About not trying to score: Wanny / Players Back Decision | Page 4 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

About not trying to score: Wanny / Players Back Decision

Originally posted by DeDolfan
If that was the case, what on earth would make them think that they could do it in overtime then???
Click to expand...

Are you intentionally trying to be thick headed? What's the difference between 51 seconds and 15 minutes? Time was on our side in Overtime. Time was against us at the end of the 4th quarter.

If we had won the toss, we would have had the chance to continue to dominate them on defense and force them to punt. We would have gained the wind.

After winning the toss, we had a chance to march down the field using the running game...and get in scoring position without having both the Clock and the Ravens defense against us. We didn't get the wind on our side...but this ain't Disney world.

Surely, we can sit here on Monday morning and shout that we should have been more aggressive with that piece-meal of an offensive line. Surely, we can pretend that there is no risk to that type of lack of thinking. But, going into overtime gave us an advantage. The fact that fans don't understand that says nothing about the heart of this team...but, it does say much about the mind of the fans.
 
Originally posted by xiidaen
Well, with 53 secs left and we do go 3 and out, how much time would they have had left.[\quote]

Hard to answer that question for sure, of course, but since we would have been hypothetically gunning for big yardage with the passing game, going 3 and out would have been due to incomplete passes, short completions, or sacks/penalties. If it is a completion in the middle of the field, we'd try to stop the clock with a timeout, and the Ravens appeared to have all of theirs as well, so they could if we didn't. So, I'd say the Ravens get the ball around midfield with about 35 seconds left, and probably 2 timeouts, maybe all three.

Speculation, of couse, but I still think Griese was misfiring nearly all day and that situation would have played to the Raven's strengths, not ours. 3-out is a 'good' case scenario compared to turnovers, which were certainly a possibility.

And, again, we won the game. How bad of a call could it have been? When the fans call to fire the coach in a game the team wins, something is wrong.
Click to expand...

But even if the ravens could stop it, why would they. in that situation, we had the ball, they would've wanted the clock to run out. If not, then why didn't they use their TOs on our kneel downs?
Click to expand...
 
I admit

that during the game I was screaming at the tv when Wanny ran the clock out. But for all the reasons posted in several good posts in this thread, it was the right move.

There is the old football adage that you play for the win on the road, overtime at home. In light of the success of our defense, lack of success of the O, and the outcome, it was the right move.

Texphinphan
 
The Dolphins have been too conservative on many occassions but this wasn't one of them. Miami hadn't moved the ball all day and were playing ag. a great D. The odds of Miami moving into scoring range were very small. If Miami had gone for it, the most likely outcome would have been a Miami 3 and out with about 30 sec. left. Balt. would have been one med. length completion away from a field goal att. with the wind at their back. If you think that the odds of completing one pass and kicking a fieldgoal with the wind are the same as driving 50 yards and kicking a field goal ag. the wind, then you understand very little about football. Wanny made the right call and I'd bet that 100% of the other coaches in the league would agree. ( The only one I'm not sure about is Spurrier)
 
Re: I admit

Originally posted by TexPhinPhan
that during the game I was screaming at the tv when Wanny ran the clock out. But for all the reasons posted in several good posts in this thread, it was the right move.

There is the old football adage that you play for the win on the road, overtime at home. In light of the success of our defense, lack of success of the O, and the outcome, it was the right move.

Texphinphan
Click to expand...

It can't be too old an adage! They ain't had OT all that long to begin with. But I'll give ya another older adage, you play to win, period!! Not for a ["better"] chance to win. ;)
 
Originally posted by BigFinFan
End of Regulation:

BG - 12/29 for 109 Yards
RW - 30 for 79 Yards
TM - 5 for 30 Yards

WE HAD 218 YARDS AT THE END OF REGULATION

WE HAD 209 YARDS UP TO THE FINAL :51 SECONDS IN THE FOURTH (RW ran twice for 9 yards to close regulation)

Do you really think that we could drive the ball 50+ Yards on the Baltimores defense in :51 Seconds? It took us 59:09 to gain 209 yards!!!!

We had been unable to move the ball consistently all game!

Our Series broken down :
Plays - Yards - Result
7 - 13 - Punt
11 - 34 - Punt
7 - 18 - Field Goal
9 - 28 - Punt
2 - 26 - Half
9 - 38 - Punt
4 - (-1) - Punt
9 - 47 - Field Goal (2 penalties for 28 yards)
4 - 1 - Punt
6 - 13 - Interception
8 - 23 - Missed Field Goal
2 - 9 - End of Regulation

If we had been aggressive and tried to push the ball down field during the final :51 seconds and had a miscue (INT or Fumble), ALL of us would have been calling for his head at the end of the game.

Conventional wisdom was run out the clock and go in to overtime.

Be happy - IT worked - WE WON!!!!!
Click to expand...

We are happy that we won. But why do you say it was "conventional" wisdom" ? To better support an argument, perhaps? Well, it was "unconventional" for as many rerasons as everyone says that it wasn't. Because we couldn't move the ball all game long??? Whoopty-doo! Why didn't we just forfeit them game right there? Now THAT is a loser's attitude. Let me say one thing, Balt. had 47 less total yds than we did. I would think that "conventional" wisdom would say to go for it because [just in case] if we do turn it back over to them then they couldn't move it either. Granted, there wasn't alot of time left but there was plenty for 3 good [well] designed plays to maybe get us downfield. Nothing would probably have happened anyway but we'll never know cuz Wanny quit!
 
Originally posted by DPlus47


i understand the point to a degree, but how many punts did ed reed almost block? there were too many opportunities for the players to lose this one and i don't think they had shown the coach any reason to gamble there.
Click to expand...

Almost?? Almost as in an almost INT? Or an almost recption? hey, these guys ain't playing with hand grenades so almost don't count. To many opportunities to lose? is that the same opportunites to win by chance?
Most people have griped on Wanny because he was too conservative. Last week, everybody was clamoring for his head. Now, all of a sudden, he does another brainfart and luckily dodges another bullet, everyone is defending him tooth and nail?
I just don't get it! makes about as much sense as a soup sandwhich.
 
Wanny quit?? How can you say he quit in a close game?? Especially one that we won??

At the time I wanted to go for it. But looking back and seeing all the data, it was the smart move.
 
"I would have watched out for that water main."

You can criticize any decision like that, where pros and cons both exist, but what surprises me is that you folks are criticizing it when it ultimately resulted in a WIN.
 
Originally posted by Muck
Wanny quit?? How can you say he quit in a close game?? Especially one that we won??

At the time I wanted to go for it. But looking back and seeing all the data, it was the smart move.
Click to expand...

Muck, you're looking in hindsight. Like you said, at the time he should've gone for it. But since we won, hit was right????????
But yes, he quit. We had a chance to win it, but instead, he played it "not to lose" !! Wannsted had better be counting his lucky stars after Lewis fumbled. Otherwise..............
 
Originally posted by DeDolfan


Muck, you're looking in hindsight. Like you said, at the time he should've gone for it. But since we won, hit was right????????
But yes, he quit. We had a chance to win it, but instead, he played it "not to lose" !! Wannsted had better be counting his lucky stars after Lewis fumbled. Otherwise..............
Click to expand...

You're right that the decision is not the correct one b/c we won. It was the right decision b/c it gave Miami the best chance to win. That's what the coaches job is, to put the team in the best situation to win.

Do you believe that Bellichek was giving up when he took a safety ag. Denver? Bellichek's decision was the right one b/c he correctly figured that his team had a better chance to win with his D trying to stop an O on their half of the field that they had done a decent job against all day than he would have trying to drive 95+ yards. This was not lack of aggressiveness, this was common sense.
 
Originally posted by DeDolfan


We are happy that we won. But why do you say it was "conventional" wisdom" ? To better support an argument, perhaps? Well, it was "unconventional" for as many rerasons as everyone says that it wasn't. Because we couldn't move the ball all game long??? Whoopty-doo! Why didn't we just forfeit them game right there? Now THAT is a loser's attitude. Let me say one thing, Balt. had 47 less total yds than we did. I would think that "conventional" wisdom would say to go for it because [just in case] if we do turn it back over to them then they couldn't move it either. Granted, there wasn't alot of time left but there was plenty for 3 good [well] designed plays to maybe get us downfield. Nothing would probably have happened anyway but we'll never know cuz Wanny quit!
Click to expand...

We had the ball on our 20! Sure why not pass the ball and give them the oopportunity to intercept the pass.

Think back to the Indy game. There was little over two mintues left in the fourth and Indy had the ball on their 19. On 3rd and 7, Manning dropped back to pass, and TBuck intercepted and returned it to the 15 (only 2 yards).

Although we did not capitalize on that miscue, 2 plays later BG fumbled, we had the opportunity to win that game....with on simple miscue.

Why risk throwing the ball from our own 20 with :51 seconds left? Our offense is not a "quick strike" threat. We are very run oriented and we play "ball control".

Alot could have happend in the final seconds:

Griese drops back to pass... and he is hit - fumble!
Griese drops back to pass... and throws to CC - interception!
Griese drops back to pass... and throws to CC - tipped and intercepted!
Griese drops back to pass... and CC catches and is drilled - fumble!
Griese drops back to pass... and CC catches - TD!
Griese drops back to pass... and CC catches - FG Range!
Mare kicks - BLOCKED!
Mare kicks - noo good!
Mare kicks - good!

Just a few things that could have happened at the end of the game!
 
Originally posted by rafael


You're right that the decision is not the correct one b/c we won. It was the right decision b/c it gave Miami the best chance to win. That's what the coaches job is, to put the team in the best situation to win.

Do you believe that Bellichek was giving up when he took a safety ag. Denver? Bellichek's decision was the right one b/c he correctly figured that his team had a better chance to win with his D trying to stop an O on their half of the field that they had done a decent job against all day than he would have trying to drive 95+ yards. This was not lack of aggressiveness, this was common sense.
Click to expand...

You know, this is about the 4th or 5th time that someone has mentioned Belichek. WHY??? :yell: :yell: Totally different situation. NE was down 24-23 with 3 min left it was 4th and 10 on their own one. OK, follow along with the math here, down 1, a seafety makes it 3, so a FG ties, a TD wins. If they punt from there, the punter has only 11 yds max to work with instead of 15. Chances are the punt has to be rushed since there's not as much room and the punt more than likely would be short and Den has the ball on the NE 40 anyway. Even if they hold Den to 3 and out (which they did), their FP would not be as good. But as it was, they took the safety (down 3 now) and got a free kick from the 20 instead of a rush job from the endline, add it up, a 30 yd advantage. As it was, Denver started with the ball on their own 15 (instead of the approx. 40) which is a 45 yd difference and after the Den punt, nE had the ball on their own 42. pretty much a no brainer and Belichek was not a genius for doing that. It was the omly sensible decision for him. Wanny could have even figured that one out. So Belichek didn't quit, he had everything to gain from it and nothing to lose like we did. We were just lucky and the difference was that Belichek had a chance to win, he took it and he won. Wanny had a chance to win in regulation, didn't take it but lucked out anyway.

Huge difference!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom