Quote:
Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
I would. Those numbers aren't based on game-ending, do-or-die scenarios. In his example, the Eagles had everything to lose on that play and GB, while having everything to gain, had (as he said), not that much to lose. Having everything to gain is not the same as having everything to lose (anyone who's played sports will tell you that). Although, GB had been running it down their throat all day, everything changes in that situation. And 20 yards closer with so little time left on the clock is HUGE.
Also, GB would have faced MUCH more criticism if they had gone for it and failed. As it stands, they backed Philly up to the 20 and Philly had to make a miracle 4th down, 26 yard reception (with a generous spot, I might add) to come out on top. Go with your defense that had played very well up until that point.
TM
|
So I guess most of your criticism is with the 70%-of-the-time-Ahman-Green-gets-the-first-down assumption? It's an unknown, but I'll tell you this: As someone who has a financial stake in the Eagles making it to the Super Bowl, I was very very very happy to see the punt team trot onto the field. I thought a first down was pretty much a foregone conclusion (remember that Cory Simon had been limping during the 2d half).
I've played on teams that play better with a chance to put the stake in the heart, and I've also played on teams that play worse in that situation. And I've played on teams that rally when they're faced with a do-or-die, and some that have folded up our tents. It depends on the mix of people.
Let me also add that I thought the bootleg (it wasn't a sneak or a draw) of Favre to lead to the 4th and 1 was a pretty silly call, though it came very very close to winning them the game.
