Kelly the Dog Posted January 22, 2007 Author Share Posted January 22, 2007 If I recall... It WAS NOT 3rd an goal... There was a first down still to be had... I think I am right... Even if he doesn't get in, the 1st is a good possibilty? Right? 3rd and 2 from the 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 3rd and 2 from the 3. Okay, so basically a 3rd and goal... Right call either way if it works or doesn't... Why even risk a pick, sack and fumble... Too bad the Pats were guessing pass... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy875 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Too bad the Pats were guessing pass... Can't sleep I'm so bummed out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Oh... I heard Polian had the heat turned up and the Pats were suffering from "hot flashes", PMS and menstral cramps! Why not run! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roy875 Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Oh... I heard Polian had the heat turned up and the Pats were suffering from "hot flashes", PMS and menstral cramps! I agree---their vaginas were glued to the turf on that one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie2times Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I wouldn't think much of it. IMO more reasons favored Dungy's approach then putting it into Manning’s hands. -The Colts have run well and finished games pounding the ball the last two weeks -They had a very tired Patriots defense on field -They might have seen a match up advantage as they ran on 3rd and 5 earlier in the quarter -BB had to be thinking at least one pass in that series -Running limits the time left for the Patriots to respond -Running limits the likelihood of a turnover -They could still pick up a first without scoring giving them the ball last He probably would have drawn some criticism because it's some people’s job to criticize. But given the circumstances I think three consecutive runs was the best approach for the situation. He took a risk in hoping that he would catch NE playing pass at least once in the series of downs. If he failed he did so without risking a turnover, and all but guaranteeing a tie game with a short clock for Brady. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I think that Dungy would have gone for it on 4th down if it was a yard or less for the 1st down, which is why he ran the ball on 3rd down. A TD there wins the game. A FG there puts the game into OT. The way the game had been going in the 4th quarter whoever got the ball first in OT likely would have won the game. I'd take my chances on a 4th and 1 play before I took the 50/50 shot that OT likely would have been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 And the Colts kicked a FG. No throws from Peyton with the season on the line? I know they wanted to run some clock, and I surely would have run on first down. But the clock didn't really matter on 3rd down. It was pretty ballsy to run right up the middle even though it obviously was a great call because it worked. It would have been a hideous call if he were stuffed. The New England defense was shot from the middle of the 3rd quater on....I could have run up the middle on them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I thought going for the two-point conversion in the third quarter was where the real coconuts were laid out. I'm not an original thinker when it comes to playing the game, but I can totally understand the concept of "never go for two unless you absolutely have to." It was a gutsy call followed by probably the single best throw and catch of the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I almost thought that maybe BB and the Pats may have conceded the TD... Sounds crazy though... Not crazy at all....I actually think he did allow them to score. Knowing Belichick, that's exactly the type of thing he'd do. That said, he would have been better served to try and stuff them once more - force Indy to run it and call the timeout if they stopped him. The only problem with that was the defense was exhausted and you're relying on the DL and LBs to stop the run. From Indy's side of things, NE would have been ready for a pass, so I had little confidence Indy could've scored if they threw it. Running the ball was the right play, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 And the Colts kicked a FG. No throws from Peyton with the season on the line? I know they wanted to run some clock, and I surely would have run on first down. But the clock didn't really matter on 3rd down. It was pretty ballsy to run right up the middle even though it obviously was a great call because it worked. It would have been a hideous call if he were stuffed. thats bruschis stop to make and he has been MIA all year. no brainer call to spread them out and isolate bruschi. losing seau really cost this team, he had been totally outplaying bruschi. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trolls_r_us Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 What would you think if Norwood made that kick against the Giants? It doesn't matter. REALITY counts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 What would you think if Norwood made that kick against the Giants? It doesn't matter. REALITY counts according to andre reed they would have won 4 straight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ganesh Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Not crazy at all....I actually think he did allow them to score. Knowing Belichick, that's exactly the type of thing he'd do. Why would Belichek allow the TD on purpose ? It does not make sense...The Pats are up by 3 points....If they stop the colts, then the colts have to kick a FG...FG by the colts only ties the game.....Allowing the TD forced the Pats to fall behind and also requiring them to score a TD to win the game...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 Why would Belichek allow the TD on purpose ? It does not make sense...The Pats are up by 3 points....If they stop the colts, then the colts have to kick a FG...FG by the colts only ties the game.....Allowing the TD forced the Pats to fall behind and also requiring them to score a TD to win the game...... Exactly, no way in hell you intentionally allow the score there. You do all you can to force the field goal try. A tie game with a chance for a last second field goal is hugely different from a 4pt game with a last second TD drive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Hindsight Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 And the Colts kicked a FG. No throws from Peyton with the season on the line? I know they wanted to run some clock, and I surely would have run on first down. But the clock didn't really matter on 3rd down. It was pretty ballsy to run right up the middle even though it obviously was a great call because it worked. It would have been a hideous call if he were stuffed. they could still have gotton a first down at the one, i'd run it right at him too, the pats were tired and losing faith fast, demoralize em by running right at the heart of that defense, great call by dungy i woulda done the same thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted January 22, 2007 Share Posted January 22, 2007 I thought going for the two-point conversion in the third quarter was where the real coconuts were laid out. I'm not an original thinker when it comes to playing the game, but I can totally understand the concept of "never go for two unless you absolutely have to." It was a gutsy call followed by probably the single best throw and catch of the game. Late 3rd Qtr is definitely a gray area in that respect. I'm generally a PAT guy myself; but Simms' argument to kick I thought was very weak. 28-20 is only a "1 possession game" assuming you make a 2pt conversion. 21-19 with 19 min's left or 28-26 with 9 min's left; I don't know why it's always assumed that the latter conversion has a better chance of being successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 Late 3rd Qtr is definitely a gray area in that respect. I'm generally a PAT guy myself; but Simms' argument to kick I thought was very weak. 28-20 is only a "1 possession game" assuming you make a 2pt conversion. 21-19 with 19 min's left or 28-26 with 9 min's left; I don't know why it's always assumed that the latter conversion has a better chance of being successful. In the end, it's yet again one of those things that is considered the right move if it works and the wrong move if it doesn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven in MD Posted January 23, 2007 Share Posted January 23, 2007 If Beli-genuis expected the pass...and they run and score...looks like Dungy outcoached the master....New Master in Town. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts