There are 107 users in the forums

Remember
Not a member? Register Now!

Declining the safety

Originally posted by WINiner:
Are you really arguing that there is an equivalent amount of risk involved in 2 victory formation kneel down snaps and covering a kick of any kind?

Absolutely not. I'm arguing that there's likely more risk of something bizarre happening on kneeldowns (again, I cited Rutgers as an example and Carroll is a proponent of what Schiano did/does) than TWO onside recoveries and TWO scores, NOT merely one recovery and that's it. And I totally get people disagreeing with me but to say it's not even debatable is foolish. If it's so obviously the right call, why was it a HUGE story the next day? Botched snaps on kneeldowns have happened, yet none of you can cite an example of two onside recoveries and 2 scores in well under a minute and doing so with zero timeouts.

Now, the risk of injury on an onside attempt is a very valid counterpoint and I totally acknowledge the legitimacy of it and that's why I say it's debatable...but again, let's not forget the potential for an injury on a kneeldown if Carroll went Schiano on us, so that does cancel that aspect out to a degree. But if we disregard injury potential for a second, yes, I'd rather take my chances of not allowing 2 onside recoveries and 2 scores in under a minute to a team with no timeouts than I would a botched snap, especially against a team whose coach supports Schiano's philosophy.
[ Edited by lordfangio on Oct 22, 2012 at 8:56 AM ]
WHAT'S YOUR DEAL?





Originally posted by lordfangio:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Are you really arguing that there is an equivalent amount of risk involved in 2 victory formation kneel down snaps and covering a kick of any kind?

Absolutely not. I'm arguing that there's likely more risk of something bizarre happening on kneeldowns (again, I cited Rutgers as an example and Carroll is a proponent of what Schiano did/does) than TWO onside recoveries and TWO scores, NOT merely one recovery and that's it. And I totally get people disagreeing with me but to say it's not even debatable is foolish. If it's so obviously the right call, why was it a HUGE story the next day? Botched snaps on kneeldowns have happened, yet none of you can cite an example of two onside recoveries and 2 scores in well under a minute and doing so with zero timeouts.

Now, the risk of injury on an onside attempt is a very valid counterpoint and I totally acknowledge the legitimacy of it and that's why I say it's debatable...but again, let's not forget the potential for an injury on a kneeldown if Carroll went Schiano on us, so that does cancel that aspect out to a degree. But if we disregard injury potential for a second, yes, I'd rather take my chances of not allowing 2 onside recoveries and 2 scores in under a minute to a team with no timeouts than I would a botched snap, especially against a team whose coach supports Schiano's philosophy.

It was only a story next day cause of the Vegas line.

Everyone pretty much agreed it was the right call.
Originally posted by SportsFan:
It was only a story next day cause of the Vegas line.

Everyone pretty much agreed it was the right call.

The spread definitely contributed to the story line, but even if it were a double digit spread, it still would have been a story.
Originally posted by lordfangio:
Originally posted by SportsFan:
It was only a story next day cause of the Vegas line.

Everyone pretty much agreed it was the right call.

The spread definitely contributed to the story line, but even if it were a double digit spread, it still would have been a story.

No it wouldn't have.
Originally posted by lordfangio:
Originally posted by SportsFan:
It was only a story next day cause of the Vegas line.

Everyone pretty much agreed it was the right call.

The spread definitely contributed to the story line, but even if it were a double digit spread, it still would have been a story.

It was a Thursday night game... it was all they had to talk about.
Originally posted by OKC49erFan:
Originally posted by lordfangio:
Originally posted by SportsFan:
It was only a story next day cause of the Vegas line.

Everyone pretty much agreed it was the right call.

The spread definitely contributed to the story line, but even if it were a double digit spread, it still would have been a story.

It was a Thursday night game... it was all they had to talk about.


That and the media loves to jump on Harbaugh. They are starting to delight more and more in poking fun at him the longer he goes on obfuscating when they ask any questions. not that there's anything wrong with that.
I think you reach a lot just because something "isnt too far-fetched."
Like Brandon Jacobs giving the Giants our plan. Just because there may be a .0000000001% of something happening doesn't mean you should think it did or could. People would stay inside of a compound safe from anything and everything and never go anywhere if thats what people did.
Originally posted by lordfangio:
Originally posted by WINiner:
Are you really arguing that there is an equivalent amount of risk involved in 2 victory formation kneel down snaps and covering a kick of any kind?

Absolutely not. I'm arguing that there's likely more risk of something bizarre happening on kneeldowns (again, I cited Rutgers as an example and Carroll is a proponent of what Schiano did/does) than TWO onside recoveries and TWO scores, NOT merely one recovery and that's it. And I totally get people disagreeing with me but to say it's not even debatable is foolish. If it's so obviously the right call, why was it a HUGE story the next day? Botched snaps on kneeldowns have happened, yet none of you can cite an example of two onside recoveries and 2 scores in well under a minute and doing so with zero timeouts.

Now, the risk of injury on an onside attempt is a very valid counterpoint and I totally acknowledge the legitimacy of it and that's why I say it's debatable...but again, let's not forget the potential for an injury on a kneeldown if Carroll went Schiano on us, so that does cancel that aspect out to a degree. But if we disregard injury potential for a second, yes, I'd rather take my chances of not allowing 2 onside recoveries and 2 scores in under a minute to a team with no timeouts than I would a botched snap, especially against a team whose coach supports Schiano's philosophy.

If Carroll was such a proponent of what Sciano did then why didn't he do it the past two games be had the chance? Because be know its stupid and doesn't work at this level of play. Had Sciano not pulled that stunt this thread would never have existed.


It's not like crazy things never happen in the NFL. You kneel it to avoid injuries and Sportcenter highlights
[ Edited by footballshark49 on Oct 22, 2012 at 3:35 PM ]
You risk a an injury a lot more by taking the points than doing a kneel down and that was the point. You also risk more of a freaskish event happening on ST than on a kneel down. Anyway everyone from coaches to former players have said it was the right thing to do when it became a story, only because it caused such a furor with betters. You mad cause you lost money holmes.

Anyway, there are skilled players on the ST and placing the D on the field again if the seahawks recovered would expose us to possible injuries. Lets say that we took the points and we recovered. The offense still has to go on the field and do a kneel down of which a freakish play could still happen, but now they would be deep in the niners territory. If a freakish play did happen doing it JH's way, they would have to do it from further back. Point is, you expose yourself less with what JH did to injuries or freak plays-its the odds.

Just like when JH coached Kaep to slide, instead of running it in.
Originally posted by kingairta:
If Carroll was such a proponent of what Sciano did then why didn't he do it the past two games be had the chance? Because be know its stupid and doesn't work at this level of play. Had Sciano not pulled that stunt this thread would never have existed.

Just because he hasn't done it yet doesn't mean he won't do it at some point in the future. There is a first time to everything. He is on record as saying he likes what Schiano did and you never know when he will bust it out...the element of surprise could be there when he does too. And even if it weren't for Shiano, there could still be a bad snap. Crazier things have happened than the ball just slipping out of Goodwin's or Smith's hands.
I like the fact that by asking the measurement and declining the safety we got to stick it in the Seahawks' faces and basically say. "you didn't lose because of a ticky tack penalty. You lost because you didn't convert. Our Defense stopped you not the refs." Which is also a good message to our defense. I think the only people upset about the safety are people who lost money gambling. Which is the opposite of what Harbaugh did when he declined the safety and we took a knee.
Originally posted by VA49er:
I like the fact that by asking the measurement and declining the safety we got to stick it in the Seahawks' faces and basically say. "you didn't lose because of a ticky tack penalty. You lost because you didn't convert. Our Defense stopped you not the refs." Which is also a good message to our defense. I think the only people upset about the safety are people who lost money gambling. Which is the opposite of what Harbaugh did when he declined the safety and we took a knee.

I really don't think Seattle would have thought the safety was what beat them, it clearly wasn't. But if you wanna bring up what the defense would think is cool, accepting the penalty would have held them to something like zero passing yards in the 2nd half which would have been pretty tight
Search Podcast Draft Forum Commentary News Shop Home