Unpopular Opinion: I think Reich made the right call.

[Oswlek]

The midfield argument is just semantics.

Not in this discussion. Own vs. opponent 43 generates an enormous difference in win probability.

Also, the Titans were behind in the game, 23-20. It was 4th and 15 on their own side of the field, they HAD to go for it to stay in the game.

The 4th and 4 would have been a 50 yard FG try, certainly no sure thing, certainly not just to tie the game. If it's 4th and 4 from the Eagles 20, they kick the FG.

Yeah, I was puzzled by the Vrabel comment. I figured it must have happened earlier in the game because the OT 4th down plays don't resemble Indy's decision well at all.

 

[A Defiant Goose]

Not in this discussion. Own vs. opponent 43 generates an enormous difference in win probability.

You're right and I won't argue that point

 

[BobDigital]

So i didn't see this thread and just made my own lol. That feeling when you dun messed up. : /

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

How’s this to fix the overtime/tie problem in the NFL:

The drive continues through the end of regulation, so whoever has the ball keeps it wherever they are. Next score wins the game.

OT positioning is now part of the strategy.

 

[captain stone]

That's exactly how I felt about the Pats' 4th and 2 call vs Indy. If they were going to go for it on 4th they should have run a running play on 3rd, saved their last timeout and let the clock run down to the 2 minute warning. Had they done that they would have been able to challenge the call on 4th down or it would have been done automatically. It looked like Faulk had enough for the 1st down.

As for the call by Indy yesterday, it was 4th and 4 and they had the tie in their pocket and would have stayed ahead of Houston in their division. They also didn't have Tom Brady making the play. They were relying on crappy Andrew Luck who threw, what else, a crap pass.

That's exactly how I felt about the whole 4th/2 situation at Indy in 2009. It wasn't the decision to go for the 1st down with which I had a problem; it was the play-call on 3RD DOWN that was the problem: a pass attempt to The Receiver that was nearly Pick-Sixed. In retrospect, a pick-6 there would've given us a better chance to win, because we would've then been given back the ball with over 2 minutes left in the game plus 1 time-out remaining & perhaps the 2-minute warning also.
For similar reasons was I pissed-off at the 3rd/5 & 4th/5 situation during the 2nd quarter of the super bowl.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

How’s this to fix the overtime/tie problem in the NFL:

The drive continues through the end of regulation, so whoever has the ball keeps it wherever they are. Next score wins the game.

OT positioning is now part of the strategy.

Don’t like it because many times it will result in eliminating the 2min drill, which is one of the most exciting parts of the game. Why hurry to score if you’re going to just be keeping the ball?

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

Don’t like it because many times it will result in eliminating the 2min drill, which is one of the most exciting parts of the game. Why hurry to score if you’re going to just be keeping the ball?

You only get two minutes per drive once overtime starts! Then you have to attempt a field goal from wherever you are. How’s that for exciting?

 

[brdmaverick]

I'd like to get Herm Edwards take on this.....in this situation would he stand behind his "You play to the win the game" rant?

 

[A Defiant Goose]

That's exactly how I felt about the whole 4th/2 situation at Indy in 2009. It wasn't the decision to go for the 1st down with which I had a problem; it was the play-call on 3RD DOWN that was the problem: a pass attempt to The Receiver that was nearly Pick-Sixed. In retrospect, a pick-6 there would've given us a better chance to win, because we would've then been given back the ball with over 2 minutes left in the game plus 1 time-out remaining & perhaps the 2-minute warning also.
For similar reasons was I pissed-off at the 3rd/5 & 4th/5 situation during the 2nd quarter of the super bowl.

To be fair it was a good play call because we got the first down. It's just that the referees didn't spot the ball correctly.

Still mad

 

[captain stone]

To be fair it was a good play call because we got the first down. It's just that the referees didn't spot the ball correctly.

Still mad

The route ran by Faulk should Never have been run so damn close to the wrong side of the Line to Gain, thereby allowing the zebras & their infinite wisdoms to offer their opinions of less-than-always-perfect validity. Still mad too.

 

[Ice_Ice_Brady]

That's exactly how I felt about the whole 4th/2 situation at Indy in 2009. It wasn't the decision to go for the 1st down with which I had a problem; it was the play-call on 3RD DOWN that was the problem: a pass attempt to The Receiver that was nearly Pick-Sixed. In retrospect, a pick-6 there would've given us a better chance to win, because we would've then been given back the ball with over 2 minutes left in the game plus 1 time-out remaining & perhaps the 2-minute warning also.
For similar reasons was I pissed-off at the 3rd/5 & 4th/5 situation during the 2nd quarter of the super bowl.

I have yet to hear a rational explanation for both Super Bowl 52 decisions. That second quarter was atrocious. Going for it on 4th and 5 from the 30 and then kicking a field goal on 4th and 1 at the 8. Both decisions were made against common sense reasoning.

 

[zoostation]

To be fair it was a good play call because we got the first down. It's just that the referees didn't spot the ball correctly.
Still mad

Incorrectly and yes this is true.