They weren't able to jam/slow down those midget WRs during the regular season game with both Welker and Lloyd having over 100 yds each. Better hope Flacco can keep it up next Sunday.
If the Ravens can again successfully jam NE's midget receivers (are any even over 6-0?) at the line, they will win again. If NE can somehow counter this, then they will win. However, they cannot plan for this.
Why did the Falcons do an offside kick in the last 30 sec of the game?
That allowed the seahawks to have the ball at their own 45yd line!
with 2 plays left, why did the seahawks just do a 10yd play instead 25+ yd to get into field goal range?
there was no point in this 10yd play. their last play is the same as if they missed on the 25yd play.. the Hail Mary
WTF Seahawks?
All the Ravens doom and gloom? At one point I said they were one of the weakest teams going into the playoffs (obviously an incorrect prediction) but that was as harsh as I got. I've never been a member of the hysterical "cut Flacco/fire Harbaugh/etc etc" crowd. Some people were honestly suggesting they Ravens should replace Flacco with Michael Vick.
No, I do think they were very weak coming into the playoffs. Ray Lewis returning and Flacco's clutch play have obviously remedied those perceived weaknesses.
Ravens/Denver:
With the game tied, 30 sec left, and 2 timeouts, why did Denver let the clock wind down and decide to fight it out in overtime?!
You have Peyton!
you easily could have done 3 plays in that time frame for a chance to get into field goal range.
WTF Denver?
I don't know, it bothers me too. I've heard explanations though that make a bit of sense. When you're hurried because of a limited clock the chances of making a mistake increases. I don't know if they were worried about a fumble or pick 6 or something happening. One can argue the same "they have Peyton" mentality is what made them send it to overtime in the first place... as in "we believe in our defense and we have Peyton, so we'd rather come out with a fresher team than hurry ourselves". Of course I can't imagine their defense was inspiring confidence anymore.
I don't know, it doesn't make sense to waste that time and I was dissappointed when they did it. I don't know if that was a coach, coordinator, or Manning decision but I didn't like it.
I don't know, it bothers me too. I've heard explanations though that make a bit of sense. When you're hurried because of a limited clock the chances of making a mistake increases. I don't know if they were worried about a fumble or pick 6 or something happening. One can argue the same "they have Peyton" mentality is what made them send it to overtime in the first place... as in "we believe in our defense and we have Peyton, so we'd rather come out with a fresher team than hurry ourselves". Of course I can't imagine their defense was inspiring confidence anymore.
I don't know, it doesn't make sense to waste that time and I was dissappointed when they did it. I don't know if that was a coach, coordinator, or Manning decision but I didn't like it.
I don't know, it doesn't make sense to waste that time and I was dissappointed when they did it. I don't know if that was a coach, coordinator, or Manning decision but I didn't like it.
You're a lying asshole. No one other than you has said anything about Flacco being in the Hall of Fame.
Did AMDzen ever show up? He's probably still frozen to the stands by his tears.
doesn't bother me much, mainly Monday Morning Quarterbacking IMO. Was it conservative of John Fox? Yes. Did it lose the game? No. Ignoring Chump Bailey's play in regulation or the blown coverage on the Ravens game-tying bomb, it was primarily Peyton Manning's Favre-ian INT that lost the game. (Some have criticized the offensive play-calling in OT and that's probably fair.)I don't know, it bothers me too. I've heard explanations though that make a bit of sense. When you're hurried because of a limited clock the chances of making a mistake increases. I don't know if they were worried about a fumble or pick 6 or something happening. One can argue the same "they have Peyton" mentality is what made them send it to overtime in the first place... as in "we believe in our defense and we have Peyton, so we'd rather come out with a fresher team than hurry ourselves". Of course I can't imagine their defense was inspiring confidence anymore.
I don't know, it doesn't make sense to waste that time and I was dissappointed when they did it. I don't know if that was a coach, coordinator, or Manning decision but I didn't like it.
doesn't bother me much, mainly Monday Morning Quarterbacking IMO. Was it conservative of John Fox? Yes. Did it lose the game? No. Ignoring Chump Bailey's play in regulation or the blown coverage on the Ravens game-tying bomb, it was primarily Peyton Manning's Favre-ian INT that lost the game. (Some have criticized the offensive play-calling in OT and that's probably fair.)
But before blaming Fox, I'd like to see some hard stats on the success rate of 31 second drives with 2 time outs; I don't think it's all that favorable of a risk/reward ratio. I'm not a die-hard football fan but until Tom Brady executed the late drive to (help) win their first title, it was very uncommon. I distinctly remember John Madden basically saying the Patriots were going to run out the clock for OT. (I missed the Falcons game, so have no idea how they pulled it off just yesterday.)
It would be more questionable to kneel under the old OT rules, where the coin flip was massively crucial in determining the outcome. Now you're guaranteed a possession if the first receiving team kicks an OT field goal for the lead. At home, I don't think you're giving up much of an edge by taking a knee with just 31 seconds. Did it piss off some fans? Surely, but not nearly as much as the outcome.
I realize fans believe you have to trust Manning in that situation and he's not likely to throw a pick-6. But what actually happened later in OT?
Why did the Falcons do an offside kick in the last 30 sec of the game?
That allowed the seahawks to have the ball at their own 45yd line!
with 2 plays left, why did the seahawks just do a 10yd play instead 25+ yd to get into field goal range?
there was no point in this 10yd play. their last play is the same as if they missed on the 25yd play.. the Hail Mary
WTF Seahawks?
Ravens/Denver:
With the game tied, 30 sec left, and 2 timeouts, why did Denver let the clock wind down and decide to fight it out in overtime?!
You have Peyton!
you easily could have done 3 plays in that time frame for a chance to get into field goal range.
WTF Denver?
But before blaming Fox, I'd like to see some hard stats on the success rate of 31 second drives with 2 time outs; I don't think it's all that favorable of a risk/reward ratio.
It makes me sad that one annoying fan can drag down the public opinion of an entire team :\
I'm not entirely happy he's part of the fanbase either but I can't change that.
There's a whole article on John Fox's conservative decisions throughout the game, breaking down which ones were the right call and which were not:
http://deadspin.com/5975644/fox-get...e-strategy-cost-the-broncos-a-playoff-victory
Fourth-and-1 situations are converted about 72 percent of the time.
Falcons did what Broncos chose not to attempt: 30 sec drive to within field goal. Mad props to ATL for taking advantage of Seahawks blown coverage. They took a page out of the Seahawks/Bears game with a similar blown coverage.
Thanks for linking that. The good news with using year 2000+ data is that this period includes more risk-taking in 60 seconds or less situations, vs. previous historical norms.According to the Advanced NFL Stats win probability calculator (http://wp.advancednflstats.com/winprobcalc1.php), 23% of drives that begin on a team's own 20 yard line result in a score (15% touchdowns, 8% field goals). And the probability of a team winning in that exact situation is 52%, but that is taking overtime into account. The one thing the calculator doesn't do is take timeouts into account - it uses play-by-play data from 2000 onward, so it looks at all situations regardless of the number of timeouts remaining.
He's been pulling that crap all throughout this thread. Everytime I call him on his BS he ignores it.
And he agreed with every single call that Fox made except the 4th and 1 in OT from their own 39. Controversy not found.
For that, the writer claims:
Clearly he didn't watch the game, because the Ravens were stuffing the run in short down situations all game - I'd love to see some stats on how many yards Denver was getting on 2yd or less running plays. I can remember at least two 3rd and shorts where Denver got the 1st down by barely an inch... If Denver muffs it to give the Ravens the ball on their 39, Fox's head would have been on a stick. I agree with Fox on that call, way way too risky.
I suppose the odds of a crippling turnover are not very high (< 10%), but the reward is still infrequent. 23% chance of winning in regulation is decent enough, but not nearly high enough to blame Fox for choosing OT.
Now you know how Dallas fans feel.
Well not really, people would hate Dallas regardless.
Mugs, that's a cheap shot at me. There are definently worse fans, they just don't post here.
But, your second line is true. Doesn't matter what the Cowboys do, people will hate them regardless.