Why isnt anyone talking about this

[Marauders11]

Either way to slice it it boils down to one New England 1st down and it's end of ballgame.

 

Supposing they do kick it deep and NE gets the ball at their 20- they run 2 plays to make you burn your time outs, then who knows if Belichick runs again on 3rd or throws the ball to get the 1st- one first down and the game is over and you have ZERO chance of getting your hands on the ball- anything can happen when running those 3 plays even if the defense knows what's coming, 4 yards, 4 yards, 3 yards= ballgame.

 

It was far from a certainty that the defense would stop them on 3 straight plays which is what everyone seems to be assuming here- it's not like the 'Pats were kneeling on the ball.

 

The onside kick was the right play IMO opinion. It gave them one more chance to get on offense before being faced with the mandatory 3 and out.

[slimshim]

what are the odds of recovering an onside kick and moving 25 yards in a minute and a half with two timeouts?

 

what are the odds of holding a team to a three and out, then moving 40 yards in 40 seconds?

 

what are the odds of holding a team to a three and out, then moving 70 yards in 40 seconds?

 

687970[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Ask the Patriots, they've accomplished and answered yes to your bottom 2 questions a number of times.

[McNasty]

It must be pretty neat to have a Super Power that makes you always right, after the fact. Personally, I'd prefer Invisibility, or the power to levitate stuff with my mind.

 

The play call didn't work, so it was the wrong call.

I follow you. :oldrolleyes:

 

Reid was trying to be aggressive, and get the ball back. If it had worked would you be on here crowing about it? No. It was a desperation call because so much time was gone off the clock. See, Reid didn't have access to your tremendous prognosticating powers, mostly because he was in the moment, and not looking back on it the next day, so he couldn't predict that the play would fail.

 

Maybe you should start a hotline.

[Menudo]

It must be pretty neat to have a Super Power that makes you always right, after the fact. Personally, I'd prefer Invisibility, or the power to levitate stuff with my mind.

 

The play call didn't work, so it was the wrong call.

I follow you. :oldrolleyes:

 

Reid was trying to be aggressive, and get the ball back. If it had worked would you be on here crowing about it? No. It was a desperation call because so much time was gone off the clock. See, Reid didn't have access to your tremendous prognosticating powers, mostly because he was in the moment, and not looking back on it the next day, so he couldn't predict that the play would fail.

 

Maybe you should start a hotline.

 

687996[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Take it easy, all that some of us are saying is that in that situation, WE would have chosen to kick the ball deep. I am certainly not saying that would have made a difference in the outcome, I am just stating my opinion on how I would have handled the situation. Of course, I am just a fan, I would love to hear what other NFL coaches thought of the decision, but they rarely speak out against one another, so I doubt we will hear any of it.

[McNasty]

Take it easy, all that some of us are saying is that in that situation, WE would have chosen to kick the ball deep.  I am certainly not saying that would have made a difference in the outcome, I am just stating my opinion on how I would have handled the situation.  Of course, I am just a fan, I would love to hear what other NFL coaches thought of the decision, but they rarely speak out against one another, so I doubt we will hear any of it.

688004[/snapback]

 

I am taking it easy. But it would confuse Sarge terribly if I didn't at least imply that he's an idiot in one of his posts.

[Jrick35]

The onside was the right call, the game was over, they had to try something to change the inevitable, the onside kick was that try.

687956[/snapback]

 

I disagree with your assessmnet of the game being over. There was over 1:40 left and the Eagles had two timeouts. That allowed for a deep kick and some defense which the Eagles had been playing fairly well all night.

 

I think the motivation for making the decision to attempt the onside kick or not is the amount of time remaining and the timeout situation.

 

If the Eagles did not have 2 timeouts left or if there had been less than a minute left pn the clock, then the onside kick would have been warranted.

 

But with over 1:40 and two timeouts the smart play is the deep kick and field position. Based on the way the Eagles handled the clock in their previous drive Reid had to know their only chance at a tie was a short field.

[Jumpin Johnies]

But he'd be a "genius" if they had recovered the ball, and we wouldn't be having this conversation.

687668[/snapback]

Nah, Mcnabb would've thrown another pick.

[Scrambled]

Nah, Mcnabb would've thrown another pick.

688054[/snapback]

[NAUgrad]

The onside was the right call, the game was over, they had to try something to change the inevitable, the onside kick was that try.

687956[/snapback]

 

This game was far from over and the on-side kick was absolutely the wrong call. Either way Phili's D stops NE. So it really is a matter of field position, which when you need a feild goal to tie is worth every yard you can get. Even if Phili only moves the ball to the NE 45, they at least have a shot at a kick. An onside kick secured no shot!!!

[McNasty]

I disagree with your assessmnet of the game being over. There was over 1:40 left and the Eagles had two timeouts. That allowed for a deep kick and some defense which the Eagles had been playing fairly well all night.

 

I think the motivation for making the decision to attempt the onside kick or not is the amount of time remaining and the timeout situation.

 

If the Eagles did not have 2 timeouts left or if there had been less than a minute left pn the clock, then the onside kick would have been warranted.

 

But with over 1:40 and two timeouts the smart play is the deep kick and field position. Based on the way the Eagles handled the clock in their previous drive Reid had to know their only chance at a tie was a short field.

688037[/snapback]

 

I understand what all you guys are saying, but think about this-- They kick long, NE gets the ball at their 20. NE runs a play, it takes 10 seconds off the clock. TO Eagles. 1:30 left on the clock. NE runs a play, It takes another 10 seconds off the clock. TO Eagles. 1:20 left on the clock. NE runs another play, and they don't get a first down. They run 35 seconds off the clock, and then punt. The punt play takes 5 seconds (to simplify). That leaves them with 35 seconds and no time-outs, field position somewhere around the 35-40. Now, they have to go 30-35 yards to give Akers a chance at kicking the FG, and have to stop the clock to get the FG unit on the field. Akers, then still has to hit around a 50-yarder for OT.

 

Was the decision still a no-brainer?

[keggerz]

if the pats run 10 seconds off the clock with a running play then the game is over cause they just got a 1st down

[McNasty]

if the pats run 10 seconds off the clock with a running play then the game is over cause they just got a 1st down

688073[/snapback]

 

All right, smart guy, the 7.5 seconds, and I'll throw another 5 seconds on the clock.

[Jrick35]

I understand what all you guys are saying, but think about this-- They kick long, NE gets the ball at their 20. NE runs a play, it takes 10 seconds off the clock. TO Eagles. 1:30 left on the clock. NE runs a play, It takes another 10 seconds off the clock. TO Eagles. 1:20 left on the clock. NE runs another play, and they don't get a first down. They run 35 seconds off the clock, and then punt. The punt play takes 5 seconds (to simplify). That leaves them with 35 seconds and no time-outs, field position somewhere around the 35-40. Now, they have to go 30-35 yards to give Akers a chance at kicking the FG, and have to stop the clock to get the FG unit on the field. Akers, then still has to hit around a 50-yarder for OT.

 

Was the decision still a no-brainer?

688069[/snapback]

 

Absolutely!

 

Because by attempting the onside kick they allowed everything you described to happen and when they got the ball back with only 46 seconds remaining instead of needing 30 -35 yds to get in FG range they needed 60 - 65 yds, how is that better?

 

I believe you just made our point.

[dcdietz@usfamily.net]

Actually, it may have been a must-win game to get INTO the playoffs.  Anyone else remember that game?  It was in the 1997-1999 range, off the top of my head.

687924[/snapback]

 

I believe it was '97 in first round of the playoffs. I know it was with Cunningham as qb.

[McNasty]

Absolutely!

 

Because by attempting the onside kick they allowed everything you described to happen and when they got the ball back with only 46 seconds remaining instead of needing 30 -35 yds to get in FG range they needed 60 - 65 yds, how is that better?

 

I believe you just made our point.

688111[/snapback]

 

Yeah, maybe if you were only watching that play in a vacuum, I made your point.

 

The Eagles weren't exactly moving at will against the Pats. They would have had to go at least 35 yards, with no TO's in 30 seconds against a great Defense that would have given them the middle of the field and hoped they burned out the clock themselves. Then they would have had to hang their hats on a 50ish yard FG by Akers to send it to OT. Where, if NE wins the toss, they are facing one of the most clutch Kickers ever to play the game.

 

The Eagles have one of the best ST units in football. Reid got aggressive. He tried to go for the opportunity that would give them a chance to play for the win. 1:40 left and 2 TO's and the ball around midfield, versus the :40 left on the clock, 35 yards to go for the long FG and the tie.

 

It was a gamble, either way. I don't mind the call to go for the onsides kick-- it just didn't work. Saying it was a stupid call is your hindsight goggles talking.

[Jrick35]

Yeah, maybe if you were only watching that play in a vacuum, I made your point.

 

The Eagles weren't exactly moving at will against the Pats. They would have had to go at least 35 yards, with no TO's in 30 seconds against a great Defense that would have given them the middle of the field and hoped they burned out the clock themselves. Then they would have had to hang their hats on a 50ish yard FG by Akers to send it to OT. Where, if NE wins the toss, they are facing one of the most clutch Kickers ever to play the game.

 

The Eagles have one of the best ST units in football. Reid got aggressive. He tried to go for the opportunity that would give them a chance to play for the win. 1:40 left and 2 TO's and the ball around midfield, versus the :40 left on the clock, 35 yards to go for the long FG and the tie.

 

It was a gamble, either way. I don't mind the call to go for the onsides kick-- it just didn't work. Saying it was a stupid call is your hindsight goggles talking.

 

688124[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Wrong again.

 

While watching the game with my buds, we were debating whether or not the Eagles should try the onside kick or not, during the break.

 

I said then that the onside kick wasn't necessary due to the Eagles having 2 Timeouts left. So I disagreed with the onsides kick PRIOR to it being attempted.

 

I also disagree with it being an aggressive call. I think it was a call made of desperation.

 

Reid saw it all slipping away and he panicked, pure and simple.

 

They blew the clock management in their previous drive and they blew the call on the kick, simple as that.

 

Reid and the Eagles put themselves in a desperate position and they reacted desperately.

Edited February 7, 2005 by Jrick35

[McNasty]

Wrong again.

 

While watching the game with my buds, we were debating whether or not the Eagles should try the onside kick or not, during the break.

 

I said then that the onside kick wasn't necessary due to the Eagles having 2 Timeouts left. So I disagreed with the onsides kick PRIOR to it being attempted.

 

I also disagree with it being an aggressive call. I think it was a call made of desperation.

 

Reid saw it all slipping away and he panicked, pure and simple.

 

They blew the clock management in their previous drive and they blew the call on the kick, simple as that.

 

Reid and the Eagles put themselves in a desperate position and they reacted desperately.

 

688140[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Well, what can I say to that? You're a genius, and clearly you should be coaching the Eagles instead of Reid.

 

The time management sucked. They were desperate because they screwed the pooch and were under the wire. I fault McNabb and Reid for that, but the on-sides kick was not that bad a playcall, and I'll stand by it.

[Jrick35]

Well, what can I say to that? You're a genius, and clearly you should be coaching the Eagles instead of Reid.

 

The time management sucked. They were desperate because they screwed the pooch and were under the wire. I fault McNabb and Reid for that, but the on-sides kick was not that bad a playcall, and I'll stand by it.

 

688172[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I never said that I would be a better coach than Andy Reid.

 

I simply said that the onside kick was the wrong call. The results of the onside kick will bear that out.

 

I don't have to be a genious to know that there were more positives to kicking it deep than there was to trying the onside kick. The only possible positive, for the kicking team, that can come out of an onside kick is to recover it. Anything else that results from an onside kick benefits the receiving team. And the odds of the kicking team actually recovering an onside kick are slim at best.

 

The only real legitimate reasons for attempting an onside kick when the Eagles did would have been to be down by multiple scores or to have been out of timeouts, neither of which was the case.

 

But by kicking it deep you gain precious field position at a point in the game where field possession was of the essence. All they needed was a FG.

 

Whether they tried the onside kick or not, chances are they were going to have to hold the Pats to a 3 & out.

 

So the choice was actually between giving the Pats the ball at mid-field or giving it to them closer to their own 20 yd line.

 

In a 3 point game you take the field position. That's not genious that's Coaching 101.

 

Of course it's fine that you disagree with me and I guess that we should just agree to disagree.

[NSab]

More importantly why didn't Reid kick a Field Goal at the end of the 1st half.

[slimshim]

I simply said that the onside kick was the wrong call. The results of the onside kick will bear that out.

 

 

688234[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

One thing that I'm fairly confident about is that if the roles were reversed, New England would have kicked it off and not even have considered an onside kick.

 

Slim

[Azazello1313]

i'll answer my own questions...

 

what are the odds of recovering an onside kick and moving 25 yards in a minute and a half with two timeouts? according to nfl.com, the chance of recovering an anticipated onside kick is 24%, or about 1 in 4. after that you're in good shape, you just have to move 25 yards and you have 2 timeouts and lots of time, so the odds of doing that are maybe 75%. multiply those together, and all told you have a 15-20% chance of the onside kick scenario working out.

 

what are the odds of holding a team to a three and out, then moving 40 yards in 40 seconds? you know they're almost certainly going to run three times, so let's put the chances of stopping them 3 and out pretty high, 75%. now, to move 40 yards in 40 seconds with no timeouts...that is quite a chore. figure you need at least 2 20+ yard completions and two clock stoppages, which really means you need sideline catches, against a defense specifically trying to prevent those things from happening. i would argue you're looking at a 1-in-10 chance of making that happen, but let's just say optimistically there's a 1-in-5 chance. that means there's a 15% chance of that scenario working out for you.

 

what are the odds of holding a team to a three and out, then moving 60 yards in 40 seconds? the 3-and-out odds would be the same as above, so 75%. the odds of moving the ball 60 yards in 40 seconds are obviously much shorter than moving it 40 yards in the same amount of time. i would say 1-in-20, or 5%. which means you have about a 3% chance of this scenario working out for you.

 

in my world, a 20+% combined chance of success is better than a 15% (if we're generous) chance of success. the onside kick was their single best statistical shot at tying or winning the game, and with it they still retained the outside chance at getting the ball back and going 60 yards.

[NSab]

Most of the Philly fans here , all ready gave props to the Pats for being the better team yesterday. What are you talking about?

[Sgt. Ryan]

I understand what all you guys are saying, but think about this-- They kick long, NE gets the ball at their 20. NE runs a play, it takes 10 seconds off the clock. TO Eagles. 1:30 left on the clock. NE runs a play, It takes another 10 seconds off the clock. TO Eagles. 1:20 left on the clock. NE runs another play, and they don't get a first down. They run 35 seconds off the clock, and then punt. The punt play takes 5 seconds (to simplify). That leaves them with 35 seconds and no time-outs, field position somewhere around the 35-40. Now, they have to go 30-35 yards to give Akers a chance at kicking the FG, and have to stop the clock to get the FG unit on the field. Akers, then still has to hit around a 50-yarder for OT.

 

Was the decision still a no-brainer?

 

688069[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

There was 44 seconds on the clock when Philly took over possesion of the ball on their final drive, after they let it roll to the Philly 5 yd line burning what 5 seconds after the punt first hit the ground. If NE is kicking from its 25, and the ball is caught at the Philly 40, they are more likely going to have a return on and those 5 seconds will most likely result in yds gained, not yards lost on a bounce.

Edited February 7, 2005 by Sgt. Ryan

[Sgt. Ryan]

Most of the Philly fans here , all ready gave props to the Pats for being the better team yesterday. What are you talking about?

 

688281[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Where is that

 

http://forums.thehuddle.com/index.php?showtopic=85960

 

Here I see McNasty giving some props to NE, but I see you making excuses not once but twice.

[McNasty]

I guess if your QB was such a choke artist as in the last 3 NFC Champ games yesterdays SB with 3 INT yesterday, 4 if you count the one he threw that was overturned by penalty your sad sack team might have won a World Championship and been the toast of the town today.  But McNabb chocked yet again in the biggest game of his life to date as he has done the past 4 yrs.  This does not surprise me at all that Philly fans defend their coach in one thread saying it was the right call, but rip him in another thread saying if Reid had any sense of urgency they may have had more time on the clock in the first place.  Reid is an NFL head coach, he also has several coaches on his staff to help with these very decisions.  Your team just scored a TD, you have the XP try, then the commercial break to decide what you want to do.  This was hardly an in the moment decision like a 4th and 1 call or a fake punt.  This was after a TD for christ sakes.  Another reason why Philly fans are the worst.  They are so fickle who to blame, but feel the need to point the finger somewhere rather than just admit their team was beat by a better team.  Then they make excuses for their team/coaches and players when anyone else brings up the obvious.

 

688275[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Yeah, I see you have a point. Maybe they sell Cowboy hats big enough to cover it so noone will notice it's at the top of your useless head. What the hell are you blathering about-- this doesn't even make sense, you Megan Fox-bottle.

 

Jrick: The point I was trying to make was the one that Az made-- only he said it more succinctly. I'll agree to disagree with you... no bigs.