I know the game is over and we won. But at the time I was wondering why we did not try one more run to get a little closer for the game winning FG since we had the time.
I know that we could of fumbled etc or anything could of happened but at the time I did wonder why.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Not only are you in range, you don't risk a fumble for a couple yards and the clock was winding down. You dont want to have to rush into something that is pointless.
Here is your answer.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Originally Posted by LikeUntoGod
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I believe any man's finest hour - his greatest fulfillment to all he holds dear, is that moment when he has worked his heart out in a good cause and lies exhausted on the field of battle...Victorious
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
We only had one time out at the time. If we call the timeout with 10-12 seconds left it leaves us in a tricky position.
If we run, we don't have the timeout anymore and there is not enough time to get FG unit on the field after run.
If we pass, we could pick up some yards but the receiver must get out of bounds or the clock run out and we lose.
That is a trciky position for Tannehill after he already get us in winning position.
We were in range and it gave us the best percentage for winning.
Because NFL coaches coach scared.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Originally Posted by LikeUntoGod
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Last Thursday, Jim Schwartz got to the Houston 28 and started running. But because he lost 3 yards on 2nd down, he sent out the figgie team on 3rd and 11 from the 29. By all rights, he was "in range". Same process, different outcome.
Just as there is a risk of fumble on a run, there is a risk of miss on the figgie. Which risk is higher? At 40+ yards, I'd keep running.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
That's standard practice in the NFL for a game winning/tying FG at the end of a game. You kick on 3rd so that if the snap is bad or the hold is fumbled you can just fall on the ball and try again on 4th down. I see that all the time and I have no issue with the practice.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Originally Posted by dolphone
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
As for us running the ball one more time, with the number of fumbles we've had from our RBs, not a good idea. In that situation the defense is looking for a turnover, they're trying to hold the RB up while someone tries to strip the ball. The only thing Daniel Thomas did was dive forward for a few yards there to get the first, we really didn't gain a lot of yards but we eliminated the chance for a strip by the defense the way Thomas just stayed low and dove forward. There was roughly 19 seconds left when they called Thomas down, why risk trying to line up quickly and getting a quick snap off and possibly getting called for a false start or another procedural call then having to use the time out so there's no 10 second run off and kicking the ball 5 yards deeper? Not worth the risk, too many things can go wrong.
Standard practice doesn't make it right. If there's a bad snap, fumble, whatever... you're kicking almost 60 yards. So the "reason" for not trying to make it easier is that, if *one* of the bad things that can happen on a FG does happen, you'll have one shot in a million? Why not just make it easier in the first place?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Originally Posted by datruth55
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Like I said, coaching scared.
Don't think we had time. We had one timeout and after the DT run there was 19 or so seconds. To risky to run another play in a hurry. They did the right thing. Also Philbin mentioned on the Phinsider that the 27 was the target and that's about where we were.
He was kicking from the 29...that's a 46 yard FG...you fumble the snap and fall on it it's at worst a 53 yard FG...don't know where you get 60 yards from but whatever. You still give yourself a chance to win the game...run one more play and your just as much at risk of fumbling, committing a penalty that backs you up (and Detroit commits a lot of penalties) or gaining absolutely no yards anyway.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Originally Posted by dolphone
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Coaching scared or coaching smart. I think the latter. Just imagine if we run the ball and fumble, then lose in OT. The outcry from those saying we should have "continued to get more yardage"would be changing their tune to "why run a play in that situation" and calling out Philbin.... You know its true too.... In this situation, coaching scared = coaching smart. We won the game so obviously it was the right idea.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Originally Posted by dolphone
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks