Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 37

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    32,805

    Going For The Win (2 Pointer)?

    So gang, did you like the gutsy 2 point call, to go for the win?

    Last year when other coaches went for the 2 pointer win, I seem to remember lots of criticism, especially when it did not work. My gut tells me a lot of fans love it, WHEN it works.

    I think Fangio is trying to send a message. And I am ok with that type of call, because a tie only gives you about a 50% chance to win, typically that would be resolved in OT, but...they scored the winning FG prior to. For me, if you believe in your play design, and your ability to produce, you go for it, because a single extra point does not win you the game. Now, if your team has been faltering in pressure situations, the tie is not a foolish idea. Live another set of downs or more.

    But the real question is not whether you liked the outcome of it yesterday, but were you on board when we went for it....not knowing the outcome?

    Then again, it was a strange ending....2 point conversion, which is penalized, which turns into a missed extra point, which was penalized, to return the ball to the 1 yard line, which prompted the 2 point attempt, again. Strange brew!!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    5,921
    I loved the call, showed guts....just too bad we had to fight the refs on top of it all


    Andy Jano 2017 adopted Bronco

  3. #3
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,290
    It sure is easier to love the call when it works. That said, I did like the aggressive ďgo for the winĒ approach.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    california
    Posts
    2,045
    Thought it was crazy , but I liked the going for the throat mentality. All we needed was our big D players to finish it and they failed .

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    14,858
    I liked it and endorsed it. Flacco was in a rythm, and they were gassed. I liked the mentality, and wouldn't have second guessed it had it failed. The belief in his offense and veteran QB, and it paid off. I'm about it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    1,015
    I liked it. Itís not an exaggeration to say that call could have been a turning point for the season. The offense had finally put together some drives and momentum. A win would do wonders for the team psyche. It wasnít to be for other reasons, but I liked the call in the moment.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    the gulf of mexico
    Posts
    15,736
    I loved it. I think it also sent a message to the defense that said hey I donít think you can hold them in OT so weíre going for it now. Unfortunately they couldnít hold them for 31 seconds at the end of the 4th

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    32,805
    Yah....my take is almost always this:

    If the game is near end, and you feel confident, go for it. Because you are usually at the whim of a coin toss, and at best you're looking at a 50/50 outcome with the extra point kick. The problem with this game, The Bears weren't supposed to score prior to the final whistle.

    If a person only likes it when it works...….well now.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,304
    I strongly objected to the original decision to go for 2, and I still believe that it was a mistake by Fangio. At home in Denver, when you CLEARLY had the entire Bears' defense gassed due to the altitude, you play for overtime rather than putting the whole game on the line in one play. Combine that with the fact that the team obviously wasn't ready to attempt the 2-point play (resulting in the Delay of Game penalty), and you have a call bordering on negligent. That Delay penalty almost cost the Broncos the game when McManus missed the longer PAT kick (only saved by the offsides call on the Bears). Then going for it again was still the wrong call, even though the play worked out--it was too much to risk on one play and the Bears' defense would not have held up in OT, in my opinion. Also, it's arguable that the Broncos' going for 2 instead of taking the tie ultimately resulted in the loss because the Bears were desperate and going for broke in that last 31 seconds to try to win the game; they may have been more conservative or even just run out the clock and gone to OT if the game were tied instead of the Broncos being up by 1.

    I know this sounds like hindsight armchair quarterbacking but I swear that I was making these same arguments to my wife even as the game unfolded. I thought it was the wrong call at the time and I stand by that now.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Winnipeg
    Posts
    32,805
    Quote Originally Posted by MileHighInNY View Post
    I strongly objected to the original decision to go for 2, and I still believe that it was a mistake by Fangio. At home in Denver, when you CLEARLY had the entire Bears' defense gassed due to the altitude, you play for overtime rather than putting the whole game on the line in one play. Combine that with the fact that the team obviously wasn't ready to attempt the 2-point play (resulting in the Delay of Game penalty), and you have a call bordering on negligent. That Delay penalty almost cost the Broncos the game when McManus missed the longer PAT kick (only saved by the offsides call on the Bears). Then going for it again was still the wrong call, even though the play worked out--it was too much to risk on one play and the Bears' defense would not have held up in OT, in my opinion. Also, it's arguable that the Broncos' going for 2 instead of taking the tie ultimately resulted in the loss because the Bears were desperate and going for broke in that last 31 seconds to try to win the game; they may have been more conservative or even just run out the clock and gone to OT if the game were tied instead of the Broncos being up by 1.

    I know this sounds like hindsight armchair quarterbacking but I swear that I was making these same arguments to my wife even as the game unfolded. I thought it was the wrong call at the time and I stand by that now.
    I like going for the 2, but as mentioned, if you are prepared. And the two points you make are very relevant to this particular situation. Delay of game speaks out that you may not be ready. And yes, and I thought about this a bit, The Bears probably go conservative if the game is tied. After all, if you are them, what else can you do but move the ball downfield, even if at risk. There's no risk when you are down to your last plays, behind in the score. This factor is often not a factor, if there is no time or almost no time left.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Red 98 - Red 98
    Posts
    15,018
    Know what bothered me more was seeing McManus miss an extra point. That was a choke, sorry Goocher. All we needed was a PAT to tie the game to give us a chance ........ and miss? McManus?

    Our first 2pt attempt I was mixed of course. But we had all the momentum so.... I was down. Usually at home you go for the tie right? After the penalty the PAT was really the only choice. But after he missed the kick I was convinced 2pt conversion is the way to go for sure now
    Red 98

    The early bird may get the worm, but the 2nd mouse gets the cheese

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,624
    Quote Originally Posted by MileHighInNY View Post
    I strongly objected to the original decision to go for 2, and I still believe that it was a mistake by Fangio. At home in Denver, when you CLEARLY had the entire Bears' defense gassed due to the altitude, you play for overtime rather than putting the whole game on the line in one play. Combine that with the fact that the team obviously wasn't ready to attempt the 2-point play (resulting in the Delay of Game penalty), and you have a call bordering on negligent. That Delay penalty almost cost the Broncos the game when McManus missed the longer PAT kick (only saved by the offsides call on the Bears). Then going for it again was still the wrong call, even though the play worked out--it was too much to risk on one play and the Bears' defense would not have held up in OT, in my opinion. Also, it's arguable that the Broncos' going for 2 instead of taking the tie ultimately resulted in the loss because the Bears were desperate and going for broke in that last 31 seconds to try to win the game; they may have been more conservative or even just run out the clock and gone to OT if the game were tied instead of the Broncos being up by 1.

    I know this sounds like hindsight armchair quarterbacking but I swear that I was making these same arguments to my wife even as the game unfolded. I thought it was the wrong call at the time and I stand by that now.
    What we also CLEARLY had yesterday was an undisciplined OL prone to drive-killing errors. The final TD drive was practically miraculous and I think Fangio just wanted to get the game overwith and escape with the win, not try to repeat such a drive and risk Bolles or Leary screwing it up. From that perspective, I think he made the right call.
    Superbowl 50 MVP Von Miller on February 7th, 2016

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Carlsbad, NM
    Posts
    2,154
    Quote Originally Posted by MileHighInNY View Post
    I strongly objected to the original decision to go for 2, and I still believe that it was a mistake by Fangio. At home in Denver, when you CLEARLY had the entire Bears' defense gassed due to the altitude, you play for overtime rather than putting the whole game on the line in one play. Combine that with the fact that the team obviously wasn't ready to attempt the 2-point play (resulting in the Delay of Game penalty), and you have a call bordering on negligent. That Delay penalty almost cost the Broncos the game when McManus missed the longer PAT kick (only saved by the offsides call on the Bears). Then going for it again was still the wrong call, even though the play worked out--it was too much to risk on one play and the Bears' defense would not have held up in OT, in my opinion. Also, it's arguable that the Broncos' going for 2 instead of taking the tie ultimately resulted in the loss because the Bears were desperate and going for broke in that last 31 seconds to try to win the game; they may have been more conservative or even just run out the clock and gone to OT if the game were tied instead of the Broncos being up by 1.

    I know this sounds like hindsight armchair quarterbacking but I swear that I was making these same arguments to my wife even as the game unfolded. I thought it was the wrong call at the time and I stand by that now.
    You are assuming We get the ball first, which as Can said is 50/50 with the flip of a coin. If they get the ball first our defense that couldn't hold for 30 secs is up. I like the call. Instead of the gamble who gets the ball first he put his faith in his team, in th O that they could get the 2pts and in the D that they could hold for 30 seconds. The D let him down. We can cry about the bad call on chubb all we want but they were still out of FG range, just needed one stop.

    BCMB Div I - AB's Etsy Shop | BCMB FF Smackdown - Cold Feet

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,304
    Quote Originally Posted by dipablo View Post
    You are assuming We get the ball first, which as Can said is 50/50 with the flip of a coin. If they get the ball first our defense that couldn't hold for 30 secs is up.
    Ah, but in that context only a TD by the Bears would win the game--an FG on the opening possession of OT would still give the Broncos a chance on offense to win or tie it up.

    Look at it this way: NFL teams convert somewhere around 47-48% of 2-point PAT attempts. Let's also assume that kicking the one-point try will have a 100% success rate (not a given, I know, but when making the call a coach needs to assume that the kicker would make the PAT). So, down by one after a TD that late in a game, a coach can opt to certainly tie the game with a PAT kick, or take a 47/53 shot to either take the lead by 1 or definitely lose the game if the conversion fails. Let's even put aside the fact that succeeding on the conversion there probably raises your win probability to something like 95% but obviously does not automatically win the game, and say that getting the conversion results in 100% victory. So in this simplified universe, Fangio could elect for a 100% chance to tie and force OT, or he could take a gamble on a 48% probability to win or lose right now.

    If he forces OT, there is a 50% chance to get the ball first in the coin flip. Since 2012 and the implementation of the new OT rules, the team to get the ball first wins just about 50% of OT games (the second team to get the ball wins slightly less than 50%, with the difference made up by the rare tie game). So, statistically, the "coin flip" nature of OT is largely a myth nowadays. OT may still be roughly a 50/50 proposition, but it's not based on a coin flip anymore; rather, it's based on the performance of the teams. And in this situation, the fact that the Bears' D was obviously gassed and could no longer stop the Broncos from moving the ball should significantly enhance Denver's chances over a longer period of time. So, statistically speaking, Denver actually had a better chance to win there by taking the tie and forcing OT than they did in gambling with the 2-point conversion.

    If they hadn't made the conversion, then we'd all be here complaining about Fangio's idiotic call rather than complaining about the refs.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    2,970
    If going for the win there is a sign of the mentality we are trying to instill, then I think we are going to be in good shape. It may take a couple years to get some new guys in certain positions, but I'm ready for a new direction. I loved the call, that was a small sign of a new direction. Tough outcome, but wow what a great moment....we (or at least I) needed that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •