eSJayDee Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Just finished rEWATCHING THE GAME, & I recall wondering this at the time. There was 30 seconds left, Moorman was going to be punting from about his 10 & we were up by 6. Why not take the intentional safety? We'd gain about 10 yards, allow Moorman to not rush his kick & eliminate any chance of a block or other mess up. Additionally, we could have burned a few extra seconds off the clock. (I assume on the ensuing free kick, the clock wouldn't start until Mia fielded the kick so the extra time expended would be minimal as you'd lose the ~5 seconds of hangtime.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 10 yards isn't worth the risk of losing the ball running back into your endzone and perhaps giving up a touchdown. Plus, 6 points is a much better margin than 4. If they scored the touchdown, there is always a chance they miss the extra point. Bottom line, if MM takes an intentional saftey, and we lose, he gets fired. If he did what he did, and we lose, he doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Just finished rEWATCHING THE GAME, & I recall wondering this at the time.There was 30 seconds left, Moorman was going to be punting from about his 10 & we were up by 6. Why not take the intentional safety? We'd gain about 10 yards, allow Moorman to not rush his kick & eliminate any chance of a block or other mess up. Additionally, we could have burned a few extra seconds off the clock. (I assume on the ensuing free kick, the clock wouldn't start until Mia fielded the kick so the extra time expended would be minimal as you'd lose the ~5 seconds of hangtime.) 474120[/snapback] A guy at our Backers club (Ramius' buddy, Erik Z) turned to me and said that's exactly what we should do as Moorman went back to punt. It would have made great sense. I think Brian could have run around back there and burned some time, but maybe they were afraid of a strip and fumble for a TD? Of course, if that would have happened, TSW would have gone into total melt down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 MM answered that question on his Radio show. He said that would have been the call if they were backed up another 8 to 10 yards or so from where they were at the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e-dog Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Actually we were talking about that scenario at the game Sunday. It was a real possibility and I thought they were gonna do that. With the Bills luck though Moorman would have fell down or had been tackled before getting out of the back of the endzone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I can see it now. Moorman fields the ball at the 10 and then has to turn around and run toward the endzone from a dead stop. One of the miamuh DB's on the puntrush, already sprinting in that direction, tracks him down and tackles him at the 5 where the phishes take possession with plenty of time for 4 cracks at the endzone. You're better off taking safeties inside your own 10. When you're all the way out at the 20 the risk just isn't worth the reward. Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I can see it now.Moorman fields the ball at the 10 and then has to turn around and run toward the endzone from a dead stop. One of the miamuh DB's on the puntrush, already sprinting in that direction, tracks him down and tackles him at the 5 where the phishes take possession with plenty of time for 4 cracks at the endzone. You're better off taking safeties inside your own 10. When you're all the way out at the 20 the risk just isn't worth the reward. Cya 474134[/snapback] Exactly. If he tried that play and it failed....I think the people at the Ralph would have murdered him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerstm Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 10 yards isn't worth the risk of losing the ball running back into your endzone and perhaps giving up a touchdown. Plus, 6 points is a much better margin than 4. If they scored the touchdown, there is always a chance they miss the extra point. Bottom line, if MM takes an intentional saftey, and we lose, he gets fired. If he did what he did, and we lose, he doesn't. 474124[/snapback] fickle fans! MM can't win either way eh? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Actually we were talking about that scenario at the game Sunday. It was a real possibility and I thought they were gonna do that.With the Bills luck though Moorman would have fell down or had been tackled before getting out of the back of the endzone. 474130[/snapback] Uh, if he's tackled IN the endzone, it's still a safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 A guy at our Backers club (Ramius' buddy, Erik Z) turned to me and said that's exactly what we should do as Moorman went back to punt. It would have made great sense. I think Brian could have run around back there and burned some time, but maybe they were afraid of a strip and fumble for a TD? Of course, if that would have happened, TSW would have gone into total melt down. 474125[/snapback] Zimmy's usually right on a lot of football topics (and we tend to agree...you know, the great mind thingy ) but i disagree with him here. Up by 6, as someone stated, they still hafta make the XP, which seems to no longer be a given. Also, as others mentioned, we were too far out ouf the endzone. The onyl way i'd consider the intentional safety was if moorman was standing around our goalline and punting from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e-dog Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Uh, if he's tackled IN the endzone, it's still a safety. 474201[/snapback] Really. What if he didn't make it and gets tackled at the 5yd. line ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Really. What if he didn't make it and gets tackled at the 5yd. line ? 474213[/snapback] Highly unlikely, given Mooreman is a former collegiate sprinter and probably the fastest player on the field the majority of the times he's out there. What if your head was as big as your front door? Would it still be so snug in your posterior? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e-dog Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 LOL. That was good. Yes highly unlikely but still the reason MM chose to punt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 LOL. That was good. Yes highly unlikely but still the reason MM chose to punt. 474220[/snapback] I hate "what if" questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I hate "what if" questions. 474223[/snapback] You shouldn't hate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 You shouldn't hate. 474229[/snapback] It's in the DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Highly unlikely, given Mooreman is a former collegiate sprinter and probably the fastest player on the field the majority of the times he's out there. Maybe unlikely, maybe not. The phins were likely to bring a heavy rush and have somebody coming free while Moorman's at the distinct disadvantage of starting his backwards run from a standstill. By the time he fields the ball, turns around and gets moving there's a good chance he'd already have somebody breathing down his neck. And just as good a chance that the guy gets to him before Moorman gets up to speed. Even if it had worked, I'd probably still have eaten my television and got my wife all pissed off at me. That there is enough to have made it the wrong call.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Maybe unlikely, maybe not. The phins were likely to bring a heavy rush and have somebody coming free while Moorman's at the distinct disadvantage of starting his backwards run from a standstill.By the time he fields the ball, turns around and gets moving there's a good chance he'd already have somebody breathing down his neck. And just as good a chance that the guy gets to him before Moorman gets up to speed. Even if it had worked, I'd probably still have eaten my television and got my wife all pissed off at me. That there is enough to have made it the wrong call.... 474235[/snapback] I wasn't arguing the validity of it. I also think we block it different because there's no reason to release down the field for a tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I don't remember exactly what yardline they were on, but I think the "what if they miss the XP" stuff is kinda dumb. A 6 pt lead is the absolute best possible margin for an intentional safety in the final minute and it's not even close. Think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lawnboy1977 Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Just finished rEWATCHING THE GAME, & I recall wondering this at the time.There was 30 seconds left, Moorman was going to be punting from about his 10 & we were up by 6. Why not take the intentional safety? We'd gain about 10 yards, allow Moorman to not rush his kick & eliminate any chance of a block or other mess up. Additionally, we could have burned a few extra seconds off the clock. (I assume on the ensuing free kick, the clock wouldn't start until Mia fielded the kick so the extra time expended would be minimal as you'd lose the ~5 seconds of hangtime.) 474120[/snapback] Here's my question, do you always re-watch Bills games? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LabattBlue Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 To those in this thread who stated that the reason for not talking the safety is that Miami could have scored and then miss the extra point, which then would have sent the game into overtime... This season 273 out of 277 extra points have been made for a 98.55% rate. It's about as automatic as anything in football. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 Here's my question, do you always re-watch Bills games? Yes. At least once the week after the game & sometimes once during the off-season. I think a lot of people on this board do the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ofiba Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 To those in this thread who stated that the reason for not talking the safety is that Miami could have scored and then miss the extra point, which then would have sent the game into overtime...This season 273 out of 277 extra points have been made for a 98.55% rate. It's about as automatic as anything in football. 474461[/snapback] I didn't say that was the only reason. I just thought there were way too many variables for that to be the smart call on that particular play. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCM Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Moorman wouldn't have to run out of the endzone.....and risk being caught. He could just whip the ball out of the endzone...safety. The Patriots did something like this in Denver.....except they were so backed up, the long snaper intentionally snapped the ball thru and out of the endzone, safety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 The Patriots did something like this in Denver.....except they were so backed up, the long snaper intentionally snapped the ball thru and out of the endzone, safety. 475060[/snapback] Funny thing was, the Pats were LOSING @ the time......and the Pats won that game by stopping the Broncos, getting the ball back, and scoring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckeyeBill Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Moorman fields the ball at the 10 and then has to turn around and run toward the endzone from a dead stop. One of the miamuh DB's on the puntrush, already sprinting in that direction, tracks him down and tackles him at the 5 where the phishes take possession with plenty of time for 4 cracks at the endzone. 474134[/snapback] You could always put a mobile person back there to run it back... Lee Evans, Willis McGahee, Eric Moulds, even JP Losman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezbills Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 I think that Erik Z. guy that Campy and Ramius were talking about was absolutely right because the benefits of taking the safety greatly outweighed the risks. The only conceiveable risk is that somehow Moorman gets tackled before he can run out the back of the endzone (or throw the ball out of the back of the endzone). The chance of that happening is extremely slim, especially since the only thing Moorman will be thinking about is not letting that happen. Blocked punts are quite rare, and messing up the safety play is even more unlikely than that since Moorman would immediately run backward instead of stepping right into the rush to get a punt off. Moorman is one of the most athletic punters in the league and is surely capable of running the play. He could throw the ball away if a Dolphin somehow broke free and quickly got near him. One the other hand, the main benefit of the play is to run as much time off the clock as possible. There were 21 seconds on the clock when the Miami offense took the field, and they were able to run two attempted pass plays before the clock ran out. Had the Bills taken the intentional safety, Miami would have only had 15 seconds or less. They would not have had time to spike the ball after the first sack. There are several other benefits to the play as well. The Bills would have gained at least 15 yards of field position. Instead of Moorman punting from about the 8 or 10 yard line, he would have done the free kick from the 25 or 30 yard line (I'm not sure which one). Also, there is no risk of a block on the free kick, and it is tougher to run a free kick back for a TD than it is to run back a punt. I know MM would have been hammered if the 1/1000 chance of messing the safety play up actually happened, but people like me would have hammered him for not trying it if the Bills had lost the game at the end. Signed, Erik Z., that guy that Ramius and Campy were talking about Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted October 13, 2005 Author Share Posted October 13, 2005 There are several other benefits to the play as well. The Bills would have gained at least 15 yards of field position. Instead of Moorman punting from about the 8 or 10 yard line, he would have done the free kick from the 25 or 30 yard line (I'm not sure which one). Free kicks after a safety are from the 20, so it's only a gain of about 10 yards. But you do have the advantage that he doesn't need to rush the punt. Also, as I mentioned w/ respect to killing more time, I assume Free kicks are like KOs in that w/ less than 2 minutes left, the clock won't start until after thew receiver has touched the ball, so the question is can Moorman waste more than the 5 or so seconds that he'll lose in hangtime. (I wish my dog hadn't eaten most of my rule book.) I think it (taking the safety) was the prudent move, but not doing so is not what I would consider a blunder, merely an imprudent choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ezbills Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 Good point. I think you're right about the clock not starting until the ball is caught on a free kick. I still think the safety play combined with the free kick return would run a lot more than 9 seconds off the clock, which is how much time the actual punt and return took. For people that were worried about Moorman being too far from the endzone, why not just take a delay of game penalty without being obvious about it? There's no way that Saban would decline in that situation. I wouldn't call it a blunder to not try the safety, but I would hope that one of the coaches at least thought of it at the time. I also hope they didn't chicken out for fear of having the play not work, because coaching "not to lose" instead of coaching to win is a recipe for disaster. Prevent defense, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted October 13, 2005 Share Posted October 13, 2005 I think that Erik Z. guy that Campy and Ramius were talking about was absolutely right because the benefits of taking the safety greatly outweighed the risks. I think this Erik Z character is out of his freakin' gourd. There's just no way that taking the very real risk of the phish ending up with the ball in your redzone is worth anywhere near the minimal payoff of taking a few measly seconds off the clock. You take safeties from inside your own 10, not from way out at the 20. The reason you've never seen it done from out there is that the risk just isn't worth the minimal reward. Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
justnzane Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 You could always put a mobile person back there to run it back... Lee Evans, Willis McGahee, Eric Moulds, even JP Losman 475115[/snapback] Moorman is probably is as mobile as those guys and probably more mobile than JP. a D-II National Champ at 400 hurdles and 2nd place finisher at the 110 hurdles must have a ton of speed and mobility. Now I just wish EA Sports would incorporate his athletic ability into Madden so i didn't have to change his speed and acceleration ratings to make them realistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ch19079 Posted October 14, 2005 Share Posted October 14, 2005 it might have been an option. but moorman was kicking 55 yard punts all day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts