L*1
发帖数: 11537 | 1 我想可能是觉得如果对方得分，靠offense扳回来的可能性很小，另外是怕犯孙红雷的
错误。 |
p**********g
发帖数: 9385 | 2 I think PC is right on this call.
It is very possible that your defense is called PI in the endzone on this
last play. If there is only 4 seconds left, one more play to defend.
Otherwise, you have to defend more than one play.
【在 L*1 的大作中提到】
: 我想可能是觉得如果对方得分，靠offense扳回来的可能性很小，另外是怕犯孙红雷的
: 错误。
|
f**********n
发帖数: 10757 | 3 这个我们以前发生过。教练的解释是，那个时候叫TO就是对Defense的不信任，不叫TO
就是对defense说，输赢就在你们手上，这就是信任。长久看，还是不叫是对的。我觉
得PC这点还挺霸气的。
【在 L*1 的大作中提到】
: 我想可能是觉得如果对方得分，靠offense扳回来的可能性很小，另外是怕犯孙红雷的
: 错误。
|
L*1
发帖数: 11537 | 4 有道理，不暂停压力更多在进攻方。
TO
【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】
: 这个我们以前发生过。教练的解释是，那个时候叫TO就是对Defense的不信任，不叫TO
: 就是对defense说，输赢就在你们手上，这就是信任。长久看，还是不叫是对的。我觉
: 得PC这点还挺霸气的。
|
d*********7
发帖数: 1668 | 5
不叫暂停 进攻方没时间考虑压力 就是不停的hurry up
叫了之后 想得多了反而难说了
而且给自己进攻留20秒加 俩个暂停 去拼一个fg 显然是最优选择
【在 L*1 的大作中提到】
: 有道理，不暂停压力更多在进攻方。
:
: TO
|
L*1
发帖数: 11537 | 6 见二楼与孙红雷。
【在 d*********7 的大作中提到】
:
: 不叫暂停 进攻方没时间考虑压力 就是不停的hurry up
: 叫了之后 想得多了反而难说了
: 而且给自己进攻留20秒加 俩个暂停 去拼一个fg 显然是最优选择
|
d********t
发帖数: 4270 | 7 不叫暂停好，公羊的新qb和团队没默契，临场战术肯定会打的很简单，如果喊了暂停，
虽然海鸟能布置防守战术，但同样公羊可以布置进攻战术，利弊权衡，还是不叫的好 |
f**********n
发帖数: 10757 | 8 其实还是精神层面的较量，尤其最后，Seahawk不叫，Rams有暂停，等到4秒然后叫了，
还是能布置进攻。我觉得长远还是不叫好，防守球员会感受到教练组的信任，这个对更
衣室挺重要的。
【在 d********t 的大作中提到】
: 不叫暂停好，公羊的新qb和团队没默契，临场战术肯定会打的很简单，如果喊了暂停，
: 虽然海鸟能布置防守战术，但同样公羊可以布置进攻战术，利弊权衡，还是不叫的好
|
d*********7
发帖数: 1668 | 9
问题是叫暂停也不是针对防守组 而是给进攻组留下可能的时间
再好的防守在2码线前丢分都是可以理解的 这个和信任与否关系不大吧
【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】
: 其实还是精神层面的较量，尤其最后，Seahawk不叫，Rams有暂停，等到4秒然后叫了，
: 还是能布置进攻。我觉得长远还是不叫好，防守球员会感受到教练组的信任，这个对更
: 衣室挺重要的。
|
l*******z
发帖数: 4276 | 10 要是输了防守组也会怪教练不叫暂停的的，那再更衣室就更糟糕了
【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】
: 其实还是精神层面的较量，尤其最后，Seahawk不叫，Rams有暂停，等到4秒然后叫了，
: 还是能布置进攻。我觉得长远还是不叫好，防守球员会感受到教练组的信任，这个对更
: 衣室挺重要的。
|
|
|
f**********n
发帖数: 10757 | 11 防守没防住，输了，防守组还闹事？
【在 l*******z 的大作中提到】
: 要是输了防守组也会怪教练不叫暂停的的，那再更衣室就更糟糕了
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 12 Agree. It was very hard for Clemens to perform under time pressure.
Giving him time to regroup would be very helpful for Rams.
【在 d********t 的大作中提到】
: 不叫暂停好，公羊的新qb和团队没默契，临场战术肯定会打的很简单，如果喊了暂停，
: 虽然海鸟能布置防守战术，但同样公羊可以布置进攻战术，利弊权衡，还是不叫的好
|
d*********7
发帖数: 1668 | 13
人家已经在under time pressure的情况下从自己7码线杀到你家门前了 你的这个假设
就不是很成立了 而且人家ram自己有TO 并没有真正的时间压力 整个play都在耗时间
就是不想再让海鹰拿球
按照你的逻辑 那就是很难得的PC和渔夫各为其主的情况下 最后想达到的是同一个目
标 把时间耗没
这样肯定有一个人是错的 虽然ram输了 但是我觉得渔夫在这个问题上没错
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
: Agree. It was very hard for Clemens to perform under time pressure.
: Giving him time to regroup would be very helpful for Rams.
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 14 dude, that last 1 yard is so much more difficult than
the first 90+ yards. Ask Stacy why he averaged more
than 5 yards per carry, but couldn't rush 1 more yard.
As to burning clock, what would you want PC to do?
Calling TO when Rams were still 30 yards away? It was
just an accidental balance.
There is also a limit of burning clock. Of course Rams
wouldn't love to TD with 2+ minutes left, but 20 seconds
was certainly meaningless for last night's Seahawks.
间
【在 d*********7 的大作中提到】
:
: 人家已经在under time pressure的情况下从自己7码线杀到你家门前了 你的这个假设
: 就不是很成立了 而且人家ram自己有TO 并没有真正的时间压力 整个play都在耗时间
: 就是不想再让海鹰拿球
: 按照你的逻辑 那就是很难得的PC和渔夫各为其主的情况下 最后想达到的是同一个目
: 标 把时间耗没
: 这样肯定有一个人是错的 虽然ram输了 但是我觉得渔夫在这个问题上没错
|
d*********7
发帖数: 1668 | 15
最后20秒显然有意义 至少值得一试 而且只需要一个fg还有2个暂停
时间耗完与否 对ram布置战术都没有影响 人家还有几个to没用 这种很明显的暂停留点
时间就是利大于弊
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
: dude, that last 1 yard is so much more difficult than
: the first 90+ yards. Ask Stacy why he averaged more
: than 5 yards per carry, but couldn't rush 1 more yard.
: As to burning clock, what would you want PC to do?
: Calling TO when Rams were still 30 yards away? It was
: just an accidental balance.
: There is also a limit of burning clock. Of course Rams
: wouldn't love to TD with 2+ minutes left, but 20 seconds
: was certainly meaningless for last night's Seahawks.
:
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 16 Please google and answer: when was the last time a team
really finished a FG, 2TO and 20 seconds? Don't confuse
20 seconds with 40 seconds. We can pretend to forget
about how stinky Hawks O was for the whole game.
【在 d*********7 的大作中提到】
:
: 最后20秒显然有意义 至少值得一试 而且只需要一个fg还有2个暂停
: 时间耗完与否 对ram布置战术都没有影响 人家还有几个to没用 这种很明显的暂停留点
: 时间就是利大于弊
|
l*******z
发帖数: 4276 | 17 Like ATL needed 18 seconds in the divisional round against us? And ATL
offense was very stinky the second half too.
Or just like DET needed just 50 seconds with no timeouts for a TD?
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
: Please google and answer: when was the last time a team
: really finished a FG, 2TO and 20 seconds? Don't confuse
: 20 seconds with 40 seconds. We can pretend to forget
: about how stinky Hawks O was for the whole game.
|
d*********7
发帖数: 1668 | 18
1. 首先不管之前有没有先例 最后给自己留20秒 2个暂停去拼fg都是有意义的 而且不
管你叫不叫暂停都不会影响到对方的布置
2. 例子楼上给了2个 我再补充一个 今年saints打bucs 1分06 没有暂停 也是需要fg
3次传球还都是传到了界内 前两次因为没有暂停时间直接走掉了30秒 最后一次spike
了 这样还剩下接近10秒的时间 其实最后也就用了20秒多一点 而且没有暂停还没有
办法布置进攻战术 和昨天难度应该是相仿的 另外不要说猪不理比rw3牛 那场比
赛最后一个drive之前saints也只拿了14分
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
: Please google and answer: when was the last time a team
: really finished a FG, 2TO and 20 seconds? Don't confuse
: 20 seconds with 40 seconds. We can pretend to forget
: about how stinky Hawks O was for the whole game.
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 19 No. It took Falcons 18 seconds to get the FG, but they
had 31 seconds when Seahawks TD. That extra 10 seconds
gave them a lot more options like trying for a better
position in kickoff return, possibility to run, psychological
comfort, threatening with multiple 10-20 yard completions
instead of having to go long pass every single time.
All these made it much harder for D than sitting back
for long passes.
Of course, scoring a TD with 50 seconds is much easier
than scoring FG in 20 seconds. A single 3-6 second long pass
would erase the yardage difference between these 2.
【在 l*******z 的大作中提到】
: Like ATL needed 18 seconds in the divisional round against us? And ATL
: offense was very stinky the second half too.
: Or just like DET needed just 50 seconds with no timeouts for a TD?
|
U*S
发帖数: 4914 | 20 人家没叫暂停显然是对的，因为结果是赢了。
【在 L*1 的大作中提到】
: 我想可能是觉得如果对方得分，靠offense扳回来的可能性很小，另外是怕犯孙红雷的
: 错误。
|
|
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 21
fg
spike
Again, spending 20 seconds out of 1 minute is much
easier, because D has to get distracted for short plays.
A hard 20 second limit is a totally different animal.
I also put in the risk/reward analysis here:
http://www.mitbbs.com/article/Football/31719805_0.html
It was much much more likely for Rams to get another 1st down
with 24 seconds than Hawks scoring a FG within 20 seconds.
【在 d*********7 的大作中提到】
:
: 1. 首先不管之前有没有先例 最后给自己留20秒 2个暂停去拼fg都是有意义的 而且不
: 管你叫不叫暂停都不会影响到对方的布置
: 2. 例子楼上给了2个 我再补充一个 今年saints打bucs 1分06 没有暂停 也是需要fg
: 3次传球还都是传到了界内 前两次因为没有暂停时间直接走掉了30秒 最后一次spike
: 了 这样还剩下接近10秒的时间 其实最后也就用了20秒多一点 而且没有暂停还没有
: 办法布置进攻战术 和昨天难度应该是相仿的 另外不要说猪不理比rw3牛 那场比
: 赛最后一个drive之前saints也只拿了14分
|
l*******z
发帖数: 4276 | 22 To get the PI on the 4th down, 10%? Just as you think def would take notice
the ample time when defending 50 seconds vs 20 seconds, def would take a
notice on how important not to PI here. So 1 PI on every 10 tries is already
too good in normal situation. And Rams couldn't score on the 4th down, 30%?
And then again on the retry due to a penalty without any foul (any foul),
25%. So it's already less than 1%. I really don't think Hawks are that much
much less likely to 45 yard down field in 20 seconds with two TDs. And
comparing to Atlanta game, 31 seconds to 20 seconds, it's not that great of
a difference to me. Hawks were only defending mid and long bombs, so would
the Rams have to do. ATL got into the range with 2 mid passes to the middle,
Hawks could certainly entertain with that too.
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
:
: fg
: spike
: Again, spending 20 seconds out of 1 minute is much
: easier, because D has to get distracted for short plays.
: A hard 20 second limit is a totally different animal.
: I also put in the risk/reward analysis here:
: http://www.mitbbs.com/article/Football/31719805_0.html
: It was much much more likely for Rams to get another 1st down
: with 24 seconds than Hawks scoring a FG within 20 seconds.
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 23 man, PI call is important only if Rams failed to TD.
You are counting the same chicken twice. And where
is that 30% from? Didn't Rams just fail twice? Didn't
Hawks fail twice before TD on the 1 yard line in the
same game? We had 1 success in 5 tries on 1 yard line.
That's a success rate of 20%, yet you are throwing
a random number of 70% success...
notice
already
%?
much
of
middle,
【在 l*******z 的大作中提到】
: To get the PI on the 4th down, 10%? Just as you think def would take notice
: the ample time when defending 50 seconds vs 20 seconds, def would take a
: notice on how important not to PI here. So 1 PI on every 10 tries is already
: too good in normal situation. And Rams couldn't score on the 4th down, 30%?
: And then again on the retry due to a penalty without any foul (any foul),
: 25%. So it's already less than 1%. I really don't think Hawks are that much
: much less likely to 45 yard down field in 20 seconds with two TDs. And
: comparing to Atlanta game, 31 seconds to 20 seconds, it's not that great of
: a difference to me. Hawks were only defending mid and long bombs, so would
: the Rams have to do. ATL got into the range with 2 mid passes to the middle,
|
l*******z
发帖数: 4276 | 24 the 30% comes from my common sense, of course just not the 5 samples in the
game. Given average play is around 4 yards in the league and the 2-pt
conversion success rate is around 50% (from the 2 yard line), to get 1 yard
is like 80-90 to me, and since that was on goal line, so I gave 30% failure
rate. Rams failed once already (not twice from the 1 yard line) and Seahawks
twice from the one yard line was already small probability event and was
independent to the 2nd try.
I am not counting the birds twice. The P for PI is 10%, and the P for a
failed try is 30%, so when both needs to happen, the p is small.
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
: man, PI call is important only if Rams failed to TD.
: You are counting the same chicken twice. And where
: is that 30% from? Didn't Rams just fail twice? Didn't
: Hawks fail twice before TD on the 1 yard line in the
: same game? We had 1 success in 5 tries on 1 yard line.
: That's a success rate of 20%, yet you are throwing
: a random number of 70% success...
:
: notice
: already
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 25 "common sense" is meaningless for the O that hadn't
scored a single rushing TD in 8 games minus 24 seconds
against LOB. That's one reason why statistics tend to lie.
On the other had, calling a 4th down PI for a home team that
soundly deserves the win is much more likely than whatever
you call "common sense" or "on average". Don't you notice
essentially the same plays resulted in a lot more PIs on
home teams' 3rd down than road teams' 1st down?
ps: Rams had no rushing TD capability, so that 3rd and 2
wasn't much different from 3rd and 1.
the
yard
failure
Seahawks
【在 l*******z 的大作中提到】
: the 30% comes from my common sense, of course just not the 5 samples in the
: game. Given average play is around 4 yards in the league and the 2-pt
: conversion success rate is around 50% (from the 2 yard line), to get 1 yard
: is like 80-90 to me, and since that was on goal line, so I gave 30% failure
: rate. Rams failed once already (not twice from the 1 yard line) and Seahawks
: twice from the one yard line was already small probability event and was
: independent to the 2nd try.
: I am not counting the birds twice. The P for PI is 10%, and the P for a
: failed try is 30%, so when both needs to happen, the p is small.
|
d********t
发帖数: 4270 | 26 这个叫没叫暂停和输赢无关，即使输了也不可能怪到教练没叫暂停上。
这场比赛最后的情况就跟FG教练喊暂停一个道理，喊或不喊都不会把输赢归结到教练头上
人家没叫暂停显然是对的，因为结果是赢了。
【在 U*S 的大作中提到】
: 人家没叫暂停显然是对的，因为结果是赢了。
|
d*********7
发帖数: 1668 | 27
你这2个暂停加上就等于从20秒变成saints的50秒了 和长短play没有关系
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
: "common sense" is meaningless for the O that hadn't
: scored a single rushing TD in 8 games minus 24 seconds
: against LOB. That's one reason why statistics tend to lie.
: On the other had, calling a 4th down PI for a home team that
: soundly deserves the win is much more likely than whatever
: you call "common sense" or "on average". Don't you notice
: essentially the same plays resulted in a lot more PIs on
: home teams' 3rd down than road teams' 1st down?
: ps: Rams had no rushing TD capability, so that 3rd and 2
: wasn't much different from 3rd and 1.
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 28 Do you seriously think so? You don't have to use TOs.
You can easily make 6 short passes with 30 seconds. How many
passes can you produce out of those 2 TOs?
【在 d*********7 的大作中提到】
:
: 你这2个暂停加上就等于从20秒变成saints的50秒了 和长短play没有关系
|
d*********7
发帖数: 1668 | 29
没有to而且都是completed pass 不出界的话 30秒3个short passes 就算极限了
saints那个就是这样的
有暂停的话 20秒打3个完全没有问题 而3个first down 从20码开始打的话 只要不是
每次正好10码 就到了可以试一脚的范围了
在这种不怕int的情况下 绝对不是你说的 very very unlikely
至少比你那个怕被裁判给个free first down 可能性要大一些
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
: Do you seriously think so? You don't have to use TOs.
: You can easily make 6 short passes with 30 seconds. How many
: passes can you produce out of those 2 TOs?
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 30 By 6 passes, I was assuming 6 attempts, about 3 completions,
so we are talking about the same thing.
And you are saying 3 completions within 20 seconds, each one
longer than 10 yards is easy? I already asked you to provide
such an example. Don't try to prove by saying here is an example
as difficult. Provide a real game in that setup.
By the way, how many passing 1st downs had Seahawks got
the whole game without any time pressure? It must be easy
to get 3 more...
【在 d*********7 的大作中提到】
:
: 没有to而且都是completed pass 不出界的话 30秒3个short passes 就算极限了
: saints那个就是这样的
: 有暂停的话 20秒打3个完全没有问题 而3个first down 从20码开始打的话 只要不是
: 每次正好10码 就到了可以试一脚的范围了
: 在这种不怕int的情况下 绝对不是你说的 very very unlikely
: 至少比你那个怕被裁判给个free first down 可能性要大一些
|
|
|
P*******e
发帖数: 39399 | 31 这个说法比较可靠
不过去年打发空失败了 不是完全雷同也
TO
【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】
: 这个我们以前发生过。教练的解释是，那个时候叫TO就是对Defense的不信任，不叫TO
: 就是对defense说，输赢就在你们手上，这就是信任。长久看，还是不叫是对的。我觉
: 得PC这点还挺霸气的。
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 32 faint. That's a different game. The implication for Rams
game was whether to plan for giving up a TD. The implication
for Falcons game was whether to take a break slowing down
the game rhythm. Hawks O was already out of picture in
Falcons game. I think PC was brain frozen in Falcons game.
【在 P*******e 的大作中提到】
: 这个说法比较可靠
: 不过去年打发空失败了 不是完全雷同也
:
: TO
|
l*******z
发帖数: 4276 | 33 Yes, but that's not the same offense that had put up 200 rushing yards in
the game. And they just successfully moved 1 yard on 2nd and 2.I do think
the success chances for another 1 on 2 tries (4th and a retry on foul) is
very high (the retry will be from 0.5 yard).
And I already considered the home advantage on the last play when I said a
PI on 10 tries. Normally it is much lower than that. Or you can give out
your estimate for each individual event, and we can see how that makes RW to
get into FG range much much less likely (I do think given RW 100 such
chances even in yesterday's event, he would make it to FG range at least 5
times, at least!)
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
: "common sense" is meaningless for the O that hadn't
: scored a single rushing TD in 8 games minus 24 seconds
: against LOB. That's one reason why statistics tend to lie.
: On the other had, calling a 4th down PI for a home team that
: soundly deserves the win is much more likely than whatever
: you call "common sense" or "on average". Don't you notice
: essentially the same plays resulted in a lot more PIs on
: home teams' 3rd down than road teams' 1st down?
: ps: Rams had no rushing TD capability, so that 3rd and 2
: wasn't much different from 3rd and 1.
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 34 I have much more faith in Hawks D than O, especially
in a game like that. What's the quote? RW can't throw
and catch all by himself.
to
【在 l*******z 的大作中提到】
: Yes, but that's not the same offense that had put up 200 rushing yards in
: the game. And they just successfully moved 1 yard on 2nd and 2.I do think
: the success chances for another 1 on 2 tries (4th and a retry on foul) is
: very high (the retry will be from 0.5 yard).
: And I already considered the home advantage on the last play when I said a
: PI on 10 tries. Normally it is much lower than that. Or you can give out
: your estimate for each individual event, and we can see how that makes RW to
: get into FG range much much less likely (I do think given RW 100 such
: chances even in yesterday's event, he would make it to FG range at least 5
: times, at least!)
|
d*********7
发帖数: 1668 | 35
首先 saints 和bucs 前几个月的比赛 1分06秒没有暂停 猪不理3次传球3次成功 都
没有出界 直接杀到bucs家门口 中间俩次传球成功的摆球用了至少30秒 第3次传球
成功时还有18秒
20秒2个暂停足够时间来复制这个 而且猪不理在这场里至少被抄截了2次 最后一个
drive之前 saints 和 seahawk一样只得了14分
按照前面给的例子 马软去年季候赛打海鹰 也是用了18秒就进入了射程
当然你可以说这些都不是精确的20秒2个暂停 但是我觉得难度上区别不是那么大 更不
是你说的very very unlikely 到连暂停都不需要用了 而且这个概率应该比你说的
4th down犯规要大好多
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
: By 6 passes, I was assuming 6 attempts, about 3 completions,
: so we are talking about the same thing.
: And you are saying 3 completions within 20 seconds, each one
: longer than 10 yards is easy? I already asked you to provide
: such an example. Don't try to prove by saying here is an example
: as difficult. Provide a real game in that setup.
: By the way, how many passing 1st downs had Seahawks got
: the whole game without any time pressure? It must be easy
: to get 3 more...
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 36 Can you read? I already said multiple times: with more
time on the clock, D had to prepare for many offensive
options, which made it much easier to complete. Falcons
spent 18 seconds getting a FG doesn't mean they had equal
chance of getting a FG if the clock was set at 18 seconds
from the beginning. That's why in those situations,
coaches always prefer time over yardage.
The same goes for Saints game. Again, please list ONE game
of 20 seconds hard stop, just ONE. Don't tell me this orange
is the same as that apple.
You guys complaining about PC not calling TO with 24 seconds
left should ask him to call TO right when Rams got 1st and goal.
If you have so little confidence in your D and are so
optimistic on your O, why do you allow Rams to burn clock
at that moment? "Very likely" Rams would TD right there,
so any time burned was your time.
【在 d*********7 的大作中提到】
:
: 首先 saints 和bucs 前几个月的比赛 1分06秒没有暂停 猪不理3次传球3次成功 都
: 没有出界 直接杀到bucs家门口 中间俩次传球成功的摆球用了至少30秒 第3次传球
: 成功时还有18秒
: 20秒2个暂停足够时间来复制这个 而且猪不理在这场里至少被抄截了2次 最后一个
: drive之前 saints 和 seahawk一样只得了14分
: 按照前面给的例子 马软去年季候赛打海鹰 也是用了18秒就进入了射程
:
: 当然你可以说这些都不是精确的20秒2个暂停 但是我觉得难度上区别不是那么大 更不
: 是你说的very very unlikely 到连暂停都不需要用了 而且这个概率应该比你说的
|
d*********7
发帖数: 1668 | 37
当然你可以说这些都不是精确的20秒2个暂停 但是我觉得难度上区别不是那么大 更不
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
: Can you read? I already said multiple times: with more
: time on the clock, D had to prepare for many offensive
: options, which made it much easier to complete. Falcons
: spent 18 seconds getting a FG doesn't mean they had equal
: chance of getting a FG if the clock was set at 18 seconds
: from the beginning. That's why in those situations,
: coaches always prefer time over yardage.
: The same goes for Saints game. Again, please list ONE game
: of 20 seconds hard stop, just ONE. Don't tell me this orange
: is the same as that apple.
|
R*3
发帖数: 11814 | 38 想了一个晚上，我也觉得不叫好。
【在 p**********g 的大作中提到】
: I think PC is right on this call.
: It is very possible that your defense is called PI in the endzone on this
: last play. If there is only 4 seconds left, one more play to defend.
: Otherwise, you have to defend more than one play.
|
d********t
发帖数: 4270 | 39 无力吐槽。。。。。。。。。。
【在 d*********7 的大作中提到】
:
: 当然你可以说这些都不是精确的20秒2个暂停 但是我觉得难度上区别不是那么大 更不
|
g******s
发帖数: 3647 | 40 pc觉得自己叫了也没啥好招。。。。
TO
【在 f**********n 的大作中提到】
: 这个我们以前发生过。教练的解释是，那个时候叫TO就是对Defense的不信任，不叫TO
: 就是对defense说，输赢就在你们手上，这就是信任。长久看，还是不叫是对的。我觉
: 得PC这点还挺霸气的。
|
|
|
l*******z
发帖数: 4276 | 41 So that's the difference we have.
I did suggest to call TO on first down. But yes, that does show lack of
confidence in the D, and there are a lot of possible events that would have
come back to hurt us. Or even that's 4th and 10, or even 2. But on fourth
down and 1, I don't think that shows any lack of confidence on the D. The
legion of boom are consisted of humans, not supermen.
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
: Can you read? I already said multiple times: with more
: time on the clock, D had to prepare for many offensive
: options, which made it much easier to complete. Falcons
: spent 18 seconds getting a FG doesn't mean they had equal
: chance of getting a FG if the clock was set at 18 seconds
: from the beginning. That's why in those situations,
: coaches always prefer time over yardage.
: The same goes for Saints game. Again, please list ONE game
: of 20 seconds hard stop, just ONE. Don't tell me this orange
: is the same as that apple.
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 42 Forget about what message LOB would get. You guys would
call PC an idiot if Rams indeed got a PI call and
converted 2 or 3 plays later.
have
【在 l*******z 的大作中提到】
: So that's the difference we have.
: I did suggest to call TO on first down. But yes, that does show lack of
: confidence in the D, and there are a lot of possible events that would have
: come back to hurt us. Or even that's 4th and 10, or even 2. But on fourth
: down and 1, I don't think that shows any lack of confidence on the D. The
: legion of boom are consisted of humans, not supermen.
|
d*********7
发帖数: 1668 | 43
去年还有18秒的时候 没有暂停 狮子拿回球 俩个play 一个黑mary 追平了titans
当然这个你也可以说黑玛丽不算 是特殊情况 只有你的4th down犯规时最应该考虑的情
况
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
: Can you read? I already said multiple times: with more
: time on the clock, D had to prepare for many offensive
: options, which made it much easier to complete. Falcons
: spent 18 seconds getting a FG doesn't mean they had equal
: chance of getting a FG if the clock was set at 18 seconds
: from the beginning. That's why in those situations,
: coaches always prefer time over yardage.
: The same goes for Saints game. Again, please list ONE game
: of 20 seconds hard stop, just ONE. Don't tell me this orange
: is the same as that apple.
|
R*3
发帖数: 11814 | 44 呵呵。考虑到昨天的进攻，还是交给防守好一点
【在 g******s 的大作中提到】
: pc觉得自己叫了也没啥好招。。。。
:
: TO
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 45 Onside kick plus a 46 yard Hail Mary. You think that's
more often than a PI in the end zone? That's assuming
such game of rebounds are as hard as starting from
your own 20.
【在 d*********7 的大作中提到】
:
: 去年还有18秒的时候 没有暂停 狮子拿回球 俩个play 一个黑mary 追平了titans
: 当然这个你也可以说黑玛丽不算 是特殊情况 只有你的4th down犯规时最应该考虑的情
: 况
|
d*********7
发帖数: 1668 | 46
叫暂停不代表不交给防守 这是两回事
如果软木昨天没有暂停了 你想要你的防守力拼对手进攻 不给对方暂停的机会 这个合理
昨天你叫不叫暂停 对方都可以控制自己是否要暂停 你叫了暂停 停下时间 是给自己
进攻留下一些可能性 你可以信任自己的D 但是没有必要放弃自己O最后一搏的机会
【在 R*3 的大作中提到】
: 呵呵。考虑到昨天的进攻，还是交给防守好一点
|
d*********7
发帖数: 1668 | 47
onside kick是之前的部分 与后面无关 可以去掉不考虑吧
到拿球时就是18秒无暂停 vs 20秒2个暂停 昨天选择还更多一些
最后一击的hail mary要比赛最后几秒钟的4th down吹 PI常见的多吧
另外不要偷换概念 平时endzone PI可能有一些 但是到这种最后几秒的4th down
game winning drive 更常见的是即使有些小拉扯 裁判都倾向于把比赛交给队员 很少
会在这种时候吹的
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
: Onside kick plus a 46 yard Hail Mary. You think that's
: more often than a PI in the end zone? That's assuming
: such game of rebounds are as hard as starting from
: your own 20.
|
P*******e
发帖数: 39399 | 48 说实话 昨天我还真不知道 都有道理 发空那个我坚决支持叫 已经势如破竹了 你总要
应对下
【在 R*3 的大作中提到】
: 想了一个晚上，我也觉得不叫好。
|
A**d
发帖数: 13310 | 49
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Man, you need to get only one completion for Hail Mary,
and you can take all your time catching, running and
pushing around. As long as you get to the end zone,
the game is over.
Can you do all those to set up a FG? Making catch
is far from enough. One tackle might be enough to
finish the game.
On top of that, you need to execute all the way
perfectly--for instance, should you use your last TO
to try a 57 yard FG or save the TO and use the last
6 seconds to try for a better position?
You need to make such judgment calls damn fast.
【在 d*********7 的大作中提到】
:
: onside kick是之前的部分 与后面无关 可以去掉不考虑吧
: 到拿球时就是18秒无暂停 vs 20秒2个暂停 昨天选择还更多一些
: 最后一击的hail mary要比赛最后几秒钟的4th down吹 PI常见的多吧
: 另外不要偷换概念 平时endzone PI可能有一些 但是到这种最后几秒的4th down
: game winning drive 更常见的是即使有些小拉扯 裁判都倾向于把比赛交给队员 很少
: 会在这种时候吹的
|
d*********7
发帖数: 1668 | 50
有2个暂停 完全不需要上来就黑玛丽 真要是能打到有机会踢57码的fg 那就是巨大的成
功了 这个暂停就更应该叫了 总比不挣扎直接被绝杀好
之前你坚持要找个20秒2暂停的 现在给你个18秒无暂停的 你还是有话说
这个讨论就没多大意义了
我的point就是 在还有24秒4th down的时候 不管你对防守信心如何 给进攻留下20秒
加2个暂停时总是有意义的 而且对方还有暂停 不存在你替对方叫暂停的情况
最糟糕的情况黑玛丽也有机会 而事实上还有机会打到manageable的fg
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
:
: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
: Man, you need to get only one completion for Hail Mary,
: and you can take all your time catching, running and
: pushing around. As long as you get to the end zone,
: the game is over.
: Can you do all those to set up a FG? Making catch
: is far from enough. One tackle might be enough to
: finish the game.
: On top of that, you need to execute all the way
|
|
|
l*******z
发帖数: 4276 | 51 No, I will NOT. I am not a result guy. This is not a one time thing. If you
keep making bad decisions that only work for your favor less than 50% of
time, you will eventually come out as a loser, vice versa. That's the reason
I am challenging his call even if his decision did not back fire on us and
we won the game.
And I will indeed blame him (not because of the outcome, but the strategy
itself), probably all if you guys will even stronger (because of the outcome
), if the Rams did score and time expired.
【在 A**d 的大作中提到】
: Forget about what message LOB would get. You guys would
: call PC an idiot if Rams indeed got a PI call and
: converted 2 or 3 plays later.
:
: have
|
