HOF
Posted 22 October 2018 - 10:15 AM
Had a weird dream last night...Justin Tucker missed an XP to lose a game. Bizarre.
I woke up this morning at like 5am to pee (yes im old) and I was like, I can't believe he missed that fucking kick. Im still astonished by it.
How many ways could the Ravens lose a game that are less believable than Tucker missing an easy kick?
HOF
Posted 22 October 2018 - 10:20 AM
How many ways could the Ravens lose a game that are less believable than Tucker missing an easy kick?
A victory formation turnover returned for a score is the only less-likely but still possible scenario I can think of. An onsides recovery plus hail-mary combo is more likely than a Tucker missed XP. A return of a squib kick (like in the Super Bowl) is more likely. Crazy end-of-game plays like Stefon Diggs or even as far back as the Music City Miracle are more likely. If you're talking straight misses at least, if you incorporate blocks then maybe, just maybe it's about even.
I Miss McNulty
Posted 22 October 2018 - 10:21 AM
Man did that suck.
Ultimately we lost to a good team, albeit at home, but, man, that was a tough one to swallow.
Credit to Drew Brees, he made two amazing drive saving plays that game that I don't think too many other QBs make. Our offense had to be better. You're playing the Saints and their garbage D. I said to my buddy at the start of the 4th that 17 points wouldn't be nearly enough and it came to pass.
Still right in the division hunt, we have three division home games left which are all must wins I think if we want to win the division.
Move on from this and get ready for Carolina.
Also, M&T has lost some of its luster. It's just not as loud as it used to be. I don't think the Saints had too many communication issues even on those several fourth downs.
There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note
"Now OPS sucks. Got it."
"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."
"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty
@bopper33
HOF
Posted 22 October 2018 - 10:24 AM
A caller to the radio station today raised a question that I do not know the answer to regarding Brees' QB sneak where he jumped over the pile.
He extended his arms with the football, clearly past the yard to gain. He then pulled it back to avoid it being knocked from his hands. This would definitely be a TD if it were a goal-line play, but it wasn't. How is it forward progress if he intentionally pulls the ball back? It's not like the goal-line where the play is over once you cross, it is an on-going play. If he threw the ball to a receiver a yard past the line, then that receiver ran backwards behind the line and was then tackled, it is not a first down. Why is it still a first-down when the ball is intentionally pulled back behind the line before the QB is stopped by the defense?
Moderator
Posted 22 October 2018 - 10:39 AM
A caller to the radio station today raised a question that I do not know the answer to regarding Brees' QB sneak where he jumped over the pile.
He extended his arms with the football, clearly past the yard to gain. He then pulled it back to avoid it being knocked from his hands. This would definitely be a TD if it were a goal-line play, but it wasn't. How is it forward progress if he intentionally pulls the ball back? It's not like the goal-line where the play is over once you cross, it is an on-going play. If he threw the ball to a receiver a yard past the line, then that receiver ran backwards behind the line and was then tackled, it is not a first down. Why is it still a first-down when the ball is intentionally pulled back behind the line before the QB is stopped by the defense?
Said the exact same thing to my friends yesterday. I don't know the rule but I feel like the "reach-out" would not matter in that scenario. Should be where the ball ultimately is where/when the play is ruled dead. (Like you said, if it was the goalline, it's an obvious touchdown.)
I Miss McNulty
Posted 22 October 2018 - 11:33 AM
Yea it's not like his forward progress was stopped. He reached the line to gain and, with the play still ongoing, pulled the ball back without being "forced" by a defender.
That's messed up.
There is baseball, and occasionally there are other things of note
"Now OPS sucks. Got it."
"Making his own olive brine is peak Mackus."
"I'm too hungover to watch a loss." - McNulty
@bopper33
HOF
Posted 22 October 2018 - 12:00 PM
That's interesting. Hadn't considered that.
Wonder if Harbaugh said anything about that?
HOF
Posted 22 October 2018 - 12:51 PM
HOF
Posted 22 October 2018 - 12:59 PM
HOF
Posted 22 October 2018 - 01:48 PM
Harbaugh said the analytics say to kick the extra point in that spot rather than going for 2. He says that he meets with his analytics people every Saturday
HOF
Posted 22 October 2018 - 01:49 PM
Harbaugh was miffed that Kamara should have been ruled a fumble. Said both points of the ball were moving.
^^ That's my name. Don't wear it out.
Posted 22 October 2018 - 02:11 PM
Harbaugh was miffed that Kamara should have been ruled a fumble. Said both points of the ball were moving.
They went to commercial in the middle. Did the call stand or was the call confirmed?
I agree with him. That ball was moving well before he hit the ground.
Banned
Posted 22 October 2018 - 06:54 PM
HOF
Posted 22 October 2018 - 11:47 PM
I thought they would go for the win rather than hand the ball over to Bree's in OT against a spent defense.
What if Brees never gets the ball?
HOF
Posted 23 October 2018 - 07:41 AM
I'm still baffled how Tucker missed that XP. It came off his foot fine, then made an abrupt turn to the right. It was like the hand of God, who is definitely a Steelers fan, came down and batted the pass off its course.
HOF
Posted 23 October 2018 - 09:38 AM
I liked going for 2 there...not sure how much faith I have in the defense in OT with how tired they appeared to be.
Not hindsight..just liked how things were playing out and we ran it effectively today. That same design of the Lamar TD would have been tough to stop.
I'm probably in the minority, but I'm actually pretty fond of teams going for two late in the game in that situation. Had there been even LESS time on the clock, I'd have been more on board.
The way I look at it is this... say it's literally the final seconds, like 0:03 left on the clock. Ironic to say this now given Tucker's miss, but give the typical automatic nature of the extra point, in a way I look at it as this... you're ALREADY in overtime.
You can take the ball... guaranteeing possession (which is NOT guaranteed in OT if you lose the flip)... and from the two yard line, get one chance to win the game. I'm good with that. You could go to OT lose the flip and never touch the ball. Or you could score first with a FG and still lose anyway now. This isn't college, where you're guaranteed a chance to score / re-tie / win / etc.
As for the argument that the Ravens aren't clutch enough in short-yardage goal line situations... I'm not sure what the numbers say, but I DO agree with that perception at least. I'm big on teams going 4+ wide and running out of a spread formation down there, if they don't have that "mauling" style O-line that you're confident can get you 6 feet of ground. Also agree that Jackson would have been a worthwhile risk there, with no Joe on the field. Go 5 wide to pull some bodies out of the box, put the ball in an elusive runner's hands, and give it a shot. If he gets bottled up, try to throw it up for grabs to a guy like Crabtree or an Andrews / Hurst type on the far outside, where he's probably in single coverage.
All Star
Posted 23 October 2018 - 10:53 AM
I'm probably in the minority, but I'm actually pretty fond of teams going for two late in the game in that situation. Had there been even LESS time on the clock, I'd have been more on board.
The way I look at it is this... say it's literally the final seconds, like 0:03 left on the clock. Ironic to say this now given Tucker's miss, but give the typical automatic nature of the extra point, in a way I look at it as this... you're ALREADY in overtime.
You can take the ball... guaranteeing possession (which is NOT guaranteed in OT if you lose the flip)... and from the two yard line, get one chance to win the game. I'm good with that. You could go to OT lose the flip and never touch the ball. Or you could score first with a FG and still lose anyway now. This isn't college, where you're guaranteed a chance to score / re-tie / win / etc.
As for the argument that the Ravens aren't clutch enough in short-yardage goal line situations... I'm not sure what the numbers say, but I DO agree with that perception at least. I'm big on teams going 4+ wide and running out of a spread formation down there, if they don't have that "mauling" style O-line that you're confident can get you 6 feet of ground. Also agree that Jackson would have been a worthwhile risk there, with no Joe on the field. Go 5 wide to pull some bodies out of the box, put the ball in an elusive runner's hands, and give it a shot. If he gets bottled up, try to throw it up for grabs to a guy like Crabtree or an Andrews / Hurst type on the far outside, where he's probably in single coverage.
I'd like to see Jackson on 3rd & short all the time now. Unless they need a sneak, having Jackson with that run/pass option keeps a team guessing.
MVP
Posted 23 October 2018 - 11:34 AM
I'd like to see Jackson on 3rd & short all the time now. Unless they need a sneak, having Jackson with that run/pass option keeps a team guessing.
Except that Jackson has only passed a handfull of times the entire season. If he is in, its pretty much guaranteed that it will be a run. So actually, you are kind of giving it away that you are running the ball. Joe hasn't been stopped on any of his QB sneaks this year. Keep going to that.
HOF
Posted 23 October 2018 - 11:38 AM
HOF
Posted 23 October 2018 - 12:18 PM
Almost the same ending as North Dallas Forty (spoiler alert).
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users
