***Official SNF PHI/NE thread***

[Billy Bibbit]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the last thing I'll mention is that conventional wisdom says to play for overtime on the road.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always thought CW said to go for the win on the road

[/ QUOTE ]

you're correct that this is what CW says, but I have never heard it backed up by statistics or even anything approaching a logical argument so I tend to file this nugget in the same bin as the chart that tells you when to go for two

[Golden_Rhino]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the last thing I'll mention is that conventional wisdom says to play for overtime on the road.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always thought CW said to go for the win on the road

[/ QUOTE ]

definitely does in baseball

why in the world would you play for OT against a team who is a big favorite against you

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm old school because I think that the longer the game is close, the worse it is for the favourite. You don't necessarily play for the tie, but you get a little more conservative.

[mrh86]

Yeah I'm retarded. CW says to go for the win on the road. I was just caught up in the worst possible scenario probably being an easy FG attempt.

[Kneel B4 Zod]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And the last thing I'll mention is that conventional wisdom says to play for overtime on the road.

[/ QUOTE ]

I always thought CW said to go for the win on the road

[/ QUOTE ]

definitely does in baseball

why in the world would you play for OT against a team who is a big favorite against you

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you got to OT with them as the underdog, and thats mentally damaging to the favorite.

[/ QUOTE ]

yes, def. more crushing than actually taking the lead

[TheNoodleMan]

[ QUOTE ]
And the last thing I'll mention is that conventional wisdom says to play for overtime on the road. Overtime would be the worst case scenario barring a missed FG if they had ran the ball.

[/ QUOTE ]
There were FOUR MINUTES on the clock. OT was not even close to guaranteed.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
i dunno, basically i agree that the blueprint notion is overrated, but i think some weaknesses were also exposed tonight

[/ QUOTE ]

that's possible, but not every team has the personnel to take advantage of them

[/ QUOTE ]

right, but the steelers do have some weapons, i dunno if this particular game plan is something they would use, but they definitely have the kind of front seven that can attack brady. dunno if their DBs are good enough to bump and run with moss and stallworth all night though.

i also don't see their o-line keeping big ben clean all night, although he is more dangerous outside the pocket than a guy like feeley.

if you asked me for my predictions, i'd say pats force him into some bad decisions, stuff the run, bring the heat up front and get a few picks. i think our defense matches up pretty well against the steelers O, actually, for the reasons already mentioned... just saying that, if they catch us on a down day like the eagles did today, the potential exists for them to really screw up our offense.

[kyro]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Ok, so if those 2 onside kicks hadnt been recovered by the eagles, and none of those trick plays worked, than I am assuming by you the score would have still been a 3 point differential?

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all, I saw one onside kick, so either I completely missed one or you saw an extra one that I didn't see. Second of all, I saw one flea flicker, and that was it. What other trick plays are you talking about?

[/ QUOTE ]

You forgot planning for McNabb instead of Feeley also. And are you saying that it wouldn't be a 3 point difference, which was my question. In close games decided by 3 points, yes 2-3 plays make a very big difference. I didn't discredit anything that the Eagles did tonite, or anything the patriots didn't do for the loss, all I said that is that Pittsburgh would have to run really well to execute the same gameplan as the eagles and come out with a victory.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for avoiding my point which shows you didn't even watch the game and are making up stuff about onside kicks and trickery.

The Eagles didn't score on the onside kick. They gained very little with their "trickery", and McNabb is a better QB than Feeley, and probably would have performed about the same, maybe a little worse if you account for game planning.

So no, I don't think all that was the only reason the Eagles kept it close. I think it's because they played as well as New England did.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah I'm retarded. CW says to go for the win on the road. I was just caught up in the worst possible scenario probably being an easy FG attempt.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? This isn't even close to the worst scenario. Weren't the Eagles on the 30 yard line? What if Westbrook loses 2 yards and then Feeley gets sacked?

[hoyasnaxa]

Eagles get destroyed if McNabb starts this game.

[Golden_Rhino]

[ QUOTE ]
Eagles get destroyed if McNabb starts this game.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the Pats prepared for him or because Feeley is better?

If it's the former, you may have a point. If it's the latter, then lol.