Promote your business or product on 700level.com. For
more information about advertising with us CLICK HERE!

I think they had 3 Timeouts plus the 2 minute warning, I'd have punted too.

Reid's Saints gaffe was way worse. There were UNDER 2 minutes left and the Eagles only had 2 time outs left. So even if the Saints hadn't gotten a first down the Eagles would have gotten the ball back with under a minute and no T/O's. In a fucking PLAYOFF game.

Fucking Reid. Now I'm aggravated all over again.

Thanks Talon.

I still remember Mike Quick's "good call" as soon as Reid sent out the punt team. Wanted to kick him in the head at that point

That Saints playoff game was infuriating along with some others.

Spineless to punt at that point.

Somehow I get the feeling we will see something like that again in a game this year.

This Sunday perhaps.

Maybe they realize they don't have a WR with the caliber of hands as Freddie Mitchell and know a long 4th down conversion won't be possible without him?

I'm still surprised Reid didn't try to punt on 4th-and-26.

I think they had 3 Timeouts plus the 2 minute warning, I'd have punted too.

Yes, the Vikings did have 3 timeouts and the 2 minute warning, and if you made that choice, you would have been wrong, just like nearly every coach is in that situation. This strategy just does not work. Even if you are so fortunate as to be able to stop a team that you have not been able to stop at all in the second half, you will only be getting the ball back in the same position or worse with less time on the clock and no timeouts. Is that worth getting three more downs to make a first down?

If you want to win the game, you have to be able to gain at least ten yards on one play. If you don't feel like you can do that on 4th down, you know you cannot win this game. By punting, all you are doing is hoping a whole lot of things go your way before you are inevitably faced with the same exact challenge, only now with less time and no timeouts.

Punting is the hallmark of a coward.

"you would have been wrong, just like nearly every coach is in that situation. This strategy just does not work. Even if you are so fortunate as to be able to stop a team that you have not been able to stop at all in the second half, you will only be getting the ball back in the same position or worse with less time on the clock and no timeouts. Is that worth getting three more downs to make a first down?"


I disagree. You put GB back on their own 20 yard line where anything can happen from fumble to interception. And the Metrodome is LOUD, trust me. GB is not a strong running team and you know they will likely try to make them burn their timeouts by running so they knew what was coming. What killed them was getting run right over by Starks when they knew it was coming. I can see your point but I would probably rather extend the game and let them play down closer to their goalline than try to make 10 yards at that spot on the field with a QB making his first career start. FWIW, Peter King commented on it this morning and said he agreed with the decision or didn't have a problem with it, something like that.

I agreed with what you said GGB, until you mentioned that Peter King sign off on that.

Peter King is an imbecile and I disagree with everything he says on principle

Peter King is a dumb fuck. Talon is 100% correct on this.

Punting = GUTLESS.

you're a mental midget

I don't think punting a team down to their 20 with 2.5 minutes left and all 3 timeouts left and the 2 minute warning is gutless. Letting Starks run over you when you know a run is coming is gutless.


Peter King may be a "dumbfuck", but he talks to more football people in a weekend than you two have talked to in a lifetime. Again, I see what Talon is saying, I get it, but I think it's a judgement call and close. Take another minute off the clock, give them Tom Brady back there, put them on the road, any of those things and I am probably in the Talon camp on the decision. It's not like Minnesota's defense is horrible.

Peter King may be a "dumbfuck", but he talks to more football people in a weekend than you two have talked to in a lifetime.


More like he sniffs their nuts from behind

Eh, again, I don't think it was a bad decision, but I've seen similar decisions made in not quite the same circumstances where I would agree with Talon.

What the hell happened to Flacco? He's terrible.

It doesn't surprise me that Peter King agreed with the decision. After all, conventional wisdom reigns supreme in the NFL, even if the conventional wisdom typically results in failure. Lest I remind you that bulk of the NFL considers Andy Reid to be a genius.

I understand why Frazier made that call. I also understand exactly why it was the wrong decision to make. It's a call that almost never works in favor of the punting team. You can either try to move ten yards now, or you can hope you have another chance to move ten yards later. To me, the benefit of knowing you have at least one play to make those ten yards outweighs the possibility of potentially getting three more plays to make those ten yards with less time on the clock and no timeouts, provided your defense can stop the defending champions who have been beating up on you all day long.

Knowing you have an offensive snap is better than hoping you will get another offensive snap. In other words, a bird in the hand is better than 2 in the bush.

It is really that simple.

Disagree. Good things CAN happen when the ball is 20 yards from their end zone instead of 25 from yours. I would have punted and they needed to stop the f'ing "Everyone Knew It was Coming" run. Change the circumstances just slightly though to A) On the road B) about 30 seconds less time or C) Only 2 timeouts and I would have gone for it.

They had already given up 33 points. What reasonable person gives them a chance of stopping the other offense?

Bill Belichek got reamed when he went for it on 4th and 2 in Indy at his own 20. Conventional wisdom said there that they have a better chance of stopping Peyton Manning with 2:00 at home than getting 2 yards on one down.

You can question the playcall (everyone did), but the reasoning was solid - hoping that Manning screws up at one of the best things he's good at instead of doing something for the win?

Belichek = FULL OF GUTS

"What reasonable person gives them a chance of stopping the other offense?"


Because they would, in theory be 1-dimensional trying to force Minny to burn timeouts and if they DID put the ball in the air an interception could happen. And they WERE 1-dimensional, Minnehaha just couldn't stop it.

It's not like Minnesota's defense is horrible.

I assume you've watched them fold like cheap tents in the 2nd half of games all year, plus the Jennings TD was absolutely horrible.

Coaches punt in those situations because if the defense can;t stop the other offense, the defense gets blamed.

If they go for it on 4th down and don't make it, the coach gets blamed.

Dino - mentioned that. No one blamed the NE defense when Manning had a short field - it was all Belichek.

Now if Manning got the ball and did what he always does, everyone would blame the defense (and even some would blame Belichek, saying "how do you punt to Manning when you only have 2 yards to go to keep the game out of his hands?"

I'm not saying you should NEVER punt in that situation, but you've also got nothing to lose.

BTW FD - Joke Flacco's line from last night: 21/38, 137 yards 1 TD, 1 INT. It took him 21 completions to get 137 yards. A 6.5 yard average.

That's amazingly bad.

I think this particular situation really could have gone either way. I don't thinking punting was a bad decision and I could understand if they wanted to go for it.

In favor of the punt:

- You are on your own 36.
- 4th and 10.
- Need a TD to win.
- Rookie QB in his first start just missed on 3 straight passes.
- You miss on 4th down, game over. If you punt, you have a shot at a roughing the kicker penalty, a muffed punt, a fumble on the return, or the offense fumbling while trying to run down the clock.
- Everyone in the stadium knows the Packers will be running the ball, so you can sell out.
- You have 3 timeouts meaning you'll get field position at least as good as you have right now and about 2 minutes to put together a drive.


Those are pretty solid arguments. The downside, of course, is you're giving up the ball and might not get it back.

In this particular situation, the one thing that may push me in the other direction is what you're playing for. The Vikes are the spoiler. You're 1-5, on your way to 1-6 when you make this call. What, exactly, do you have to lose by rolling the dice here and being aggressive?

There are a lot of things to take into account, but I don't think there's a right or a wrong in this particular case.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 
31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 
61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 
121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140  141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148