I think we can already pencil in the AFC championship game

[dolphins4life]

I am saying I would have tried to win, but kept the option for a tie as well.

Would you have gone straight out for the win?

[Spider-Dan]

An undefeated team giving up and playing for the tie is more self-demoralizing than an actual loss.  What would that say about the coach's confidence in the team?  In himself?

[dolphins4life]

An undefeated team giving up and playing for the tie is more self-demoralizing than an actual loss.  What would that say about the coach's confidence in the team?  In himself?

I would say it's a good understanding of knowing situations and standings.

A tie is NEVER more demoralizing than a loss.

Now, if the teams were reversed and Seattle had the ball, in that situation, I would have gone for the win because you need to make up ground in the division. 

But with a one and half game lead, it's not necessary to take needless risks.

[Spider-Dan]

Quitting is more demoralizing than trying and being unsuccessful, especially with an undefeated season on the line.  It says the coach has no confidence in the team.

If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

[dolphins4life]

Quitting is more demoralizing than trying and being unsuccessful, especially with an undefeated season on the line.  It says the coach has no confidence in the team.

If you can't see that, I don't know what to tell you.

First off, I'm not saying quitting.  Quitting would be kneeling three times.  This WOULD be appropriate in a situation where a tie would get you in the playoffs, like with the Broncos in 2006.

Second, doing it my way would have PRESERVED the undefeated season.

Thirdly, there is a difference between having no confidence and not taking unnecessary risks.

I think the play calling was faulty. 

[Sunstroke]

Congratulations, dolphins4life...you've met your November quota of ridiculousness with more than two weeks left in the month.

 

[dolphins4life]

If making sure I don't leave my opponents with any time left to come back and win a game is ridiculous, then by all means, sign me up for the ridiculousness house.

I definitely would have have run the ball and let some time run on one of the first two plays.

Let's go one step further:  Let's say it's a situation where a tie gets you into the playoffs.  If that's the case, I WOULD take the three knees.  Would you?

[Sunstroke]

If making sure I don't leave my opponents with any time left to come back and win a game is ridiculous, then by all means, sign me up for the ridiculousness house.

Any time you don't go for the win before going for the win is no longer possible...is ridiculous.

[dolphins4life]

Any time you don't go for the win before going for the win is no longer possible...is ridiculous.

Wrong.

What about the scenario I just described?  If a tie would put you in the playoffs, and you have a chance to run out the clock in overtime, why wouldn't you do it?  (Assuming a win and tie gives you the same seed)

Also, do you and Spider read my posts?  In the situation SF was in on Monday, I never said don't go for the win.   I said call a play that enables you to go for the win, but also allows you to keep the tie.  Run the ball on the first down.  Let some clock run.  Then, try a pass.  If it works, great, go for the win.  You have one timeout to work with.

But if it doesn't work out, take the tie and don't risk losing for a very small chance of winning.

If Flores is in the situation against NE in Week 17, and a Patriots loss or tie stops them from clinching home field, I hope he does what I suggested.

[Spider-Dan]

First off, I'm not saying quitting.  Quitting would be kneeling three times.

This is definitely Captain Hindsight speaking, but maybe San Francisco should have taken the tie.

They had the lead in the division, so there would be nothing wrong with a tie.

But with a one and half game lead, it's not necessary to take needless risks.

Sounds like you think SF's goal should have been a tie.  Achieving that goal would have been easy... by quitting.

Second, doing it my way would have PRESERVED the undefeated season.

In exactly the same sense that NE had a "Perfect Season" in 2007, sure.

[dolphins4life]

Sounds like you think SF's goal should have been a tie.  Achieving that goal would have been easy... by quitting.
In exactly the same sense that NE had a "Perfect Season" in 2007, sure.

I said it would have preserved an UNDEFEATED SEASON

8-0-1 is undefeated.

Also, I never said SF's goal should be a tie.  I said that they should have tried to win, but kept the option for taking a tie, and not risked giving Seattle the chance to win the game.

An example might be Super Bowl 36, when John Madden said the Patriots should run out the clock and play for overtime.   Neither team had timeouts in that game.

The Patriots didn't sit on the ball, but they started the drive with two safe easy passes and let some clock run.  Then they spiked the ball with 41 seconds left.  This ensured that they would be the only team that would have a chance to win the game in regulation.

I did mistype my first post.  I should have said maybe San Francisco should have left the option for a tie open to them.
 

[Spider-Dan]

But 16-0 IS a perfect season, sir.
Just like 8-0-1 is undefeated.

[dolphins4life]

But 16-0 IS a perfect season, sir.
Just like 8-0-1 is undefeated.

I think I understand it.

Are you saying that the risk of losing was worth it for the goal of maintaining a perfect season?

[Sunstroke]

I think I understand it.

Are you saying that the risk of losing was worth it for the goal of maintaining a perfect season?

I understand that you posed this question to Spidey-dude, but since the answer is so obvious...

Not once during that game did Kyle Shanahan consider the possibility of a perfect season when calling plays. His goal is always to win that game...until it is impossible to win that game.

I think perhaps you're the one who isn't reading posts...

[MaineDolFan]

I think the Titans have a shot at the AFC title game.