Minor annoyances

Just before halftime last night, the Denver Broncos made one of the single worst play calls I've ever seen. They had 2nd and 10 from the 39 with :06 seconds left (and a time out). Instead of throwing a quick pass, they ran a QB sneak for 3 yards. It set up a 54 yard field goal which ended up being short. This was horrifically stupid. They had time to gain the extra 5-10 yards they probably needed to have a makeable attempt. Instead, they plowed into the line for 3 meaningless yards. To make it worse, Jaworski and Gruden PRAISED McDaniels effusively for such a 'heady' call. IT WAS STUPID. It was bone jarringly stupid. McDaniels has his team off to an incredible start, and he should be praised for that, but in this instance, he cost his team a credible shot at a field goal. Awful coaching moment.

Alex Rodriguez's post season numbers are: .288, .378 (OB), .535 (slugging), .913 OPS with 11 HR and 26 RBIs. Over a full season that would be a 41 HR, 96 RBI season. His regular season numbers are .305, .390, .576, .965. Now there's a small dip there, which is to be expected considering the better pitchers and colder weather involved in the playoffs, but hopefully we can finally cram all this 'choker' crap. I'm no ARod fan (the roids made that impossible), but I hate it when people cherry pick a handful of games and make them mean more than they do.

Bob Kravitz set me off yesterday with this video (at the :55 second mark)

and then repeated his sentiments in his column today. He says:

As for Johnson's surprising dismissal and the reasons behind it, call me mildly cynical. Sadly, history has taught us we can't always take the Colts at their word. It was only last year that they continued to deny -- or "refuse to address" -- reports that quarterback Peyton Manning had a second knee procedure.

This bothers me because I thought Kravitz was supposed to be a 'reporter'. He doesn't take the Colts at their word about Ed Johnson. Fair enough. Do some research. Make some calls. Watch some film. PROVE THEM WRONG. Instead, Kravitz just tosses around accusations. His reasoning is that last year they wouldn't answer questions about Manning's knee. So what? That's not analysis. Here's what bothers me so much about the "there must be something more going on here" position: there's no evidence for it. We have four games worth of tape on Ed Johnson. If a serious reporter thinks there is something phony about the Colts' decision to cut Ed Johnson he has avenues the rest of us don't. He can make calls to agents, players, he can go to Ed's house and try and get a quote. Moreover, he has access to what fans have as well: the tape. Comb over the tape and illustrate what a fine job Ed Johnson did. Show that the Colts' claims don't make sense.

Even the dirty bloggers did more work on this story than Bob Kravtiz. After 'Preston's' tape review, I rewatched the Titans game and came to the same conclusion: Ed didn't play well (I'm saving my commentary on this for tomorrow night's 18 Plays). Last night Polian gave a lengthy, logical answer about Ed Johnson. It sounds sane and reasonable to me. It sounds much more reasonable than suggesting the Colts are covering some thing up (which they have zero motivation to do). Instead, Kravitz implies that Jim Caldwell is a liar, but gives precious little justification for his belief saying only:

I wondered, if Johnson was so bad, why was he still starting and getting so many snaps just two weeks ago at Tennessee? Why not demote him, as the Colts have with Tony Ugoh, or have him share time, as with Mike Pollak and Kyle DeVan?

"The feeling was it wouldn't do any good to demote him," Polian said.
Hm-m-m.

Again, Kravitz doesn't suggest who else the Colts should have cut. He doesn't contradict the logic of cutting a guy who was on his last chance with the team, but was slowly getting fat and lazy. He doesn't address the fact that a guy who is on a tight leash, but is letting his weight go becomes a serious conduct risk even before he does anything wrong. And he does nothing to prove that Johnson deserved to be playing. He just wants to imply the Colts are hiding something, but won't do the work to prove it. The insinuation that the Colts' are hiding something doesn't bother me. But for a reporter to make that claim without providing any support for it doesn't make sense to me.

Seems like a weenie move to me.

Comments (59) Add Comment

Subscribe to this comment's feed

...
written by djcolts, October 20, 2009

Yeah, but Kravitz isn't using a pseudo-name - so therefore he is automatically more credible than bloggers - even if they break down tape and he doesn't.

...
written by DZ, October 20, 2009

Oh, but you forget, I revealed my real name and was immediately granted credibility and a press pass.

That's how it works, you know.

...
written by djcolts, October 20, 2009

Ah - THAT'S how you get a press pass!

...
written by A.J., October 20, 2009

Actually, Kravitz is a columnist, not a reporter. That's why he's so shoddy on the facts: He's not expected to actually do any real reporting, but instead take what's generated by the real reporters and generate opinion pieces from them. There are some writers out there who can do excellent work via this formula, but Kravitz isn't one of them. He's of the school where "eliciting reactions" is the ultimate goal of the writer, failing to understand that throwing tomatoes at crowds also elicits reactions yet is nothing more than empty agitation. If he wrote opinion pieces that are anything less than his formula of "find something to pick at and deliberately say something outrageous about", then I wouldn't be so harsh on him, but he's proven himself to be vapidly unimaginitive.

If I were you, I'd stop paying attention to his work. The only thing that matters to the paper is whether anyone reads his stuff or not; if no one does, he becomes irrelevant.

...
written by DZ, October 20, 2009

I realize he isn't really a 'reporter', but he's made a big deal about how he has access, and he's there at the complex and that makes him accountable, whereas I am a weenie.

I relish pointing out that he's wrong, that's all.

It's a weakness, I know.

...
written by ross c, October 20, 2009

this week we see the difference between us and the rtest of the south against the rams

...
written by Guy, October 20, 2009

I disagree completely about the qb sneak play call. 6 seconds were left on the clock. You pass it and you could throw an incomplete pass making the field goal impossible, complete it and run out of time (you know how they let 1 or 2 seconds tick off after the whistle), you have nobody open and throw it away which makes the fg impossible, you get sacked and it's halftime, etc. The sneak was guaranteed to get over with before time ran out. It was also unexpected. It also got them the yards they needed. If you noticed, the field goal had the distance, not the accuracy. I don't see why you have such a big problem with this play. You act like a 10-yard quick pass is a gimme anytime you want it when in reality there are a million things that can go wrong. I think it was a good call to sneak it. Sure they could have passed it, got down, called a time out, and had a shorter kick, but that doesn't mean the call that was made was a bad one.

I know you don't ever change your mind for fear of looking wrong and therefore inferior, so you might as well not respond. I just can't see why you are so adamant about it really. I mean the announcers were talking every play up like it was a superbowl-winning touchdown so you can pretty much ignore their comments.

...
written by DZ, October 20, 2009

Interesting point, but the FG was short. Didn't Sproules almost catch it?

It comes down to percentages. What were the odds of hitting a 54 yard FG? Can't be higher than 10-15%, right? 50 yard FGs are basically a 50-50 proposition, but it's hard to find stats specifically for 54 yarders.

Even if there was only a 25% chance of completing a 5-10 yard pass in less than 5 seconds (and I think the odds of that were better than 1/4), the odds of making a FG shoot up dramatically from 54 yards to 49 or 48 yards.

I felt like the coach gave his team almost zero chance to score in a situation where a better play call would have given them solid odds of getting three points.

The announcers acted like it was a brilliant call, and it certainly was not. Even if it was defensible, which is debatable, it certainly was not brilliant.

I'll try to run down the specific stats on FG length to see if you are right, but my early searches are coming up empty.

oh, that's right, lombardi was right -- i forgot -- everything they say is true
written by kravitz, October 20, 2009

DZ Comments: I'm glad they found room for Roby. I was always rooting for him, but I didn't see how he could make it if they kept a 3rd QB. This is great news for the team and officially craps all over Mike Lombardi's retarded report. Remember that the main idea of his report was that the Colts were hiding the severity of Manning's injury and that it was far more severe than they were letting on. He may or may not have been right about a second 'procedure', but that wasn't the real point of his report. The real point was that "there is MUCH more going on here than meets the eye".

No Mike. There wasn't. You were wrong.

Phil B. actually broke the code of silence...
written by Doug England, October 20, 2009

I was stunned to read in Phil B.'s live chat a week or so ago, that he actually admitted that "if Kravitz isn't stirring the pot, he isn't doing his job". Whereas, those of us that still read the print media, have long suspected that being able to write ridiculous things to rile people up was a vital job skill for a columnist, I had never heard it actually confirmed out loud.

And what happened when Phil broke the journalistic equivalent of the mafia code of silence, he was incorrectly linked to a false trade rumor.

Kravy!
written by DZ, October 20, 2009

Mike was wrong, Bob. Very very wrong.

We covered this ad nausem. Lombardi said, "There is much more here than meets the eye" and later "This will continue to be both a short and long term worry for the Colts".

It was not a long term worry at all. Manning was fine and won the MVP award.

We said at the time that Lombardi had it right that there was a second procedure, but that he grossly overstated the seriousness of the situation. Manning played from week 1 and won the MVP award. Lombardi's 'scoop' lacked context and precision.

I stand by what I wrote 100%. Lombardi was wrong. He saw the trees and missed the forest.

By the way, it's nice to be able to search the archives and find old articles people wrote, isn't it? When will the Star post yours so that they can be freely searched? Scared of what we'll find?

By the way, Lombardi's report does nothing to prove anything you wrote today. Grab a phone and makes some calls or watch some game film. I'm glad you searched 18to88.com, but that's not exactly the kind of research I was looking for.

...
written by DZ, October 20, 2009

By the way, Bob, did you also read the rest of my quote that day:

"In a related story, Mike Florio owes the Indy Star reporting team a serious apology. They didn't make a big deal out of the story because there wasn't anything to make a big deal out of. Manning came back exactly according to plan. Might he get hurt if he gets popped in the knee in the regular season? Sure, but that could happen anyway. "

That didn't suit your needs so much did it?

Wait a second.
written by Cass, October 20, 2009

Was that really Kravitz who wrote that last comment? And can anyone interpret it for me. It doesn't make sense to me.

By the way, as long as we're nitpicking, Kravitz said we traded for Booger 4 years ago in the video. It was actually 3 years ago, in 2006. You fail.

...
written by DZ, October 20, 2009

no point in quibbling over minor details when there are major ones to argue about.

Yeah, well,
written by Cass, October 20, 2009

I'm a petty person. It's who I am. By the way, I wrote my earlier comment before seeing any of your responses DZ.

I Agree With Kravitz
written by Danno, October 20, 2009

Why dance around it? Ed Johnson probably flunked a surprise whiz quiz. If he was fat and lazy enough to cut, why did he start? "The feeling was it wouldn't have done any good to demote him." Other than letting other, supposedly more productive players play more snaps, of course.

...
written by DZ, October 20, 2009

1. Starting doesn't matter on the D-line. Robert Mathis didn't start but 2 games last year. Saying a guy is "a starter" implies something that isn't necessarily true.

2. Why would lie about it? What possible motivation would there be? If he failed a drug test, that would come out because the NFL would have to suspend him for his second violation. The team COULDN'T hide it if they wanted to. I don't see what possible reason they could have for covering it up.

I'd be happy if someone could even supply a motive for lying about it. I haven't heard one yet.

Again, he wasn't playing well. Anyone can see that.

Here's the new rule: if you want to say Ed was cut for something other than performance, fine. All I require is that you show some kind of game based evidence that he was playing well and hustling in the last two plus games.

In other words, it's fine to doubt the Colts.

Just have some kind of proof. That's all.

...
written by DemondSanders, October 20, 2009

Yep, starting is fairly irrelevant.

Cutting Johnson was an early season kind of move. You give a guy you feel has talent a chance to re-prove himself after missing a year of football. It doesn't work out. You cut him and tell him to keep working. Maybe he gets another shot down the line. Maybe he doesn't. But there's nothing sinister about it.

Thanks for the ARod non-hate
written by Bob M, October 20, 2009

I thought he had more of a post-season dip. Playing next to Jeter, I imagine anybody would seem to have a dip. (My impression having not looked at stats to back it up. Jeter may have all those post season records purely through compiling a million postseason games, but I doubt it.) Still, ARod is tainted by the roids and just by being so... plastic, by having Boras as an agent, by being the highest paid, by being... himself.

Regarding the six seconds to go issue--it would have to be a sideline pass because if caught, it's go OB or get a TD--nothing else would be a success. If the D was really sharp and allowed a catch, but kept the guy in bounds, you're screwed. I guess they had a TO, but you'd need a bit of luck to catch it in the middle, ascertain that there is or is not a chance for a TD, then hit the dirt like Marvin and signal for a TO. Two more seconds and I'd say the pass was the move. Two fewer seconds and I'd say just kick it and pray. Six seconds... I'd say it's a toss up.

mister wishy washy

...
written by Anonguy, October 20, 2009

How different is that game if Sproles catches that FG and pulls a Cromartie and runs it back? 10 point swing yo.

...
written by DZ, October 20, 2009

They didn't HAVE to run a sideline route. They can run a catch and give up with an immediate time out to the middle of the field.

A player is allowed to give himself up immediately after the catch right?

Yeah, but he has to have a good head on his shoulders
written by Bob M, October 20, 2009

and be very disciplined. Yo know all WRs delusionally think they can get a TD every time, think they are ALWAYS interfered with, etc. Reggie, I'd trust. Probably Gonzo too 'cause he's smart. And Clark. But Pierre/Austin/Joe/Donald? No idea how smart/disciplined they are, but I wouldn't risk it with them. Worst case, the guy catches it for six yards and then is stood up by the D--not brought down but unable to curl up in a ball. Half over.

I think he has to kneel down or something
written by Anonguy, October 20, 2009

I'm sure everyone remembers the TD Marvin scored on Denver where he gave himself up and no one touched him, so he got up and sprinted for the TD.

Is there a slide rule for recievers?

...
written by DZ, October 20, 2009

I believe that if a WR catches the ball and immediately drops to the ground, he can call a time out on the spot.

Would it be that hard in the huddle to say, "CATCH AND DROP! CATCH AND DROP!" To everyone?

I still think it's unusual to take a guy appointed starter status and kick him to the curb
written by Bob M, October 20, 2009

But the Chargers did it with Clinton Hart last week as well.

I can just see Mr. Hart in a night club, meeting the ladies. "What do I do, baby? Well, I am an NFL player. I am the San Diego Chargers' starting safet--wait a minute, I just got texted..... Oh hell, I guess I'm... a dance instructor. That's right, who wants to mambo?"

That actually cheered me up as I thought Hart played well against us.

(Probaby stranger for a DB since they don't usually rotate like our DL, which diminishes the importance/status of who is out there for snap #1. As noted, not only did Mathis not start most of last year, he made the freakin' pro bowl!)

...
written by DZ, October 20, 2009

I think what Polian said was telling, "Benching him wouldn't help".

This is a dude who should be busting ass 20 hours a day, and spending the other four on his knees thanking God he's got an NFL job.

If he's not properly motivated to play hard and stick to a diet after what Indy did for him, what possible good would it do to bench him?

Polian's comments indicated that cutting him WAS the motivational tactic. I hope he hits the gym and weight watchers and in a few weeks when Baskett gets cut, maybe he'll be in shape to come back. Otherwise, he clearly doesn't have the right temperament to be in the NFL. This is a dude who couldn't lay off the weed to save his job, so I would think that motivational ploys like a benching wouldn't be that effective with him.

It's way more plausible than 'the Colts are hiding something for no reason that will eventually become public anyway'.

...
written by Guy., October 21, 2009

I remember they showed the side view of the goal post and he definitely had the distance, it was just wide right. The announcers declared it short, but like I said before, you are better off muting the broadcast because they were saying ridiculous things all night long. He would have been short if they had thrown an incomplete pass, that's for sure.

I still have no problem with the play call. None whatsoever. I could see where you might have other ideas in that situation, but calling it one of the worst calls you've ever seen is a major overstatement. You can't possibly believe that. Maybe you had a little cash riding on the first half point spread for the broncos? yes?

...
written by Guy., October 21, 2009

Hey, dz, go look at the play-by-play. The play before the sneak was with :11 seconds left, it was an incomplete quick pass to the left that took 5 seconds off the clock. That was their chance. If that took 5 seconds, how long would it take to catch it, get down, and then call a time out? Longer than 6. They missed their chance so he went ahead with the sneak, a perfectly logical play to give his kicker some kind of shot since the play before it had failed. The more I think about it, it was probably the best play call they could have made... McDaniels is a pretty smart guy.

...
written by DZ, October 21, 2009

Ok, let's say you are right and it's impossible to throw a pass and get down in under 5 seconds (which I don't believe). Why run a QB sneak? Why not a normal run play? Even an extra yard or two could have made the difference. 3 yards is a lot on a sneak like that, so they maximized that particular play call and STILL didn't get the yardage they really needed. That means the call itself had little chance of resulting in a makeable field goal. That makes it a bad call.

I simply don't believe that a plow into the line was the best option for the Broncos there. I can't imagine the Colts ever trying that in just that circumstance. I could see getting a couple extra yards to take a 50 yard FG to a 47 or to center it on a shorter kick, but I felt like he gave up a chance to score.

Sproules almost caught the kick, that means it was short.

It bothered me because it was gutless and conservative in a close game. It might have made sense in Denver, but not at sea level. I thought it was a bad call at the time, but when the announcers started to praise it, it annoyed me.

In the end, to prove my point, I'd need data I don't have, which is frustrating. I'd need to see how much more likely a 54 yard FG is than a 57, and what the odds are for a 49 or 51 yard FG.

...
written by J.C., October 21, 2009

DZ, stop being such a broad.

What Guy says is right - a sneak guarantees you an opportunity to kick, what you suggest guarantees s**t.

AND.....before you suggest an alternative to a 'gutless call' make sure you know for certain that a receiver can 'give himself up'. I think he has to be touched down unless it's a QB or in his own endzone.

I'm not sure, but neither are you.

Stop being ridiculous.

...
written by J.C., October 21, 2009

And it keeps the ball off a hash.

...
written by DemondSanders, October 21, 2009

Damn you, DZ. You broad!

...
written by DZ, October 21, 2009

JC,

First off, there is a give up rule:

"Article 1 An official shall declare dead ball and the down ended:
(a) when a runner is out of bounds or declares himself down by falling to the ground
and makes no effort to advance."

2. How much did their odds improve of getting 3 points by taking a 54 over a 57 yard attempt? My contention is that they improved their odds of scoring only slightly. A fairly simple toss and kneel could have generated more yardage and even if it failed, they still would have had either a 57 yard attempt or a hail Mary. What I can't prove is their chances of hitting a 54 yard kick. I don't think they were that great, but I could be wrong.

...
written by J.C., October 21, 2009

Stopping, dropping and rolling to declare yourself down would take longer than 6 seconds, in my worthless opinion.

Maybe not. I don't know.....I just felt like arguing.

But it wasn't gutless.

And a handoff to a tailback takes a few seconds to develop, and there's always the chance you get stuck for a loss.

I liked the sneak call. He took it right outta Fat Charlie's playbook.

...
written by DZ, October 21, 2009

I've seen the play before. It's a catch and Kneel. It doesn't have to be a roll.

In the end, there isn't much of a debate without the numbers to back it up. I probably shouldn't have brought it up without the data to support my conclusion.

...
written by Guy., October 21, 2009

You don't need any data, DZ. The kick had the distance. I remember it clearly. In fact, sproles jumped for the ball and then decided to let it go for fear of being called for "goal tending" or whatever the NFL equivalent is. I think gruden or somebody pointed that out. But the side view of the goal post showed the ball would have cleared the crossbar. The point remains that the sneak did in fact give them a makeable field goal. The play before the sneak was their shot at doing what you said they should have done, but it failed. At that point, take the 3 yards and have a SHOT at it. Not a good chance, but a chance regardless. You don't need data to see that the sneak was a good call. And a simple handoff would be predictable, longer-developing, and has less chance of gaining 3 yards than the sneak did. Josh McDaniels is an offensive-minded coach of an NFL team, and he is 6-0 in his first season. I think maybe he knows something about calling plays. The hashmark point is a good one. Sneak the ball, get it in the middle of the field, and just hope for three points. It was all they could ask for after the 1st down pass fell incomplete.

...
written by DZ, October 21, 2009

1. I've spent about 20 mintutes trying to find footage of the kick. You remember it wrong...it was short. Sproules caught it out of bounds, but it was short. Let me know if you can find footage of it...I'm still looking.

2. The field goal was barely makeable. The odds of making it were small...and that played out.

3. The odds of making a throw or other run and hitting the FG were better than those of hitting a 54 yard FG. I can't prove that obviously, which is the whole point.

Josh McDaniels may be an offensive minded coach, but he made the wrong call here. I certainly don't subscribe to the theory that just because he's a coach must mean he did the right thing. That's not even a credible argument.

Barring either video evidence or some good statistical data, I don't think this is resolvable. We remember the play very differently. I'll let you know if I can find a clip of it.

...
written by Guy., October 21, 2009

To sum up your last post, you can't find footage of the kick, and I am remembering it incorrectly. Brilliant, DZ.

The play-by-play says he missed wide right. I guess that's all we can go on, unless you insist that your memory is superior to mine. That would be a new low for you, brother.

...
written by DZ, October 21, 2009

It was wide right. It was also short. Sproules fielded it about a yard or so out of bounds wide of the posts.

I have no idea how good your memory is. I do know the kick died off to the right as it flew and would probably have been good from a slightly shorter distance.

Too bad the coach never gave them a real chance to hit it.

...
written by DZ, October 21, 2009

I've already stated that I can't prove my point. I'm not sure what else you want me to say.

You certainly haven't said anything to prove yours, but I admitted the burden of proof is on me, and I couldn't meet it statistically, and I'm not going to download an entire game just re-watch that one play.

In the end, we are left with you saying it was a makeable field goal and me saying, "No, not really". That makes for a boring argument.

...
written by DZ, October 21, 2009

Oh, by the way... I did find this:

# 3-10- (Eight seconds) (Shotgun) 18-P.Manning pass deep left to 44-D.Clark ran ob at MIA 30 for 20 yards.

# 1-10-MIA 30 (:02) 4-A.Vinatieri 48 yard field goal is GOOD, Center-48-J.Snow, Holder-1-P.McAfee.

Apparently it took the Colts just 6 seconds to run a 20 yard play against Miami. There was certainly time then to run 5-10 yard play for Denver in 5 seconds.

...
written by Guy., October 21, 2009

What I would like you to admit is that you may be wrong that it was short. As I remember it, it was long enough. I remember specifically thinking to myself that he had the distance. I was rooting for the Broncos, so I had my eye on it. You telling me that your memory is better without having proof is pissing me off. Find the video and we can continue discussion. Otherwise, this is just pointless.

But when you really think about it... who cares if he WAS short? 54 is not an unthinkable distance for an NFL kicker. Kickers make that all the time. One short kick does not make 54 an unmakeable distance. So I'm not sure how you think that makes any difference.

...
written by DZ, October 22, 2009

Also in the 2006 NE game, it took the Colts 7 seconds to run a 32 yard pass play to Fletcher that started at the 2:08 mark and he went OB at 2:01.

5 seconds is a long time in the NFL.

...
written by Guy., October 22, 2009

As for your find with the Colts running the successful play: who cares? Just proving that it's possible doesn't mean the call on the field was incorrect. I've already admitted that they COULD have tried the pass. But, like I said twice, they tried that already on first down. It didn't work, so they just wanted a few yards. It wasn't a BAD call. Not even close.

...
written by Guy., October 22, 2009

If you can give me a link to download the game, I will do it. I just can't find one.

...
written by DZ, October 22, 2009

It was a bad call if the odds of the pass play + the shorter FG were greater than the odds of just a 54 Yard FG.

That's what I can't prove.

IF the numbers were against it, then it was a bad call.

...
written by DZ, October 22, 2009

I admire your dedication.

http://leech.tenyardtorrents.com/

sign up for a free account and you can bit torrent the game.

It's a great site in general

...
written by DZ, October 22, 2009

I will say this about arguing with you, Guy. You don't wuss out. I applaud you for that.

...
written by J.C., October 22, 2009

I think if you polled 100 NFL Fans about what distance is more manageable, an overwhelming majority would vote for 54 as manageable whereas 57 would poll much lower.

If the pass is incomplete then the kick is definitely short.

If he picks up a few yards (Brady gets 5-7 on that play sometimes) it's a manageable kick.

...
written by J.C., October 22, 2009

And this is classic DZ overreaction.

Gutless, stupid, whatever else he called it. Worst decision ever.

C'mon. It's a play before the half that didn't work. Another yard to the right and you can't say s**t.

...
written by Guy., October 22, 2009

Awesome! I've been looking for a site like that for Colts games. Can't believe that didn't come up via search. Anyway, I am getting the first half of the game, I will cut out the field goal so it is a smaller file and see if I can post it somewhere or send it to you directly. Shouldn't be too long.

...
written by DZ, October 22, 2009

That's my point though...he needed 5-7 yards and he got three. Three is fine if it is enough, which I don't think it normally would be.

There was plenty of time to get more than three yards. I objected to the profuse praise the coach got because he essentially took the safest, most gutless route and I felt like it cost the team.

Worst decision ever? Meh, probably not. Wrong? Probably.

Gutless? Without question. It was the safest possible call. Too safe.

RE: guy...yeah TYT is an incredible site. I'm going to bed...get it to me and I'll embedded it tomorrow.

...
written by Guy, October 22, 2009

You're going to do a hell of a lot of squirming when you see the kick was long enough.

...
written by Guy, October 22, 2009

Original Video - More videos at TinyPic

...
written by Guy, October 22, 2009

ok that didn't work. try this link: http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=21c80sl&s=4

let's hope the NFL doesn't pull this from the website any time soon.

...
written by Guy, October 22, 2009

Not only was the kick long enough, it was cromartie who almost caught it, not sproles. Vegetables are good for your memory, DZ. Try some.

...
written by DZ, October 22, 2009

Interesting. I don't think that helps you much.

1. I'm not sure it was long enough. The angle you froze it at isn't along the back side line. If you note, the point where the ball was froze it was in front of the goal line. If it was long enough, it wasn't by much. Prater clearly needed a couple more yards.

2. You certainly can see why I said it was short. Tirico declared it short twice. It's not like I freeze framed it at the time of the game to check how short it was.

3. That kick is good from 50 yards. No good from 54. Sort of proves my point.

Thanks for doing the work. I'll post it and let others comment

...
written by Guy, October 22, 2009

Angle, my ass. That is irrefutable evidence that the kick was long ENOUGH to be good. If it was a foot to the left, it was 3 points. The small margin he missed it makes the angle a moot point. You really are a piece of work. Proves HIS point, he says! LOL.

...
written by DZ, October 22, 2009

Oh, I'm a piece of work?

We've had three debates:

1. the first you proved yourself wrong
2. The second was a kind of split decision where plenty of people backed us both
3. This one you claim I had Alzheimers because I claimed a kick was short when the announcer who was there claimed it was short twice.

Do you deny that kick would have been good from 50 yards?

If so, don't you think that means the coach should have tried to get a couple more yards to give it a better chance?

Even if that kick was long enough, which it might have been (I'm not saying it wasn't, just that it was hard to tell from that angle), it was clearly right on the border of Prater's range.

McDaniels screwed up. He needed to gain 5-7 yards. He gained 3 with a gutless play call. It wasn't enough. The video shows that. The field goal was on line until the end when it ran out of gas.