The Packers attempted one final drive to try to tie the game before the end of regulation and send the contest into overtime. Freeman returned the Broncos kickoff 22 yards to the 30-yard line, and the Packers advanced to the Broncos' 35-yard line with 1:04 left in the game with a pair of completions from Favre to Levens for gains of 22 and 13 yards on the next 2 plays. After a 4-yard pass to Levens, Favre's next 2 passes fell incomplete. Then on fourth down, Denver linebacker John Mobley broke up a pass intended for Chmura, enabling the Broncos to take the ball back and run out the clock for the victory.
Click to expand...
 
The thing is any smart running back will pass the first down line and just go down. This isnt Madden. You force them to play, who knows maybe they fumble or turn it over somehow.
 
Roman529 said:
I have never seen any team "let them score" just so we get the ball back with hopefully enough time to score. You either shut them down or you don't.
Click to expand...

The Packers, I believe, did it in their Superbowl against the Broncos. Broncos won. It is controversial, and Mike Holmgren made the decision when the Broncos were at the 1 yard line already, but it has been done. Though I disagree with letting them go 25 yards (?) for the TD when a FG was not a gimme in the rain and they already botched one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom