ST Alpha - "His defense had intercepted Manning twice already (including the previous series). why not give them a shot at #3 when you know he's forcing throws? -- nm" (Reading a Post)

SlickerTalk
Search Archives
The Leaderboard
The FAQ

Login
Create Account

Search Dr. S. Talk
TT/ST Wiki
How Well Do You Know ...

RSS Feed

Hosting by DigitalOcean

Support ST on Ko-Fi

Down to Post

Backboards:

Posts: 164

In response to "I think the Belichick bashing is a reach on this one... taking your chances getting 2 yards vs. punting to a hall of fame QB is not that bad a move" by stewie

His defense had intercepted Manning twice already (including the previous series). why not give them a shot at #3 when you know he's forcing throws? -- nm

Posted by Guy (aka lostatlimbo) Nov 16 '09, 14:19

(No message)

Responses:

true (though you have the facts of when the ints happened wrong). but remember - tRuMaN Nov 16, 14:23 3
- fair enough, but it wasn't Manning's 'A' game that night and if it was me, i make them work for the TD -- nm - Guy Nov 16, 14:24 2
  - the drive before, manning marched 80yrs downfield to score in 2mins. - tRuMaN Nov 16, 14:26 1
    - in the "any given sunday" thing, you can't just concede that he'll do it again - no matter who it is -- nm - Guy Nov 16, 14:37
Why take the risk if you can end it without giving the other team a chance? - David Nov 16, 14:21 13
- He went for a gut shot straight instead of waiting to play the next hand. -- nm - pmb Nov 16, 14:24 12
  - I see it as the other guy sucking out on the river after he led the whole hand. - David Nov 16, 14:26 11
    - It's the risk-reward that's all screwed up. If you're at the Colts 40 you go for it. But deep in your territory you play the odds. And the odds are - pmb Nov 16, 14:29 3
      - Again, you're worrying about the second thing prematurely. - David Nov 16, 14:34 2
        
        I see, but you can't look at the decision in a vaccuum. The decision is a chance with good odds of succeeding versus terrible consequences if you - pmb Nov 16, 14:43 1
        
        This is where we disagree. I see this as the decision that -does- take place in a vacuum. - David Nov 16, 14:47
    - see, i would have felt better if they went big on it. Colts know you're going short, so go long, or play a flea flicker. - Guy Nov 16, 14:27 6
      - That's a silly needless risk. The play call worked. Faulk just didn't make the play clean. -- nm - David Nov 16, 14:29 5
        
        I agree to that extent, I think it could be argued that the route needs to be run 1 yard deeper. - musubi Nov 16, 14:33 4
        
        he wouldn't have even gotten his hands on it to bobble if he went deeper. it was well covered. -- nm - Guy Nov 16, 14:38
        
        I think that with the pass rush the Colts were getting, they couldn't risk it. - David Nov 16, 14:36 2
        
        That just argues more for punting. If you can't risk running your route 2 yards deeper you're taking too big a risk. -- nm - pmb Nov 16, 14:47 1
        
        I'd buy that if the play as called hadn't had such a strong chance of success. - David Nov 16, 14:50
no, the previous series was when they went 79 yards in 1:44. -- nm - Reagen Nov 16, 14:21

Post a message top

Replies are disabled on threads older than 7 days.