theboat
Well-Known Member
How many Super Bowls have you won?
Down 9 and going for 2
- Thread starter enosmohawk
- Start date
That was a good idea. But why risk moving faster 100% of the time when you can go for 2 earlier and only have to move faster 53% of the time? They had to move faster because they didn't know. All for the sake of "staying in the game longer".
All of them that I coached in.
It seriously takes less than a second to find holes in their logic every time. Except the one where Dean said you could just move faster all the time. That one took about 5 seconds to figure out why it was a bad idea.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Like it took 5 seconds to explain to you that a team isn't going to move slowly just because they are down 8? It is funny watching you twist in the wind and saying that moving fast isn't very smart, when you were just saying that moving fast give a team a mathematical advantage being down 9 instead of 8.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Don't you know that an offense can score as fast as they want, as long as they know they need 2 scores? Drrr, they teach you that early in Super Bowl school.
theboat
Well-Known Member
You have yet to find one that actually makes sense, or has anyone outside of you and digits that agree. One example? I had to go back way to yesterday to find one. Still waiting on yours. My way works better in hypothetical situations and real life situations with Super Bowl winning minds.
GoHawks12345
Well-Known Member
Dean, it's not working. Just stop.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Who are you, when did you join this conversation?
GoHawks12345
Well-Known Member
I'm that voice in your head that has been trying to tell you that maybe you should grow up.
hawkfan2679
Well-Known Member
What exactly are you bringing to this thread? I discussed this at length with PC on Saturday night on why Ferentz was wrong before finally cashing out about 2:00 a.m. and I don't remember seeing you in that thread. In this thread, all you've seemed to offer up is drive-by condescension without a whole lot of substance. Perhaps I'll reread to gain more clarity...
PC - Your argument (and the article you quoted) seem to be more geared towards a situation where there is quite a bit more time left than we had on Saturday, correct? At least 4 minutes, if memory serves...fair?
GoHawks12345
Well-Known Member
A post without mentioning a super bowl coach. Branching out boat. I like it.
Why be a jerk about it. I said you have a better chance to score twice if you know you have to score twice because you will apply the proper strategy. You come back with that crap to Boat? I guess I'm maybe under the false assumption you have better reading comprehension than you do. Since you haven't comprehended a single thing I said, maybe you're not being a jerk after all. You just really think that's what I said.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
My voice inside my head is saying you should *uck off, I'm gonna get some nachos with theboat.
Yes. With 1 minute left, the benefit of knowing may not make up for the momentum lost and human aspect. That's why I'm not arguing it was by far the right call, like I would be if there were 4 minutes left. All I'm doing is explaining the logic behind it because I found it interesting.
deanvogs
Well-Known Member
Dude you are being incredibly obtuse. To say that a team can score faster if they are down 9 instead of 8 is just silly. As Sean Payton proved this very weekend, if you are down 8, you play like you are down 2 scores. The Saints scored with 43 seconds left, because he and everyone but you I guess understands you might have to kick another onside kick if you don't get the 2 point conversion.
Plus your whole argument doesn't hold water for Iowa's situation anyway. Iowa was kicking an onsides kick with 1 minute left basically. They didn't have time for the second score if they had to have it anyway. If Iowa scored with 20 seconds or 0 seconds, knowing they need 2 scores was not a mathematical advantage to them.
He's my alt.
