(11-23-2015, 02:53 PM)Who Dey Time Wrote: Certainly a better chance knowing Arizona needed a TD vs FG.  In a similar situation at Pittsburgh the D prevented the touchdown.

Oh... so now the Defense can make the stop...

Look, I get what you are saying.  However, situational football, says you run the ball.

In OT - our Defense would have been in the same situation as the one you just described here.  Our Defense can defend against a TD better than it can defend against a FG.  Win the coin toss and we only need to score a FG on the 1st possession, prevent a TD and score a FG on the next possession.

(11-23-2015, 02:52 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Didn't Dalton audible out of the run?  Meh, I can certainly see looking at the defense and calling out that mismatch, so I can't be too upset.  The thing we all have to admit is that run or pass, it's going to see like genius if we succeed and idiocy if we fail.  The type of play is secondary to the result when it comes to evaluating the call.

This is true.  The outcome is so important.  If Green scores and we win, the play looks great.  If Green scores and we still lose, then it is still questionable, due to leaving so much time on the clock.

Which is why I am critical of this particular situation.  I have seen it before.  In Miami, we go for the big play and failed.  If we had succeeded then we kill the clock and make them take their final TO.  Failing, still resulted in a FG, but the clock also stopped and Miami was able to conserve that final TO.  If we ran at that time and didn't convert, then Miami takes that final TO.  We kick the go ahead FG and Miami now has to go down the field without any TOs.  After that sack on Tannehill, they wouldn't have been able to take a TO, and a QB that can't take a TO to regroup is preferable than what we gave them.

As I have stated.  I am all for going for the win.  A TD would have been sweet and we probably would have won had we connected.  However, in this situation, you almost have to go for at best a conversion with 2 TOs or at worst (other than a turnover) a 4th down with the clock running down in your favor.

(11-23-2015, 02:53 PM)Who Dey Time Wrote: Certainly a better chance knowing Arizona needed a TD vs FG.  In a similar situation at Pittsburgh the D prevented the touchdown.

Exactly. It forces them to score a TD not just get a few first downs and kick a FG. 

(11-23-2015, 03:01 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Oh... so now the Defense can make the stop...

Look, I get what you are saying.  However, situational football, says you run the ball.

In OT - our Defense would have been in the same situation as the one you just described here.  Our Defense can defend against a TD better than it can defend against a FG.  Win the coin toss and we only need to score a FG on the 1st possession, prevent a TD and score a FG on the next possession.

It increases their chances by forcing the Cards to go 80 yards over 50 yards with no time outs. 

(11-23-2015, 03:15 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: It increases their chances by forcing the Cards to go 80 yards over 50 yards with no time outs. 

You think the Defense couldn't have stopped the Cards from getting a TD in OT?

I agree that if Green scores there we probably win the game.  However, Green didn't score there.  The chances of winning was lowered due to the failure of the play.  The play itself was a very risky - high risk, high reward - type play that didn't have the greatest chance of success, even with Green as your WR, 

(11-23-2015, 03:30 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: You think the Defense couldn't have stopped the Cards from getting a TD in OT?

I agree that if Green scores there we probably win the game.  However, Green didn't score there.  The chances of winning was lowered due to the failure of the play.  The play itself was a very risky - high risk, high reward - type play that didn't have the greatest chance of success, even with Green as your WR, 

Disagree. The fact a bad throw almost was a TD, proves that even a slightly better throw probably wins the game.

I think it puts the pressure on our wounded defense, not on the Cardinals offense...

In OT the favor goes to the home team. If we score a TD the entire pressure goes on Arizona to score. We can give up chunk plays, just dont let them out of bounds. 
In OT, it would be on our defense to force a stop or 3 and out. We'd have to play a more "normal" defense with Chris Lewis-Harris and Josh Shaw at CB. 
Do you think that ends well? 

(11-23-2015, 03:30 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: You think the Defense couldn't have stopped the Cards from getting a TD in OT?

It's really hard to say.  The Cardinals and Bengals both took turns at looking dreadful and then unstoppable on offense during the game.  The Cardinals had that 3rd quarter and then couldn't score that TD to put the game away when they got the FG after Dalton's fumble.  It's really hard to say.  By the end both teams had banged up defenses, though.

(11-23-2015, 03:35 PM)RoyleRedlegs Wrote: Disagree. The fact a bad throw almost was a TD, proves that even a slightly better throw probably wins the game.

I think it puts the pressure on our wounded defense, not on the Cardinals offense...

In OT the favor goes to the home team. If we score a TD the entire pressure goes on Arizona to score. We can give up chunk plays, just dont let them out of bounds. 
In OT, it would be on our defense to force a stop or 3 and out. We'd have to play a more "normal" defense with Chris Lewis-Harris and Josh Shaw at CB. 
Do you think that ends well? 

I disagree.  A TD would have won the game for us, but the Cardinals were able to get into scoring range in a hurry, sure they only needed a FG, but they had a lot of time left that they even took a knee to kill the clock themselves.  They could have scored a TD and still beaten us, even if Green scored there.

OT- The coin toss is important here.  However, either way, our defense only had to prevent a TD, and as we both agree, it is easier to defend against a TD than a FG.  If we go into OT and win the Coin toss, then we improve our chances by only needing to score a FG - prevent TD - FG again to win.  If we lose the coin toss, then we probably lose the game - they score a FG, we either go for the TD win, or hope that our defense can get the stop, which we both agree is unlikely.

(11-23-2015, 03:48 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: I disagree.  A TD would have won the game for us, but the Cardinals were able to get into scoring range in a hurry, sure they only needed a FG, but they had a lot of time left that they even took a knee to kill the clock themselves.  They could have scored a TD and still beaten us, even if Green scored there.

OT- The coin toss is important here.  However, either way, our defense only had to prevent a TD, and as we both agree, it is easier to defend against a TD than a FG.  If we go into OT and win the Coin toss, then we improve our chances by only needing to score a FG - prevent TD - FG again to win.  If we lose the coin toss, then we probably lose the game - they score a FG, we either go for the TD win, or hope that our defense can get the stop, which we both agree is unlikely.

You play a lot different when you have to stop a TD as to a FG. 
A FG is roughly half as far. TD is the whole length. It shifts who the pressure is on. 

That's huge.

Stop trying to convince them that little to no time on the clock is a good thing when the game is tied. They don't seem to understand. Even andy said they left too much time on the clock.

This is ridiculous.  You run the ball up the gut and try for the 1st down. 

If stuffed you give up maybe 2-3 yards tops.  The clock is run down.  Kick the field goal.

Situational football to a T when the opposition has no timeouts.

Not one on one matchup situations.  Throw it to Green because some scrub is one on one with him.

Even a scrub can make a lucky interception every now and then.

Game situational football 101.

The whole D not being able to stop in OT is a bad argument. 

It's now 50/50 chance the Bengals start on offense.  That just drove the field successfully.