is going to cost a team a big game, like a playoff game.
If Greene takes the knee at the 1, the sit on the ball and win.
But because they scored, they gave NE a CHANCE.
They will only take it seriously when it happens on national TV in a big game, but it is inevitable that it WILL happen.
Let me guess... you bet on the UNDER.
I only wish teams would win and give the other team a shot only to CRUSH their dreams and demoralize the Fans 
WHAT???? No way,,,, not you Too Moo,,,,,,,
Damn it,,, I love your stuff,, top shelf, but I'm just going to have to give you a mulligan on this...
99% -----REALLY?? I actually would put the chances of the "ultimate miracle" at around 95 or 96% which I wouldn't consider irrelevant. Hell,,, this example today was a mere two or three plays away at the end, from ending this arguement.
I would take odds on that first NE TD drive between 25% to 35%,,,then the onside recovery in that situation goes off at around 10%.. half minute to go for six, from midfieldish with NE,,,,, 10% IMO
You honestly can't be this dumb. The coach is paid to think like an accountant. The players do what the coach tells them to do.
The fact that they won doesn't make it the right decision. It's two different things. It's not even debatable. 
Let me restate for those that have no reading comprehension skills:
1. I had no bet on the total. Unlike typical mouthbreatihing morons at covers, I have something called "objectivity" (look it up in a dictionary)
2. One day, scoring when you dont have to will cost a team a big game, and then it will be a big deal, and everyone will adjust. Remember the Pisarchik (Giants Eagles) play? Nobody used to take a knee to kill a game, they would run up the middle. Guess what happened after that game? Im sure if we were on covers before that game everyone would explain to me the value of running vs kneeling, and how the odds of fumbling and returing that fumble were astronomical.
Keep debating, but there really isnt a debate here. They went from 100% winner to <100% by choice. Not sure how anyone could take that side, but there are plenty of morons at covers who would argue that the sky isnt blue, so Im not surprised.
Yes he clearily should have slid down then as soon you give yourself up the ball is down and they can't hit you from behind. He gave the Pats a slight chance to come back and tie or win the game which is just one aspect of it. Although that was a slight chance to happen the biggest problem I had with it was that it gives your defense a chance to get injured. What if Reevis turns an ankle covering a Wr or a safty tries for a big hit and knocks out cromartie covering a player.
You slid down and have a definite win vs scorring a meaningless TD and a chance the Pats score or even an injury to one of your key players for next week.
Once again, it is not a what if game.
It is a probability game. You do what gives you the best probability to win. They had one action that would give them 100% chance to win, and one that would give them <100%.
You are like someone trying to justify a blackjack player hitting a 16 against a 6 because the guy got a 5 to make 21.
What is so hard to understand about that?
It is a character flaw.
Once again, it is not a what if game.
It is a probability game. You do what gives you the best probability to win. They had one action that would give them 100% chance to win, and one that would give them <100%.
You are like someone trying to justify a blackjack player hitting a 16 against a 6 because the guy got a 5 to make 21.
What is so hard to understand about that?
I saw a friend of mine double on 5 once but he was drunk.
Established in 1995,
Hot Forum Topics
