CaptainHook Posted November 28, 2004 Author Share Posted November 28, 2004 IT DID NOT MATTER IF THEY GOT THE FIRST DOWN. It was second down. You run 40+ seconds off the clock there. You run a play again on third down running 40+ seconds again. Depending on how much time each play took, you could run out the clock! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 IT DID NOT MATTER IF THEY GOT THE FIRST DOWN. It was second down. You run 40+ seconds off the clock there. You run a play again on third down running 40+ seconds again. Depending on how much time each play took, you could run out the clock! 579420[/snapback] THEN WHY DIDN'T THEY JUST KNEEL ON IT SECOND DOWN? My understanding was that there would still be some time left if they stopped them. If that's not the case, then HOU was inhumanly stupid to even be running the ball in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 28, 2004 Author Share Posted November 28, 2004 (edited) BECAUSE AN ACTUAL RUNNING PLAY TAKES MORE TIME OFF THE CLOCK THAN A KNEEL DOWN. They needed the time that the play would take to execute, to assist in running out the clock. Edited November 28, 2004 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skrappy1 Posted November 28, 2004 Share Posted November 28, 2004 BECAUSE AN ACTUAL RUNNING PLAY TAKES MORE TIME OFF THE CLOCK THAN A KNEEL DOWN. 579433[/snapback] How do you figure that? The game and play clocks remain running either way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 (edited) You've got to be kidding me. Football 101. If you run a play, the guy runs to the right, cuts up field gets tackled. All that happens as the clock is running, before the play clock starts. In a kneel down, you take the snap, kneel, and the play clock starts. Granted, it is only a difference of running off 4-5 extra seconds per play, but when you are trying to run out the clock, they add up. Edited November 29, 2004 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 BECAUSE AN ACTUAL RUNNING PLAY TAKES MORE TIME OFF THE CLOCK THAN A KNEEL DOWN. They needed the time that the play would take to execute, to assist in running out the clock. 579433[/snapback] Not if you stuff them it doesn't - we're talking 1, maybe 2 seconds per play here. Stuff HOU twice, and TEN would've gotten the ball back. Seeing as how they totally stacked the line, this is what they appeared to be attempting. Chances of stuffing HOU (i.e. not letting them run running plays that take 4 or 5 seconds off the clock) on consecutive downs are much higher than the chances of scoring twice after letting them score. I just can't believe that any head coach would be dumb enough to think that the chances of scoring twice would be higher. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 (edited) Then why have teams done it before? No way does a play take 1 to 2 seconds. No way. Even on a stuff, the minimum amount of time that would be run off is 4 seconds. Plus, if they get the first down you have no chance of getting the ball. Tennessee's defense is held together by gauze and tape. They weren't gonna stop 'em. Edited November 29, 2004 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 I have no idea why they've done it before - I don't have the facts on the other situations. Were they the exact same circumstances? Doubtful. It takes 4 seconds for the whistle to blow (i.e. forward progress stopped - play over) on a run up the middle that gets immediately stuffed? Do me a favor and count to 4. "If they get the first down" . . . yeah - it's a risk that that'll happen. I just don't think it's a bigger risk than allowing HOU to score and then having to score twice in under 2 minutes with no TOs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 (edited) It takes 4 seconds for the whistle to blow (i.e. forward progress stopped - play over) on a run up the middle that gets immediately stuffed? Do me a favor and count to 4. 579482[/snapback] Maybe if you are trying to get those extra seconds, you don't run straight up the gut? Like the play they ran on second down? Plays that take a little longer to develop? Plays to the outside, or off-tackle? Edited November 29, 2004 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 What's Houston's intent have to do with anything? If you want to talk about that, then why weren't they running a sweep or an end around? Those would easily run off more time. Another point to think on if you want to discuss what Houston was thinking (as opposed to what Tennessee was, as I thought we were) - why didn't Dom run 20 yards and then just kneel? They'd have their first down and the game would be over. Yet another reason why I can't believe Tennessee would just let Dom walk through the line like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Swerski Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 How do you figure that? The game and play clocks remain running either way? 579434[/snapback] A running play and a QB kneel down take the same amount of time off of the clock? That's news to me. Some of the newbies here argue the most ridiculous crap... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 (edited) I guess I don't get what you mean by Houston's intent. Houston knows what plays take longer to run, and knows when to use them. Tennessee knows this as well, because they would do the same thing if they needed to burn a few precious seconds. Every team practices that type of clock management at the end of games. Kneeling is exactly what Dom Davis should have done. It ends any and all chance right there. But no offensive player will ever do that. It runs against everything they have been taught. 2001 in KC, Colts had just intercepted KC in the end zone with two minutes to play. They were up 28-21. KC allowed Dominic Rhodes to go 77 yards for the TD on the next play. That allowed them back on the field, as the Colts could have just run out the clock. After the game, coach Jim Mora said Rhodes should have just downed the ball once he got first down yardage, since it would have effectively ended the game. Instead, KC got the ball back, and scored. They attempted the onsides kick, but it was unsuccessful. This game reminded me of that one very much. It just seemed like there was a HUGE hole for Davis, and no Titans seemed to even chase him. Was it just a great call by Houston? Possibly. But the announcers mentioned that it looked like they had possibly allowed the score. Fisher did not seem upset. Is the chance of scoring 10 pts in 1:40 greater than forcing a fumble and getting the FG? I don't honestly know. But the way Davis scored so easily sure made it seem to me and others that it was possible that they allowed the score. Do you overload one side of the offense and hope for a stuff/forced fumble, knowing you might give up the TD on the other side of the play? I think it is entirely possible. Edited November 29, 2004 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 A running play and a QB kneel down take the same amount of time off of the clock? That's news to me. Some of the newbies here argue the most ridiculous crap... 579526[/snapback] am I missing something here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 We were focusing on what Tennessee was thinking and weighing the merits of the 2 arguments - when you brought up what Houston was thinking, that's a whole different can o' worms that requires a whole new level of analysis (one that neither of us want to waste our time on). I see your point though - you make good arguments, but I just have a hard time believing Fisher could be so dumb. Maybe I'm giving him too much credit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 I guess you just have to weigh the pros and cons in your head. Do you want to have the ball in your hands, letting your offense try to do something very difficult, or your defense trying to pull off a fumble, and being completely relying on what Houston does? I'm sure it depends on what type of team you have. I for one, would much rather have the Colts give Peyton Manning the ball with 1:40 to play to score 10 points than have the Colt defense trying to force a fumble or prevent a first down. As many injuries as the Titans have had on defense, maybe Fisher felt the same way. I am not 100% sure the Titans allowed it. But it sure seems like it was a legitimate possibility. At the time, the tv guys were saying the same thing, and I thought it was an interesting thing to post. Glad to have hashed it out here Surely somebody will ask Fisher about it tomorrow! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balzac Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 In hoping that you get the ball back, you're also running the risk that the RB will just kneel once he gets the first down. While that may not be likely, it just adds to an already risky proposition. Good stuff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 29, 2004 Author Share Posted November 29, 2004 (edited) In hoping that you get the ball back, you're also running the risk that the RB will just kneel once he gets the first down. While that may not be likely, it just adds to an already risky proposition. 579561[/snapback] It's funny you mentioned that earlier, 'cause thats what reminded me of the specifics of the Indy at KC game in '01. I remember several instances, even this year, where Dungy said he wished Edge would have just downed the ball after getting a late first down, instead of taking it in for 6. The Tennessee game in week 2 was one time he said it. He also said that he knows it is not something players are trained to do, espcially guys who have incentives in their contracts. Edited November 29, 2004 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meat Face Posted November 29, 2004 Share Posted November 29, 2004 Titans really choked that game away. ugly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 (edited) link From the Nov. 30 Tennessean Let them score: Trailing the Texans 24-21 with less than two minutes remaining and with no timeouts, the Titans had just one chance: let Houston score. And on first down, Texans running back Domanick Davis ran untouched up the middle 41 yards for a touchdown. Fisher said the Titans didn't roll over and play dead just to get the ball back. ''There was consideration, but no,'' Fisher said. ''We had people out of position. We were lined up in a front coverage and just had some younger players out of position and just didn't get in the right gaps. It did give us a chance though.'' Hmmm Edited November 30, 2004 by CaptainHook Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jackass Posted November 30, 2004 Share Posted November 30, 2004 link From the Nov. 30 Tennessean Let them score: Trailing the Texans 24-21 with less than two minutes remaining and with no timeouts, the Titans had just one chance: let Houston score. And on first down, Texans running back Domanick Davis ran untouched up the middle 41 yards for a touchdown. Fisher said the Titans didn't roll over and play dead just to get the ball back. ''There was consideration, but no,'' Fisher said. ''We had people out of position. We were lined up in a front coverage and just had some younger players out of position and just didn't get in the right gaps. It did give us a chance though.'' Hmmm 583655[/snapback] I Don't think he'd admit to it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainHook Posted November 30, 2004 Author Share Posted November 30, 2004 I Don't think he'd admit to it 583661[/snapback] my thoughts exactly. . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.