3. HINDSIGHT -
4. REALITY -- If Daniels stays on and maybe they score a TD and a FG (what the Bucs needed) there are probably still questions for the HC, especially if the opponents score again. If the. Bucs score a TD (just like they did the drive before) and recover an onside kick and, maybe kick a long FG (with a great long kick kicker) and then win in overtime . . the team and HC are CELEBRATED for the "never say die attitude!"
Your point (FIRE) rest on the belief that the outcome is a foregone conclusion BECAUSE IT WAS IN THIS GAME. . thats HINDSIGHT. . . because its not a foregone conclusion with 1:48 to go down two scores and a big stop.
TO PROVE THAT POINT: Can you imagine the Bucs going out and taking a knee 4 times with 1:48 left? Thats the equivalent of pulling starters. It only because of the way it played out that you can say it was a mistake to keep playing. If the Bucs are playing still with 1:48 down two cores they are not doing it with backups
Well I watched Bowles not call a time out in Detroit when we were only down one score so you'll have to excuse me if I roll my eyes at the "never quit" mentality
Any coach leaving in VETERAN players in a blowout is running the risk of criticism when they get hurt.
We already lost Evans in the game... That alone should give you pause to leave Baker and Godwin et al in...
There's nothing to gain... The defense couldn't stop anything. The game was over and it wasn't even a conference game.
Godwin is a veteran... Padding his stats and playing for an onside kick was moronic... Ravens put their fucking backups in and we didn't.
I repeat, RAVENS put their backups in.
3. HINDSIGHT -
4. REALITY -- If Daniels stays on and maybe they score a TD and a FG (what the Bucs needed) there are probably still questions for the HC, especially if the opponents score again. If the. Bucs score a TD (just like they did the drive before) and recover an onside kick and, maybe kick a long FG (with a great long kick kicker) and then win in overtime . . the team and HC are CELEBRATED for the "never say die attitude!"
Your point (FIRE) rest on the belief that the outcome is a foregone conclusion BECAUSE IT WAS IN THIS GAME. . thats HINDSIGHT. . . because its not a foregone conclusion with 1:48 to go down two scores and a big stop.
TO PROVE THAT POINT: Can you imagine the Bucs going out and taking a knee 4 times with 1:48 left? Thats the equivalent of pulling starters. It only because of the way it played out that you can say it was a mistake to keep playing. If the Bucs are playing still with 1:48 down two cores they are not doing it with backups
Well I watched Bowles not call a time out in Detroit when we were only down one score so you'll have to excuse me if I roll my eyes at the "never quit" mentality
i wasnt saying he has that. I was saying that that would be the narrative, just as rolling the eyes would be the narrative for some if they knelt 4 times lol
but Fire, do you agree that your position is that basically the game as over, right? So in that scenario no problem with kneeling?
Any coach leaving in VETERAN players in a blowout is running the risk of criticism when they get hurt.
We already lost Evans in the game... That alone should give you pause to leave Baker and Godwin et al in...
There's nothing to gain... The defense couldn't stop anything. The game was over and it wasn't even a conference game.
Godwin is a veteran... Padding his stats and playing for an onside kick was moronic... Ravens put their fucking backups in and we didn't.
I repeat, RAVENS put their backups in.
so, just to repeat i get where you are coming from I just disagree for the reasons I laid out some of which you touch on
"There's nothing to gain" -- a win
"The defense couldn't stop anything" - and yet they DID, they got a punt
"in a blowout" - down a TD and FG in the 4th is not a blow out. Thats the disconnect. It WAS a blowout but we cored three time sin the 4th
"risk of criticism" - no matter which way it turns out. If they kneel down 4 times .. . you're "rolling your wyes" lol
"the game was over" - no it was not?
AND THIS IS THE ONE THAT SHOWS A LITTLE CRACK . .
"padding his stats" -- not sure you typed that with a straight face
Anyway, the POINT is that you guys see it as BLACK and WHITE. Its definitely NOT black/white at 1:48, but reasonable minds can differ.
So, DH you might not mean it this way BUT when you post something like this:
Clearly, Todd does no wrong in your eyes here (if ever).
its what people call "attacking the messenger**" and logically speaking its a surrender.
I am not even saying I am right. I am just saying that I don't agree WITH FIRE (or that this situation is identical to the Commanders injury) and, importantly, I providing the actual reasons. YOU might DISAGREE with my take, but if you do the disagreement would be MORE like this:
It was nearly mathematically/statistically impossible for the Bucs to win.
I agree that statistically its unlikely and it may be in single digits BUT teams keep playing when there is a a chance.
So, are you saying you would've applauded Bowles for four kneel downs at 1:48?
Can you name another game where the behind NFL team did that only down two scores?
Jags have Lawrence at QB and we have Baker.
So I agree with your point BUT wouldnt that mean that when we do not have MVP Baker (ie hes injured and not playing like himself) that our low offensive production is JUST AS LIKELY tied to Baker's diminished play and not the play calling?
Logically speaking, that is the other side of the coin you thre on the table, right?
In the Jags game agains the Raiders, the Jags cant score a TD until the 4th quarter and had to score with a record-setting 68 yard field goal. I think Coen would say some of that was on Lawrence because he was reportedly SICK before the game.
if you can acknowledge that some of our offensive woes tie to NOT having MVP Baker the last two games, then it cant be a stretch to say a difference this season is the O-line injuries. if we look at it like Occom's razor . .
Can you name another game where the behind NFL team did that only down two scores?
Fire, i would ask this same question to you or any of the others that blame Bowles for Godwin's injury because the FOUNDATION of that argument is that the game is over. If itsover at 1;48 down two scores then it would be coming for the behind team to shut it down. My guess is that that almost NEVER happens
Any coach leaving in VETERAN players in a blowout is running the risk of criticism when they get hurt.
We already lost Evans in the game... That alone should give you pause to leave Baker and Godwin et al in...
There's nothing to gain... The defense couldn't stop anything. The game was over and it wasn't even a conference game.
Godwin is a veteran... Padding his stats and playing for an onside kick was moronic... Ravens put their fucking backups in and we didn't.
I repeat, RAVENS put their backups in.
The Ravens must have had the benefit of hindsight in-game. Pretty cool. That, or they understood what 99.8 win probability means.
Asinine arguments like this are why I don’t get sucked in the black hole that is DUI boy. The leghumper is only worth mocking. Your patience is impressive.
Any coach leaving in VETERAN players in a blowout is running the risk of criticism when they get hurt.
We already lost Evans in the game... That alone should give you pause to leave Baker and Godwin et al in...
There's nothing to gain... The defense couldn't stop anything. The game was over and it wasn't even a conference game.
Godwin is a veteran... Padding his stats and playing for an onside kick was moronic... Ravens put their fucking backups in and we didn't.
I repeat, RAVENS put their backups in.
The Ravens must have had the benefit of hindsight in-game. Pretty cool. That, or they understood what 99.8 win probability means.
Asinine arguments like this are why I don’t get sucked in the black hole that is DUI boy. The leghumper is only worth mocking. Your patience is impressive.
roflmao
"they understood what 99.8 win probability means."
All context is lost in this argument. I don’t think you blame a coach for leaving a player in the game you’re trying to win (even against the odds) who obviously WANTS to play.
Otherwise, why play? Didnwe do that with Mike Evans this season? Is anyone blaming Bowles for the 4 come from behind victories this year, one in which Evans got hurt flying to make a legit run to help his team win - while chasing a legit chance to make history?
Some very good, typically well prepared, posters are arguing some very odd positions.
roflmao
"they understood what 99.8 win probability means."
the GENIUS Sean McVay talking about thought process after a Monday night loss
"When Stafford hit Atwell for a touchdown with 1:03 to play, the Rams kicked an extra point. This meant that they would need an onside kick recovery plus touchdown to win, versus an onside kick recovery plus field goal to tie. If they were successful on a two-point conversion, they would need an onside kick recovery plus only the field goal to win.
McVay said he did not consider going for the two-point conversion, indicating that he was playing for the tie: “We still needed another possession. It was something (where) we felt like, ‘well, let’s give ourselves a chance, if we do recover the onside kick — because we only have one timeout left in that situation, the field goal is what would have sent it into overtime. You make it a touchdown game if you don’t end up converting.”
"let give ourselves a chance"
I don’t think you blame a coach for leaving a player in the game you’re trying to win (even against the odds) who obviously WANTS to play.
EXACTLY
roflmao
"they understood what 99.8 win probability means."
the GENIUS Sean McVay talking about thought process after a Monday night loss
"When Stafford hit Atwell for a touchdown with 1:03 to play, the Rams kicked an extra point. This meant that they would need an onside kick recovery plus touchdown to win, versus an onside kick recovery plus field goal to tie. If they were successful on a two-point conversion, they would need an onside kick recovery plus only the field goal to win.
McVay said he did not consider going for the two-point conversion, indicating that he was playing for the tie: “We still needed another possession. It was something (where) we felt like, ‘well, let’s give ourselves a chance, if we do recover the onside kick — because we only have one timeout left in that situation, the field goal is what would have sent it into overtime. You make it a touchdown game if you don’t end up converting.”
"let give ourselves a chance"
That, or they understood what 99.8 win probability means.
That, or they understood what 99.8 win probability means
another well thought of coach.
"Speaking separately to reporters Wednesday, O'Connell said he made a "football decision" to keep Wentz in, supported by the team's medical staff. Despite a 21-point deficit that grew to 24 points midway through the quarter, O'Connell said he believed the team still had a chance to win -- and that he had an "obligation" to allow a veteran like Wentz to continue if he wanted.
According to Elias Sports Bureau research, only one NFL team since 1950 has come back from a 24-point deficit or greater in the fourth quarter. That happened for the 1987 St. Louis Cardinals, who overcame a 28-3 fourth-quarter deficit to beat the Tampa Bay Buccaneers 31-28.
"The way we operate, where we believe we're out of reach might be a little different than how folks watching the game might believe it to be," O'Connell said. "And we've had some games where, thank goodness, we had that mindset. We found a way to win some of those, and that's just the belief that the guys have, and when you've got a guy like that that's committed to play through something, as long as the medical staff doesn't give me any new information to that, that's kind of how that took place."
All context is lost in this argument. I don’t think you blame a coach for leaving a player in the game you’re trying to win (even against the odds) who obviously WANTS to play.
So you don’t believe Quinn holds any responsibility for Daniels’ injury? The context is both players were injured playing in games that were not winnable.
Sometimes the HC has to be the HC and protect his players that were already battling injury and/or returning from injury.
Otherwise, why play? Didnwe do that with Mike Evans this season? Is anyone blaming Bowles for the 4 come from behind victories this year, one in which Evans got hurt flying to make a legit run to help his team win - while chasing a legit chance to make history?
How many of those games were at 99.8% win probability at the time of injury? Again, that’s the context. Not that simply a player got injured while playing.