Results 1 to 9 of 9
  1. #1

    Had the Ravens tied the game, should they have gone for 2?



    Let's see, you are on the road, your defense had held the opponent to 100 yards in the half, you have been putting every kickoff in the endzone, and there was 1:30 left (depending on when we scored).

    The question to me is if you stop them on defense, how much time will be left and how far would you have to go versus converting a 2 yard play? If you fail, you can still get the ball back and try and kick a field goal. If you convert, and your defense shuts them down you win. If you kick and tie it, you may have to stop them twice, and drive down field and score (assuming you lose the toss).

    I think the big deciding factor is if you put them down by one point, they are in 4 down mode. If you tie it, and they fail on 3rd down, they will most likely kick (with some exceptions of down and distance).

    So, I say tie it, and rely on your defense and Ed Reed's return ability.




  2. #2
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mt. Arrogance in the middle of the .11 rolling acres of The Windbag Estates
    Posts
    4,120

    Re: Had the Ravens tied the game, should they have gone for 2?

    No, there is only a 35-40% chance of making two and since we were dominating both sides of the ball, sans turnovers, we would be in the best position to score first in OT.




  3. #3

    Re: Had the Ravens tied the game, should they have gone for 2?

    No Way.

    We were kicking thier ass on defense and the offense actually moved the ball ok when McNair and the funky bunch weren't doing their best keystone cops impersonation.

    While that was a sad display...the fact that we were even still in that position after that mess shows how good we can be if we just hang onto the ball.




  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Perry Hall
    Posts
    2,869

    Re: Had the Ravens tied the game, should they have gone for 2?

    Umm, if we failed to make the 2 point conversion, we wouldn't have gotten the ball back. We had no timeouts left, so we would have kicked off and all Cinn had to do was take a knee.

    You go for the tie there and take your chances in overtime. Hell, we had like 5 chances to score and couldn't put the ball in the endzone, and you want to try for 2?




  5. #5

    Re: Had the Ravens tied the game, should they have gone for 2?

    Exactly!!!!! Plus stopping them on 3 downs (if a tie) is a lot easier than if they were down and went for it on 4th down all the way down the field.




  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Mount Airy, MD.
    Posts
    1,394

    Re: Had the Ravens tied the game, should they have gone for 2?

    One the road? NO....at home? Maybe...
    M&T Bank Stadium - Section 513
    Proud Season Ticket Holder since 1998




  7. #7

    Re: Had the Ravens tied the game, should they have gone for 2?

    They don't tie the game with a TD, still losing by one, and you NEVER go for two there.

    - C -




  8. #8

    Re: Had the Ravens tied the game, should they have gone for 2?

    Billick intimated in his press conference after the game that he would have gone for two. I think part of his thinking was the fact that we are playing on a short week and he did not want to go to OT.




  9. Re: Had the Ravens tied the game, should they have gone for 2?

    Go for 2?!?!

    Can you imagine what the fallout what have been like if we went for 2 and didn't make it and losing the game because of a decision like that?

    As well as that defense was playing, momentum clearly would have been on our side if we had tied it and forced overtime.

    No way I would have gone for 2.

    I'd rather lose in overtime to a team we turned the ball over to 5 times rather then lose due to a decision like that.
    Will Die A Ravens Fan!!




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland