Now THAT’S How You Win A Football Game
Jan 5
Did anyone else here see the Falcons-Cardinals playoff game on Saturday? The end of that game had me smiling from ear to ear.
The Cardinals went up by 13, 30-17, by recording a safety with 12:37 left in the game. Atlanta winds up getting the ball back with 7:51 remaining, down by the same score. After a nice drive, the Falcons score to get to within 6 points, 30-24, with 4:15 remaining. On the ensuing kickoff, the Cardinals get the ball out to their own 20, equivalent to a touchback, and 4:10 left on the clock, and Atlanta with all three of their timeouts.
Now, conventional coaching wisdom here says that you run the ball three times, eat as much clock as possible, punt the ball away, and leave it to your defense to save the day. And that’s what the overwhelming majority of coaches would do in that situation. But that’s not what Cardinals coach Ken Wisenhunt did. He started by calling a pass play, and not even a high-percentage one: it was a 20 yard completion over the middle from Warner to Fitzgerald. That first down took almost a minute off the clock, taking it down to 3:25. Next play, a handoff, which went for no gain (of course) because the Falcons were stacking against the run. Timeout Atlanta, 3:10 on the clock, now 2nd-and-10. Next play? A 25-yard completion down the left side from Warner to Breaston. 1st-and-10, the clock goes all the way down to 2:29, and the Cardinals are only about 10 yards out of field goal range.
Run up the middle on first down gets stuffed (of course), and the Falcons take their second timeout (of course), 2nd-and-8 with 2:21 left. Now, the only mystifying call of the series: the Cardinals try an end-around which gets stuffed for an eight yard loss, and Atlanta takes their final timeout, 3rd-and-16 at the Atlanta 46 with 2:17 left on the clock, and the Falcons have no timeouts left.
Once again, the conventional wisdom says call a high-percentage play, maybe a draw, run the clock down to the two minute warning, punt the ball, and count on your defense to stop them with under two minutes left and no timeouts. But that’s not what Wisenhunt calls. Instead, he calls a play-action fake that results in a 23-yard completion down the middle from Warner to Spach. That takes the clock down to the two minute warning, and three knees later, the Cardinals walk off the field victorious.
Now some will doubtless criticize the play calling here: if somebody for the Cardinals drops a pass, the clock stops “for free,” leaving more time for the Falcons if they get the ball back. And what if the ball is intercepted? But if you’re a playoff-caliber team, you count on your offense to win games for you, not simply to not lose them. The Cardinals stuck with what had worked all day, rather than suddenly changing their approach in the final minutes, and it suited them well. Dance with the one who brought you, as the saying goes.
Anyway, it was thrilling for me to see a coach NOT go all Mike Holmgren ultra-conservative in trying to protect a small lead.
#1 by digglahhh at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
You’re also more prone to do this when you have no running game to speak of - though ‘Zona ran the ball better on Sunday than they had since, I dunno, maybe all season.
Anywho - good play calling. Especially ballsy with Boldin out too. They ran the ball just enough to force ATL to use their TOs, and relied on the pass to keep the drive alive. I wouldn’t have blamed them if they called a draw on the last play though. An incomplete pass would have been like giving ATL a TO back, as they would have had gotten to ball, time to run a play (to anywhere on the field, no sidelines needed) and had the 2:00 warning. All things considered, good coaching - being aware of your team’s strengths and weaknesses - trumps conventional “wisdom.”
Too many times coaches play “not to lose” instead of to win. (New Year’s Resolution from Digs, use more trite sports cliches - seriously, though, this one I believe.)
Normally sure-headed Tony Dungy should have done the same in the night game. With two and change, Dungy goes run, run, and then predictable third down pass, which not shockingly resulted in the only sack of Manning all game. You don’t have Peyton Manning behind center to hand the ball of the underwhelming and banged up Joseph Addai.
Food for thought: would Indy have been better off snapping the ball out of the endzone there, taking the safety and getting to kick off from the 20 with a 1 point lead, instead of punting from their end zone down 3? Don’t know if I woulda done it, but it’s worth a thought.
Weirdest play call of the week along the same lines. With about a buck and a half left in 2Q of the Min/Phil game, Minny gets the ball at about their 15 (down 16-14, I think). First play is a run that begets boos because the play call inspired all the valor of George Bush in battle fatigues. The only thing more wussy than running the ball three straight times to go into the locker room content to be down is what happened next. Incomplete pass. What? Did they just feel guilty about being such bitches before, and say, hey, guys, you’re right - will you forgive me if I call a five yard slant route here? Inexplicable. If you run the ball on 1st there, you just run down the clock and get ready for the second half. Shit or get off the pot, dude. I know you don’t necessarily want Tavaris Jackson throwing a thirty yard post route at Samuels, but live a little. Stupidity compounded by the fact that the Vikes are the worst punt coverage team in the league. Brandon Walsh would not have been happy.
#2 by tgirsch at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
It was a good weekend, all in all. The only team that won despite my not wanting them too was Baltimore. I have no love for the Eagles, but I hate the Vikings; I’m sick of the Manning brothers (and of candy-ass dome teams in general), so that makes the Colts loss sweet; and Atlanta is home to the worst pro sports fans in the country (Boston and Philly fans are quick to boo, but at least they care — in Atlanta, all sporting events exist to support corporate meetings and other social events having little to do with the actual game being played).
#3 by digglahhh at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
Being here in NY, and remembering the NY fans cheering when Pennington got hurt last year, I was a little sick of the opining for the good ole days and the hagiography of Chad going on from Jets fans, so I didn’t mind the reality check. I don’t like Baltimore, but I respect the hell out of them. Defense is underappreciated by the casual fan, but as an NFC East guy its hard for me not to appreciate B-More. Ed Reed is a monster. I find Ray Lewis fascinating too, he’s a strange dichotomoy. You have the legal woes that sort of define him as a person. But, as a player, he’s nothing but exemplary in terms of spirit, work ethic, and performance.
Many great movies rely on the viewer making the concession to believe one unbelievable premise, from which everything else will logically follow. This is how I view “character” in terms of athletes while on the field. On a football field, Lewis is everything you want in a man - and when I’m watching football I treat him that way. So, in a perverse way, I’m a fan of #52.
I also can’t help but rooting for Peyton Manning. Some guys are just so talented and seem to genuinely appreciative and humbled by their talent you have to root for them. Grant Hill was like this too. I can’t dislike Manning, even if I wanted to. I heard he sends personalized letters to his childhood player heroes when they get elected to the HOF just to express his appreciation and offer his congrats. In an era of brash selfishness, that’s classy. When you have second rate athletes talking up their greatness, it’s nice to know that a guy who will be in the discussion of the best ever appreciates the accomplishments of others, many of whom are lesser players than he is. Plus, that PSA skit from SNL is nothing short of awesome.
Eli, well, I have to root for him.
Obviously, I have to root against Philly. Though I do have a soft spot for McNabb, and I’m frequently in awe of Westbrook - that guy can’t retire fast enough… As for the Vikings, I was a big fan of Randy Moss back in the day, and I liked Cunningham. I have a weird string of guilty soft spots for black QBs on my team’s bitter rivals I guess. The Cunningham/Culpepper Moss/Carter era made for many exciting games, but since then all they have going for them is the awesome Lakers color scheme. AP is great, but the Vikes are just bleh.
I hear ya on the dome teams in general though. And, yes, ATL is just a snooze fest in the sports fan dept. From the Braves not being able to sell out playoff games, to tepid atmosphere of the Georgie Dome in the 1993 (or 4, maybe) Super Bowl.
Okay, I guess I’ll nip the rambling here.
#4 by Ron E. at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
There’s something unappealing to me about the fact that if the team with the lead has the ball with a first down at the 2 minute warning the game is for all practical purposes automatically over. But I guess that’s what you get for turning the ball over so many times.
#5 by tgirsch at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
digg:
The SNL skit was awesome, but I still hate Peyton.
And I know we disagree about the relative value of games, but Peyton is a notorious letdown player in big games. The only big game I ever remember him playing really well in was the playoff win over New England the year the Colts won the Super Bowl. (There’s no way Manning should have been Super Bowl MVP — he had one good pass, in an obvious blown coverage situation.)
I share your love/hate with McNabb/Philly. Love McNabb, hate the Eagles (though I hate the Cowboys more). As for the Vikings of yore, I think history has proven that the era you talked about had a whole lot more to do with Moss/Carter than it did with Cunningham/Culpepper. All you needed was a QB with a decent arm and a pulse, who could throw it in the general vicinity of those two, and let them go get it. And the Vikes color scheme is awful. Real men don’t wear purple!
[I say that as a Bucks fan, by the way -- have they gone back to the green yet?]
Finally, on Ray Lewis: Phenomenal player, piece of shit human being. So yes, it’s an odd dichotomy. I’m glad I’ve never had to root for him.
Ron E:
No, that’s what you get for burning all your timeouts earlier, and/or not being able to get a defensive stop when you really need it. Both of which plagued the Falcons.
#6 by Kevin T. Keith at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
All I can contribute is this:
The Cardinals went up by 13, 30-17 . . . . Atlanta winds up getting the ball back . . ., down by the same score.
Um . . . I think it’s pretty much a given that if one team in a game is leading by a certain amount, the other team in that game is trailing by that same amount.
#7 by tgirsch at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
Yeah, go all pedantic on me.
I worded it that way to indicate that Arizona didn’t score on their ensuing possession. A safety in football results in two points plus possession, so I was awkwardly indicating that there weren’t any points scored in the nearly five minutes that elapsed between the safety (at the 12:37 mark) and the Atlanta possession I was talking about (at the 7:51 mark).
#8 by digglahhh at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
The football “big game” characteristic seems a bit more important than the baseball counterpart. Even if there is a substantial amount of luck/sample size distortion to either, there are so few football games that the meaning of a single performance (again, even an outlier) is just more salient, rightfully so or not. Any single performance in a baseball game, no matter how big, has something of a grain of sand in the desert character to it.
Also, with a mere 16 game sked, teams play way more “big games” than just those in the post season. And, Peyton almost always plays well, ergo, we can’t reduce his “big game abilities” to his lone Super Bowl ring.
I don’t really know if Indy’s shortcomings can be attributed to Peyton laying eggs in the big game anyway. Sure, he had a real stinker here and there. But, through most of Edge’s prime, they had no defense. The year they won, their defense was putrid for most of the year and then just miraculously stepped it up during the playoff run. In more recent years, their defense has wavered between above average to passable, but the run game has taken a big hit. When the team was truly complete, they won.
Perhaps Manning has disappointed in big spots and the Colts have underachieved… or, perhaps, a historically great quarterback has managed, with his great play, to prop up a team that is/was more flawed than many recognized for years to the point that they could only be exposed as flawed by the very best comp around. Just something to think about…
In general, I think people dismiss the notion that by the very nature of the playoffs, you are playing against elite compeition. I laugh when people talk about A-Rod “padding his stats” against cellar dwellers, or RBs racking up yards against weak defenses - yeah, it’s a mismatch - he’s great, you stink, that’s what’s gonna happen…
Also re: the Vikes, I left out the best QB of the bunch during that era - Warren Moon. Moon could air it out with the best of them. Cunningham was good, Culpepper was above average in his prime, but Moon was really good! Even toward the end, his skill set just fit that offense so well. His ability to throw the deep ball, and Moss’s lanky body and velcro hands, were a perfect match. Meanwhile Carter was just Carter. They certainly had a high-powered offense - granted, on turf.
#9 by tgirsch at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
Well, we agree on Moon, at least…
#10 by digglahhh at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
Re: KTK’s nitpicking.
Got get ‘em TG!
I got why you wrote that. Don’t worry, TG.
Look, KTK, I concede that calling people on their nonsense and stupidity (and even innocent gaffes) is something you are extremely good at. I generally don’t mess with you in the general threads. The sports threads are all I really have to exercise MY charming but pompously pedantic side, so trust me, if TG really did something dumb I’d be right on it. You can take five here, grab a cold one, I got your back…
For the Cards to score a safety, that had to happen when Atl had the ball. So, for Atl to get the ball back, Arizona had to have another possession, on which they didn’t score, hence ball back, same score.
#11 by digglahhh at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
TG,
I’m not even saying that I totally disagree. I just think it’s a lot more complicated than “Manning has a propensity to choke under pressure.”
Cogent arguments can be made citing other reasons for Indy’s re-enactment of the Atlanta Braves in the 90’s. And, as I eluded to, arguments can be made that those teams actually overachieved in the regular season due to a host of factors (including being a candy-ass dome team).
Perhaps, Indy was something of a house of cards, tailor-made for their stadium in the regular season. High-powered enough to just blow 2/3 of the league any field. Better-suited to their home stadium than their opponent. Always suspect establishing the run and stopping it… Manning, Wayne, Harrison, or none, that’s not how you win in Foxboro in January…
#12 by tgirsch at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
I could be wrong, but it seems to me that Manning has generally had subpar games in the playoffs and in important late-regular-season matchup. Of course, he’s a tall pocket passer, so even more than most, he’s only as good as his pass protection.
#13 by Big U at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
A few comments:
1. If you look at what Moon did in Canada along with his US stats, he may be the best QB to play the game.
2. I enjoy the NFL but in the CFL if you have two minutes left on the clock you can still have another three touchdowns. No lead is safe so play calling like they did in Arizona is much more frequent.
3. Weren’t the L.A. Lakers originally from Minneapolis? That would make sense then why the uniform colors of the Vikings and Lakers are so close.
4. Just so I can make enemies here, I’m a huge Cowboys fan (though I wish they would work harder at bringing in players who didn’t have so much baggage). I hate the Giants and the Eagles though I grudgingly have to acknowledge that Westbrook is a player I would like on my team.
#14 by KTK at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
OK, OK . . . I guess I should lay off the sports entirely. I’m completely outclassed in this company.
And I have to admit I didn’t know you retained possession on a safety (I don’t think I’ve ever even seen one in a game - I just regarded them as vestigial lacunae of the rulebooks, like the dropkick or something). So it never occurred to me that Atlanta “winding up” getting the ball back after the safety implied that anything had occurred in the interval.
Every time I call tgirsch on some sort of sports trivia I get pwned, usually by both of you. I’ll stop now.
Thank God I’ve still got the Republicans to pick on.
My apologies to tgirsch.
#15 by tgirsch at January 5th, 2009
| Quote
Big U:in the CFL if you have two minutes left on the clock you can still have another three touchdowns
I may be in the minority, but I hate track meets. I don’t want to see 3-0, but I don’t want to see 48-45, either.
Why even bother putting a defense out there, then?
KTK:
I think you may still be confused. On a safety, you don’t retain possession — you lose it. The other team gets two points for pinning you in your own end zone, and then to add insult to injury, you have to give them the ball back in a “free kick,” which is sort of like a kickoff except that it’s drop-kicked like a punt rather than kicked from a fixed tee. So the team that scores the safety also gets possession of the ball; they don’t retain it, they win it — they’re wrested it away from the other team.
But really, my wording was less about the safety, and more about “a bunch of stuff happened in between here and there that didn’t change the score.”
#16 by Big U at January 6th, 2009
| Quote
Ah Tgirsch, you miss the subtleties. Just because you CAN have three TD’s doesn’t mean you will. The excitement comes in knowing that anything is possible. Gotta get you to a CFL game or a CFL site with game highlights and you’d know what I mean. But I do agree with the track meet comment. Those are rarely any fun.
#17 by digglahhh at January 6th, 2009
| Quote
The “trackmeets” are fun to watch occassionally. An exciting, back-and-forth slug fest is a nice change of pace, but not what I hope to see with regularity. In fact, that’s one of the reasons why I’m not much into college football. Too many mismatches, too many shootouts. I guess the fact that I didn’t go away to school and have never lever anywhere other than NYC is a strong factor too.