The field goal was already a chip shot for Sturgis, compared to where it ended up being tried from in the wind. The sack, not the dropped pass, made it a non-chip shot.
This picture is when the game changed.
- Thread starter dolfanerie
- Start date
It was at the five I believe. He had a chance to get in if he makes that catch. Even if he gets tackled at the five I'm sure you can compute how efficient we've been at scoring tds from that area. You can also factor in the almost guaranteed fg if we don't punch it in. All much better numbers than medium ranged fgs into the wind.
No if your going to go with odds, you've got to admit that the closer you get the better the odds of nailing it... And you've got to add the probability that the closer you get to the end zone, the better the odds you have to score a TD... if you take all those odds into account, your argument makes no sense..,.
Entirely possible. However, scoring at least three points in that situation was what was needed IMO, and the team was already very likely to do that before the sack, regardless of what happened on the Wallace play. Only a big loss of yardage could change that, and that's unfortunately exactly what happened.
And actually I don't blame Tannehill here. I blame Sherman once again for taking a situation where something the team had achieved should have been conserved, and instead was floundered. This is the same thing that happened at the end of the Buffalo game, when the team was 72% likely to win just prior to the fumble.
Sherman is calling games as though he has a much better quarterback running the offense than he does. He's not calling games as though he's working with a developmental player who needs to be put much more in the role of a game manager at this point in his career. It's too aggressive, what he's doing.
---------- Post added at 08:42 AM ---------- Previous post was at 08:40 AM ----------
Like I said, the team had already achieved the field position from which a field goal would likely be successful. That shouldn't have been floundered with a non-conservative play call. You call every play in the book there but the one that has a chance of getting Tannehill sacked for big yardage.
It was not a chip shot. It was still into the wind. The percentage discrepancy of a score between a field goal from the five and where we were presack is higher than the percentage discrepancy of a fg between presack and post sack yardage, especially when you factor in the high likelihood of scoring a td. Your agenda is so blatant I'm almost to the point that you are either trolling or becoming another junc in which you determine what your conclusion is going to be first, before looking at the information, and than manipulate and contort the information to any lengths to attempt to support your preconceived conclusion
hoops
Tua time!
shouright once again talking out his ass
Phins117
Practice Squad
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2011
- Messages
- 1,561
- Reaction score
- 4
Wow! I seriously thought Philbin already had someone look a the catch up stairs which is why he didn't challenge. Also I didn't even see matthews fit right behind the player. Look at the foot you can see his aqua toe. This.....we needed this. WTF philibin?!?!?!?! Damn. No this ruined my day LOL.
If Wallace makes the catch, that play doesn't even happen, calculate that
matt11390
Starter
I agree normally but bad calls led directly to 13 NE points. Not to mention the mental effects on both teams.
This is a good angle (there was athread started about this last night). You can clearly see that Matthews left foot is down behind the corner and his toe is down by the sideline.
Well, think what you'd like, but at this point, you've started talking more about me than the team, which isn't what we're here to do. :)
matt11390
Starter
Matthews was in bounds and Philbin blew it
Whoever you are once again talking about another poster instead of the team. :)
Well when I attempted to explain why the notion of your previous thread was incorrect, just like you requested, you ignored it so all I can conclude is that you are agenda driven