ChevyVanMiller Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 There are times when I'm maddened by the decisions NFL coaches make late in games as it pertains to clock management. The Bills/SD and Bills/Colts games are two cases in point. In yesterday's game the Bills needed a touchdown and a field goal to tie. At the 2-minute warning (which came at 1:53) they had the ball at the SD 23 and no time outs. Why not kick the field goal there and try the onsides kick immediately? (I know that wind conditions were a factor, but go with me on this as they wouldn't have kicked in a dome). That way, if you recover the kick you have over a minute and a half to drive for the tying touchdown. I like those odds much better than the way they played it, where had they made the onsides recovery they had but 20+ seconds to try and get within field goal range. Case #2 the Indy game where they found themselves playing defense down by 1 with less than two minutes to play. Indy had a third and mid-range. If they pick up the first they can run out the clock - game over. Why wouldn't the Bills coaches tell the players to play the tackle up to the marker and let the guy go to the house past it? That way you're down 8 with a chance to get the ball back and have a chance for a TD and a 2-point conversion to send it to OT. Instead, the Bills D made the tackle and the game was essentially over. In basketball a guy has no problem intentionally bricking the second end of a 1 and 1 when his team is down by 2 with a couple of seconds left. Why don't NFL coaches think out of the box and give their teams a better shot at winning? Thoughts?
TheMadCap Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 There are times when I'm maddened by the decisions NFL coaches make late in games as it pertains to clock management. The Bills/SD and Bills/Colts games are two cases in point. In yesterday's game the Bills needed a touchdown and a field goal to tie. At the 2-minute warning (which came at 1:53) they had the ball at the SD 23 and no time outs. Why not kick the field goal there and try the onsides kick immediately? (I know that wind conditions were a factor, but go with me on this as they wouldn't have kicked in a dome). That way, if you recover the kick you have over a minute and a half to drive for the tying touchdown. I like those odds much better than the way they played it, where had they made the onsides recovery they had but 20+ seconds to try and get within field goal range. Case #2 the Indy game where they found themselves playing defense down by 1 with less than two minutes to play. Indy had a third and mid-range. If they pick up the first they can run out the clock - game over. Why wouldn't the Bills coaches tell the players to play the tackle up to the marker and let the guy go to the house past it? That way you're down 8 with a chance to get the ball back and have a chance for a TD and a 2-point conversion to send it to OT. Instead, the Bills D made the tackle and the game was essentially over. In basketball a guy has no problem intentionally bricking the second end of a 1 and 1 when his team is down by 2 with a couple of seconds left. Why don't NFL coaches think out of the box and give their teams a better shot at winning? Thoughts? 856434[/snapback] I think that going for the TD first is the way to go. I think it is way easier to kick a field goal at the end of the game, rather than being forced to drive for the winning TD. I think the Bills did the right thing yesterday...
Repulsif Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 casa 1 : not agree. If you don't blow the entire remaining time to make the TD. case 2 : i completely agree with it. Should be the way to go. But you know, it seems football nowadays is not a team sport but an individual sport...
Beerball Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 #2...comes up a few times each year. The reason given is always along the lines of...it's football, you can't just let the other team score. What does that do for morale? What happens the next time you need a stop? etc. etc. etc.
tennesseeboy Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I thought going for the field goal and an onsides kick with a significant amount of time left was the way to go. Especially without time outs. That being said, I can't be too critical of the way they played it, since with just a touch of luck we might have tied it upgoing the exact way we did. I like the second idea. However it does pretty much diss your defense, so if you're the coach, the idea had better work or you're going to have some really pissed off defensive players to face up to.
Ned Flanders Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 Case 1: Thought that myself, but you need the TD eventually...that was the coaches thought-process as well, I guess. Case 2: Packers actually did something like this in the SB a few years back vs. Denver. With the game tied, and the Broncos down near the goal line, Green Bay thought it better to let Denver score a TD then to run clock down and let Denver kick a chip-shot FG. Denver indeed scored the TD and Favre got the ball back with a little time, but they lost it on downs.
Dan Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 I disagree with number 1. I think it's easier to get a field goal with 20-30 seconds on the clock - see the Jags game for evidence. To get a TD with with a minute left, pretty much means you're gonna have to throw it big distances, i.e. no underneath passes. When you're down by 10, many teams will give you the underneath stuff (like SD did yesterday) and then you can easily get close enough to shoot for the endzone. If all you need is the one score, the defense plays the whole field tight and its harder to so that. To get to field goal range after an onside kick, all you really need is 1 big pass. I agree with number 2. I've often thought, just let them score already. I was saying that yesterday at about the 4 minute mark when it was obvious we couldn't stop an old lady with a walker in the snow. To heck with how the Defense feels. If they could stop someone on 3rd down, you wouldn't have to give up the cheap score. I understand the concept of never giving up points, but at some point you just need to get the ball back. I know you could get a turnover, but its much less likely when they're just running the ball hoping to put the game away.
East Brady Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 Case #2- With a seven point lead wouldn't they go for two to make it a 9point lead??
Rubes Posted December 4, 2006 Posted December 4, 2006 Also, for #2....if the offensive player is smart (a big if, I'm sure), he'd realize once he made the first down that the game is basically over. So if the defense opens the door for you, just take a knee.
Recommended Posts