Yggdrasil wrote:Oh screw that whole "team player," "self-less" bullsh!t for Westbrook. If Philly had any balls, they could score the touchdown making it a 2 score game and let their defense handle things. I can't believe Westbrook did that--it was total BS. It's like playing not to lose.
My FF team is:
Gonzalez (Indy WR)
I needed all the points from all of my studs. Romo screwed me as did Indy's Dallas Clark. I'm in first in my league but I was only ahead a little more than 100 points with 2 weeks to go. Now, the lead has been shortened because of Westbrook's shenanigans and Romo's meltdown.
Um I got "screwed on this" too (Or I could have played stecker instead of portis.
I can't believe people still debate it. Its playing to win. you have virtually 100 percent chance of winning with that, versus the improbable, but still possible comeback win. I think you are dead wrong. You aren't used to seeing this--much in the same way you weren't used to someone like Bellicheck purposely taking a safety.
The team's goal is to win, and people forget that basically there are three relevant factors, scores, yards, time. Sometimes scoring is NOT to your advantage in sports, and especially football (see, neutral zone trap--hockey, four corners--basketball--edited for clarity). Sometimes, possesion is a more important advantage than a score.
I can remember several last second come backs involving bombs and onside kicks. Can't remember any fumbles from what is called the "victory formation" after all, let alone losses with a team having a first down under two minutes and another team out of time outs.
It simply made more sense in this instance, and its not really debatable. It's uncommon in the same way the "punting when you have a losing record and are behind on the scoreboard, and you are in enemy territory. People are afraid to challenge the norm. There is definitely group think going on in the NFL.
Everyone loves to compare the game to that of "chess." Well sometimes in Chess you need to sacrifice your queen in order to win. Sometimes in football, you sacrifice the score for the certainty of a "W." Remember the Baltimore'/jets game where Jamal Lewis scored, and the jets scored and almost got the ball back? Or maybe you remember the Denver/GB Super Bowl?
Or maybe the inverse of the first Eagles Saints game last year, where the eagles were clearly trying to let the saints score to get the ball back, and peyton didn't oblige, and just took knees and kicked the field goal, wasting the time? Or the Redskins letting Westbrook score on purpose the second meeting this year?
Point being is sometimes you have to sacrifice points for a tangible asset in time; and this works either way. It's simply playing smart. Playing with bluster to "let the defense handle it's business" is stupid strategically, as it LESSENS your chances of winning (don't argue, as a team can't score if it doesn't hold the ball, unless it's safety, which wouldn't be yielded here), and it also makes your defense take the field, which increases the chances of injury.
Last edited by eaglesrule on Tue Dec 18, 2007 7:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The opening scene of the movie "Saving Private Ryan" is loosely based on games of dodgeball Brian Dawkins played in second grade.