FunBunch7 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I'm sick of hearing that the Girls would have won 20-19 had they kick the PAT instead of going for 2. Every single event/play affects the very next event/play. Had they kicked the PAT the score would have been 7-5...but it would have changed EVERYTHING in the game from that point on...we MAY have blown them out 45-7 or they may have blown us out 35-5... On ESPN, NFL.COM and every where else they are saying that the Cowboys would have won 20-19. It's just getting on my nerves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheBigLebanese Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Oh well. 22-19 is all I see!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 The talking heads on the sports channels get paid to do one thing, TALK, and when they have nothing substantive to say, well then they have to speculate, and one of the things they love to do pretend that if one thing had been done different then the outcome of the game would have been relatively unchanged except for the final score. This is why so much has been said about TO's dropped pass, if only. Well, ok, if only he had actually run it in for the TD, does that mean everything else would have been the same? Of course not. Reasonable people understand these things and take them into account with a grain of salt, the talking heads are there to keep themselves employed and to fill 30 to 40 minutes of air time talking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedskinzOwnU Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Also, the people that criticize him for trying for 2 are going overboard. When you are up by 1 point, going up by 2 is worthless. The odds of a scoring combination involving that second point coming into play is very unlikely (obviously, it panned out, but you can't bet the game on the low odd outcome). Gaining a 3 point lead instead of a 2 point lead is far more valuable. I would have gone for 2 as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 and if Novak made the first fg...... playing "if" works both ways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Also, the people that criticize him for trying for 2 are going overboard. When you are up by 1 point, going up by 2 is worthless. The odds of a scoring combination involving that second point coming into play is very unlikely (obviously, it panned out, but you can't bet the game on the low odd outcome). Gaining a 3 point lead instead of a 2 point lead is far more valuable. I would have gone for 2 as well. in the first quarter? the risk is far too great.... always take the sure points until you have to take the added risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinz_4_life Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 woulda shoulda coulda Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FunBunch7 Posted November 7, 2006 Author Share Posted November 7, 2006 Statistically it is better to for 2 points, here's why... They showed a graghic that extra points are made 99% of the time...495 out of 500 this year where as 2 XPTs were made 62% of the time. So for every 100 TDs score there are 99 points added due to extra points...but at the same token, for every 100 TDs scored and a 2xpt being tried would result in 62 successes or 124 points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimmySmith Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Bad call by Parcells, you never go for 2 until it is necessary. Too much game left to be played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNoRevs Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 and if Novak made the first fg......playing "if" works both ways apples and oranges extra point percentage is 99.5 % a kicker making a 49 yard field gold is dramatically lower. the extra point is anything but an "if" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CrabR Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I think Parcells decision not to challenge the safety call was a worse decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNoRevs Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I think Parcells decision not to challenge the safety call was a worse decision he probably got confirmation that his knee was down while the ball was still in the endzone, but I was thinking the same thing, if they where going to challenge it, it was such a momentum swing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I think Parcells decision not to challenge the safety call was a worse decision Bubba posted this pic in another thread, it clearly shows that the ball never made it out of the endzone before Jones' shoulder is down on the white line of the end zone, which is part of the endzone. Think reverse touchdown, the ball not the player has to get out. Parcell's and the Dallas review staff were correct in not challenging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frommd Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 I thought Parcells coached a perfect game personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliffBattles Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 If Dallas had made the one point, and everything happened the same way, we would have gone for a two point conversion on Cooley's TD.....so it did not cost 'em the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Parcell's said that he went by the chart, which all coaches use to determine if they should go for two. He was correct to do so. And Gibbs would have gone for two after Cooley's td, or maybe even after Portis scored. The ball is not round. It always takes a funny bounce. That is one of the things that makes football great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#1njskinsfan Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 if's and but's were candy and nuts, it would always be x-mas.......... we won 22-19!!! Wooooooooooooooooooooo Hooooooooooooooooooooooooo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNoRevs Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 if's and but's were candy and nuts, it would always be x-mas..........we won 22-19!!! Wooooooooooooooooooooo Hooooooooooooooooooooooooo how is an extra point an "if". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeNoRevs Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Parcell's said that he went by the chart, which all coaches use to determine if they should go for two. He was correct to do so. And Gibbs would have gone for two after Cooley's td, or maybe even after Portis scored. The ball is not round. It always takes a funny bounce. That is one of the things that makes football great. Its not a rule that you have to follow the chart, if thats the case, why have coaches. Why not have a chart for every play in every situation. A chart is there to help guide them on the decision but doesnt make it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IheartGibbs Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 If Dallas had made the one point, and everything happened the same way, we would have gone for a two point conversion on Cooley's TD.....so it did not cost 'em the game. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burgold Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Well, we blocked a field goal who's to say we wouldn't have blocked an extra point? As long as we're playing what if... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The End Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Its really such a dead point i think the only reason the national media discuss' it is because they just want one more thing to nag Parcells with and get a rise out of him or TO, thus improving ratings. Steve Mariucci is the only analyst who has gotten it right...Any kind of coaching desicion like that that happened so early in the game is virtually a moot point because there was so much football played after that things would have been totally different for both teams. There would have been more risks taken, more shots downfield, etc. Its fun to monday morning Quarterback especially with Dallas but its a moot point and should be left alone. The only stats that matter in the end are Win and Loss. And we got a Win....so screw sportscenter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD_washingtonredskins Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 Two points here (and I know I'm preaching to the choir)... 1) As has been mentioned, we would have had an opportunity to go for 2 later in the game as well and (if the stats in this thread are true) we would have had a better than 50% chance of getting the 2. That point alone nullifies the idea that Dallas would have been running out the clock AFTER Novak missed the FG. 2) None of this is relevant unless you want to throw in ALL the other "what ifs" as well. What if the refs don't miss some big Dallas penalties or what if the refs don't call Fauria for holding for simply being run over (negating a 30 yard completion to Lloyd)? Or, my favorite, what if we had actually converted on 3rd and 4 with under a minute to go and given Novak a much more makeable FG attempt the first time around. That decision is the most on par with questioning Parcells' choice to go for 2 (since it's a matter of a coaching decision). Gibbs or Saunders were apparently playing for a long FG instead of running a screen or slant to pick up a first down/10 more yards which could have made Novak's first game-winning attempt the final play of regulation. The bottom line is this: It was a neck and neck game that came down to the final minute. We executed late in the game and the Cowboys did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
H@iL2Gibb$ Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 "WHAT IF" Joe took the conservative approach and elected to kick the field goal on our opening drive instead of going for it on 4th & goal? The score would've been 3-0 and the Skins would not have gotten the safety. Final score 23-20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
no1fanofno21 Posted November 7, 2006 Share Posted November 7, 2006 im also sick of the "what if" questions what if cooley caught the ball down the center, what if to caught it. There are mistakes. sick of it all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.