Ron just staked his career (and potentially the season) on that playcall

[Cpt slay a ho]

You Take your chance in ot versus a 3-6 football team without its best WR and Rb. No reason to go for that conversion, stupid stupid coaching 

[ras977]

6 minutes ago, KillerKat said:

Its about being smart. Even if we make it, Detroit has all 3 TOs and plenty of time against our soft D to get Prater into FG range to kick the game winning FG. It just didn't make sense all around to go for 2.

Yes it does when your kicker is fugedp-up .

[Mage]

Just now, PhillyB said:

i'm not complaining about rivera having balls, i'm complaining about him choosing a poor time to be ballsy.

riverboat ron was borne of mathematical analysis of risk/reward and built on the reward being higher than a risk that was far smaller than popularly viewed. the crux of the criticism here is a complete failure to understand the risk, which was far, far greater than a laughably small reward. in the situation that point was nearly meaningless.

How was it nearly meaningless or the reward small?  Lions had to get into FG range in about 1 minute.  How is going for 2 to win the game in regulation giving us worse odds to win than taking our hopes that the Lions wouldn't have back-to-back chances to win the game (1 min left in regulation then the chances of getting the ball first in overtime)?  Especially in a game where our kicker can't kick.

It made all the sense to go for it.  You win the game if they score in 1 minute.  You don't win the game if they don't score in 1 minute and potentially give them another chance to score first in OT.  Where is the mathematical analysis that says playing for overtime gave us the better chance than scoring from 2 yards out?

[1919Eternal]

4 minutes ago, mbarbour21 said:

Sorry, don’t agree on this one. We got beat all day, no reason to think we were gonna stop them. It wasn’t Gano he didn’t trust. He didn’t trust the defense. If they would have kicked the XP and defense didn’t hold......then everyone would be saying Rivera is too soft. He should have went for it. Hindsight is 20/20. 

Why?  We would have had a 1 point lead, you lose either way if the defense doesn't hold.  We guaranteed the loss by missing on the 2 point conversion. 

[LA_Panther]

It was absolutely right to go for it. I don’t know about the play call though. We could have had some misdirection and McAffrey getting free somewhere.

 

But still, at the end of the day the players need to execute. Wright was wide open 

If you wanna talk about Gano’s confidence in this game, he showed it right after this disaster with one of the worst Onside kicks I’ve ever seen. 

Have not been high on Rivera this year, but the players are not doing him any favors. 

[KillerKat]

4 minutes ago, Mage said:

Dude, just stop.  It ain't about being smart.  It's about confirmation bias, which 50% of this site is guilty of doing.  

And lets say your theory was the likely scenario.  How in the hell does that make going for 2 bad then?  Worst case scenario, they kick the FG to win the game as you suggest.  Best case scenario, they don't kick the FG to win the game and we win.  But in your scenario that we don't go for 2, it goes into overtime and they get another chance to get the ball and drive on us.  So please, please tell me how if the Lions were guaranteed to score, how going for 2 was a bad decision?  Your argument makes no sense.

You guys are just being hypocritical.  You want Rivera to be aggressive until it doesn't work, at which point you will bash him.  Then as soon as he's conservative, it's "what happened to Riverboat Ron?"  Hell most of ya'll were criticizing him during the Eagles game for not going for it on 4th and 2 on our side of the field.  But now it's about "being smart"?  Right.

Just admit you guys don't want Rivera as head coach and that it had nothing to do with the play-call.  Because if the Lions were guaranteed to score, I don't know how you could possibly think going for 2 wasn't the smart play-call.  

It is about being smart. Didn't bother reading past that first sentence because it really is about being smart. Detroit still had 3 TOs and our D sucks. You don't go for 2 in that situation. If you don't see that the situation should dictate going for 2 or not instead of going for 2 regardless, I don't know what to say to you.

[Shaqil915]

It isn’t even about this single play call or game. The simple fact that he keeps one of our best playmakers in Samuel on the bench for a guy who drops a pass every fuging game should be more then enough to tell you Ron  Rivera is dogshit

[Shocker]

Honestly GO SAINTS.  Divison is probably gone now...gotta get that WC.

[ras977]

1 minute ago, KillerKat said:

It is about being smart. Didn't bother reading past that because it really is about being smart. Detroit still had 3 TOs and our D sucks. You don't go for 2 in that situation. If you don't see that the situation should dictate going for 2 or not instead of going for 2 regardless, I don't know what to say to you.

What I'll say to you " Gano sucked" today--Rivera had to go for 2.

[beastson]

Honestly 2pt or tie game, detroit would have marched right down the field and kicked a FG to win

It shouldn't have come to this bullshit. This is after we got our asses beat badly by Pitts, we come out and lose to a bad team. Please let Ron walk if this team doesn't go to the NFCCG. Yup anything below that is a failure

[mbarbour21]

4 minutes ago, jopie87 said:

If they would have converted and the defense doesnt hold, you still lose. You gain nothing by going for it.

My bad, I wasn’t clear. I was talking about in overtime. Just skipped the last minute of play. Lol!

[Doc Holiday]

24 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

IMO it should cost him what it costs this game and our attempt at a playoff run.

This was the easiest game remaining on our schedule and he chose the least logical time to pull his balls out.

 

I don’t think he pulled his balls out on that play, Gano for whatever reason has been terrible all day. 

Why kick it again at the point? The one kick he did make he also almost missed.

this is our worst loss this year because we had no business losing this game.

[Mage]

11 minutes ago, PhillyB said:

yep, it's literally a bet you win off being able to stop the lions in four-down situations with two time outs and most of the two minute warning and betting the entire game to do it.

But how does that not make going for it a better decision?!  Again, if your argument is that the likelihood on stopping the Lions from getting the FG is at best 50/50, how does that make going for it a bad call?  It makes no sense.  Again:

If we convert the 2pt: Lions get a FG, we lose.

If we kick the XP: Lions get the FG, we lose.

If we convert the 2pt: Lions don't get the FG, we win.

If we kick the XP: Lions don't get the FG, we go to overtime. Lions potentially get the ball first, while we either need to hope our struggling kicker makes it or we score a TD.

So how does kicking the XP give us a better chance?

[PhillyB]

7 minutes ago, pantherphan96 said:

you are playing in a hostile environment, i dont care if your opponent has 10 wins or 3 wins, you dont play for OT, you play for the win.

like our defense is magically going to become competent because we managed to scrape another quarter of game time? 

i would completely agree with you if there was ten seconds left in the game. there wasn't. the lions had loads of time to go no-huddle and play for four downs and a long field goal in a dome with matt fuging prater.

imo the call is absolutely indefensible given the risk/reward analysis and i've yet to see anyone defend ron's analysis of the reward.