absolutely 100% correct....unless that clock would hit :00, no team would ever kneel 3 times, then punt, even if there was 5 seconds left on the clock....if you are going to leave time on the clock after 3 downs, u run....the fumble was extremely unfortunate...at best, they would have had it on the 20 instead of the 40...some could say it was a moose of some kind, but there was only 2 minutes the entire game that NO was covering
I have seen teams kneel 4 straight plays and just give the ball back to the other team with under 10 tics left. Its a safer way to run out the clock. Look at what almost happened tonight, falcons had a chance at the end to tie the game.
Now if they would have kneeled 4 stright plays, falcons would have got ball back with 9 seconds left, it would ab almost impossible to get to scores in those 9 seconds.
Running the ball, cost them giving the ball back with 1:23.
so you tell me whats better giving ball back with 1:23 or 9 seconds?
Those running plays they ran, werent designed to get them a first down, they just needed to run the ball so they could fumble. Another scripted out wwf event tonight
0
Quote Originally Posted by Bruce_Willis:
absolutely 100% correct....unless that clock would hit :00, no team would ever kneel 3 times, then punt, even if there was 5 seconds left on the clock....if you are going to leave time on the clock after 3 downs, u run....the fumble was extremely unfortunate...at best, they would have had it on the 20 instead of the 40...some could say it was a moose of some kind, but there was only 2 minutes the entire game that NO was covering
I have seen teams kneel 4 straight plays and just give the ball back to the other team with under 10 tics left. Its a safer way to run out the clock. Look at what almost happened tonight, falcons had a chance at the end to tie the game.
Now if they would have kneeled 4 stright plays, falcons would have got ball back with 9 seconds left, it would ab almost impossible to get to scores in those 9 seconds.
Running the ball, cost them giving the ball back with 1:23.
so you tell me whats better giving ball back with 1:23 or 9 seconds?
Those running plays they ran, werent designed to get them a first down, they just needed to run the ball so they could fumble. Another scripted out wwf event tonight
While taking a look at early line for next week. I get back in forum, ppl still arguing about the game
Here is the exact time on that play:
New Orleans - 1:42
1st-10, ATL47
2nd-10, ATL46
3rd-10, ATL46
So... No one would kneel with 3rd and 10 and 1:23M left... If they kneel, that must be a big "QUESTION MARK"...
It's just bad luck for whoever take NO as -11 or -10.5
Cheers
if the saints would have kneeled from first down, the player more then likely wouldnt have gotton hurt and they could have taken the clock all the way down to 9 seconds left. Sorry but i would take my chances giving the ball back with 9 seconds left and my team up 11.
This would have just been the safer route to go and it took off almost every second.
Thats just my opinion, obviously the saints thought differntly. Their plan almost back fired on themselves.
0
Quote Originally Posted by freebet123:
While taking a look at early line for next week. I get back in forum, ppl still arguing about the game
Here is the exact time on that play:
New Orleans - 1:42
1st-10, ATL47
2nd-10, ATL46
3rd-10, ATL46
So... No one would kneel with 3rd and 10 and 1:23M left... If they kneel, that must be a big "QUESTION MARK"...
It's just bad luck for whoever take NO as -11 or -10.5
Cheers
if the saints would have kneeled from first down, the player more then likely wouldnt have gotton hurt and they could have taken the clock all the way down to 9 seconds left. Sorry but i would take my chances giving the ball back with 9 seconds left and my team up 11.
This would have just been the safer route to go and it took off almost every second.
Thats just my opinion, obviously the saints thought differntly. Their plan almost back fired on themselves.
if the saints would have kneeled from first down, the player more then likely wouldnt have gotton hurt and they could have taken the clock all the way down to 9 seconds left. Sorry but i would take my chances giving the ball back with 9 seconds left and my team up 11.
This would have just been the safer route to go and it took off almost every second.
Thats just my opinion, obviously the saints thought differntly. Their plan almost back fired on themselves.
Your opinion is right, cd329!
But the Saints tried to control the ball until the clock ran out and the failed to do that.
If they could make one 1st down, they would kneel.
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
if the saints would have kneeled from first down, the player more then likely wouldnt have gotton hurt and they could have taken the clock all the way down to 9 seconds left. Sorry but i would take my chances giving the ball back with 9 seconds left and my team up 11.
This would have just been the safer route to go and it took off almost every second.
Thats just my opinion, obviously the saints thought differntly. Their plan almost back fired on themselves.
Your opinion is right, cd329!
But the Saints tried to control the ball until the clock ran out and the failed to do that.
If they could make one 1st down, they would kneel.
I think the saints were thinking get one 1st down and then run the clock out.. u cant get a first down by kneeling.
never said you could get a first down. if you kneel 4th straight plays, falcons get the ball back with 8 seconds. Pretty much impossible to make 2 scores in that amount of time.
The way the saints played it, they could have very well had that game tied at the end.
Just my opinion thou and if was the coach, i wouldnt feel worried turning the ball back over up 11 and the other team needing 2 scores in 9 seconds. That fumble had the whole saints team shitting bricks at the end.
0
Quote Originally Posted by gameto11:
I think the saints were thinking get one 1st down and then run the clock out.. u cant get a first down by kneeling.
never said you could get a first down. if you kneel 4th straight plays, falcons get the ball back with 8 seconds. Pretty much impossible to make 2 scores in that amount of time.
The way the saints played it, they could have very well had that game tied at the end.
Just my opinion thou and if was the coach, i wouldnt feel worried turning the ball back over up 11 and the other team needing 2 scores in 9 seconds. That fumble had the whole saints team shitting bricks at the end.
On first down with a little over 1 min and a half was when the center got hurt,instead Of Atl using their last time out NO was charged one for the injury.
After the sec.run is when Atl.used their TO,min and a half or so,if NO had kneel down after the first run,Atl would have been out ater sec run and clock goes under a min.On the third down if not a fumble,NO runs the clock to 30 secs or so.So if they were kneeling down it would of been around 30 secs when they punted and no hope for Atl to come close to a chance to tie it.
I had no bet other than Drew over 24 comp.which he hit on the last TD,and to me it looked like the old fix was in,if anyone remembers the Pitt-SD game from last year and tell me they dont have fix games,well I say they do and this one was strange imo.
0
On first down with a little over 1 min and a half was when the center got hurt,instead Of Atl using their last time out NO was charged one for the injury.
After the sec.run is when Atl.used their TO,min and a half or so,if NO had kneel down after the first run,Atl would have been out ater sec run and clock goes under a min.On the third down if not a fumble,NO runs the clock to 30 secs or so.So if they were kneeling down it would of been around 30 secs when they punted and no hope for Atl to come close to a chance to tie it.
I had no bet other than Drew over 24 comp.which he hit on the last TD,and to me it looked like the old fix was in,if anyone remembers the Pitt-SD game from last year and tell me they dont have fix games,well I say they do and this one was strange imo.
never said you could get a first down. if you kneel 4th straight plays, falcons get the ball back with 8 seconds. Pretty much impossible to make 2 scores in that amount of time.
The way the saints played it, they could have very well had that game tied at the end.
Just my opinion thou and if was the coach, i wouldnt feel worried turning the ball back over up 11 and the other team needing 2 scores in 9 seconds. That fumble had the whole saints team shitting bricks at the end.
CD, according to you, new orleans has gone from punting with 12 seconds left, to 9, to 8.
Have you not seen how many punt returns have gotten returned for TD's this year? Had NO punted and had it returned for a TD, you would have been saying! FIXED! All new orleans had to do was run the damn ball!
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
never said you could get a first down. if you kneel 4th straight plays, falcons get the ball back with 8 seconds. Pretty much impossible to make 2 scores in that amount of time.
The way the saints played it, they could have very well had that game tied at the end.
Just my opinion thou and if was the coach, i wouldnt feel worried turning the ball back over up 11 and the other team needing 2 scores in 9 seconds. That fumble had the whole saints team shitting bricks at the end.
CD, according to you, new orleans has gone from punting with 12 seconds left, to 9, to 8.
Have you not seen how many punt returns have gotten returned for TD's this year? Had NO punted and had it returned for a TD, you would have been saying! FIXED! All new orleans had to do was run the damn ball!
They could have kneeled down 4 times and gave the falcons the ball
with 9 seconds left. why risk fumbling and giving them the ball back
with over a minute to go, which they did.
I have seen a ton of teams kneel to be safe, in order to run off as
much clock as they could and then punt. If it was over 2 minutes,
then i say run, but not with 1:42 on the clock
Not saying
you're wrong, but do you mind posting a few examples. I am sure it may
have happened once or twice out of the possible thousand scenarios, but
like I said it is the exception not the rule. When a team kneels down
before they can run all the time off the clock in their 4 downs it is
considered bad sportsmanship. Kind of like "we don't care if you're
getting the ball back with time, you're just that bad"
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
They could have kneeled down 4 times and gave the falcons the ball
with 9 seconds left. why risk fumbling and giving them the ball back
with over a minute to go, which they did.
I have seen a ton of teams kneel to be safe, in order to run off as
much clock as they could and then punt. If it was over 2 minutes,
then i say run, but not with 1:42 on the clock
Not saying
you're wrong, but do you mind posting a few examples. I am sure it may
have happened once or twice out of the possible thousand scenarios, but
like I said it is the exception not the rule. When a team kneels down
before they can run all the time off the clock in their 4 downs it is
considered bad sportsmanship. Kind of like "we don't care if you're
getting the ball back with time, you're just that bad"
First off, I have seen multiple games were teams just took knees that weren't able to get it exactly to 0:00, but close to it. If you haven't seen that tactic used yet, you clearly haven't watched enough football and/or know common sense strategy. So you shouldn't be commenting that no team has ever done that. Ignorance on your part there. So should N.O. have just taken a knee during that drive? Absolutely 100% yes ! Let me explain why.
At the 1:42 mark, N.O. had the ball around mid-field. Note that ATL had just 1 timeout left. So IF they took a knee here on 1st and 10, either ATL would have to burn that last timeout or let an additional 0:35 seconds run off the clock. Instead they decide to run the ball, risking a turnover, end up injuring their starting center and thereby have to burn one of their own timeouts. Taking a knee there, there would have been no injury or their own timeout used. So say they took a knee there on 1st down and ATL burns their only timeout. Then comes 2nd down, take a knee, 0:35 seconds run off, clock goes to approx. 1:07, then 3rd down, take another knee and run the clock to approx. 0:32 seconds. At this point you can then punt the ball with a few choices here. Either direct your punt instead the ten towards the sidelines, kick it out of the end zone, or simply punt it out of bounds downfield, if you don't want them returning the ball. After this you have an ATL team, down 11, with about 0:25 seconds left to go approx. 80 yards with no timeouts. Fuckin simple enough. Not taking a simple knee, costed them an injury, a fumble near midfield, an eventual FG, an eventual on-side kick, then an eventual INT on a hail mary. Therefore extending the game for ATL and risking more injury by putting your defense and hands team out there. All of which should never, ever happened in the first place. Stupid coaching by N.O., no doubt about it.
0
First off, I have seen multiple games were teams just took knees that weren't able to get it exactly to 0:00, but close to it. If you haven't seen that tactic used yet, you clearly haven't watched enough football and/or know common sense strategy. So you shouldn't be commenting that no team has ever done that. Ignorance on your part there. So should N.O. have just taken a knee during that drive? Absolutely 100% yes ! Let me explain why.
At the 1:42 mark, N.O. had the ball around mid-field. Note that ATL had just 1 timeout left. So IF they took a knee here on 1st and 10, either ATL would have to burn that last timeout or let an additional 0:35 seconds run off the clock. Instead they decide to run the ball, risking a turnover, end up injuring their starting center and thereby have to burn one of their own timeouts. Taking a knee there, there would have been no injury or their own timeout used. So say they took a knee there on 1st down and ATL burns their only timeout. Then comes 2nd down, take a knee, 0:35 seconds run off, clock goes to approx. 1:07, then 3rd down, take another knee and run the clock to approx. 0:32 seconds. At this point you can then punt the ball with a few choices here. Either direct your punt instead the ten towards the sidelines, kick it out of the end zone, or simply punt it out of bounds downfield, if you don't want them returning the ball. After this you have an ATL team, down 11, with about 0:25 seconds left to go approx. 80 yards with no timeouts. Fuckin simple enough. Not taking a simple knee, costed them an injury, a fumble near midfield, an eventual FG, an eventual on-side kick, then an eventual INT on a hail mary. Therefore extending the game for ATL and risking more injury by putting your defense and hands team out there. All of which should never, ever happened in the first place. Stupid coaching by N.O., no doubt about it.
Just as crucial is why didn't Bell have two hands on the ball? Everyone knows NO is going to run the ball and Atl is going to go for the strip. Yet here is Bell diving into the line with the ball held with one hand. Did he think he was going to break one? What a fucking idiot.
0
Just as crucial is why didn't Bell have two hands on the ball? Everyone knows NO is going to run the ball and Atl is going to go for the strip. Yet here is Bell diving into the line with the ball held with one hand. Did he think he was going to break one? What a fucking idiot.
I think the saints were thinking get one 1st down and then run the clock out.. u cant get a first down by kneeling.
If the Saints were so determined to get a first down, why were they just running the ball up the gut with Bell? They were clearly just trying to just burn the time up, at which point proves that a knee for 3 straight attempts in this situation is much safer then 3 runs up the gut. If N.O. was so determined to get a first down to end the game then they should have thrown the ball, which they did with ease all game long.
0
Quote Originally Posted by gameto11:
I think the saints were thinking get one 1st down and then run the clock out.. u cant get a first down by kneeling.
If the Saints were so determined to get a first down, why were they just running the ball up the gut with Bell? They were clearly just trying to just burn the time up, at which point proves that a knee for 3 straight attempts in this situation is much safer then 3 runs up the gut. If N.O. was so determined to get a first down to end the game then they should have thrown the ball, which they did with ease all game long.
Just as crucial is why didn't Bell have two hands on the ball? Everyone knows NO is going to run the ball and Atl is going to go for the strip. Yet here is Bell diving into the line with the ball held with one hand. Did he think he was going to break one? What a fucking idiot.
But why even create the situation where Bell was even touching the ball? If everyone knew that N.O. was just going to run the ball and ATL was just looking to strip it, why not take a knee and eliminate all of that nonsense?
0
Quote Originally Posted by MyDogLogan:
Just as crucial is why didn't Bell have two hands on the ball? Everyone knows NO is going to run the ball and Atl is going to go for the strip. Yet here is Bell diving into the line with the ball held with one hand. Did he think he was going to break one? What a fucking idiot.
But why even create the situation where Bell was even touching the ball? If everyone knew that N.O. was just going to run the ball and ATL was just looking to strip it, why not take a knee and eliminate all of that nonsense?
The only thing worse than fucking everyones -10 bet, was the fact that jonathan goodwin was hurt and it looked pretty bad and if he is out, that imo will keep them from winning the SB. HUGE injury. Anyone know what the prognosis is?
0
I had ATL ml & ATL +11.5.
The only thing worse than fucking everyones -10 bet, was the fact that jonathan goodwin was hurt and it looked pretty bad and if he is out, that imo will keep them from winning the SB. HUGE injury. Anyone know what the prognosis is?
Also I ddint get the fumble by Pierre Thomas earlier in the fourth QT that gave the Falcons the ball deep in their zone didnt Thomas land on top of it even the commentator had made that point. Last time I bet such a big point spread I was one of those suckers that took NO -13.
0
Also I ddint get the fumble by Pierre Thomas earlier in the fourth QT that gave the Falcons the ball deep in their zone didnt Thomas land on top of it even the commentator had made that point. Last time I bet such a big point spread I was one of those suckers that took NO -13.
Also the fumble by Pierre Thomas earlier in the fourth QT that gave the Falcons the ball deep in their zone didnt Thomas land on top of it even the commentator had made that point. Last time I bet such a big point spread I was one of those suckers that took
0
Also the fumble by Pierre Thomas earlier in the fourth QT that gave the Falcons the ball deep in their zone didnt Thomas land on top of it even the commentator had made that point. Last time I bet such a big point spread I was one of those suckers that took
Yeah they might have just taken a knee, but the injury happened which caused the clock too stop and ATL had 1 timeout left, so that was two stoppage's, thats why they needed the first down
0
Yeah they might have just taken a knee, but the injury happened which caused the clock too stop and ATL had 1 timeout left, so that was two stoppage's, thats why they needed the first down
That's what I'm saying. The injury happened because they were foolish enough to run a play in the first place, instead of taking a knee. If they took a knee, no injury would have occurred. Did you see the play where he got hurt and his own linemen fell into him? The play with the fumble was a run right up the gut on 3rd down, there was no way they thought they were gonna get a first down on that call.
0
That's what I'm saying. The injury happened because they were foolish enough to run a play in the first place, instead of taking a knee. If they took a knee, no injury would have occurred. Did you see the play where he got hurt and his own linemen fell into him? The play with the fumble was a run right up the gut on 3rd down, there was no way they thought they were gonna get a first down on that call.
if the saints would have kneeled from first down, the player more then likely wouldnt have gotton hurt and they could have taken the clock all the way down to 9 seconds left. Sorry but i would take my chances giving the ball back with 9 seconds left and my team up 11.
This would have just been the safer route to go and it took off almost every second.
Thats just my opinion, obviously the saints thought differntly. Their plan almost back fired on themselves.
Your points make perfect sense, and the sceanrios you present definitely follow a "common sense" approach to winning the game. However, there are so many scenarios in sports where coaches make decisions based off what I'd refer to as a "code of the game" rather than using common sense.
i.e...
Basketball - not fouling opposing team when you're up by 3 with 1 sec left in the bonus
Baseball - allowing pitchers to finish innings when they're clearly struggling.
There are so mnay of these situations in football cuz the game is so complex. I'm not sure why coaches do it, but I see it all the time and question why common sense is not always used. Another situation that always gets me in football is punting from the 40 or so on 4th and short....I think that is the stupidest thing a team can do, in any situation.
IMO, what I presented is a sound explanation for what you're questioning in this thread.
0
Quote Originally Posted by cd329:
if the saints would have kneeled from first down, the player more then likely wouldnt have gotton hurt and they could have taken the clock all the way down to 9 seconds left. Sorry but i would take my chances giving the ball back with 9 seconds left and my team up 11.
This would have just been the safer route to go and it took off almost every second.
Thats just my opinion, obviously the saints thought differntly. Their plan almost back fired on themselves.
Your points make perfect sense, and the sceanrios you present definitely follow a "common sense" approach to winning the game. However, there are so many scenarios in sports where coaches make decisions based off what I'd refer to as a "code of the game" rather than using common sense.
i.e...
Basketball - not fouling opposing team when you're up by 3 with 1 sec left in the bonus
Baseball - allowing pitchers to finish innings when they're clearly struggling.
There are so mnay of these situations in football cuz the game is so complex. I'm not sure why coaches do it, but I see it all the time and question why common sense is not always used. Another situation that always gets me in football is punting from the 40 or so on 4th and short....I think that is the stupidest thing a team can do, in any situation.
IMO, what I presented is a sound explanation for what you're questioning in this thread.
The local media asked the coach that very question. He said they were trying to make a !2t down so they could kneel then. Then the injury kept the clock from moving much and then the fumble also. Things don't always go as planned. The Saint's players need to hold onto the ball. Three fumbles, one INT? Sloppy play and the coach admitted it. The turnovers caused the Falcons to cover. Glad I passed, I would have bet the Saints to cover and the game to go over. Saved the juice. Hope the Saints tighten up.
0
The local media asked the coach that very question. He said they were trying to make a !2t down so they could kneel then. Then the injury kept the clock from moving much and then the fumble also. Things don't always go as planned. The Saint's players need to hold onto the ball. Three fumbles, one INT? Sloppy play and the coach admitted it. The turnovers caused the Falcons to cover. Glad I passed, I would have bet the Saints to cover and the game to go over. Saved the juice. Hope the Saints tighten up.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.
Hot Forum Topics
