PDA

View Full Version : Down 8, 1:00 left; Score Quickly, or Milk the Clock?



Tenspro2002
12-05-2011, 12:16 PM
Since this has been discussed here and there in different threads, let's talk about the strategy of how quickly you should be trying to score in this situation.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you can control when the touchdown is scored. We know that the two-point conversion succeeds 50% of the time and an onside kick would succeed 20% of the time. Let's also assume that if we recover the onside kick with a minute to go, we have a 60% chance of scoring; and if GB gets the ball back with a minute to go, they have a 50% chance of scoring. I'll say overtime is a 50/50 outcome.

Here are the ways we can win, for each choice:

Score Quickly:
2 succeeds --> GB doesn't score --> We score in OT (Win - 12.5%)
2 fails --> Onside kick succeeds --> We score (Win - 6%)

Score Slowly (i.e. as time expires):
2 succeeds --> We score in OT (Win - 25%)

The tradeoff is basically whether we think the onside kick + field goal is more likely than the Packers NOT scoring, and then us winning in overtime. The percentages suggest that scoring slowly is the better choice.

We can debate later whether rushing or passing had a higher chance of actually yielding a touchdown.

GameTime
12-05-2011, 12:24 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</P>


</P>


</P>

TuckYou
12-05-2011, 12:29 PM
They did it right. If they dont convert the 2 pt conversion, they still have time for the onside kick recovery and a FG attempt.</P>


What I did not like was the playcalling. 3 straight$#%@ passes on the 2 yard line! Is Gilbride that ******ed?! </P>


Also no one is saying how well we were running the ball yesterday, and then gave up on it again. Gilbride is garbage. So is Baas apparently. Get him out and we can run the ball. </P>

Tenspro2002
12-05-2011, 12:40 PM
I see what you're saying, but my point is that:

Yes, saving time on the clock gives you time to get the onside kick and field goal if necessary, but it ALSO gives time for the other guys to score if it's not necessary. If you're arguing for scoring quickly, you're arguing that:

(2 fail --> onside kick succeed --> FG) + (2 succeed --> GB not scoring --> us winning in OT) > (2 succeed --> us winning in OT)

I just don't think the percentages bear that out.

TuckYou
12-05-2011, 01:23 PM
I see what you're saying, but my point is that: Yes, saving time on the clock gives you time to get the onside kick and field goal if necessary, but it ALSO gives time for the other guys to score if it's not necessary. If you're arguing for scoring quickly, you're arguing that: (2 fail --&gt; onside kick succeed --&gt; FG) + (2 succeed --&gt; GB not scoring --&gt; us winning in OT) &gt; (2 succeed --&gt; us winning in OT) I just don't think the percentages bear that out.</P>


What happens if we drain the clock, then miss the 2pt conversion with about 5 seconds left. Then we kick onside and get it and have no shot. Id take that chance of scoring now everytime. Defense has to stop the Packers that finaldrive. They started on the 20. </P>

Drez
12-05-2011, 01:26 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</P>


</P>


</P>


</P>


This.</P>


And to add to it, when down by 8, you have to score however and whenever you can.</P>

BigBlue1971
12-05-2011, 01:30 PM
the Giants did what they needed to do, score.</P>


it really didnt matter how much time was left. either the Pack was going to score the winning points or the defense would hold for ot. </P>


Rodgers just happened to get them down to kick the fg. nobodys fault imo1</P>


</P>

Drez
12-05-2011, 01:35 PM
I see what you're saying, but my point is that: Yes, saving time on the clock gives you time to get the onside kick and field goal if necessary, but it ALSO gives time for the other guys to score if it's not necessary. If you're arguing for scoring quickly, you're arguing that: (2 fail --&gt; onside kick succeed --&gt; FG) + (2 succeed --&gt; GB not scoring --&gt; us winning in OT) &gt; (2 succeed --&gt; us winning in OT) I just don't think the percentages bear that out.</P>


A) Where are you getting your percentages from? Just asking, because they could just be arbitrary.
B) Where are the percentages for driving from the 20 into FG range (much less a 30 yard FG) with under 1 minute left on the clock? I'd imagine those odds aren't very good. I think to actually look at this scenario you have to assess those odds, which are sucpisciously missing.</P>

jhamburg
12-05-2011, 01:44 PM
I see what you're saying, but my point is that: Yes, saving time on the clock gives you time to get the onside kick and field goal if necessary, but it ALSO gives time for the other guys to score if it's not necessary. If you're arguing for scoring quickly, you're arguing that: (2 fail --> onside kick succeed --> FG) + (2 succeed --> GB not scoring --> us winning in OT) > (2 succeed --> us winning in OT) I just don't think the percentages bear that out.</P>


A) Where are you getting your percentages from? Just asking, because they could just be arbitrary.
B) Where are the percentages for driving from the 20 into FG range (much less a 30 yard FG) with under 1 minute left on the clock? I'd imagine those odds aren't very good. I think to actually look at this scenario you have to assess those odds, which are sucpisciously missing.</P>

% for expected onsides kick recovery is pretty dismal, I think its 10-15% if I remember correctly. I'm pretty sure the best offense in the league who had already scored 35 points getting into field goal range with a minute left and a timeout is MUCH higher than recovering an expected onsides kick plus getting into FG range.

I think what you guys are missing is that you can't assume we score. We need to score a TD first before any of this can happen so we need to leave the playbook open, not think about killing the clock or saving time or anything.

The one mistake that I HATED was running a play before the two minute warning though.

jhamburg
12-05-2011, 02:08 PM
Since this has been discussed here and there in different threads, let's talk about the strategy of how quickly you should be trying to score in this situation.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you can control when the touchdown is scored. We know that the two-point conversion succeeds 50% of the time and an onside kick would succeed 20% of the time. Let's also assume that if we recover the onside kick with a minute to go, we have a 60% chance of scoring; and if GB gets the ball back with a minute to go, they have a 50% chance of scoring. I'll say overtime is a 50/50 outcome.

Here are the ways we can win, for each choice:

Score Quickly:
2 succeeds --> GB doesn't score --> We score in OT (Win - 12.5%)
2 fails --> Onside kick succeeds --> We score (Win - 6%)

Score Slowly (i.e. as time expires):
2 succeeds --> We score in OT (Win - 25%)

The tradeoff is basically whether we think the onside kick + field goal is more likely than the Packers NOT scoring, and then us winning in overtime. The percentages suggest that scoring slowly is the better choice.

We can debate later whether rushing or passing had a higher chance of actually yielding a touchdown.

I would adjust those numbers:

40% 2pt conversion - I think that's NFL average, ours is probably somewhat higher.
65% we score a FG from the 45-50 yard line
40% GB scores from their own 20 (25-30 yards of extra field is pretty important with a minute left).

so with those numbers:

score slowly:

2 succeeds -> GB doesn't score - 12%
2 fails -> onsides succeeds - 8%

20% total

score quickly:

2 succeeds -> We score in OT - 20%

My numbers might go too far in the other direction. But then again, we probably have some incentive to avoid OT since GB is a better team than we are, with a better kicker, so we're likely less than 50% in OT.

EDIT: Took the time to look it up, NFL average for 2pt conversions is actually 48%. That makes the numbers more clear cut. 50% is probably accurate.

Tenspro2002
12-05-2011, 02:08 PM
I see what you're saying, but my point is that: Yes, saving time on the clock gives you time to get the onside kick and field goal if necessary, but it ALSO gives time for the other guys to score if it's not necessary. If you're arguing for scoring quickly, you're arguing that: (2 fail --&gt; onside kick succeed --&gt; FG) + (2 succeed --&gt; GB not scoring --&gt; us winning in OT) &gt; (2 succeed --&gt; us winning in OT) I just don't think the percentages bear that out.</p>


A) Where are you getting your percentages from? Just asking, because they could just be arbitrary.
B) Where are the percentages for driving from the 20 into FG range (much less a 30 yard FG) with under 1 minute left on the clock? I'd imagine those odds aren't very good. I think to actually look at this scenario you have to assess those odds, which are sucpisciously missing.</p>

A) Very fair question. The 50% for the 2-point conversion and the 20% for onside kicks (which feels generous to me) I found from reliable-looking NFL analysis sources. Everything else was an assumption, and you can debate whether you should slide those percentages up and down.

B) Again, fair. This was just an assumption, which for yesterday's scenario I figured the Packers had a 50% chance to drive into FG range and score. I don't know a good way to estimate it beyond a guestimate.

Tenspro2002
12-05-2011, 02:11 PM
Since this has been discussed here and there in different threads, let's talk about the strategy of how quickly you should be trying to score in this situation.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you can control when the touchdown is scored. We know that the two-point conversion succeeds 50% of the time and an onside kick would succeed 20% of the time. Let's also assume that if we recover the onside kick with a minute to go, we have a 60% chance of scoring; and if GB gets the ball back with a minute to go, they have a 50% chance of scoring. I'll say overtime is a 50/50 outcome.

Here are the ways we can win, for each choice:

Score Quickly:
2 succeeds --&gt; GB doesn't score --&gt; We score in OT (Win - 12.5%)
2 fails --&gt; Onside kick succeeds --&gt; We score (Win - 6%)

Score Slowly (i.e. as time expires):
2 succeeds --&gt; We score in OT (Win - 25%)

The tradeoff is basically whether we think the onside kick + field goal is more likely than the Packers NOT scoring, and then us winning in overtime. The percentages suggest that scoring slowly is the better choice.

We can debate later whether rushing or passing had a higher chance of actually yielding a touchdown.

I would adjust those numbers:

40% 2pt conversion - I think that's NFL average, ours is probably somewhat higher.
65% we score a FG from the 45-50 yard line
40% GB scores from their own 20 (25-30 yards of extra field is pretty important with a minute left).

so with those numbers:

score slowly:

2 succeeds -&gt; GB doesn't score - 12%
2 fails -&gt; onsides succeeds - 8%

20% total

score quickly:

2 succeeds -&gt; We score in OT - 20%

My numbers might go too far in the other direction. But then again, we probably have some incentive to avoid OT since GB is a better team than we are, with a better kicker, so we're likely less than 50% in OT.

If we use your numbers, then it's exactly even. It's even more ridiculous when you think that a pretty sizable piece of the pie for us winning the game could have come from a failed 2-point conversion, an onside kick, and a field goal. I don't think *anybody* was thinking about that at the time.

jhamburg
12-05-2011, 02:14 PM
Since this has been discussed here and there in different threads, let's talk about the strategy of how quickly you should be trying to score in this situation.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that you can control when the touchdown is scored. We know that the two-point conversion succeeds 50% of the time and an onside kick would succeed 20% of the time. Let's also assume that if we recover the onside kick with a minute to go, we have a 60% chance of scoring; and if GB gets the ball back with a minute to go, they have a 50% chance of scoring. I'll say overtime is a 50/50 outcome.

Here are the ways we can win, for each choice:

Score Quickly:
2 succeeds --> GB doesn't score --> We score in OT (Win - 12.5%)
2 fails --> Onside kick succeeds --> We score (Win - 6%)

Score Slowly (i.e. as time expires):
2 succeeds --> We score in OT (Win - 25%)

The tradeoff is basically whether we think the onside kick + field goal is more likely than the Packers NOT scoring, and then us winning in overtime. The percentages suggest that scoring slowly is the better choice.

We can debate later whether rushing or passing had a higher chance of actually yielding a touchdown.

I would adjust those numbers:

40% 2pt conversion - I think that's NFL average, ours is probably somewhat higher.
65% we score a FG from the 45-50 yard line
40% GB scores from their own 20 (25-30 yards of extra field is pretty important with a minute left).

so with those numbers:

score slowly:

2 succeeds -> GB doesn't score - 12%
2 fails -> onsides succeeds - 8%

20% total

score quickly:

2 succeeds -> We score in OT - 20%

My numbers might go too far in the other direction. But then again, we probably have some incentive to avoid OT since GB is a better team than we are, with a better kicker, so we're likely less than 50% in OT.

If we use your numbers, then it's exactly even. It's even more ridiculous when you think that a pretty sizable piece of the pie for us winning the game could have come from a failed 2-point conversion, an onside kick, and a field goal. I don't think *anybody* was thinking about that at the time.


Right, I think your analysis is correct. But you have to consider a third option, which is to run your best plays to score a TD and ignore the clock. If you say "we need to run to kill the clock" or "we need to pass to stop the clock", obviously that has to decrease your chances of scoring the TD in the first place.

Either way, I think you have proved at least that intentionally scoring quick to leave the onsides kick option is the worst of all options.

Zaggs
12-05-2011, 02:15 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</p>


</p>


</p>

Agreed for the most part. Except that bunch formation pass incomplete. Shoulda ran it there. But otherwise go with what works which is Eli passing it.

Tenspro2002
12-05-2011, 02:29 PM
Either way, I think you have proved at least that intentionally scoring quick to leave the onsides kick option is the worst of all options.

That's really all I was getting at.

Separately, I would argue that running the ball -- especially how we had been moving it against their defense -- had a better chance of working than passing in a crowded goal-line scenario.

With the pass, the negative catastrophic plays (sack, interception) are far more likely than with the run (fumble). And, of course, there's always the option to pass on later downs.

da_mane_man
12-05-2011, 02:57 PM
throw the percentages out the window. the packers had scored 35 points up until that point and our guys were clearly tired. there is about 0% chance we stop rodgers from getting into fg range. i'd almost kick an onside kick after the 2pt converion was GOOD.

i thought we should have taken more time off the clock. eli is extremely confident in those situations and we had a pretty good shot at converting the 2.

logically, you score when you can and then worry about the rest later, but the packers are the most prolific offense in the nfl. even if they didn't score in regulation, had they gotten the ball first in OT (50/50 chance), they probably would have scored anyway. i think you put the game in eli's hands and dont give rodgers a chance with a minute to go.

jhamburg
12-05-2011, 03:09 PM
throw the percentages out the window. the packers had scored 35 points up until that point and our guys were clearly tired. there is about 0% chance we stop rodgers from getting into fg range. i'd almost kick an onside kick after the 2pt converion was GOOD.

i thought we should have taken more time off the clock. eli is extremely confident in those situations and we had a pretty good shot at converting the 2.

logically, you score when you can and then worry about the rest later, but the packers are the most prolific offense in the nfl. even if they didn't score in regulation, had they gotten the ball first in OT (50/50 chance), they probably would have scored anyway. i think you put the game in eli's hands and dont give rodgers a chance with a minute to go.

Let's not get too carried away here. Getting into FG range from the 20 with a minute left and 1 timeout is by no means automatic for any team against any defense. Keep in mind that Rodgers basically needs to either throw to the sidelines or at least 20 yards downfield, so he can't just dink and dunk the underneath throws like he could normally.

da_mane_man
12-05-2011, 03:24 PM
fg range for crosby isn't the same as other kickers. he has one of the strongest legs in the league.

still though, i'm not even mad. we played them pretty well and they came out on top. they deserved it. you can't really question the way TC handles those last 2 minutes. it just didn't work out for us.

JMFP2
12-05-2011, 03:44 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</P>


*</P>


*</P>

I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick.

Oh well.

jhamburg
12-05-2011, 04:39 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</P>


*</P>


*</P>

I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick.

Oh well.

This is the type of situation that calls for exactly the type of analysis that OP does in this thread, but no one else wants to approach it that way. It's not enough to just say "Two ways to win is better than one", you have to look at the % chances of each scenario and do the math. It's not a go-with-your-gut type of situation.

lawl
12-05-2011, 04:47 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</P>


</P>


</P>


I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick. Oh well. This is the type of situation that calls for exactly the type of analysis that OP does in this thread, but no one else wants to approach it that way. It's not enough to just say "Two ways to win is better than one", you have to look at the % chances of each scenario and do the math. It's not a go-with-your-gut type of situation.</P>


Exactly, its the little things that help you win games.</P>


The Vikings ****ed up similarly by not letting the broncos score a td at the end of the game when they(the broncos) were running the ball. Broncos run the ball a couple times at the 4 yd line, and kick a fg with no time left. By not letting the Broncos score a TD, the Vikings put themselves in a position where they had maybe 1% chance of winning the game. Instead, if they let the Broncos score a td, they could have had 1:15 on the clock to score a matching td and go into overtime.</P>

Drez
12-05-2011, 04:49 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</P>


</P>


</P>


I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick. Oh well. This is the type of situation that calls for exactly the type of analysis that OP does in this thread, but no one else wants to approach it that way. It's not enough to just say "Two ways to win is better than one", you have to look at the % chances of each scenario and do the math. It's not a go-with-your-gut type of situation.</P>


Ok... do the math in enough time to get a play called in. Coaches don't have the luxury of sitting there and breaking out the abacus and do calculations. You may have an idea of what the odds are beforehand from doing game planning and situational analysis, but the first thing you have to take care of is scoring.</P>


Leaving 58 seconds on the clock was not leaving too much time. One stop on either of the first two plays would have been enough to send this game to overtime...</P>


And if we have so little faith in our defense that they can't prevent a FG when a team is starting from their own 20 with under a minute left, we have much bigger issues at play then whether or not we should have milked and extra 20 seconds of clock.</P>


Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know as if calling a play before the 2 minute was such a bad idea, as it actually allowed for a little more clock to run off (the clock stopped at 1:56, not 2:00). Granted, you lose the down before the warning, but you actually grind a little extra clock.</P>

lawl
12-05-2011, 04:51 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</P>


</P>


</P>


I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick. Oh well. This is the type of situation that calls for exactly the type of analysis that OP does in this thread, but no one else wants to approach it that way. It's not enough to just say "Two ways to win is better than one", you have to look at the % chances of each scenario and do the math. It's not a go-with-your-gut type of situation.</P>


Ok... do the math in enough time to get a play called in. Coaches don't have the luxury of sitting there and breaking out the abacus and do calculations. You may have an idea of what the odds are beforehand from doing game planning and situational analysis, but the first thing you have to take care of is scoring.</P>


Leaving 58 seconds on the clock was not leaving too much time. One stop on either of the first two plays would have been enough to send this game to overtime...</P>


And if we have so little faith in our defense that they can't prevent a FG when a team is starting from their own 20 with under a minute left, we have much bigger issues at play then whether or not we should have milked and extra 20 seconds of clock.</P>


Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know as if calling a play before the 2 minute was such a bad idea, as it actually allowed for a little more clock to run off (the clock stopped at 1:56, not 2:00). Granted, you lose the down before the warning, but you actually grind a little extra clock.</P>


</P>


The coaches have the luxury of being paid millions of dollars to put their team in the best position to win a game. That simply did not happen in this situation. That's the bottom line.</P>

BigBlueFanNJ
12-05-2011, 04:57 PM
or the defense could hold the Pack with 58 secs left! if they tried to play cute with the clock and didn't score i could imagine these boards

pino
12-05-2011, 04:57 PM
You need to milk the clock. I don't care if they had Ryan Leaf.

I also think we made a mistake on the possession at the 8:10 mark. Eli tried to go deep to Nicks on the first play when we should be milking the clock. We were lucky to have made them punt, and we didn't take advantage. That play on 3rd and 8 to Ware had me shaking my head.

It's like we are allergic to running the ball. A shame too, Jacobs was running good that day.

Drez
12-05-2011, 05:03 PM
You need to milk the clock. I don't care if they had Ryan Leaf. I also think we made a mistake on the possession at the 8:10 mark. Eli tried to go deep to Nicks on the first play when we should be milking the clock. We were lucky to have made them punt, and we didn't take advantage. That play on 3rd and 8 to Ware had me shaking my head. It's like we are allergic to running the ball. A shame too, Jacobs was running good that day.</P>


Your defense should be able prevent a FG with 58 seconds left. I don't care if they have the undisputed best QB of all time. One stop is all it takes. One that our defense couldn't provide.</P>


Also, we got screwed by the no-call on the defensive holding/PI on Shields on that play. He was undressing Nicks, and no call. That gets called or Nicks is able to reel it in despite the PI, we're talking about how brilliant it was to go deep and reverse field position.</P>


</P>

Drez
12-05-2011, 05:04 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</P>


</P>


</P>


I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick. Oh well. This is the type of situation that calls for exactly the type of analysis that OP does in this thread, but no one else wants to approach it that way. It's not enough to just say "Two ways to win is better than one", you have to look at the % chances of each scenario and do the math. It's not a go-with-your-gut type of situation.</P>


Ok... do the math in enough time to get a play called in. Coaches don't have the luxury of sitting there and breaking out the abacus and do calculations. You may have an idea of what the odds are beforehand from doing game planning and situational analysis, but the first thing you have to take care of is scoring.</P>


Leaving 58 seconds on the clock was not leaving too much time. One stop on either of the first two plays would have been enough to send this game to overtime...</P>


And if we have so little faith in our defense that they can't prevent a FG when a team is starting from their own 20 with under a minute left, we have much bigger issues at play then whether or not we should have milked and extra 20 seconds of clock.</P>


Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know as if calling a play before the 2 minute was such a bad idea, as it actually allowed for a little more clock to run off (the clock stopped at 1:56, not 2:00). Granted, you lose the down before the warning, but you actually grind a little extra clock.</P>


</P>


The coaches have the luxury of being paid millions of dollars to put their team in the best position to win a game. That simply did not happen in this situation. That's the bottom line.</P>


</P>


Tying the game up with under a minute left sounds like putting your team in a position to win. All they needed was one defensive stop. That's not on the TC/KG, that's on the players on the defensive side of the ball.</P>

Drez
12-05-2011, 05:06 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</P>


</P>


</P>


I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick. Oh well. This is the type of situation that calls for exactly the type of analysis that OP does in this thread, but no one else wants to approach it that way. It's not enough to just say "Two ways to win is better than one", you have to look at the % chances of each scenario and do the math. It's not a go-with-your-gut type of situation.</P>


Ok... do the math in enough time to get a play called in. Coaches don't have the luxury of sitting there and breaking out the abacus and do calculations. You may have an idea of what the odds are beforehand from doing game planning and situational analysis, but the first thing you have to take care of is scoring.</P>


Leaving 58 seconds on the clock was not leaving too much time. One stop on either of the first two plays would have been enough to send this game to overtime...</P>


And if we have so little faith in our defense that they can't prevent a FG when a team is starting from their own 20 with under a minute left, we have much bigger issues at play then whether or not we should have milked and extra 20 seconds of clock.</P>


Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know as if calling a play before the 2 minute was such a bad idea, as it actually allowed for a little more clock to run off (the clock stopped at 1:56, not 2:00). Granted, you lose the down before the warning, but you actually grind a little extra clock.</P>


</P>


The coaches have the luxury of being paid millions of dollars to put their team in the best position to win a game. That simply did not happen in this situation. That's the bottom line.</P>


</P>


Tying the game up with under a minute left sounds like putting your team in a position to win. All they needed was one defensive stop. That's not on the TC/KG, that's on the players on the defensive side of the ball.</P>


</P>


Also, how much are you going to try and milk the clock? </P>


The Packers were able to get into FG range in 2 plays that took a grand total of 14 seconds off the clock.</P>


</P>

lawl
12-05-2011, 05:06 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</P>


</P>


</P>


I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick. Oh well. This is the type of situation that calls for exactly the type of analysis that OP does in this thread, but no one else wants to approach it that way. It's not enough to just say "Two ways to win is better than one", you have to look at the % chances of each scenario and do the math. It's not a go-with-your-gut type of situation.</P>


Ok... do the math in enough time to get a play called in. Coaches don't have the luxury of sitting there and breaking out the abacus and do calculations. You may have an idea of what the odds are beforehand from doing game planning and situational analysis, but the first thing you have to take care of is scoring.</P>


Leaving 58 seconds on the clock was not leaving too much time. One stop on either of the first two plays would have been enough to send this game to overtime...</P>


And if we have so little faith in our defense that they can't prevent a FG when a team is starting from their own 20 with under a minute left, we have much bigger issues at play then whether or not we should have milked and extra 20 seconds of clock.</P>


Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know as if calling a play before the 2 minute was such a bad idea, as it actually allowed for a little more clock to run off (the clock stopped at 1:56, not 2:00). Granted, you lose the down before the warning, but you actually grind a little extra clock.</P>


</P>


The coaches have the luxury of being paid millions of dollars to put their team in the <FONT size=6>best</FONT> position to win a game. That simply did not happen in this situation. That's the bottom line.</P>


</P>


Tying the game up with under a minute left sounds like putting your team in a position to win. All they needed was one defensive stop. That's not on the TC/KG, that's on the players on the defensive side of the ball.</P>

lawl
12-05-2011, 05:07 PM
We would have been in prevent if they only had 20 seconds left instead of being in man with 58 seconds.

Drez
12-05-2011, 05:08 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</P>


</P>


</P>


I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick. Oh well. This is the type of situation that calls for exactly the type of analysis that OP does in this thread, but no one else wants to approach it that way. It's not enough to just say "Two ways to win is better than one", you have to look at the % chances of each scenario and do the math. It's not a go-with-your-gut type of situation.</P>


Ok... do the math in enough time to get a play called in. Coaches don't have the luxury of sitting there and breaking out the abacus and do calculations. You may have an idea of what the odds are beforehand from doing game planning and situational analysis, but the first thing you have to take care of is scoring.</P>


Leaving 58 seconds on the clock was not leaving too much time. One stop on either of the first two plays would have been enough to send this game to overtime...</P>


And if we have so little faith in our defense that they can't prevent a FG when a team is starting from their own 20 with under a minute left, we have much bigger issues at play then whether or not we should have milked and extra 20 seconds of clock.</P>


Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know as if calling a play before the 2 minute was such a bad idea, as it actually allowed for a little more clock to run off (the clock stopped at 1:56, not 2:00). Granted, you lose the down before the warning, but you actually grind a little extra clock.</P>


</P>


The coaches have the luxury of being paid millions of dollars to put their team in the <FONT size=6>best</FONT> position to win a game. That simply did not happen in this situation. That's the bottom line.</P>


</P>


Tying the game up with under a minute left sounds like putting your team in a position to win. All they needed was one defensive stop. That's not on the TC/KG, that's on the players on the defensive side of the ball.</P>


</P>


The best position to win was scoring a TD and 2 point conversion. You have to take care of that first.</P>


It isn't like we gave Rodgers 2+ minutes to lead them to a score. Under 1 minute with only 1 timeout.</P>


It took GB all of 2 plays to get into FG range. </P>

pino
12-05-2011, 05:18 PM
You need to milk the clock. I don't care if they had Ryan Leaf. I also think we made a mistake on the possession at the 8:10 mark. Eli tried to go deep to Nicks on the first play when we should be milking the clock. We were lucky to have made them punt, and we didn't take advantage. That play on 3rd and 8 to Ware had me shaking my head. It's like we are allergic to running the ball. A shame too, Jacobs was running good that day.</P>


Your defense should be able prevent a FG with 58 seconds left. I don't care if they have the undisputed best QB of all time. One stop is all it takes. One that our defense couldn't provide.</P>


Also, we got screwed by the no-call on the defensive holding/PI on Shields on that play. He was undressing Nicks, and no call. That gets called or Nicks is able to reel it in despite the PI, we're talking about how brilliant it was to go deep and reverse field position.</P>


*</P>

:58 seconds is actually a lot of time if the team only needs a FG. Sure a defense needs to stop, but why not TRY and control the clock. We gave up the advantage.

pino
12-05-2011, 05:20 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</P>


*</P>


*</P>


I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick. Oh well. This is the type of situation that calls for exactly the type of analysis that OP does in this thread, but no one else wants to approach it that way. It's not enough to just say "Two ways to win is better than one", you have to look at the % chances of each scenario and do the math. It's not a go-with-your-gut type of situation.</P>


Ok... do the math in enough time to get a play called in. Coaches don't have the luxury of sitting there and breaking out the abacus and do calculations. You may have an idea of what the odds are beforehand from doing game planning and situational analysis, but the first thing you have to take care of is scoring.</P>


Leaving 58 seconds on the clock was not leaving too much time. One stop on either of the first two plays would have been enough to send this game to overtime...</P>


And if we have so little faith in our defense that they can't prevent a FG when a team is starting from their own 20 with under a minute left, we have much bigger issues at play then whether or not we should have milked and extra 20 seconds of clock.</P>


Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know as if calling a play before the 2 minute was such a bad idea, as it actually allowed for a little more clock to run off (the clock stopped at 1:56, not 2:00). Granted, you lose the down before the warning, but you actually grind a little extra clock.</P>


</P>


The coaches have the luxury of being paid millions of dollars to put their team in the <FONT size=6>best</FONT> position to win a game. That simply did not happen in this situation. That's the bottom line.</P>


</P>


Tying the game up with under a minute left sounds like putting your team in a position to win. All they needed was one defensive stop. That's not on the TC/KG, that's on the players on the defensive side of the ball.</P>


</P>


The best position to win was scoring a TD and 2 point conversion. You have to take care of that first.</P>


It isn't like we gave Rodgers 2+ minutes to lead them to a score. Under 1 minute with only 1 timeout.</P>


It took GB all of 2 plays to get into FG range. </P>

We could have scored and converted the 2 point conversion with less time on the clock. Running the clock down wouldn't have made that scenario impossible.

RoanokeFan
12-05-2011, 05:32 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</p>


</p>


</p>

+1

RoanokeFan
12-05-2011, 05:47 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</p>


</p>


</p>


I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick. Oh well. This is the type of situation that calls for exactly the type of analysis that OP does in this thread, but no one else wants to approach it that way. It's not enough to just say "Two ways to win is better than one", you have to look at the % chances of each scenario and do the math. It's not a go-with-your-gut type of situation.</p>


Ok... do the math in enough time to get a play called in. Coaches don't have the luxury of sitting there and breaking out the abacus and do calculations. You may have an idea of what the odds are beforehand from doing game planning and situational analysis, but the first thing you have to take care of is scoring.</p>


Leaving 58 seconds on the clock was not leaving too much time. One stop on either of the first two plays would have been enough to send this game to overtime...</p>


And if we have so little faith in our defense that they can't prevent a FG when a team is starting from their own 20 with under a minute left, we have much bigger issues at play then whether or not we should have milked and extra 20 seconds of clock.</p>


Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know as if calling a play before the 2 minute was such a bad idea, as it actually allowed for a little more clock to run off (the clock stopped at 1:56, not 2:00). Granted, you lose the down before the warning, but you actually grind a little extra clock.</p>


</p>


The coaches have the luxury of being paid millions of dollars to put their team in the best position to win a game. That simply did not happen in this situation. That's the bottom line.</p>

What the coaches don't have, that we do, is the luxury of knowing what happened in the ensuing Packer drive. They needed to tie the score, they did. It was not a bad call nor was milking the clock an issue. Our defense should have been able to get us to overtime, that didn't happen.

You have to make the best call you can based on what you know, where you are, and what you feel comfortable will work. That's what happened.

jhamburg
12-05-2011, 06:01 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</p>


*</p>


*</p>


I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick. Oh well. This is the type of situation that calls for exactly the type of analysis that OP does in this thread, but no one else wants to approach it that way. It's not enough to just say "Two ways to win is better than one", you have to look at the % chances of each scenario and do the math. It's not a go-with-your-gut type of situation.</p>


Ok... do the math in enough time to get a play called in. Coaches don't have the luxury of sitting there and breaking out the abacus and do calculations. You may have an idea of what the odds are beforehand from doing game planning and situational analysis, but the first thing you have to take care of is scoring.</p>


Leaving 58 seconds on the clock was not leaving too much time. One stop on either of the first two plays would have been enough to send this game to overtime...</p>


And if we have so little faith in our defense that they can't prevent a FG when a team is starting from their own 20 with under a minute left, we have much bigger issues at play then whether or not we should have milked and extra 20 seconds of clock.</p>


Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know as if calling a play before the 2 minute was such a bad idea, as it actually allowed for a little more clock to run off (the clock stopped at 1:56, not 2:00). Granted, you lose the down before the warning, but you actually grind a little extra clock.</p>


</p>


The coaches have the luxury of being paid millions of dollars to put their team in the best position to win a game. That simply did not happen in this situation. That's the bottom line.</p>

What the coaches don't have, that we do, is the luxury of knowing what happened in the ensuing Packer drive.* They needed to tie the score, they did.* It was not a bad call nor was milking the clock an issue.* Our defense should have been able to get us to overtime, that didn't happen.

You have to make the best call you can based on what you know, where you are, and what you feel comfortable will work.* That's what happened.


Maybe "milking the clock" is going too far, but we certainly didn't need to rush to get a play off before the 2 min warning. Any time left on the clock works against us, because as the analysis shows leaving time on the clock hurts us by giving GB too much time to score more than it helps us in giving us a 2nd chance in case of a missed 2 pt conversion.

The most important thing by far was to make sure we scored a TD, but the people saying it was good that we left time for an onsides kick are wrong, and it has nothing to do with knowing what the results are.

BigBlueFanNJ
12-05-2011, 06:08 PM
Not really sure about this whole milk the clock thing, what are we supposed to do run plays to intentionally not score?

and as for the play prior to the 2 minute warning at that point we needed as much of the clock available for us to continue the drive as possible.

The clock was our enemy at that point as we were down by 8 points.

We needed 8 points and we got them case closed!! your defense needs to step up at that point!! I mean you think the defense would have been fired up to get us to overtime at that point!!

GameTime
12-05-2011, 06:13 PM
Dont forget too that the Packers ran time off before calling a TO with 4 seconds left in reg.</P>


The Giants did what was needed to be done. Is there more thna one school of thought....yes there is.</P>


Tell me something OP.....would you have made this thread if the Giants D stoppped the Pack and went into OT???</P>


Also, andthis is purely hindsight, but a friend at work heard in the post game by either Rodgers or theMcCarthy that if they didnt make that first big play they were going to sit on it and run the clock down to force OT.</P>


So in retrospect all the Giants would have had to do is prevent one of those first two big pass plays...</P>


</P>

jhamburg
12-05-2011, 06:16 PM
Not really sure about this whole milk the clock thing, what are we supposed to do run plays to intentionally not score?

and as for the play prior to the 2 minute warning at that point we needed as much of the clock available for us to continue the drive as possible.

The clock was our enemy at that point as we were down by 8 points.

We needed 8 points and we got them case closed!! your defense needs to step up at that point!! I mean you think the defense would have been fired up to get us to overtime at that point!!

You think we need 2 minutes to go 17 yards?

I would have played it like an ordinary red zone situation, and just take your time getting to the line when the clock is running, don't rush anything and don't hesitate to run on 1st down.

I wouldn't intentionally not score, if the end zone is there take it for sure you can't count on a TD.

jhamburg
12-05-2011, 06:19 PM
Dont forget too that the Packers ran time off before calling a TO with 4 seconds left in reg.</P>


The Giants did what was needed to be done. Is there more thna one school of thought....yes there is.</P>


Tell me something OP.....would you have made this thread if the Giants D stoppped the Pack and went into OT???</P>


Also, and*this is purely hindsight, but a friend at work heard in the post game by either Rodgers or the*McCarthy that if they didnt make that first big play they were going to sit on it and run the clock down to force OT.</P>


So in retrospect all the Giants would have had to do is prevent one of those first two big pass plays...</P>


*</P>

If true that actually makes me even more mad about it, because that means that if we had left like 30 seconds on the clock instead of a minute GB would have just sat on it.

Drez
12-05-2011, 06:33 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</P>


</P>


</P>


I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick. Oh well. This is the type of situation that calls for exactly the type of analysis that OP does in this thread, but no one else wants to approach it that way. It's not enough to just say "Two ways to win is better than one", you have to look at the % chances of each scenario and do the math. It's not a go-with-your-gut type of situation.</P>


Ok... do the math in enough time to get a play called in. Coaches don't have the luxury of sitting there and breaking out the abacus and do calculations. You may have an idea of what the odds are beforehand from doing game planning and situational analysis, but the first thing you have to take care of is scoring.</P>


Leaving 58 seconds on the clock was not leaving too much time. One stop on either of the first two plays would have been enough to send this game to overtime...</P>


And if we have so little faith in our defense that they can't prevent a FG when a team is starting from their own 20 with under a minute left, we have much bigger issues at play then whether or not we should have milked and extra 20 seconds of clock.</P>


Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know as if calling a play before the 2 minute was such a bad idea, as it actually allowed for a little more clock to run off (the clock stopped at 1:56, not 2:00). Granted, you lose the down before the warning, but you actually grind a little extra clock.</P>


</P>


The coaches have the luxury of being paid millions of dollars to put their team in the best position to win a game. That simply did not happen in this situation. That's the bottom line.</P>




What the coaches don't have, that we do, is the luxury of knowing what happened in the ensuing Packer drive. They needed to tie the score, they did. It was not a bad call nor was milking the clock an issue. Our defense should have been able to get us to overtime, that didn't happen.

You have to make the best call you can based on what you know, where you are, and what you feel comfortable will work. That's what happened.
Maybe "milking the clock" is going too far, but we certainly didn't need to rush to get a play off before the 2 min warning. Any time left on the clock works against us, because as the analysis shows leaving time on the clock hurts us by giving GB too much time to score more than it helps us in giving us a 2nd chance in case of a missed 2 pt conversion. The most important thing by far was to make sure we scored a TD, but the people saying it was good that we left time for an onsides kick are wrong, and it has nothing to do with knowing what the results are.</P>


Running a play before the 2 minute warning allowed the clock to stop at 1:56. We actually ran an extra 4 seconds off the clock by running that play.</P>

lawl
12-05-2011, 06:37 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</P>


</P>


</P>


I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick. Oh well. This is the type of situation that calls for exactly the type of analysis that OP does in this thread, but no one else wants to approach it that way. It's not enough to just say "Two ways to win is better than one", you have to look at the % chances of each scenario and do the math. It's not a go-with-your-gut type of situation.</P>


Ok... do the math in enough time to get a play called in. Coaches don't have the luxury of sitting there and breaking out the abacus and do calculations. You may have an idea of what the odds are beforehand from doing game planning and situational analysis, but the first thing you have to take care of is scoring.</P>


Leaving 58 seconds on the clock was not leaving too much time. One stop on either of the first two plays would have been enough to send this game to overtime...</P>


And if we have so little faith in our defense that they can't prevent a FG when a team is starting from their own 20 with under a minute left, we have much bigger issues at play then whether or not we should have milked and extra 20 seconds of clock.</P>


Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know as if calling a play before the 2 minute was such a bad idea, as it actually allowed for a little more clock to run off (the clock stopped at 1:56, not 2:00). Granted, you lose the down before the warning, but you actually grind a little extra clock.</P>


</P>


The coaches have the luxury of being paid millions of dollars to put their team in the best position to win a game. That simply did not happen in this situation. That's the bottom line.</P>




What the coaches don't have, that we do, is the luxury of knowing what happened in the ensuing Packer drive. They needed to tie the score, they did. It was not a bad call nor was milking the clock an issue. Our defense should have been able to get us to overtime, that didn't happen.

You have to make the best call you can based on what you know, where you are, and what you feel comfortable will work. That's what happened.
Maybe "milking the clock" is going too far, but we certainly didn't need to rush to get a play off before the 2 min warning. Any time left on the clock works against us, because as the analysis shows leaving time on the clock hurts us by giving GB too much time to score more than it helps us in giving us a 2nd chance in case of a missed 2 pt conversion. The most important thing by far was to make sure we scored a TD, but the people saying it was good that we left time for an onsides kick are wrong, and it has nothing to do with knowing what the results are.</P>


Running a play before the 2 minute warning allowed the clock to stop at 1:56. We actually ran an extra 4 seconds off the clock by running that play.</P>


</P>


You're kidding right? Play is run after two minute warning, an extra 40 seconds tick off...</P>

RoanokeFan
12-05-2011, 06:38 PM
IMO you have to score and get the two point conversion and if you dont get the 2 pointer you need to have time on the clock for an on side kick. The Giants played it well I thought.</p>


</p>


</p>


I agree....there was no guarantee the 2pt would work, and if not, it gave enough time to try the onside kick. Oh well. This is the type of situation that calls for exactly the type of analysis that OP does in this thread, but no one else wants to approach it that way. It's not enough to just say "Two ways to win is better than one", you have to look at the % chances of each scenario and do the math. It's not a go-with-your-gut type of situation.</p>


Ok... do the math in enough time to get a play called in. Coaches don't have the luxury of sitting there and breaking out the abacus and do calculations. You may have an idea of what the odds are beforehand from doing game planning and situational analysis, but the first thing you have to take care of is scoring.</p>


Leaving 58 seconds on the clock was not leaving too much time. One stop on either of the first two plays would have been enough to send this game to overtime...</p>


And if we have so little faith in our defense that they can't prevent a FG when a team is starting from their own 20 with under a minute left, we have much bigger issues at play then whether or not we should have milked and extra 20 seconds of clock.</p>


Also, now that I'm thinking about it, I don't know as if calling a play before the 2 minute was such a bad idea, as it actually allowed for a little more clock to run off (the clock stopped at 1:56, not 2:00). Granted, you lose the down before the warning, but you actually grind a little extra clock.</p>


</p>


The coaches have the luxury of being paid millions of dollars to put their team in the best position to win a game. That simply did not happen in this situation. That's the bottom line.</p>

What the coaches don't have, that we do, is the luxury of knowing what happened in the ensuing Packer drive. They needed to tie the score, they did. It was not a bad call nor was milking the clock an issue. Our defense should have been able to get us to overtime, that didn't happen.

You have to make the best call you can based on what you know, where you are, and what you feel comfortable will work. That's what happened.

<font color="#0000FF">
Maybe "milking the clock" is going too far, but we certainly didn't need to rush to get a play off before the 2 min warning. </font>Any time left on the clock works against us, because as the analysis shows leaving time on the clock hurts us by giving GB too much time to score more than it helps us in giving us a 2nd chance in case of a missed 2 pt conversion.

The most important thing by far was to make sure we scored a TD, but the people saying it was good that we left time for an onsides kick are wrong, and it has nothing to do with knowing what the results are.

If you were talking about a PAT, I might agree. But we had to get 2 points to tie and if that failed, we HAD to have time for the onside kick or lose by two points. Again, hindsight is amazingly clear.

Drez
12-05-2011, 06:39 PM
Dont forget too that the Packers ran time off before calling a TO with 4 seconds left in reg.</P>


The Giants did what was needed to be done. Is there more thna one school of thought....yes there is.</P>


Tell me something OP.....would you have made this thread if the Giants D stoppped the Pack and went into OT???</P>


Also, andthis is purely hindsight, but a friend at work heard in the post game by either Rodgers or theMcCarthy that if they didnt make that first big play they were going to sit on it and run the clock down to force OT.</P>


So in retrospect all the Giants would have had to do is prevent one of those first two big pass plays...</P>


</P>


If true that actually makes me even more mad about it, because that means that if we had left like 30 seconds on the clock instead of a minute GB would have just sat on it.</P>


No, it doesn't. They still would have taken a shot or two. It came down to preventing any sizeable gain on those first two plays. As it stood, it took GB 14 seconds to get into FG range. 30 seconds would have still allowed them to do so.</P>

BigBlueFanNJ
12-05-2011, 06:39 PM
Not really sure about this whole milk the clock thing, what are we supposed to do run plays to intentionally not score?

and as for the play prior to the 2 minute warning at that point we needed as much of the clock available for us to continue the drive as possible.

The clock was our enemy at that point as we were down by 8 points.

We needed 8 points and we got them case closed!! your defense needs to step up at that point!! I mean you think the defense would have been fired up to get us to overtime at that point!!

You think we need 2 minutes to go 17 yards?

I would have played it like an ordinary red zone situation, and just take your time getting to the line when the clock is running, don't rush anything and don't hesitate to run on 1st down.

I wouldn't intentionally not score, if the end zone is there take it for sure you can't count on a TD.

I think in that situation having two minutes was good for us we needed a TD nothing less. we have a lot more options with time on the clock, then if time is ticking down.

we could still run the ball, work the middle of the field. whatever. we also had a first down outside the endzone we could have picked up with time to run more plays.

I'm just saying running a methodical deliberate offense and getting the TD was the most pressing need at the time. and we did that

Do I wish we left less time sure! but we had that game in overtime it is inexcusable we could not hold them.

lawl
12-05-2011, 06:45 PM
Dont forget too that the Packers ran time off before calling a TO with 4 seconds left in reg.</P>


The Giants did what was needed to be done. Is there more thna one school of thought....yes there is.</P>


Tell me something OP.....would you have made this thread if the Giants D stoppped the Pack and went into OT???</P>


Also, andthis is purely hindsight, but a friend at work heard in the post game by either Rodgers or theMcCarthy that if they didnt make that first big play they were going to sit on it and run the clock down to force OT.</P>


So in retrospect all the Giants would have had to do is prevent one of those first two big pass plays...</P>


</P>


If true that actually makes me even more mad about it, because that means that if we had left like 30 seconds on the clock instead of a minute GB would have just sat on it.</P>


No, it doesn't. They still would have taken a shot or two. It came down to preventing any sizeable gain on those first two plays. As it stood, it took GB 14 seconds to get into FG range. 30 seconds would have still allowed them to do so.</P>


</P>


Not true, there's simply no way we would have been in man coverage with 30 seconds left.</P>

Drez
12-05-2011, 06:46 PM
Dont forget too that the Packers ran time off before calling a TO with 4 seconds left in reg.</P>


The Giants did what was needed to be done. Is there more thna one school of thought....yes there is.</P>


Tell me something OP.....would you have made this thread if the Giants D stoppped the Pack and went into OT???</P>


Also, andthis is purely hindsight, but a friend at work heard in the post game by either Rodgers or theMcCarthy that if they didnt make that first big play they were going to sit on it and run the clock down to force OT.</P>


So in retrospect all the Giants would have had to do is prevent one of those first two big pass plays...</P>


</P>


If true that actually makes me even more mad about it, because that means that if we had left like 30 seconds on the clock instead of a minute GB would have just sat on it.</P>


No, it doesn't. They still would have taken a shot or two. It came down to preventing any sizeable gain on those first two plays. As it stood, it took GB 14 seconds to get into FG range. 30 seconds would have still allowed them to do so.</P>


</P>


Not true, there's simply no way we would have been in man coverage with 30 seconds left.</P>


</P>


And you know this how?</P>


What it came down to was not the offense leaving :58 on the clock.</P>


It came down to the defense not being able to man up and prevent GB from scoring. All they needed to do was make one stop. One.</P>

lawl
12-05-2011, 06:49 PM
If you were talking about a PAT, I might agree. But we had to get 2 points to tie and if that failed, we HAD to have time for the onside kick or lose by two points. Again, hindsight is amazingly clear.



Again, its not the percentage play.</P>


There is simply no way the percentages are in favor of retrieving an onside kick plus driving down the field plus making the field goal as opposed to making a 2 pt conversion and winning a coin toss. </P>


</P>


Tynes roughly makes 85% of all his field goals, Onside kicks are what? a maximum of 30% chance, then driving into range for a field goal also has a percentage to it.</P>


</P>


Odds of converting a 2 pt conversion is roughly 50%. Odds of winning a coin toss, 50%.</P>


</P>


</P>

lawl
12-05-2011, 06:50 PM
Dont forget too that the Packers ran time off before calling a TO with 4 seconds left in reg.</P>


The Giants did what was needed to be done. Is there more thna one school of thought....yes there is.</P>


Tell me something OP.....would you have made this thread if the Giants D stoppped the Pack and went into OT???</P>


Also, andthis is purely hindsight, but a friend at work heard in the post game by either Rodgers or theMcCarthy that if they didnt make that first big play they were going to sit on it and run the clock down to force OT.</P>


So in retrospect all the Giants would have had to do is prevent one of those first two big pass plays...</P>


</P>


If true that actually makes me even more mad about it, because that means that if we had left like 30 seconds on the clock instead of a minute GB would have just sat on it.</P>


No, it doesn't. They still would have taken a shot or two. It came down to preventing any sizeable gain on those first two plays. As it stood, it took GB 14 seconds to get into FG range. 30 seconds would have still allowed them to do so.</P>


</P>


Not true, there's simply no way we would have been in man coverage with 30 seconds left.</P>


</P>


And you know this how?</P>


What it came down to was not the offense leaving :58 on the clock.</P>


It came down to the defense not being able to man up and prevent GB from scoring. All they needed to do was make one stop. One.</P>


</P>


They shouldnt have been put in a position to have to make a stop. </P>

Drez
12-05-2011, 06:52 PM
Dont forget too that the Packers ran time off before calling a TO with 4 seconds left in reg.</P>


The Giants did what was needed to be done. Is there more thna one school of thought....yes there is.</P>


Tell me something OP.....would you have made this thread if the Giants D stoppped the Pack and went into OT???</P>


Also, andthis is purely hindsight, but a friend at work heard in the post game by either Rodgers or theMcCarthy that if they didnt make that first big play they were going to sit on it and run the clock down to force OT.</P>


So in retrospect all the Giants would have had to do is prevent one of those first two big pass plays...</P>


</P>


If true that actually makes me even more mad about it, because that means that if we had left like 30 seconds on the clock instead of a minute GB would have just sat on it.</P>


No, it doesn't. They still would have taken a shot or two. It came down to preventing any sizeable gain on those first two plays. As it stood, it took GB 14 seconds to get into FG range. 30 seconds would have still allowed them to do so.</P>


</P>


Not true, there's simply no way we would have been in man coverage with 30 seconds left.</P>


</P>


And you know this how?</P>


What it came down to was not the offense leaving :58 on the clock.</P>


It came down to the defense not being able to man up and prevent GB from scoring. All they needed to do was make one stop. One.</P>


</P>


They shouldnt have been put in a position to have to make a stop. </P>


</P>


That's garbage, and you know it.</P>

lawl
12-05-2011, 06:56 PM
They shouldnt have been put in a position to have to make a stop.


</P>


That's garbage, and you know it.</P>


</P>


It's the percentage play. Simple as that.</P>

jhamburg
12-05-2011, 07:02 PM
They shouldnt have been put in a position to have to make a stop.


</P>


That's garbage, and you know it.</P>


</P>


It's the percentage play. Simple as that.</P>

If you guys think having more time on the clock after the score was a good thing for us, just estimate a few things:

1. % chance of making a 2pt conversion
2. % chance of recovering onsides kick
3. % chance of scoring after onsides recovery
4. % chance of GB scoring from their own 20 with a minute left.

Tenspro2002
12-06-2011, 01:09 AM
Dont forget too that the Packers ran time off before calling a TO with 4 seconds left in reg.</P>


The Giants did what was needed to be done. Is there more thna one school of thought....yes there is.</P>


Tell me something OP.....would you have made this thread if the Giants D stoppped the Pack and went into OT???</P>


Also, and*this is purely hindsight, but a friend at work heard in the post game by either Rodgers or the*McCarthy that if they didnt make that first big play they were going to sit on it and run the clock down to force OT.</P>


So in retrospect all the Giants would have had to do is prevent one of those first two big pass plays...</P>


*</P>

I almost made this thread *at the time* as we ran pass plays on 1st and 2nd down. I even complained about the pass play called on 3rd down.

I posted in the game thread at the time that passing the ball was stupid because it guaranteed leaving time on the clock for GB even if we did tie it.