|
|
|
|
#1
10-17-2004, 07:44 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Mysterious Endings
Well, I'm partial to conspiracy theories, and I'm only posting this because I was actually on the right side of 2-3 of these games.
Had the Steelers and the Wisconsin Badgers on the money line. Who watched the end of those two games? All Purdue or Dallas had to do was bust it up the gut and they would have either salted the game away, or taken an awful lot of time off the clock. If you had Dallas or Purdue, or God forbid, both of those teams this weekend, time to take a break. The other game I was on the wrong side of--- Have you ever seen a team try harder to prevent a backdoor cover then the NE Patriots? Three timeouts on defense and four chances from inside the 2? cmon. I guess you can't win them all. 
|
|
#2
10-17-2004, 07:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mysterious Endings..seattle/pats???
[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/club.gif[/img] i had seattle, but it seems to me that it was a matter of pride for the pats to win by more than a field goal...
that's part of the equation gl [img]/images/graemlins/shocked.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/spade.gif[/img]
|
|
#3
10-17-2004, 08:15 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mysterious Endings
Defenses usually take pride in situations like that. What makes no sense is how Seattle played the end. Why risk injury when it doesn't matter? If I were a player thrown out there to play, I would take plays off. There is no way I'm jeopardizing my career for some BS.
-Michael
|
|
#7
10-18-2004, 05:41 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sounds like my Vikings viewing conversation
What about the Jags/KC game? Line was Jags +2.5, and the score is Jags 14 Chiefs 10. The Chiefs score a touchdown but MISS THE PAT to keep the Jags covering. Then KC drives in the last five minutes or so, sets up for a 42 yard FG, and misses that! Then the Jags score a touchdown with about a minute left to go up 20-16 and decide to go for two.
What a rollercoaster. I was even stuck following it on ESPN.com, madly mashing the refresh button and yelling at the computer. If anyone can explain why they went for two when just kicking it would beat a FG, but going for two couldn't beat a touchdown, please do.
|
|
#8
10-18-2004, 06:10 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sounds like my Vikings viewing conversation
They were up by 4 so they already beat a FG.
A TD equals 6. You have to make the extra point to total 7. Tynes had already missed an extra point. Even if he hadn't, in the last minute of the game, there is no reason not to go for 2 when up by 4. It will almost never help, but will help once in a million years and will never hurt. -Michael
|
|
#9
10-18-2004, 09:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Sounds like my Vikings viewing conversation
This is generally correct.
a 5-point lead is mostly useless here. A 6-point lead COULD conceiveably make a difference. However, with that much time left it's possible to get the ball back and kick a FG for an 8-point lead....which is better than a 7-point obviously. If you are up by 8 surrender a TD you still have a chance to prevent OT by denying the 2-point conversion. but the general thinking is that going for 2 is called for here. All coaches have a chart somewhere on their clip-board of when it is recommended to go for 2. Basically it just says stuff like: trail by 2 - go for 2 trail by 3 - kick trail by 4 - kick trail by 5 - go for 2 lead by 2 - kick extra-point lead by 3 - kick extra-point lead by 4 - go for 2 in closing minutes lead by 5 - go for 2 lead by 6 - kick and so on. Obviously they can choose to go against the recommendations on the chart, but they keep it handy just so they know what is generally considered to be the higher EV play.
|
|
#10
10-18-2004, 06:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mysterious Endings
rough week, rough endings indeed. I had both Dallas and KC, and had predicted Seattle covering to a few friends as well.
Definately an exciting week. In my ten years of active football betting, I've never had three games all come down to the final play on the same day (and lose all three, of course).
|
 |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
