How can you defer if you lose the coin toss? Doesn't make sense.
Tomlin told Ben to defer on the coin toss in overtime?! Yes
- Thread starter Coach
- Start date
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 13,525
- Reaction score
- 18,546
- Points
- 113
I guess Tomlin didn’t catch last year’s Super Bowl.
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2014
- Messages
- 13,525
- Reaction score
- 18,546
- Points
- 113
I think that an onside kick is the best strategy. By rule, if you recover, it would have counted as the other team having a possession, meaning you could then win the game with just a FG.
if they recover, then you only cost yourself some field position. They would still have to score a TD to end the game without you getting the ball. The shortened field cpuld actually work in the favor of a tired defense. Less to defend. If they do get to the redzone on you it may only be after 4 plays instead of after 10 plays.
if they recover, then you only cost yourself some field position. They would still have to score a TD to end the game without you getting the ball. The shortened field cpuld actually work in the favor of a tired defense. Less to defend. If they do get to the redzone on you it may only be after 4 plays instead of after 10 plays.
As we lost the coin toss, this had no effect. That said, I would not choose to kick off in OT, but I do not see it as an inherently crazy decision.
Arguments for kicking:
1. Our defense had been playing much better than our offense and it could have resulted in a short field to get in position for what would then be the winning field goal.
2. A field goal on the first possession does not win the game. So, the risk of never seeing the ball is much less.
3. Wind, sun etc. may play a part in the decision. Though, I think you need to choose direction not choose to kick. There is some oddity in the rule.
4. Football genius Bill Belichick did so. [Please note the sarcasm and that it turned out poorly for him]
Arguments for receiving:
1. If the other team receives first, you may never see the ball.
2. You have the chance of winning without the other team receiving the ball (and, as noted, historical odds bear that fact out – though not to an extraordinary degree).
3. With OT reduced to 10 minutes, there is a good chance of only 3 OT possessions. So, by receiving you may get more possessions.
Arguments for kicking:
1. Our defense had been playing much better than our offense and it could have resulted in a short field to get in position for what would then be the winning field goal.
2. A field goal on the first possession does not win the game. So, the risk of never seeing the ball is much less.
3. Wind, sun etc. may play a part in the decision. Though, I think you need to choose direction not choose to kick. There is some oddity in the rule.
4. Football genius Bill Belichick did so. [Please note the sarcasm and that it turned out poorly for him]
Arguments for receiving:
1. If the other team receives first, you may never see the ball.
2. You have the chance of winning without the other team receiving the ball (and, as noted, historical odds bear that fact out – though not to an extraordinary degree).
3. With OT reduced to 10 minutes, there is a good chance of only 3 OT possessions. So, by receiving you may get more possessions.
- Joined
- Apr 20, 2014
- Messages
- 24,914
- Reaction score
- 11,537
- Points
- 113
To be fair, if you are confident that you aren't letting up the td, there is a strategic value to knowing if a field goal will win it or not
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 4,077
- Reaction score
- 5,712
- Points
- 113
Please provide the link to the degenerate gambler comment. I doubt you even know what the term means.
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 4,077
- Reaction score
- 5,712
- Points
- 113
No, what this shows is your constant whining about a coach you don’t like. We have heard it from you a thousand times over, even when you start threads that have no direction to it...you steer it back to your agenda of MT bashing.
There is one thing for sure, even if you think he is below a JV coach in terms of ability, MT has forgotten 10 times more than you know about the game.
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
Yet some of you people would replace MT with Pete Carroll.
awboatguy
Registered
We never should have been in that spot in the first place. This team has no heart, no balls, and no character traits of a winner.
Should have just gave Chicago the coin since they stole our lunch money the whole game.
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
Should have just gave Chicago the coin since they stole our lunch money the whole game.
Sent from my iPhone using Steeler Nation mobile app
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 15,544
- Reaction score
- 3,801
- Points
- 113
I have posted it for you before, and he has said it more than once.
http://www.Invalid Link - Check SN Home Page/2009/04/steelers-monday-pre-draft-ota-press-conference/
Tomlin: I like everybody. I am a degenerate gambler.
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2015
- Messages
- 15,544
- Reaction score
- 3,801
- Points
- 113
Your comments are not varsity enough.
I think he's an average NFL coach with good talent thanks to Colbert, who would have been fired years ago on most NFL teams.
An NFL coach should know more than me. The fact that I can point out his failures so easily should tell you he's not very good.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2014
- Messages
- 11,333
- Reaction score
- 10,035
- Points
- 113
"moot"....it's called a "moot" point.
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 35,884
- Reaction score
- 40,724
- Points
- 113
- Location
- between $2 short & ten buck two
Who the HELL is "moot" and why does he always have to make a point???? If he scores enough we would've won............
Salute the nation
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 4,077
- Reaction score
- 5,712
- Points
- 113
OK Coach, you've shown why you are the way you are.....Feeble-minded and narrow minded at the same time.
This article is dated April 20, 2009, which is after they won the SB. Plus his statement "I like everybody I am a degenerate gambler" was in reference to the players in that year's draft. It was most likely a sarcastic reply to a question about which players in the draft he likes. Definitely a question you would most likely ask at a press conference. An idiotic question at that.
You have shown you can't grasp the simple aspect of dialogue without bias when trying to prove many of your subjective statements. So you are right my comments aren't varsity enough for you, because I am speaking at the professional level when you debate at a Pop Warner level. Which is probably your coaching experience, if at all. Which is fine. Its great to get the kids involved in the sport.Us fans thank you. But please spare us with your attempt at trying to impress everyone with your alleged high football acumen. You "knoe" no more than any casual fan.
Its a safe bet Tomlin knows more than you will ever attempt to understand about the game. Oh yeah, you point out failures.....because that's all you look for. Even when there isn't one. You have an opinion, that is the only fact you can point out.
As stated many times by various folks here on this board, TMC revealed your flawed understanding of the player evaluation process, as well as, general football schematics. It's a given you will continue with your keyboard Cowboy rants, but don't try to think you impress with your knowledge about the sport. Topics? That's a different story. You do provide some interesting material to ponder, when you aren't pushing your agenda based conversations.
I read that and thought it was sarcasm at first. Pete Carroll the slimy cheating scum? Mind blown.
There is something to be said for a mute point. Silence.
I was referring more to passing from the 1 in the Super Bowl when at the time you have the best RB in the league.
Im starting to feel like a season that had so much promise is going to devolve into a Bungles Gaffe. There is no unity between the HC and QB. If Ben was pissed about that, go talk to the HC. ****.
I wasnt referencijg one of your posts on that lol. It was actually someone who was serious.
Who does that??
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2014
- Messages
- 856
- Reaction score
- 1,002
- Points
- 93
According to the Tomlin apologists around here, if the Steelers would have done that it would have been either Haley's fault for calling the play or Ben's fault because big dopey threw another pick. Every other team the HC is responsible for everything except for this one...got it.
OK,
Here is why I think deferring is not the horrible terrible decision most people around here seem to think it is.. Now of course, the worst case scenario unfolded, but at least consider these other outcomes
1. You should be able to put the bears at the 25, giving them a long field with a one dimensional offense, who had been turning the ball over, and just missing some others. Keeping in mind the bears were shut out in the second half. They got 10 of their 16 regulation points off our gaffes.
2. If you hold the bears to no score, you now get the ball back, with a good chance of better field position than they had and a fg wins the game for you. Should you not get the fg, you are also able to control the play calling and clock in a shorter second period, which should leave the bears with limited options on offense for their second drive, if they even get one.
3. If the bears get a field goal, you get the ball back and you now have the advantage of knowing what you need to do, and gives your offense an extra down to do it. When you have the (on paper) scariest arsenal of weapons in the league, this extra down in very advantageous, including in the play calling options.
Yes, there is still the risk of giving up that OT TD which I'e seen us do too often, but it is not a sudden death OT, and because of that starting on defense isnt the decision it was back in the sudden death days.
Here is why I think deferring is not the horrible terrible decision most people around here seem to think it is.. Now of course, the worst case scenario unfolded, but at least consider these other outcomes
1. You should be able to put the bears at the 25, giving them a long field with a one dimensional offense, who had been turning the ball over, and just missing some others. Keeping in mind the bears were shut out in the second half. They got 10 of their 16 regulation points off our gaffes.
2. If you hold the bears to no score, you now get the ball back, with a good chance of better field position than they had and a fg wins the game for you. Should you not get the fg, you are also able to control the play calling and clock in a shorter second period, which should leave the bears with limited options on offense for their second drive, if they even get one.
3. If the bears get a field goal, you get the ball back and you now have the advantage of knowing what you need to do, and gives your offense an extra down to do it. When you have the (on paper) scariest arsenal of weapons in the league, this extra down in very advantageous, including in the play calling options.
Yes, there is still the risk of giving up that OT TD which I'e seen us do too often, but it is not a sudden death OT, and because of that starting on defense isnt the decision it was back in the sudden death days.
The option is trying to win with a FG. With 10min OTs, Ties should become even more common with this each team getting in FG battles, should eat the entire 10min of OT.
The D was playing well and stopping the Bears. The intent is to put them in bad field position at the start of OT, force a punt, so you only need 20-30 yards to win with a FG.
I understand the thought, because if the same happens to you by receiving the ball, you then give the ball over to the bears, with good field position at home, to win the game with a FG.
Personally, I think you should always take the possession in OT. You want to maximize possessions, and to do that, you ALWAYS take ball. The idea for onside kicking in OT is a great option to maximize possessions as well.
The D was playing well and stopping the Bears. The intent is to put them in bad field position at the start of OT, force a punt, so you only need 20-30 yards to win with a FG.
I understand the thought, because if the same happens to you by receiving the ball, you then give the ball over to the bears, with good field position at home, to win the game with a FG.
Personally, I think you should always take the possession in OT. You want to maximize possessions, and to do that, you ALWAYS take ball. The idea for onside kicking in OT is a great option to maximize possessions as well.