Why running the ball on 3rd and 7 was the right call and why this forum is retarded.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Was the situation remotely the same? Would Pittsburgh have been left with ~75 seconds, ~80 yards, and no time outs to score a tying TD? If not then your argument doesn't hold even a drop of water.

The argument is valid because the situations are SIMILAR, not exactly the same. Broncos ahead? Check. In their own territory? Check. 3rd down and medium distance? Check. in fact, elway was at his own 15 yard line, so the play was RISKIER then than on saturday. it was the first play after the two minute warning, so if elway doesn't make it, they give the steelers even MORE time than they would've given flacco, and with better field position for them.

'just get open'...it speaks to a mentality, one in which elway/shanny could've just run it once and punted, but instead chose to throw and were rewarded for it. if you can't see the similarity, i can't help you, man.

[ludo21]

In hindsight I trust my HOF QB to make a play...

but in the moment I agreed, you take the time off the clock...

BUT I HATED THE KNEEEL DOWN!!!! BOTH OF THEM!!!!!!!!!! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I had friggin nightmares Saturday night about those.. ;(

[Smiling Assassin27]

Originally Posted by Beantown Bronco

Reminds me of the 2007 AFC Championship. Bill did exactly what you proposed, except he only had 2 yards to go. Threw it just short and lost the game because of it.

Exactly. There are never guarantees that you make it, but we weren't in a 4th down situation, which makes ALL the difference in the world.

[B-Large]

Originally Posted by edog24

So why even have a coaching staff? If we are just playing the percentages then get 4 math wizards in a room with a phone and have them tell Manning what the next play call is. The beauty of having a competent front staff is making adjustments and getting a sense of whats going on in the game. This game had all the makings of an upset, our D was garbage all night, and we had a chance to ice it. We need to play to win, not to play to percentages.

At the end of the day, who's hands do you want the game to rest in? Your HOF QB, or our young secondary who was getting owned all game long?

If we didn't have Manning and perhaps Romo, I'd agree with the run.. but when you have the best intermediate passer in the league, man, its hard not to lean on he guy.....

There are just times in sports when you have to dip deep in the gut and put the game away.... I don't really care about the 97% chance of winning at that point, all I know now we played the numbers with a HOF QB at the helm and lost to a team we should have handled.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by edog24

We need to play to win, not to play to percentages.

So, if you had a ~97% chance to win $1,000,000 you'd take a gamble on a much lower percentage play?

[Tombstone RJ]

Originally Posted by Willynowei

Seriously i remember coming to the mane because the team forum at denverbroncos.com was full of retards that don't know a thing about football, well now i'm not sure this place is significantly better, considering all i hear is that we should have passed the ball on third and long with 1:20 left.

Here's why all of you are dead wrong.

1.) Chance of conversion is EXTREMELY LOW:

The highest conversion rate of 3rd downs in the entire NFL is New England at an impressive 48%. That's including 3rd and 1's, 3rd and 2's, 3rd and 3's. The Actual likelihood of converting a 3rd and 7 with the best offense in the NFL is way way way below 50%.

2.) Field position and Time:

40 seconds left, 0 time outs, 80 yards: This is what the offense hands the defense.

When exactly 80 seconds are left on the clock, 40 seconds equates to 50% of the time left, when you sit nearly at mid field, your punt has an extremely high chance of pinning the opponent inside their 20.

so Here's what you get by running off 40 seconds.

Scenario A: Opposing offense has 80 seconds: If each play takes 10 seconds on average to run, they can cover 60 yards in 6 plays at 10 seconds each and have 20 seconds and 2 or 3 plays at the endzone from our redzone, that's a pretty good shot at scoring.

Scenario B: Opposing offense has 40 seconds: If each play takes 10 seconds again, they now have only 3 tries to get 60 yards and have 1 or 2 shots at the endzone in scoring. This means your defense doesn't have to worry about anything less than 20 yards deep, and if there's any completions over the middle, even if they were for 40 yards, that would burn something like 30 seconds off the clock and the next shot would have to go at the endzone.

In other words - half decent prevent defense should make scenario B impossible against any offense, no matter how talented as long as you sit back and keep everything in front of you, where as scenario A gives them enough time to have a realistic shot at tieing the game. (I'll flesh this out more in point 4 as well)


3.) Touchdown was required, not a field goal:

The Ravens needed a touchdown, not a field goal, comebacks like the one Matt Ryan lead with timeouts and 30 seconds to score a field goal is relatively common, touchdowns off a prayer pass with 40 seconds left is almost unheard of.

4.) It is impossible for the opposing team to win if you play prevent properly.

NFL plays, even when running no huddle require 6-10 seconds to execute, and another 10 setup for a second play, the Ravens essentially had time to run a total of 3 full plays over the middle or 4 plays to the sideline assuming Flacco hits all of his completions.

This means each completion must average over 20 yards to even have a shot at the endzone that's not a hail mary. If you rush 3 and play prevent the likelyhood of scoring is almost 0%, why would anyone whose logical not like those odds?

5.) Peyton Manning made the right field call:

Manning is a cerebral player, if he sees 2-high safeties, he knows its 7 in the box and a run is almost guaranteed to get at least some yardage, in fact, we could even make an argument on the question: What is more likely to gain a first down against a defense looking for pass with a 2-man coverage called? A run or a pass?

Who said we had no chance to pick up that first down with a run. We in actuality ran time off the clock and gave ourselves a chance to get the first down as well - a chance probably not much worse than the slim chance at converting a 3rd and long over the air against 2 high man.

Conclusion:

I want to be politically correct and say something down the middle, but you guys who are criticizing manning or the offensive call are all a bunch of ****ing idiots.

You run the ball there, that gives you the best chance to win in that situation. They were down a touchdown not a fieldgoal, there were 0 timeouts and field position gave us the best chance to win with defense.

At some point you have play defense in the NFL, otherwise everyone would onside kick it every single time. In this game we lost because of poor safety play.

If you want to blame John Fox, blame him because didn't play prevent at a point in the game where pressing your corners up in the flats with a cover 2 defense made no sense (who the **** cares about 5-10 yard outs with 40 seconds left and 80 yards to go for a touchdown?).

So go ahead make fire Moore or fire fox threads about defensive errors but don't talk about stupid sh*t like "we should've gone for the first down". That's the stupidest sh*t i've ever heard.

I agree, for the situation it was the right call. The head scratcher for me was the end of the first half where the Broncos had 30 seconds and 2 time outs. Why take a knee? Why not at least try to move the ball down the field to at least try for a field goal. This is why you have PM. Let him do his thing!

[Rohirrim]

"Three things can happen when you pass the ball, and two of those are bad." Woody Hayes

[Smiling Assassin27]

Originally Posted by TonyR

So, if you had a ~97% chance to win $1,000,000 you'd take a gamble on a much lower percentage play?

Yeah, that's EXACTLY the same.

[Beantown Bronco]

Honest question because I haven't seen any of the post game interviews:

Do we even know if a run was called by McCoy/Fox, or is it possible that a pass/run option was called and Manning audibled to the run himself based on something he saw from the defense?

[edog24]

Originally Posted by TonyR

So, if you had a ~97% chance to win $1,000,000 you'd take a gamble on a much lower percentage play?

I see the point in playing the percentages, it just has to be dependent on the situation I guess. If the 3% has a genius at the healm and if the 97% was dependent on retards to make it happen, I guess I don't take the 97%.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

The argument is valid because the situations are SIMILAR...

But how similar? What was the score? Would a FG have tied it or won it for Pittsburgh in your scenario? If yes, the there is no comparison here. Denver had to convert to have a good chance to win that game. In the Ravens game, they just had to use clock and kick away to a team with no time outs and very little time to go 80 yards and score a TD.

[MplsBronco]

Originally Posted by TonyR

So, if you had a ~97% chance to win $1,000,000 you'd take a gamble on a much lower percentage play?

WTF are you talking about? Throwing on 3rd as opposed to running now means we lose? What does your 97% look like with and extra 30 seconds? Probably still pretty high.

Neither does throwing automatically mean an incomplete pass. Something high percentage could have been called ensuring the clock continued to run. A sack would also have been acceptable.

The question is, where were the percentages higher at gaining a first down? Throwing or running? The goal, the mentality should have been gaining one more first down and ending the game in teh VICTORY formation.

I disagreed with it at the time and I disagree now more so than ever so its not hindsight. It was flat out loser football and disgusts me.

This was the exact situation of why we got Manning and are paying him $20m. If he audibled to this then we are suredly f'ed for the foreseeable future and should disappoint all.

[B-Large]

Originally Posted by TonyR

So, if you had a ~97% chance to win $1,000,000 you'd take a gamble on a much lower percentage play?

Its a layered Decision, not quite as simple as stated about, if the D was playing Lights Out, the the run is a no brainer... but our D was not very good...

[strafen]

"You play to win the game"!

First of all, if would've been the right call if we had the right running back. Not the back-up of the back-up who happens to be undersized and a rookie.
You've got one of the best intermediate passers the game has ever known, and you decide to run the ball under the circumnstances I've described above?
No thanks. I'm not sold on your argument...

[Smiling Assassin27]

Originally Posted by TonyR

But how similar? What was the score? Would a FG have tied it or won it for Pittsburgh in your scenario? If yes, the there is no comparison here. Denver had to convert to have a good chance to win that game. In the Ravens game, they just had to use clock and kick away to a team with no time outs and very little time to go 80 yards and score a TD.

A fg ties it, just like a td ties it saturday. Kordell had thrown 3 INT's that day, so had they punted it away it was no given that the steelers would've scored. the ravens needed a td to tie. if they have an extra 25 seconds or so (assuming we do not convert and the clock stops, which wouldn't necessarily be the case since a wr screen wit wr staying in bounds would leave the clock running), maybe they have to run more plays. we'll never know, it's just a philosophical difference, i guess.

one play is all you need to win. some look at it as an opportunity, and others look at it as a chance to get the pressure off you and onto someone else (your defense).

[MplsBronco]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

A fg ties it, just like a td ties it saturday. Kordell had thrown 3 INT's that day, so had they punted it away it was no given that the steelers would've scored. the ravens needed a td to tie. if they have an extra 25 seconds or so (assuming we do not convert and the clock stops, which wouldn't necessarily be the case since a wr screen wit wr staying in bounds would leave the clock running), maybe they have to run more plays. we'll never know, it's just a philosophical difference, i guess.

one play is all you need to win. some look at it as an opportunity, and others look at it as a chance to get the pressure off you and onto someone else (your defense).

Bolded for truth. Why is this even debated. You go down swinging. Instead, all Balt needed was one play to tie and they made it happen.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by Smiling Assassin27

A fg ties it, just like a td ties it saturday.

But you have to admit, the odds of driving ~30 yards into FG range are considerably higher than driving 80 yards for a TD. Particularly when you factor in time and time outs. A punt in the Pittsburgh game probably gives the Steelers a high probability of tying the game, so Denver needed to try to convert. A punt in the Ravens game gave Denver a very high probability of winning, so no need to try to convert with a pass.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by MplsBronco

WTF are you talking about?

Did you read the OP? Chance of converting that 3rd down with a pass is relatively low, therefore increasing the Ravens chances of tying the game. Why would you take the low percentage play over the 90+% play? Again, you're only upset because the Ravens cashed in on the low percentage probability due to a miracle and the Broncos' incompetence.

[SonOfLe-loLang]

Originally Posted by B-Large

Its a layered Decision, not quite as simple as stated about, if the D was playing Lights Out, the the run is a no brainer... but our D was not very good...

Its not a layered decision at all. If i gave you the same exact situation to do all over agian, you'd take it in a heartbeat. It happened, and that sucks, but its hindsight thinking to say it was a horrible thing to do.

[TonyR]

Originally Posted by MplsBronco

You go down swinging.

But you don't have to "go down" if you correctly play the desperation throw the Ravens tied the game with. You should be mad at the d-backs on that play, not John Fox for choosing to run the ball in that particular situation.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Originally Posted by TonyR

But you have to admit, the odds of driving ~30 yards into FG range are considerably higher than driving 80 yards for a TD. Particularly when you factor in time and time outs. A punt in the Pittsburgh game probably gives the Steelers a high probability of tying the game, so Denver needed to try to convert. A punt in the Ravens game gave Denver a very high probability of winning, so no need to try to convert with a pass.

That is probably true. As i said, we could've thrown a safe pass and let a guy like DT make a play, stay in bounds and then either move to 4th down or move the chains and take the diamon formation. We could've STILL had the option of making them drive 80 yards for a TD. I trust Manning not to *cough* throw an INT in that situation, and if there's nothing there/no one open, he can always go down and we STILL can put 'em in the 80 yard drive scenario.

[Smiling Assassin27]

Originally Posted by SonOfLe-loLang

Its not a layered decision at all. If i gave you the same exact situation to do all over agian, you'd take it in a heartbeat. It happened, and that sucks, but its hindsight thinking to say it was a horrible thing to do.

I disagree. It's not a hindsight thing at all. As long as you minimize the chances of a bad thing happening (int/fumble), it's a perfect time to run a smart pass play. The reward outweighs the risk, if you play it smart. Instead, we went with plan b. by all accounts, punting it to them should not have resulted in the tying td, so that's not a bad call, just a timid one that reflects a conservative mindset.

[Rohirrim]

I think the loss of Moreno was a major factor in that final call. Hillman was going down on first contact. PM had to know, by that point, that he had no play action to work with. It was going to be a straight toss, and probably a heavy blitz. I don't know what the Ratbirds were playing at that moment, but I assume it was at least a nickle package. Maybe even dime? I'm guessing that everything he saw on that field screamed "RUN." Does anybody know the routes that were called on that play? I'm guessing it would be something designed to empty the middle and pull off Lewis? So what do you do? Bubble screen? Dump off to a back? Screen? Flat? Hook route? You've got two out of three chances that something bad is going to happen, and an incomplete doesn't burn any clock.

[Tombstone RJ]

What suprises me is the Lance Ball never got a snap as a RB, yet Hester got snaps at RB? In those short yardage situations I'd give the ball to Ball over Hillman.

[MplsBronco]

Originally Posted by TonyR

Did you read the OP? Chance of converting that 3rd down with a pass is relatively low, therefore increasing the Ravens chances of tying the game. Why would you take the low percentage play over the 90+% play? Again, you're only upset because the Ravens cashed in on the low percentage probability due to a miracle and the Broncos' incompetence.

The arguement is what gives you the best chance to make a first down and win the game? Running or Passing? The mentality should have been closing out the game and not giving them the ball back. That is the arguement.

Again, you make no sense with the "low percentage play over the 90+% play". A pass does not automatically mean a loss. So stop this arguement. Even an incomplete pass and 30 more seconds for Balt probably still puts your 97% probablity at highr than 90%.

You clearly are happy with a team with a p***Y mentality. I hate the Patriots but I admire their mentality. And its why they are in the AFCCG yet again.