Was Ted Ginn's punt return for a TD a good thing?

Originally posted by LionHeartofGold:
It is always a good thing to score because it not only separates you from a point perspective, but it also deflates the other teams hopes. YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME

Exactly, you play to win the game. And sometimes not scoring a TD gives you a better chance to win the game.

Is it Sunday yet?

Originally posted by FILTHpigskin:
*Fixed

So do you think MoJo drew did the wrong thing since he kneeled?

We won the goddamn game, get over it.

I like having a debate on two different ways we could have won the game instead of our last 8 years of debating how we lost the game!! I could get used to this!!!

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by LionHeartofGold:
It is always a good thing to score because it not only separates you from a point perspective, but it also deflates the other teams hopes. YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME

Exactly, you play to win the game. And sometimes not scoring a TD gives you a better chance to win the game.

How does not giving yourself a larger margin of victory over the opposing team help your team win, stupidest argument I ever heard, so we try running out the clock then someone fumbles and they have the chance to score and go for an onside kick, that score completely put the game away, key word being completely, anytime you can score more points it helps the team.

lets go down at the 1 all the time when given a chance to score a td, run 3 more plays and grind time off the clock, i'm sure some stat somewhere will say we've got a better chance to win if we do this

Originally posted by PA9erFaithful:
We won the goddamn game, get over it.

That doesn't mean you can't question a decision, does it? People are criticizing the conservative game plan, but we won the game. People are criticizing the lack of an efficient run game, but we won the game. People are criticizing the lack of downfield shots in the passing game (only 124 yards), but we won the game. Why should this be any different? Just because you win doesn't mean you can't question certain decisions.

crabman82 & adacosta24- do you guys think Westbrook and Jones-Drew made the incorrect play here?

http://espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=271216006
http://espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=291115020

Especially that MoJo Drew one- if he scored, he puts his team up by 5 or 7 (depending on whether or not they make the 2 point conversion) but the Jets would have had nearly 2 minutes to go down the field and score a TD that either ties or wins the game. This way, he ensured a win by enabling them to kick a last second chip shot field goal. Again, not applicable to our game, but just an example to show a TD is not always the right play.

Thoughts?

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by FILTHpigskin:
*Fixed

So do you think MoJo drew did the wrong thing since he kneeled?

Different game, different circumstances.
Our offense was fairly crappy on Sunday... fair-catching and going the length of the field on offense would not have given us our best chance to win IMO.
Our defense was pretty stout, so scoring and taking our chances defensively (which we did) would likely work to our favor (which it did).

Originally posted by andes14:

Originally posted by 49erfeeeever808:

when the debate is what good scenario is better it's kinda............. . especially when the title of the thread "may" suggest that scoring a TD was a bad thing.

i'm just responding because i'm bored.

Yes, believe it or not, sometimes not scoring a TD is better than scoring a TD. These are examples:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=271216006
http://espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=291115020

Especially that MoJo Drew one- if he scored, he puts his team up by 5 or 7 (depending on whether or not they make the 2 point conversion) but the Jets have nearly 2 minutes to go down the field and score a TD that either ties or wins the game. This way, he ensured a win by enabling them to kick a last second chip shot field goal. Again, not applicable to our game, but just an example to show a TD is not always the right play.

But weren't these closer, one possession games?

I figure if you're up with 2 possessions, you can ease up on the PhD approach to the game and just score them damn points.

Originally posted by andes14:
I almost think it's debatable. If he just did a fair catch (or, if he returned it, just took a knee at the 1 yard line), we would have been up 2 possessions AND have the ball AND have only 3 minutes left in the game. Kneel it 3 times (drain clock/make them use their remaining timeouts), then kick a field goal to make it a 2 touchdown game with them only having a minute or so left. Seems like that would have been the best chance of winning rather than them having to score 2 touchdowns but having 3 minutes and however many timeouts left they had to do so. Either way, the odds were overwhelming in our favor, but I feel that they would have been even more overwhelming had he not scored.

Thinking too much can be a bad thing.

Ginn kneels at the one as you suggest, and on the next play SF fumbles.

Seahawks recover and using the clock up march down field to score.

Originally posted by buck:
Thinking too much can be a bad thing.

Ginn kneels at the one as you suggest, and on the next play SF fumbles.

Seahawks recover and using the clock up march down field to score.

Ya sure, we COULD have fumbled. And Seattle COULD have used the extra minute and timeouts to score, get an onside kick, and score again. Anything COULD happen. But I don't think you should take too much into account the possibility of a fumble on a QB kneel down.

Is allowing people to post stupid things a good thing?

this is a stupid thread... just sayin, i cant believe it made it to 5 pages