Greybeard Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 I have to agree with everything Kelly said. On top of that I don't see anyone mentioning that a field goal has t clear the goal posts which adds another 5 to 10 yards to the distance. Imagine the fuss made if they went for it and the wind blew it down 10 yards short. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 I have to agree with everything Kelly said. On top of that I don't see anyone mentioning that a field goal has t clear the goal posts which adds another 5 to 10 yards to the distance. Imagine the fuss made if they went for it and the wind blew it down 10 yards short. 878248[/snapback] That is assumed... The LOS was the 28... +10 for the EZ and +7 for the hold... That = 45 yard FG. I mentioned that a team can "fudge" on the hold and go 6 yards deep... That lops off 3 feet and leaves them only +6 ft. off their threshold of 42 yards! Basically... They pissed this game away because of their indecision and worry about 6 to 9 ft.!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 That is assumed... The LOS was the 28... +10 for the EZ and +7 for the hold... That = 45 yard FG. 878259[/snapback] I always thought it was LOS + 15 yards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YOOOOOO Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 I always thought it was LOS + 15 yards? 878261[/snapback] nah its plus 17..... If Lindell was comfortable from 42...but not 45?? then why didnt we run on 3rd down to make up that difference??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 nah its plus 17.....If Lindell was comfortable from 42...but not 45?? 878266[/snapback] Thanks! Learn something new every day......but, 15's easier to add than 17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greybeard Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 That is assumed... The LOS was the 28... +10 for the EZ and +7 for the hold... That = 45 yard FG. I mentioned that a team can "fudge" on the hold and go 6 yards deep... That lops off 3 feet and leaves them only +6 ft. off their threshold of 42 yards! Basically... They pissed this game away because of their indecision and worry about 6 to 9 ft.!!!!! 878259[/snapback] I was refering to the kickoff distances Kelly listed in his original posts. A 45 yard field goal is more equivalent to a 50 yard kickoff. The fact that those short kickoffs were very short when looking at field goal distance but I understand your "assumed" statement. If the fg kick was short there would be a dozen posters here saying "couldn't this coaching staff tell it was windy out!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marauderswr80 Posted December 26, 2006 Share Posted December 26, 2006 Lindells kick would have been almost a 40 yarder! Bironas has a way stronger leg then Lindell, Bironas also kicked a 60 yarder, something Lindell cant do! That field goal Bironas kicked from about 24 yards out barely made it, noways Lindells kick makes the endzone. Ive seen my fair of games in my life to know that kick would have never made it. If anything we should have burned a TO, and made a better play call on that 4th down play! And it would have been a screen pass to Parrish, someone who can get those YAC yards..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 Forgot to mention KO's use a "new" ball... Which makes them now go shorter than they have historically using the game ball. FG's use the game ball. Or do they? No. They use the K ball on ALL kicking plays. That's why you see a ball-boy with a "K" bib on the sidelines near the first-down chains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SectionC3 Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 That is assumed... The LOS was the 28... +10 for the EZ and +7 for the hold... That = 45 yard FG. I mentioned that a team can "fudge" on the hold and go 6 yards deep... That lops off 3 feet and leaves them only +6 ft. off their threshold of 42 yards! Basically... They pissed this game away because of their indecision and worry about 6 to 9 ft.!!!!! If they "fudged" that kick on a 6 yard spot the placement actually would have been moved from 7 3/4 yards behind the LOS to 6 yards. In the event shenanigans like this were attempted, there would have been two problems. First, the ball is typically placed at about 7 3/4 yards because the snap, if exectued properly, will often result in the holder catching the ball with the laces facing forward and therefore allow the holder to avoid spinning the ball after placement to ensure proper lace direction. I have no idea if a 6 yard placement would provide that advantage. Second, with the 6 yard placement, the ball would have had to have been kicked at a higher than normal trajectory to clear the LOS. That trajectory, assuming the kick wasn't batted back at Lindell, would have caused the ball to hang in the air longer and created a greater opportunity for the wind to impact the kick. Given the conditions on Sunday, a higher trajectory would have been quite unfavorable. That said, I totaly agree the game managment left a little bit to be desired on the last series, and particularly on the last offensive play. Too much confusion prior to the last play - hate to see the season decided on a chaotic series like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 No. They use the K ball on ALL kicking plays. That's why you see a ball-boy with a "K" bib on the sidelines near the first-down chains. Thanks! I didn't know that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted December 28, 2006 Share Posted December 28, 2006 If they "fudged" that kick on a 6 yard spot the placement actually would have been moved from 7 3/4 yards behind the LOS to 6 yards. In the event shenanigans like this were attempted, there would have been two problems. First, the ball is typically placed at about 7 3/4 yards because the snap, if exectued properly, will often result in the holder catching the ball with the laces facing forward and therefore allow the holder to avoid spinning the ball after placement to ensure proper lace direction. I have no idea if a 6 yard placement would provide that advantage. Second, with the 6 yard placement, the ball would have had to have been kicked at a higher than normal trajectory to clear the LOS. That trajectory, assuming the kick wasn't batted back at Lindell, would have caused the ball to hang in the air longer and created a greater opportunity for the wind to impact the kick. Given the conditions on Sunday, a higher trajectory would have been quite unfavorable. That said, I totaly agree the game managment left a little bit to be desired on the last series, and particularly on the last offensive play. Too much confusion prior to the last play - hate to see the season decided on a chaotic series like that. Yep... That is the "risky" part I referred to earlier... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts