Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 37
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Keystone, CO
    Posts
    912
    I did. Because it worked :-)

    We were sitting down for a winner, winner chicken dinner when I saw coach hold up 2 fingers. I said to my wife! Oh my they are gonna go for 2 and win it now like Shanny did!. She said... oh I'd tie it.

    I still like it.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Posts
    709
    Pardon the Herm Edwards, but "you play to win the game". I liked the call, it made me nervous, but I liked it.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Carlsbad, NM
    Posts
    2,124
    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

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Posts
    61
    I appreciate the aggressiveness. I like the message it send to the team. But it was a frivolous, unnecessary call that ended up working out which doesn't make it right.

    You're at home, their defense is gassed, our defense has been playing better in half 2, and our offense is starting to click a little bit.

    I also heard a talking head on radio mention that if you tie it, Chicago probably doesn't push it and plays for overtime. Making the 2 point conversion forced them to be aggressive, and as it turned out, all they needed was one pass completion out of 4 plays.

    But here is something I haven't heard anyone talk about - part of me wondered if they lined up for 2 to make CHI burn that last timeout. I think they would have kicked it after that knowing that CHI had no timeouts. I truly felt they went for 2 after the offside call for all the reasons we're assuming they lined up for it the first time...except the first time was to drain the last timeout.

    As it turned out, the timeout was the difference. I would have said Fangs was a genius if the scenario above played out. The way it is, I think he just got lucky for making an ill-advised coaching decision.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Seattle WA
    Posts
    1,323
    Quote Originally Posted by CanDB View Post
    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!!
    I don't have an issue going for two; that's why it exists. My main issue was that the defense couldn't come up big in the final 31 seconds to seal the win. This could have given them some momentum going into next week, however the schedule gets much harder. Since the defense is not showing up this season and the offense has been anemic for the past few seasons, this team is in trouble...

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Anywhere I want on 18 wheels
    Posts
    8,348
    It was a bad decision.

    However, sports logic being different than actual logic makes people think it was the right decision just because it worked in their favor.

    Many of the same people praising Fangio for the decision would be ripping him if the play failed.

    Thankfully, the play worked and gave them a chance to win. It must have been one in which the coaches and players had great faith it would work.
    Negs are Cowardly Acts of Nonsense. I won’t Back Down.
    No Matter How Stupid Your Comments Are!
    Still Not Backing Down!!!

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    the gulf of mexico
    Posts
    15,608
    Quote Originally Posted by broncolee View Post
    It was a bad decision.

    However, sports logic being different than actual logic makes people think it was the right decision just because it worked in their favor.

    Many of the same people praising Fangio for the decision would be ripping him if the play failed.

    Thankfully, the play worked and gave them a chance to win. It must have been one in which the coaches and players had great faith it would work.
    I will say I didn’t like the playcall, and still don’t. If it didn’t work out I’d still like the decision, I just think with the way Freeman was going it would’ve much easier for him to power in than relying on Flacco/Sanders to pull off an improbable catch at the back pylon.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    13,269
    If the coaches have a play and they have solid reason to think it will work I am good with the call.

    It has to come from a solid foundation. There is always risk involved when the other team is paid to stop the play. As long as there is solid foundation behind the reasoning I am good with the call.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Mile High Stadium
    Posts
    9,424
    Loved the call, The Bears d was on the ropes. They were on the field for 70 plays, it was hot and they couldn’t cover Sanders.
    If we go for the tie as we saw the extra point isn’t a gimme anymore. Why not go for the win.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,179
    I imagine it was discussed in practice as a possibility should the 2pts take the team into the lead with seconds remaining on the clock. You don't just spring this kind of decision on the team.

    I didn't like it at the time. Maybe because I saw a team try it and fail last week in a practically identical situation. However, I did understand it. We were on top and sometimes it's worth striking when the iron is hot, and if we converted, the Bears would have needed a FG when they had failed to score for the whole 4th quarter up to that point. Also, it's a vote of confidence in both the offence and defence.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    9,532
    Fangio: “Analytics is good, stats are good, but you’ve just got to go with your gut sometimes. Any my gut told me to go for two there. It doesn’t mean I’ll do it the next time.”
    Superbowl 50 MVP Von Miller on February 7th, 2016

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    2,303
    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.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    the gulf of mexico
    Posts
    15,608
    Quote Originally Posted by MileHighInNY View Post
    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.
    Was our defense not as gassed? I couldn’t tell on that 4th down play. And with the lack of pressure all game, there is no way Nagy doesn’t try to get down the field to end the game in regulation, he knew his defense was wore out too. As we saw 31 seconds and a timeout is 1 second too long to keep them out of FG range for this defense. I don’t think us kicking an extra point changes anything. And even if the defense did hold after tying it up, they would’ve been more worn out had they gone out on the field first whereas Chicago’s defense would’ve got a little extra rest if they came out first.

    Not to mention Bolles likely would’ve killed the drive anyway. He could’ve been called for 15 holding penalties yesterday. He’s out there trying to rip guy’s nametape off the back of their jerseys.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    8,339
    Thought it was a great call. As for those that think it's a great call when it works, the missed the field goal was a "called" play that didn't work. We all would of complained if there had not been the penalty that gave us the chance to run it again. Everbody would be saying we should of went for 2 for the win and fangio has no guts and is playing too conservative.
    Last edited by Saddletramp; 09-16-2019 at 03:12 PM.
    http://i93.photobucket.com/albums/l7...amp69/asdf.jpg
    And yes it is a scheme problem.
    Adopted player Lindsey

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    AZ
    Posts
    5,921
    I was one of the ones saying no, go for tie and send it to overtime.. Then McManus missed and I was all for the Yes, another shot at the 2 point conversion... Then I loved it! Thought it was bold and liked that it showed confidence in our offense, was just nervous as it took through the fourth quarter to get our first TD ... like that both went to Sanders after the earlier interception on a throw to Sanders. I thought it showed a lot of confidence and we had that game up until the bad call on Chubb.

    Super disappointing loss yesterday, but I'm not one who is throwing in the towel already for the Broncos season. If they went for the win vs an extra point in future.... I'm all for that.

    Adopted Bronco - 2016/17 - Trevor Siemian
    Adopted Bronco - 2017/18 - Chris Harris Jr. # 25 to every player he covers
    Adopted Bronco - 2018/19 - Derek Wolfe
    Adopted Bronco - 2019/20 - Shelby Harris

Posting Permissions

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