About not trying to score: Wanny / Players Back Decision

[DeDolfan]

Originally posted by BigFinFan


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!

why risk throwing the ball with 51 seconds left?? Because we had a chance to win!! hello?? I never said that we would've won it then. Whenever you have a chance, you take it. This ain't college where each team has equal opportunity to score, it's sudden death. So what's ther difference if we throw on our 20 in reg or OT? The same things can happen. We had time enough to make something happen and didn't. When you have a chance and don't take it is very stupid since in OT, there is no guarantee that you win the toss or even have a possession for that matter. You take your chance when it's presented to you, otherwise, there may be no more chances.

 

[DPlus47]

Originally posted by DeDolfan


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.

i am pretty much a blind homer. however, i'm somewhat realistic occasionally. i think the team had NO CHANCE of moving into field goal range or scoring a td on that final drive. there was a big chance of a turnover or a blocked punt or something turning the tide for the ravens. that was the only way the ravens were going to beat miami, is with a miami mistake. how is recovering that fumble dodging a bullet? was baltimore's offense about to explode? they were on the 33 and needed about 40 yards to get into field goal range. whew, i'm glad wanny dodged that bullet.

have you seen ed reed block a punt? i've seen him block a punt and return it for a td. i saw him come close to turk several times during the game. maybe you wouldn't have been worried about that, but wannstedt is paid to worry about that kind of thing. the risks of going from your own 20 against that D outweigh the rewards when you factor in how likely it was that the O would march right down the field and get the necessary 50-plus yards to get into field goal range.

 

[rafael]

Originally posted by DeDolfan


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!

The difference was that it was even less likely that Miami would put themselves in a situation to win the game. The reason Belichek is mentioned is that he undestands that every situation has odds of success attached to it. With the way the Ds were playing, scoring with 51 seconds left from our own 20 is less likely than giving the Ravens a chance to win. When the fans started booing, the players were looking into the stands with a look of "what are you freaking stupid?" This was a no-brainer decision anywhere outside of a video game.

 

[DeDolfan]

Originally posted by DPlus47


i am pretty much a blind homer. however, i'm somewhat realistic occasionally. i think the team had NO CHANCE of moving into field goal range or scoring a td on that final drive. there was a big chance of a turnover or a blocked punt or something turning the tide for the ravens. that was the only way the ravens were going to beat miami, is with a miami mistake. how is recovering that fumble dodging a bullet? was baltimore's offense about to explode? they were on the 33 and needed about 40 yards to get into field goal range. whew, i'm glad wanny dodged that bullet.

have you seen ed reed block a punt? i've seen him block a punt and return it for a td. i saw him come close to turk several times during the game. maybe you wouldn't have been worried about that, but wannstedt is paid to worry about that kind of thing. the risks of going from your own 20 against that D outweigh the rewards when you factor in how likely it was that the O would march right down the field and get the necessary 50-plus yards to get into field goal range.

i realize there was a chance of a TO or blocked punt. The very same chance at any other part of the gm or OT.
Dodging a bullet? Well everybody said that we weren't moving the ball all game long so that's why they say it was the "right" decision. Well, if we couldn't've moved the ball all game long, then why on earth do these same ppl think we would have moved it in OT even? So, with that being the case, if balt didn't cough up the ball, then we wouldn't have been in position to win the game, thereby dodging the bullet. But why do ppl "worry" about potential TOs until they happen? That's why they have practice and game plans and such, to cover all the bases. You see alot of near misses in the NFL but you just stay the course and do your thing. When teams let another team dictate what you do, they're in a world of hurt!!
I realize that it may have been very unlikely to have moved far enough against that D. But sooner or later, something has to give, so you take the chance cuz there's no guarantee of getting another chance in OT. one big play can make all the difference and we simply gave up on that chance. But don't get me wrong, i am glad it worked out of course but that doesn't mean it was the right way. The oNLY reason everyone says it was right was because it worked out for us. had it backfired, everyone would be bitching to no end and calling for Wanny to be fired. Just like last week. But since he lucked out on a dumb call, Wannstedt is now Genius of the Week? I think not....................

 

[xiidaen]

The difference, again, is TIME. With 51 seconds, you have a limited number of plays against a very good denfense that feeds off turnovers. When the plays you can run are limited, the chances for defensive success are magnified.

If you read the articles and look at the game, the players support the decision as the obvious choice AT THE TIME. I don't think I've seen any columnist or expert do anything other than agree with the call as well. It's just the fact that some fans think this is a video game or don't understand the realities of the game.

It was the right call, we won the game, let's move on.

 

[DeDolfan]

Originally posted by rafael


The difference was that it was even less likely that Miami would put themselves in a situation to win the game. The reason Belichek is mentioned is that he undestands that every situation has odds of success attached to it. With the way the Ds were playing, scoring with 51 seconds left from our own 20 is less likely than giving the Ravens a chance to win. When the fans started booing, the players were looking into the stands with a look of "what are you freaking stupid?" This was a no-brainer decision anywhere outside of a video game.

Why would Miami have been less likely to? It's not like we HAD to score with 51 secs left. In that situation, you don't do desperate or stupid things. We would have been just as likely (or not of) at that time as any other. You simply do what you can and if it doesn't work, fine, then go to OT. Now, if there was only time for 1 snap, fine again, then take the knee.
But when the players "suppoesedly" looked into the stands as you suggest, tells me that this team had quit and severly lacks a winning attitude. Just like when it's 4th and short, late in the game almost in "4th dn territory" but not quite, the players are pissed cuz they want to go for it but the HC says punt. We didn't have that but it's just another reflection of Wannstedt tho.

 

[DeDolfan]

Originally posted by xiidaen
The difference, again, is TIME. With 51 seconds, you have a limited number of plays against a very good denfense that feeds off turnovers. When the plays you can run are limited, the chances for defensive success are magnified.

If you read the articles and look at the game, the players support the decision as the obvious choice AT THE TIME. I don't think I've seen any columnist or expert do anything other than agree with the call as well. It's just the fact that some fans think this is a video game or don't understand the realities of the game.

It was the right call, we won the game, let's move on.

Yup, TIME !! We had 51 secs, all TOs, etc. What we did not have was time for only one snap.
It was the wrong call, we won the game, let's move on.

 

[DrAstroZoom]

Originally posted by DeDolfan


You know, this is about the 4th or 5th time that someone has mentioned Belichek. WHY???

The Dolphin players brought it up. The first reference to Belichick in this thread was quoting Fin players who compared Wanny's decision to Belichick's. So if you want to complain, complain to Wally Ogunleye!

It was ABSOLUTELY the right call given our field position, our QB play to that point, our shaky O-Line, the defense we were playing and the fact that defense would know exactly what plays we were going to run.

In overtime, we had the freedom to mix up play calling. We wouldn't have had that freedom trying the "50-second drill."

To paraphrase that oft-quoted old coach ( I can't remember his name), "When you drop back to throw the ball, five things can happen. Four of them are bad."

 

[DeDolfan]

Originally posted by DrAstroZoom


The Dolphin players brought it up. The first reference to Belichick in this thread was quoting Fin players who compared Wanny's decision to Belichick's. So if you want to complain, complain to Wally Ogunleye!

It was ABSOLUTELY the right call given our field position, our QB play to that point, our shaky O-Line, the defense we were playing and the fact that defense would know exactly what plays we were going to run.

In overtime, we had the freedom to mix up play calling. We wouldn't have had that freedom trying the "50-second drill."

To paraphrase that oft-quoted old coach ( I can't remember his name), "When you drop back to throw the ball, five things can happen. Four of them are bad."

Dr, my point was, why was belichek even brought up? Players or not, doesn't matter. The situations were totally different and wasn't really a "decision" on Belichek's part at all. it was the only real thing to do.
If ypu still think it was "absolutely" the right call (in hindsight only), what would it have been had lewis not fumbled and they were able to get another 25 yds or so and Stover kicked a 50 ydr to win the game for them ?????

 

[DrAstroZoom]

Ok, a couple things. I, for one, do not think Belichick's decision was a no-brainer. I believe there are a good number of NFL coaches who choose not to give up points under any circumstances, including that situation. However, that's not the topic at hand.

Secondly, you are assuming that I'm making the call on Wanny's decision in "hindsight." I'm not. I agreed with the decision when it was made for the reasons I've cited.

If Lewis doesn't fumble and the Ravens win, the logic is still sound. One of your main arguments has been that the decision is not right simply because we won. The opposite is true: Wanny's decision is not proven wrong if we lose simply BECAUSE we lose.

 

[Coral Reefer]

Originally posted by xiidaen


I don't think I've seen any columnist or expert do anything other than agree with the call as well. It's just the fact that some fans think this is a video game or don't understand the realities of the game.

Ok pal, so while we go back to playing our video games why don't you log back onto your fantasy league site and experience some more of your "realities of the game"

For you to say that anyone that disagrees thinks they are playing a football video game is an ignorant comment. You feel the way you do and that is fine. I feel completely different. The realities of the game of football I lived for many years all the way through college football. I would bet I know just as much if not much more than you do about the games "realities". The decision IMO was gutless and is just another decision that tells this team that they aren't good enough and to just play careful and HOPE the intangibles fall their way to win. It is my belief that winning coaches and teams choose to MAKE their own "intangibles" and "momentum plays" happen and not to hope the other team screws up so they may win.

Another thing. If Wanny's "strategy" was to rely on the Defense and play field position he would have kicked off to start OT.
If in fact they lost all faith in the offense moving the ball, receiving the kick played directly against that strategy. If the offense suffered a turnover or stalled and had to punt the Ravens would have been the ones with the field position. Bottom line is that the offense had to come on the field and try to win the game at some point. 52 seconds with 3 TO's is an eternity to gain 45-50 yards.

There's your video game breakdown smart guy.

IMO You would'nt see many teams...... if any..... take a knee and put their fate into an OT quarter where they may NEVER even get a chance to handle the ball.

Originally posted by xiidaen

It was the right call, we won the game, let's move on.

Wrong call but we won.

 

[Coral Reefer]

Originally posted by DPlus47


i am pretty much a blind homer. however, i'm somewhat realistic occasionally. i think the team had NO CHANCE of moving into field goal range or scoring a td on that final drive. there was a big chance of a turnover or a blocked punt or something turning the tide for the ravens. that was the only way the ravens were going to beat miami, is with a miami mistake. how is recovering that fumble dodging a bullet? was baltimore's offense about to explode? they were on the 33 and needed about 40 yards to get into field goal range. whew, i'm glad wanny dodged that bullet.

have you seen ed reed block a punt? i've seen him block a punt and return it for a td. i saw him come close to turk several times during the game. maybe you wouldn't have been worried about that, but wannstedt is paid to worry about that kind of thing. the risks of going from your own 20 against that D outweigh the rewards when you factor in how likely it was that the O would march right down the field and get the necessary 50-plus yards to get into field goal range.

You're right.... We should NEVER let the offense handle the ball. The chances for a turnover clearly outweigh the opportunity to go down the field and score points!

In fact, If Baltimore was smart they would realize how right you are and would have punted that ball right back to us in OT. I mean Sammy Knight Intercepted that QB, so did Madison. They should have realized playing their offense was to risky and just given the Dolphins all the chances.

With that mentality we'd all still be at the stadium watching a punt fest.

To quote some PROVEN winners in different sports.....

"In order to get to second you have to step off of first base"

"You Miss 100% of the shots you don't take"

 

[DrAstroZoom]

Originally posted by Trekbiz

Another thing. If Wanny's "strategy" was to rely on the Defense and play field position he would have kicked off to start OT.

This isn't my particular debate, but I have to jump in and say that's ridiculous logic. There's a vast difference between having to run a hurry-up offense against a defense that KNOWS it's coming and starting with the ball, no time pressure and the entire playbook open.

 

[DeDolfan]

Originally posted by DrAstroZoom
Ok, a couple things. I, for one, do not think Belichick's decision was a no-brainer. I believe there are a good number of NFL coaches who choose not to give up points under any circumstances, including that situation. However, that's not the topic at hand.

Secondly, you are assuming that I'm making the call on Wanny's decision in "hindsight." I'm not. I agreed with the decision when it was made for the reasons I've cited.

If Lewis doesn't fumble and the Ravens win, the logic is still sound. One of your main arguments has been that the decision is not right simply because we won. The opposite is true: Wanny's decision is not proven wrong if we lose simply BECAUSE we lose.

4th and 11 on your own goal line, down by 1 and a good number of coaches wouldn't have given up the points? Well, one is a good number!
Whether or not you agreed with the decision at the time is moot since I wasn't with you at the time.
No, I have not thought it was a bad decision because we won. That makes no sense at all. I said it was bad because we still had a chance, as well as any other during the game to win nopw in regulation, without risking not even getting the ball in OT.
But I can guarantee you one thing tho. If we had lost that game, there would be so much hell raised around here that it ain't funny. There's too many fair weather fans for it not to be.

 

[DeDolfan]

Originally posted by DrAstroZoom


This isn't my particular debate, but I have to jump in and say that's ridiculous logic. There's a vast difference between having to run a hurry-up offense against a defense that KNOWS it's coming and starting with the ball, no time pressure and the entire playbook open.

What you fail to realize is that yes it would be some what of a hurry up and no it's not do or die at that point. You take some solid shots and hope to catch them making a mistake. That's what it's all about anyway, you catch them making mistakes, other wise they would be perfect and you gain zero yds. You run the 3 kick safe plays hoping to catch them off guard in something and if not, no biggie. THEN take your chances in OT.