Jump to content

Mike Smith What Are You Doing?


Recommended Posts

And not calling a play for fear of the clock running out is a classic example of "playing not to lose." If you tell your, OC, your 6th year pro bowl QB, and your three pro bowl receivers that the ball will be thown only into the end zone, or out of the end zone, I trust that they know why with zero timeouts.

Here's another way of looking at it, admittedly hypothetical. What would Sean Peyton with Dree Brees, Bill Belichick with Tom Brady, Mike McCarthy with Aaron Rodgers, or even John Harbaugh with Joe Flacco have done?

I'd bet the house there would have been at least one shot into the end zone from these Super Bowl winning Head Coaches.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 178
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

He traded 3 points for 0 points for the same exact reason this thread was made. If not for a BS illegal procedure call, they'd be down 14-13 right now.

You have no idea what you are talking about. The Saints kicked on 4th down, there was a penalty that brought the ball to the 1 yard line, then they decided to go for it.

Completely different scenario than what played out in our game. 1 we didn't kick on 4th down, I think it was second. 2 after a shot in the endzone we could have just kicked the field goal anyway. No points would be taken off the board. Of course this all hinges on if you trust your 100 million dollar pro bowl qb to not complete the pass in bounds or take a sack.

Edited by the_sheff
Link to post
Share on other sites

No I wouldn't. As I said last night there's no such thing as too aggressive.

Let me ask you this, then -- if you can remember back to the playoff game to the Giants -- did you have a problem when Mike Smith twice passed up points in Giant territory to go for it on 4th down? I ask because those two field goals would have made the score 10-8 late in the third quarter. That would have meant going into the 4th quarter with the game having a completely different complexion. Instead, they broke the game open after the last stop with a long pass to Nicks.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And if the clock runs out, then he's an idiot and you'd be b!tching the other way.

Yes, that's right because if Smitty and Koetter were dumb enough to run a play NOT into the End Zone, there would actually be a good chance for the clock to run down. So he would indeed still be an effing idiot if that were to happen. Any scenario other than taking one free shot into the End Zone there is S-T-U-P-I-D. Deal with it.

Deal_Wid_It.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is priceless. So Smitty takes the safe route, picks up an easy 3 and he's a p*ssy because he didn't use another down to try a shot at the end zone, even though he just took a lick the play prior. Yall are complaining for the sake of complaining.

If he did that and ran out of time, you'd be b*tching about 0 points compared to 3 points not 3 points vs 7 points. Payton almost lost to the Bucs because he wanted 7 instead of the 3 points he had. If he could go back, he'd gladly take that 3 points instead of chasing that 7.

Let's say Ryan gets sacked and is now hurt. Is it worth it? Don't act like they weren't getting to Ryan at this point. The Rams knew it was going to be a pass. DEs are pinning their ears. They have at least 3 seconds because you can't cover 15 yards and get open in under 3 seconds.

Or Ryan finds an opening, shoots his gun and it's a pick. Now the hindsight monsters kick in and call Smitty a dummy for not just taking the points.

There is no good way to complain about taking 3 points when the possibility of 7 in that situation is lower than the possibility of an interception. Payton did what yall would have wanted Smitty to do and almost lost the game because of it. I can't imagine the sh*t yall would spew if that was Smitty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is priceless. So Smitty takes the safe route, picks up an easy 3 and he's a p*ssy because he didn't use another down to try a shot at the end zone, even though he just took a lick the play prior. Yall are complaining for the sake of complaining.

If he did that and ran out of time, you'd be b*tching about 0 points compared to 3 points not 3 points vs 7 points. Payton almost lost to the Bucs because he wanted 7 instead of the 3 points he had. If he could go back, he'd gladly take that 3 points instead of chasing that 7.

Let's say Ryan gets sacked and is now hurt. Is it worth it? Don't act like they weren't getting to Ryan at this point. The Rams knew it was going to be a pass. DEs are pinning their ears. They have at least 3 seconds because you can't cover 15 yards and get open in under 3 seconds.

Or Ryan finds an opening, shoots his gun and it's a pick. Now the hindsight monsters kick in and call Smitty a dummy for not just taking the points.

There is no good way to complain about taking 3 points when the possibility of 7 in that situation is lower than the possibility of an interception. Payton did what yall would have wanted Smitty to do and almost lost the game because of it. I can't imagine the sh*t yall would spew if that was Smitty.

I don't think anyone is arguing about taking the sure 3 points, it's when to take them. I mean, didn't the Falcons just drive the ball down the field with several plays to get in position to possibly score a TD? If a field goal was the only objective, by your logic, why bother to get to the 15...they could have kicked the field goal from the 25, the 28, or the 34 yard line, the three LOS prior to kinking from the 15, to curb any more possible injuries before halftime.

Edited by Quarterback
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is priceless. So Smitty takes the safe route, picks up an easy 3 and he's a p*ssy because he didn't use another down to try a shot at the end zone, even though he just took a lick the play prior. Yall are complaining for the sake of complaining.

If he did that and ran out of time, you'd be b*tching about 0 points compared to 3 points not 3 points vs 7 points. Payton almost lost to the Bucs because he wanted 7 instead of the 3 points he had. If he could go back, he'd gladly take that 3 points instead of chasing that 7.

Let's say Ryan gets sacked and is now hurt. Is it worth it? Don't act like they weren't getting to Ryan at this point. The Rams knew it was going to be a pass. DEs are pinning their ears. They have at least 3 seconds because you can't cover 15 yards and get open in under 3 seconds.

Or Ryan finds an opening, shoots his gun and it's a pick. Now the hindsight monsters kick in and call Smitty a dummy for not just taking the points.

There is no good way to complain about taking 3 points when the possibility of 7 in that situation is lower than the possibility of an interception. Payton did what yall would have wanted Smitty to do and almost lost the game because of it. I can't imagine the sh*t yall would spew if that was Smitty.

Paranoid much? Would you mind explaining the math you used to come up with the hypothesis that the possibility of being intercepted was higher than getting 7 when we have practically the top QB/WR/TE players in the entire NFL to make the attempt? Sorry, Does Not Compute. To me this just sounds like an overblown excuse for why we play skeerd football, even when we have the dam ball in the Red Zone. And no, I wouldn't have said one word if they'd at least tried to score the TD and then not scored the FG.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"...when the possibility of 7 in that situation is lower than the possibility of an interception.

What? Mere statistics says the possibility of a completion (Ryan was 70+% on the day) is greater than an incompletion; the possibility of an interception even lower.

Compare Ryan's historical or YTD # of attempts to completions, and # of TD's to interceptions...I like the odds.

Edited by Quarterback
Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask you this, then -- if you can remember back to the playoff game to the Giants -- did you have a problem when Mike Smith twice passed up points in Giant territory to go for it on 4th down? I ask because those two field goals would have made the score 10-8 late in the third quarter. That would have meant going into the 4th quarter with the game having a completely different complexion. Instead, they broke the game open after the last stop with a long pass to Nicks.

Each game is different. In that game in those situations with how the defense was stoning the Giants offense I would have taken the field goals because any sort of points would have been huge.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Each game is different. In that game in those situations with how the defense was stoning the Giants offense I would have taken the field goals because any sort of points would have been huge.

Fair enough, but you did say in another post that there's no such thing as too aggressive. And I didn't have a huge problem with those calls against the Giants, but I would have taken the points too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough, but you did say in another post that there's no such thing as too aggressive. And I didn't have a huge problem with those calls against the Giants, but I would have taken the points too.

Yes I stand by that. There's no such thing as too aggressive in my book. My only issue with Smitty going for it in that game was the play calls. They were all runs and two of them were QB sneaks. Just terrible calls.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...