Laziest Poster on Figbooty
- Nov 24, 2003
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
- Other Teams
- Man United,Raiders
I’d agree with it if it was to put you two scores in front. And even then it’s a ridiculously negative tactic.Agteed. Try to run it in on last play instead of kneel down at least. Worst case FG.
It actually made a lot of sense.I’d agree with it if it was to put you two scores in front. And even then it’s a ridiculously negative tactic.
But to only put you two points up instead of at least five, six with a kick and even seven with a two point conversion, makes absolutely zero sense whichever way you want to slice it.
The fact of the matter is if you score, they have to score a TD to win.It actually made a lot of sense.
If you take the touchdown, you're scoring no later than with 65 seconds left on the clock, maybe closer to 70 actually.
The 2 point conversion is semantics imo because even if you make it a 7 point game, dare I say the Dolphins would have gone for 2 had they scored a TD going the length of the field in 1 minute.
They clearly believed that going 40 yards in 20 seconds was more difficult that going 75 in 70 seconds. I agree with that.
The two areas I dont agree with are the two play calls after the field goal. Why are you kicking it into the endzone? Kick it high onto the 5 yard line and try to pin them inside the 20. At the very least you're taking 5 seconds off the clock and theyre not going to get any extra yardage from it. Then the play call on 1st down defensively was ridiculous. Cover 2 in that situation? Only silver (and black) lining was that play call almost definitively takes Marinelli out of the running for DC.
Regardless of what they needed to score, in order to win the game the Raiders had to decide what was the easier choice - defend 75 yards in 70 seconds or defend 40 yards in 20 seconds? Given that each play goes for 6-8 seconds on average, that's broken down to defending 75 yards in roughly 10 plays or 40 yards in 3 plays.The fact of the matter is if you score, they have to score a TD to win.
The way it was done, all they needed was a FG.
With no timeouts and having to get in the end zone?Regardless of what they needed to score, in order to win the game the Raiders had to decide what was the easier choice - defend 75 yards in 70 seconds or defend 40 yards in 20 seconds? Given that each play goes for 6-8 seconds on average, that's broken down to defending 75 yards in roughly 10 plays or 40 yards in 3 plays.
I maintain the assertion that going 75 yards in 70 seconds is easier than going 40 yards in 20 seconds.
Even with no timeouts. The lack of timeouts meant that giving up 40 yards in the allotted 20 seconds should have been damn near impossible had they played an umbrella styled coverage in the secondary to prevent players getting out of bounds deep.With no timeouts and having to get in the end zone?
If they’re tackled in bounds, then that blows a big chunk off the clock and they lose a play in having to spike the ball.
You’re going to have a very hard time to convince me the decision wasn’t absolute craziness.
I certainly agree with your last paragraph.Even with no timeouts. The lack of timeouts meant that giving up 40 yards in the allotted 20 seconds should have been damn near impossible had they played an umbrella styled coverage in the secondary to prevent players getting out of bounds deep.
We saw that they couldn't stop Kansas City when they had 75 seconds to go 75 yards (they did it in 45 seconds) so there's history there to suggest (at the very least) caution to thinking the D could in fact get a stop. I get that it was Mahomes but Fitzpatrick is the ultimate gun slinger and there are few QBs who have the balls to just chuck it up there in the final moments of a game like he does.
What we have seen is that this D no matter the circumstance will consistently find a way to screw it up. This isn't a one off situation. It's why the hiring of thr next DC is easily the biggest task this off season. If they screw it up, Gruden will be gone by end of 2022 and they'll be starting from scratch once again.
I disagree re Arnette. He's a rookie who is excelled at Ohio State in press man coverage. I watched like a dozen game tapes of the Buckeyes when he got drafted so I could get a rough opinion of him. The two things that stood out were his press man skills were A1, and he was a good tackler.I certainly agree with your last paragraph.
There were big wraps on Arnette, but he’s worse than DJ Hayden.
Actually, he’s worse than Joyner.
Carr to be replaced by Mariota everytime we get to the RZ.The #Raiders had a strong pass blocking performance from their guards against Miami!
Gabe Jackson: 87.7 pass block grade (39 pblk snaps) John Simpson: 85.1 pblk grade (20 snaps) Neither allowed a single pressure
Maybe we could bring Mariota on for third downs/red zone this last game.
Let's actually put our DBs in advantageous positions where the scheme matches their talent (ie press man) as opposed to playing them as cover 2 zone corners which they never did in college.I think we should give up on selecting DBs in the 1st round from now on.
They worked together over a decade ago, and Bradley's cover 3 scheme is far different that the Tampa 2 he ran at the Bucs with Monte Kiffin as DC.Gus Bradley would be a good get but he's already worked for Gruden in Tampa.
I'd actually like to see Gruden go outside his 'coaching tree' for a change to see what other ideas/voices are around the NFL.
We'll have the dollars.Littleton did well under Barry in LA but I don't like the 'Marinelli's' son-in-law' connection.
Thanks for the analysis, Chewy.
Moving towards FA, I don't think we'll have the dollars but I'd be throwing everything at signing Leonard Williams. Totally sure up the front 4.