Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

Opinions: Was the last FG a wise call?


Jmac

Recommended Posts

Up by 8 with under two minutes left. When I saw the replay of the kick and how close they came to blocking it (timing is everything), held my breath a bit. Why not go for it and run some more seconds off the clock? Defense was playing well and we had the running game working.  Was that a wise call? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Up by 8 with under two minutes left. When I saw the replay of the kick and how close they came to blocking it (timing is everything), held my breath a bit. Why not go for it and run some more seconds off the clock? Defense was playing well and we had the running game working.  Was that a wise call? 

 

So here are choices and possible outcomes:

1. Don't kick and give them back the ball where they can attempt a pass for a miracle, game-tying TD.

2. Attempt the FG where they attempt to block it for a miracle, game-tying TD.

3. Kick the FG and *make* it and be up by 2 scores, icing the game with only seconds left.

Considering the above, which do YOU think is the smarter move?  I really don't see how anyone can not understand this. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


  • PMH4OWPW7JD2TDGWZKTOYL2T3E.jpg

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Too late to edit above but the quote is from this Diane Russini article in the Athletic: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/5941684/2024/11/23/russinis-what-im-hearing-the-day-the-jets-fell-apart-and-the-broncos-rallied-belichick-best-fits/ Okay.. there you have sorry I left that out the first post.  Also waivers keep the contract intact. That is the major difference in released and waived. It's all in that link from the other post.
    • Okay so I am reading something in The Athletic and it says that Jones had to pass through waivers. So I don't know. I looked this stuff up when we were number one there all offseason and I thought it said 4 years in the league got you vested, as they call it.  Vested gets you out of waivers as I understood it. I probably got something wrong, but when I think about the slack quality of journalism these days I wonder about that. So I went and looked, again. Well, well.  For everyone: "When a player has accrued at least four seasons in the NFL, they are considered a vested veteran. When these vested veterans get cut, they are released and their contract is terminated. When a vested veteran is released, they are an unrestricted free agent that can sign with any NFL team, and the team that released them doesn’t need to provide any additional compensation." It runs it all down here, where the quotes came from: https://www.profootballnetwork.com/waived-vs-released-nfl/ As far as Jones, the team turned down his 5th year option so I knew that meant he had 4 years in, because they re-signed him anyway, after turning down the much cheaper extra year.  The Athletic is owned by the New York Times so I shouldn't be surprised. That paper was an institution once upon a time but they let their standards go.
    • Well, we got our answer on Army today.
×
×
  • Create New...