Pet Peeve Alert -- Team kneeling down instead of scoring at end of game. Coach is derelict in his duties when he does it

[Tned]

Ok, this is a major pet peeve of mine. While I'm not a fan of Belicheck in general, this is one area where I think he has it right and most of the rest of the league, like Mr. Fox, has it wrong.

An NFL team SHOULD run up the score if at all possible, and like in the case of the Broncos last night, the team should have either tried to score a TD, or at minimum, kicked a field goal at the end.

My reasoning is simple, yet sound, or maybe you could say it's simply, sound.

Scoring is part of the NFL tie breaking process. Granted, it isn't a frequently used tie breaker, but it is used.

When it comes to looking at seeding or who will make the playoffs, we are often talking about strength of victory and strength of schedule, because after head-to-head, conference record and common game record (you have to have four in common for this to even apply), you then get to the two strength of schedules, so very likely scenarios.

What's up after strength of victory/schedule? You got it, points. The next four tiebreakers (6-10) are based on points. The next is based on TD's scored, and then finally a coin toss.

Therefore, since this isn't peewee or high school football, it is my contention that any head coach that doesn't score every point possible is not doing his job. If scoring points at the end of the game, even with a sure win, didn't matter, then half of the tiebreaker steps wouldn't be based on scoring.

[zbeg]

But the likelihood of injury when trying to run up the score is higher than the likelihood of the scoring tiebreaker coming into play. I'm fairly certain the scoring tiebreaker has not come into play since they changed the tiebreak rules in 2002.

So you're playing for an outside shot at an obscure tiebreaker that's almost certainly not going to matter, but risking potential injury to do so? That is not working in the best long-term interests of the team.

[Northman]

While im a big fan of "if you cant stop us dont whine" mentality they did the right thing.

[Tned]

But the likelihood of injury when trying to run up the score is higher than the likelihood of the scoring tiebreaker coming into play. I'm fairly certain the scoring tiebreaker has not come into play since they changed the tiebreak rules in 2002.

So you're playing for an outside shot at an obscure tiebreaker that's almost certainly not going to matter, but risking potential injury to do so? That is not working in the best long-term interests of the team.

No, not really.

First, if they are running on every play, there is a greater chance of injury, because the other team knows what's coming and can mob the line/runner.

Second, like at the end of last nights game, you might just be talking about kicking a field goal.

Obscure? Maybe, but it can mean the difference between home field or not, or not for the Broncos this year, but whether or not a team makes the playoffs. Again, points start to come in right after strength of victory/schedule, and those two commonly come into play. We aren't talking about the 11th tiebreaker out of 12. It's the 6th tiebreaker out of 11 or 12 (depending on division/conference/wild card).

[Tned]

While im a big fan of "if you cant stop us dont whine" mentality they did the right thing.

Would you feel the same way if when the season comes to a close, they lost the first round bye and went from the #2 seed to the #3 seed, because they didn't kick that field goal?

This is why it's a pet peeve of mine. People seem to look at it as a sportsmanship issue or something of the kind, and not a major component of the tie breaking procedure, even if rarely used.

[Ziggy]

8 wins in a row. Period.

[Northman]

Would you feel the same way if when the season comes to a close, they lost the first round bye and went from the #2 seed to the #3 seed, because they didn't kick that field goal?

This is why it's a pet peeve of mine. People seem to look at it as a sportsmanship issue or something of the kind, and not a major component of the tie breaking procedure, even if rarely used.

I would feel the same way.

This isnt college and the likelihood of those type of tiebreakers almost non-existent. At this point a tie-breaker with NE or Houston would result in us losing because we lost to them in head to head games.

[zbeg]

No, not really.

First, if they are running on every play, there is a greater chance of injury, because the other team knows what's coming and can mob the line/runner.

Second, like at the end of last nights game, you might just be talking about kicking a field goal.

Obscure? Maybe, but it can mean the difference between home field or not, or not for the Broncos this year, but whether or not a team makes the playoffs. Again, points start to come in right after strength of victory/schedule, and those two commonly come into play. We aren't talking about the 11th tiebreaker out of 12. It's the 6th tiebreaker out of 11 or 12 (depending on division/conference/wild card).

Players do get hurt on field goal attempts. Yes, you're more likely to get hurt on a running play, but the risk on a field goal isn't zero, either.

Also, can you provide a plausible scenario this season where the Broncos would need this tiebreaker?

[Tned]

I would feel the same way.

This isnt college and the likelihood of those type of tiebreakers almost non-existent. At this point a tie-breaker with NE or Houston would result in us losing because we lost to them in head to head games.

I understand what you're saying, and I agree it doesn't happen often and am not suggesting going for it on 4th down when up by 30, as NE has done.

It doesn't happen often. I think something like 6-8 times it's come down to points in the last two or three decades. Not quite non-existent, but very rare.

[MOtorboat]

I don't think you try to score in case of the fourth and sixth tiebreaker. I don't think running three plays or kicking a field goal is really worth worrying about those tie breaking procedures. Especially since all of the teams involved this year have played head to head.

1. Head-to-head, if applicable.
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
4. Strength of victory.
5. Strength of schedule.

Denver obviously doesn't have the head to head against New England, but now has a half game edge, and a chance to get that advantage over Baltimore next week.

Right now, Denver is also behind in the conference record.
New England 8-1
Baltimore 8-2
Denver 7-2

Don't have time to get to common games, but I'm just not sure it's going to get to the fourth tiebreaker let alone the sixth.

I think New England has strength of victory and points pretty wrapped up by now. Denver is 55 points behind them having played one more game.

[SR]

If we were playing any other team, I like the kneel down. BUT, we were playing the Raiders and that game should've been 40-something to 14 at the end.

[Tned]

I don't think you try to score in case of the fourth and sixth tiebreaker. I don't think running three plays or kicking a field goal is really worth worrying about those tie breaking procedures. Especially since all of the teams involved this year have played head to head.

1. Head-to-head, if applicable.
2. Best won-lost-tied percentage in games played within the conference.
3. Best won-lost-tied percentage in common games, minimum of four.
4. Strength of victory.
5. Strength of schedule.

Denver obviously doesn't have the head to head against New England, but now has a half game edge, and a chance to get that advantage over Baltimore next week.

Right now, Denver is also behind in the conference record.
New England 8-1
Baltimore 8-2
Denver 7-2

Don't have time to get to common games, but I'm just not sure it's going to get to the fourth tiebreaker let alone the sixth.

I think New England has strength of victory and points pretty wrapped up by now. Denver is 55 points behind them having played one more game.

Again, it's a general pet peeve, not situational for this year. The point is that if points are part of the tire breaking process than it shouldn't be frowned upon to score points even when the game is wrapped up.

While I don't believe it's gone to points lately, between '80 and '98 points came into play seven or so tines in the tie breakers.

This is the one area (unlike his cheating and stuff) where Belicheck has it right.

If the goal is to get into the playoffs, then not kicking a field goal or otherwise not scoring as many points as possible, is not doing your job as a coach.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Forum Runner

[Thnikkaman]

Tned, I wasn't completely sure when I read the OP, but given North's opinion, I completely agree with you now.

1895

[Tned]

Tned, I wasn't completely sure when I read the OP, but given North's opinion, I completely agree with you now.

<img src="http://www.broncosforums.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1895"/>

I'll take it any way I can get it.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Forum Runner

[BroncoWave]

No, not really.

First, if they are running on every play, there is a greater chance of injury, because the other team knows what's coming and can mob the line/runner.

Second, like at the end of last nights game, you might just be talking about kicking a field goal.

Obscure? Maybe, but it can mean the difference between home field or not, or not for the Broncos this year, but whether or not a team makes the playoffs. Again, points start to come in right after strength of victory/schedule, and those two commonly come into play. We aren't talking about the 11th tiebreaker out of 12. It's the 6th tiebreaker out of 11 or 12 (depending on division/conference/wild card).

So are we taking about before the 2 minute warning or after? Because if it's before of course you still have to run every play. That's too early to kneel. But the second you can kneel it's stupid not too. Once the game is in hand the goal should be to make injury risk as low as possible. If we are still slinging it with under 2 minutes left when keeling would end the game, what if someone comes in and swipes Manning's knee? Was it worth it to maybe have a chance in an obscure tiebreaker?

[OldschoolFreak]

I agree that Fox pulls the dogs off too quickly.

Your point on injury potential is a good one Tned. When we call off the offense at the start of the fourth the opponent's D just tee's off. I don't like it and feel that it is likely to lead to a loss or injury.

Seriously, from an injury perspective, the offense will be much safer if the opposing D is playing honest instead of stacking the box and crashing the line on an obviously telegraphed run.

[Mike]

Fox likes Allen and Allen's dad just died. I have no problem easing up for a friend.

[Tned]

Fox likes Allen and Allen's dad just died. I have no problem easing up for a friend.

It's not a one game thing, Fox does it routinely. Many other coaches as well.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Forum Runner

[Tned]

So are we taking about before the 2 minute warning or after? Because if it's before of course you still have to run every play. That's too early to kneel. But the second you can kneel it's stupid not too. Once the game is in hand the goal should be to make injury risk as low as possible. If we are still slinging it with under 2 minutes left when keeling would end the game, what if someone comes in and swipes Manning's knee? Was it worth it to maybe have a chance in an obscure tiebreaker?

Not talking about "slinging it" with under two minutes, but kicking a 35 yard or so field goal has virtually no injury potential and is the right thing to do, since net points do matter.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Forum Runner

[TXBRONC]

The kneel down doesn't bother me.

That type of thinking of Belicheck contributed to Denver nearly beating the Patriots earlier in the season.

[Tned]

The kneel down doesn't bother me.

That type of thinking of Belicheck contributed to Denver nearly beating the Patriots earlier in the season.

So, you also wouldn't be at all bothered/upset, if the Broncos missed the playoffs, or this year, lost a bye and/or home field, because they chose to kneel rather than kick field goals or otherwise score, say if they had a first and goal?

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Forum Runner

[chazoe60]

My pet-peeve is people with lame pet-peeves. ;)

[Nomad]

My pet-peeve is people with lame pet-peeves. ;)

My pet peeve is people who have pet peeves about other people's lame pet peeves, so I have a pet peeve with my pet peeve.:lol:

[BroncoWave]

Not talking about "slinging it" with under two minutes, but kicking a 35 yard or so field goal has virtually no injury potential and is the right thing to do, since net points do matter.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Forum Runner

What if they block the FG, return it for a TD, and get an onside kick? I'm not saying that's likely, but once the game is in hand I think it's pretty needless to risk anything else.

[OrangeHoof]

Since the division is already clinched and their head coach's father just died, I don't see a problem at all with kneeling down. Really no need to pile on in this circumstance. If the points-in-division tiebreaker were in play, I could see adding the points but not in this case.

[Chef Zambini]

If we were playing any other team, I like the kneel down. BUT, we were playing the Raiders and that game should've been 40-something to 14 at the end.I can admit to feeling exactly the same, however, this meeting was different.
allen is not a stranger to this team or john fox. he just lost his father, unexpectedly.
I thought not scoring was respectable given the conditions last night. any other time, beat the hell out of the raiders !
I am concerned about cheap shots at the end of the game if the other team thinks we are piling it on, but thats a game by game decision and in this game, these circumstances, taking a knee, was the right thing to do. first class denver broncos all the way.
I enjoy being PROUD to be a bronco fan. a big part of that is the way we conduct ourselves, both on and off the field.
bravo broncos, bravo !

[Chef Zambini]

My pet peeve is people who have pet peeves about other people's lame pet peeves, so I have a pet peeve with my pet peeve.


:pet".:I dont like it when people have a cat or a dog that they call "Peeve"
I have a pet peeve about a "peeve pet"

[Tned]

Only one person has answered the question, so here it is again

Those of you who like kneeling, rather than say kicking the field goal. You would be ok if the Broncos lost a bye or home field this year because of not kicking some field goals and kneeling instead?

You would be ok if next year (or any other year) the Broncos were to lose a tie breaker and miss the playoffs, because they chose not to "run up the score"?

It really is that simple.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Forum Runner

[pnbronco]

In my mind this is not a black or white question. It's more of a question like do you go for 2 points or kick the FG. I know you are saying in general but in this case Allen was a coach under Fox, his father had just died and the Raiders are really struggling in general. I just don't enjoy kicking a dog when it's down so I have no trouble with the kneel down.

Fox brought back this team from major disarray and part of that reason is that he is a gentleman. He has earned the respect of everyone in the organization and IMO he and Elway are a big part of reasons that Peyton came here.

I would not be upset if we didn't make the second seed because they didn't kick the FG in the garbage time. I would be beyond upset if someone got hurt in garbage time. Since it takes 16 games to get to a playoff game there are plenty of "what if" opportunities if it came down to points at the end of the year.

[Buff]

In my mind this is not a black or white question. It's more of a question like do you go for 2 points or kick the FG. I know you are saying in general but in this case Allen was a coach under Fox, his father had just died and the Raiders are really struggling in general. I just don't enjoy kicking a dog when it's down so I have no trouble with the kneel down.

Fox brought back this team from major disarray and part of that reason is that he is a gentleman. He has earned the respect of everyone in the organization and IMO he and Elway are a big part of reasons that Peyton came here.

I would not be upset if we didn't make the second seed because they didn't kick the FG in the garbage time. I would be beyond upset if someone got hurt in garbage time. Since it takes 16 games to get to a playoff game there are plenty of "what if" opportunities if it came down to points at the end of the year.

I agree. Sometimes a team deserves to have the score run up on them, sometimes a knee seems like the better option.

A more prudent question would be when was the last time the scoring tie breaker came into play?

[chazoe60]

Only one person has answered the question, so here it is again

Those of you who like kneeling, rather than say kicking the field goal. You would be ok if the Broncos lost a bye or home field this year because of not kicking some field goals and kneeling instead?

You would be ok if next year (or any other year) the Broncos were to lose a tie breaker and miss the playoffs, because they chose not to "run up the score"?

It really is that simple.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Forum Runner

I guess for me if that situation happened I wouldn't reflect back on games we won but didn't score more cheap points at the end I would reflect on games we lost and especially games like the Atl game that we did our best to give away. Does that make sense?

[MasterShake]

I get pissed about some things the Broncos do, then I remember that I work on computers all day in Photoshop and do Marketing Analytics. I'll defer to the coaches and team that have rattled off 8 in a row and just assume that playing the percentages and winning a game is the smart thing to do.

[topscribe]

If we were playing any other team, I like the kneel down. BUT, we were playing the Raiders and that game should've been 40-something to 14 at the end.
As a usual rule, I would agree with you about the Raiders. I want to beat them
so badly that it embarrasses them. However, Dave Logan mentioned that Fox
and Allen are very good friends, and it was probably out of respect for Allen
that Fox ordered the victory formation . . .
.

[jhildebrand]

If it were still Hue Jackson there, I would be all for it.

But it is Dennis Allen. A guy who was here in Denver last year. A guy who wasn't even back in Oakland for 24 hours since the passing of his father. A guy who is already facing calls to be fired and an owner making comments as to being unhappy with his performance. A class act guy.

What Fox and company did was a thing of class and I personally commend them for doing it.

[blamkin86]

Kneeling several times keeps the ball in our possession - out of theirs - so they have no chance of scoring.

As I'm certain you know this, then what you're really saying is, on the VERY LAST play of the game, after lots and lots of kneeling, should we have kicked a field goal or tried to score?

Meh, I don't care. I think it's somewhat unsportsmanlike. If it turned out we got a lower seed because of it, I'm fine with that. If you can't beat the teams you face in the playoffs, you don't deserve to go to the Superbowl. If the difference is an unnecessary field goal as the very last play of the game then the rules are just dumb.

[jhildebrand]

Let's also not forget things were getting chippy at the end of the game. Say Denver scores and has to send a D back out there. Maybe Miller gets hurt. Would that be worth an extra 3 or 7 points that wont make the "W" any more bold? :confused: NO. We saw Seymour go crazy and pull Clady by his dreads in a game.

What happened was the right thing to do on every level.

[Chef Zambini]

I think there is a reason why total points is #6 on the tie breaker list ! the NFL does not wan the crap that goes on in college.
head to , as already pointed out made a FG last night moot.
sorry, as many have said, beating up on the raiders is prefered, I think thats pushing your peeve, but last night what we did was exactly the right thing to do.
sorry if it cost you some points on your fantasy team or your bet with vegas, but what our broncos did last night to end the game was absolutely the right thing to do.
for reasons far more important than a sixth level tie breaker, which BTW means NOTHING to the broncos this year.

[rationalfan]

I get pissed about some things the Broncos do, then I remember that I work on computers all day in Photoshop and do Marketing Analytics. I'll defer to the coaches and team that have rattled off 8 in a row and just assume that playing the percentages and winning a game is the smart thing to do.

awesome post, in a thread that reminds me, once again, how glad i am that the fans don't run this team.

[MasterShake]

awesome post, in a thread that reminds me, once again, how glad i am that the fans don't run this team.

Don't get me wrong, I think we all bring up some valid arguments, debates, and criticisms (the point of a message board after all) but sometimes when a team is playing well it just comes off as nitpicking. Nothing wrong with it, but sometimes you gotta step back and look at the big picture. We covered the spread last night, so Vegas agrees with how the team is playing.

[Nomad]

You promised a blowout:tsk: :lol:

[rationalfan]

Don't get me wrong, I think we all bring up some valid arguments, debates, and criticisms (the point of a message board after all) but sometimes when a team is playing well it just comes off as nitpicking. Nothing wrong with it, but sometimes you gotta step back and look at the big picture. We covered the spread last night, so Vegas agrees with how the team is playing.

exactly.

[Tned]

Don't get me wrong, I think we all bring up some valid arguments, debates, and criticisms (the point of a message board after all) but sometimes when a team is playing well it just comes off as nitpicking. Nothing wrong with it, but sometimes you gotta step back and look at the big picture. We covered the spread last night, so Vegas agrees with how the team is playing.

My issue isn't so much with the Raiders game or this kneel down, it's in general, including how much crap Belechick (who I don't particularly like) has gotten.

I've brought this up in past years, just not in it's own thread. If the point of the NFL is to be sportsman, then let's pour on mercy rules or have number of jerk downs the tire breaker.

Buff, I "think" the last time was '98 , but pin the '80s and '90s, it came down to points seven or eight times. I don't know if their is a reason that it hasn't happened since then (such as going to the balanced schedule) or if it's a randomnitity thing.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Forum Runner

[Tned]

P.S. I'm high fiving myself, because I made so many great points in this thread, even if only I believe it. Right about now I feel like Zam....

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Forum Runner

[chazoe60]

P.S. I'm high fiving myself, because I made so many great points in this thread, even if only I believe it. Right about now I feel like Zam....

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Forum Runner
Please quit insulting Zam.

[BroncoWave]

Only one person has answered the question, so here it is again

Those of you who like kneeling, rather than say kicking the field goal. You would be ok if the Broncos lost a bye or home field this year because of not kicking some field goals and kneeling instead?

You would be ok if next year (or any other year) the Broncos were to lose a tie breaker and miss the playoffs, because they chose not to "run up the score"?

It really is that simple.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Forum Runner

Yep, because the chances of that are lower than the chances of someone getting hurt when the team could have kneeled instead. You can't make a decision based on what MIGHT happen. You have to base it on what is most statistically sound.

[jhildebrand]

Perfectly ok with it.

[topscribe]

P.S. I'm high fiving myself, because I made so many great points in this thread, even if only I believe it. Right about now I feel like Zam....

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Forum Runner
:lol:

[zbeg]

My issue isn't so much with the Raiders game or this kneel down, it's in general, including how much crap Belechick (who I don't particularly like) has gotten.

I've brought this up in past years, just not in it's own thread. If the point of the NFL is to be sportsman, then let's pour on mercy rules or have number of jerk downs the tire breaker.

Buff, I "think" the last time was '98 , but pin the '80s and '90s, it came down to points seven or eight times. I don't know if their is a reason that it hasn't happened since then (such as going to the balanced schedule) or if it's a randomnitity thing.



They changed the tiebreaker orders after that (in 2002). It hasn't happened since.

As for would I be pissed if the Broncos lost the #2 seed, I still challenge you to come up with a plausible scenario where that tiebreaker would come into play for the Broncos this season. I'd be pretty pissed if an injury occurred when the Broncos tried to score in case some obscure corner case occurs which has virtually no chance of happening this season.

[DenBronx]

It was the fckn raiders man! How dare us not run up the score on them??

We want to embarrass them everytime!

Maybe Fox and his relation to Allen wouldnt let him do it. Allens dad died this week and thats why the emotional hug after the game.

Would Shanahan tried to score? I think Shanny would have. He really hated the raiders and thats one of the things I loved about Shanahan.

[weazel]

I have had this argument with other members lately and after thinking about it, I have come to the conclusion that I dont really care either way. I like the kneel down but if a team wants to run up the score that's up to them and up to the other team in stopping them. I'm good with it either way.

[OrangeHoof]

Only one person has answered the question, so here it is again

Those of you who like kneeling, rather than say kicking the field goal. You would be ok if the Broncos lost a bye or home field this year because of not kicking some field goals and kneeling instead?

You would be ok if next year (or any other year) the Broncos were to lose a tie breaker and miss the playoffs, because they chose not to "run up the score"?

It really is that simple.


In this situation, it wasn't necessary. Next year is next year. It might be appropriate then.

[zbeg]

What if the Broncos go for a field goal, then it's blocked and run back for a touchdown and then the Broncos lose on the point differential tiebreaker because of that? How pissed would you be, then?

[sneakers]

I think he didn't do it because he was friends with the raiders coach (who was on the broncos staff last year)

[topscribe]

It was the fckn raiders man! How dare us not run up the score on them??

We want to embarrass them everytime!

Maybe Fox and his relation to Allen wouldnt let him do it. Allens dad died this week and thats why the emotional hug after the game.

Would Shanahan tried to score? I think Shanny would have. He really hated the raiders and thats one of the things I loved about Shanahan.
Al Davis was the one Shanny hated. I'm not too sure how much hate would
have been left after Davis bought the farm . . .
.

[weazel]

I agree that Fox pulls the dogs off too quickly.

Your point on injury potential is a good one Tned. When we call off the offense at the start of the fourth the opponent's D just tee's off. I don't like it and feel that it is likely to lead to a loss or injury.

Seriously, from an injury perspective, the offense will be much safer if the opposing D is playing honest instead of stacking the box and crashing the line on an obviously telegraphed run.

Thats an entire different argument and has nothing to do with kneeling down at the end of a game. That example shouldn't even be suggested in this thread.

[weazel]

Only one person has answered the question, so here it is again

Those of you who like kneeling, rather than say kicking the field goal. You would be ok if the Broncos lost a bye or home field this year because of not kicking some field goals and kneeling instead?

You would be ok if next year (or any other year) the Broncos were to lose a tie breaker and miss the playoffs, because they chose not to "run up the score"?

It really is that simple.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy S3 using Forum Runner

answer this... let's say we didnt kneel last night, we ran a play with under two minutes left when we didnt have to. Peyton gets sacked and gets injured and we lose him for the rest of the year. Yep makes sense to risk losing the ball or worse, an injury just to get a few more points in a game that was already won.
Hey we dont have a chance in the playoffs now but hey, at least we didnt kneel down against the raiders!

I get the pet peeve tned, and I kind of agree that ending the game like that is not as exciting. I guess if the league didn't likeit they would change the rules to make the play clock shorter after the two minute warning. Actually I would be all for that, it would make the last two minutes of the game more important than it is. So what would everyone think of a 20 second time limit on the play clock after the two minute warning?

[Nomad]

'What if' :lol: You can play the 'what if' game all day.

[BroncoWave]

answer this... let's say we didnt kneel last night, we ran a play with under two minutes left when we didnt have to. Peyton gets sacked and gets injured and we lose him for the rest of the year. Yep makes sense to risk losing the ball or worse, an injury just to get a few more points in a game that was already won.
Hey we dont have a chance in the playoffs now but hey, at least we didnt kneel down against the raiders!

I get the pet peeve tned, and I kind of agree that ending the game like that is not as exciting. I guess if the league didn't likeit they would change the rules to make the play clock shorter after the two minute warning. Actually I would be all for that, it would make the last two minutes of the game more important than it is. So what would everyone think of a 20 second time limit on the play clock after the two minute warning?

I think they should adopt the Arena Football rule that under two minutes you have to gain yards to keep the clock running. That would prevent kneel downs. I don't like shortening the play clock. That would make it too difficult to get the play in and make pre-snap adjustments in time.

[HORSEPOWER 56]

For the record, I have no problem with the kneel down. If it somehow cost us better playoff seeding as a tiebreaker, maybe I might care a little more, but as of now, I can't remember the last time margin of victory decided a playoff team. I'm all about Ws and Ls. We could win every game 2-0 with a Safety being the only score in the game and I'd be content. When I was younger and cared more about stats and being able to rub it in to opposing fans about the score, I didn't like the kneeldown. Now, I just want to get as many players into the postseason healthy as possible.

[Nomad]

Could the seedings be set after the Ravens game, if the Ravens and Pats lose this weekend and BRONCOS beat the Ravens?

[NightTrainLayne]

Could the seedings be set after the Ravens game, if the Ravens and Pats lose this weekend and BRONCOS beat the Ravens?

No. There's still 2 games left to play assuming we beat the Ravens. The Ravens I think would be locked out of the #2 seed, but the Patriots would still be in the running.

[Nomad]

No. There's still 2 games left to play assuming we beat the Ravens. The Ravens I think would be locked out of the #2 seed, but the Patriots would still be in the running.

I guess I spaced the Cleveland game when asking the question.

[Tned]

They changed the tiebreaker orders after that (in 2002). It hasn't happened since.

As for would I be pissed if the Broncos lost the #2 seed, I still challenge you to come up with a plausible scenario where that tiebreaker would come into play for the Broncos this season. I'd be pretty pissed if an injury occurred when the Broncos tried to score in case some obscure corner case occurs which has virtually no chance of happening this season.

As I've said multiple times, my issue is not with the Raider game (I can elaborate, because I'm no longer mobile) or even this season, or even just with Fox and the Broncos, but instead in general.

As to the #2 seed, I would have to run the numbers, including remaining schedule and all scenarios to know if it's "possible" this year. Since the NFL doesn't even put out playoff scenarios this early, that would be a decent undertaking, because there are still a lot of variables.

So, the hypothetical question, that most still haven't answered, which isn't just losing the number #2 seed, but say missing the playoffs next year, is just that, a hypothetical. Is "sportsmanship" or risk of injury (somewhat laughable when you consider every play, including kneel down when playing TB, has a risk of injury), more important in a professional, $11 billion sport than a team making the playoffs.

This year, because of going head-to-head with Pitt, Hou, NE and Bal, it isn't possible that it could be the tiebreaker with us, UNLESS there is a three way tie with two of those teams and the Broncos, and then while the combinations would be a bear to figure out right now, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that the teams would have the same conference record, same common game record, same strength of victory and same strength of schedule and therefore go to points. Again, unlikely.

What is far more likely, is for it to apply in the future, as it has in the past, to division championships, because in those scenarios virtually all of the opponents are common (only two aren't) and it makes it far more likely to split the head-to-head and then have identical records/strengths.

As to the rule change in '02, all it did was swap common games and conference record, so that would have had zero impact on making it to the points.

[Tned]

I think he didn't do it because he was friends with the raiders coach (who was on the broncos staff last year)

Yea, by posting it after the Raider's game, with Allen's father passing away, it was almost like a reverse Red Herring logical fallacy that most people can't see past. I should have posted it last week, last month or last year, and then it would have been clear that it wasn't about this ONE kneel down. I thought an explanation would have sufficed in that regard. ;-)

[BroncoWave]

As I've said multiple times, my issue is not with the Raider game (I can elaborate, because I'm no longer mobile) or even this season, or even just with Fox and the Broncos, but instead in general.

As to the #2 seed, I would have to run the numbers, including remaining schedule and all scenarios to know if it's "possible" this year. Since the NFL doesn't even put out playoff scenarios this early, that would be a decent undertaking, because there are still a lot of variables.

So, the hypothetical question, that most still haven't answered, which isn't just losing the number #2 seed, but say missing the playoffs next year, is just that, a hypothetical. Is "sportsmanship" or risk of injury (somewhat laughable when you consider every play, including kneel down when playing TB, has a risk of injury), more important in a professional, $11 billion sport than a team making the playoffs.

This year, because of going head-to-head with Pitt, Hou, NE and Bal, it isn't possible that it could be the tiebreaker with us, UNLESS there is a three way tie with two of those teams and the Broncos, and then while the combinations would be a bear to figure out right now, it is possible, albeit unlikely, that the teams would have the same conference record, same common game record, same strength of victory and same strength of schedule and therefore go to points. Again, unlikely.

What is far more likely, is for it to apply in the future, as it has in the past, to division championships, because in those scenarios virtually all of the opponents are common (only two aren't) and it makes it far more likely to split the head-to-head and then have identical records/strengths.

As to the rule change in '02, all it did was swap common games and conference record, so that would have had zero impact on making it to the points.

Even in your divisional scenario, I that two team difference would probably decided SOS over 90% of the time. And you have strength of victory before that which would also have a pretty small chance of being the same.

I know it's possible, I just don't think it's even close to being as likely as sustaining a major injury when you could be kneeling the ball.

[Tned]

Even in your divisional scenario, I that two team difference would probably decided SOS over 90% of the time. And you have strength of victory before that which would also have a pretty small chance of being the same.

I know it's possible, I just don't think it's even close to being as likely as sustaining a major injury when you could be kneeling the ball.

It's degrees. I don't think kicking a field goal introduces a higher injury risk than a kneel down, since at least at the line, quite a few teams fire off a bit if they are within scoring reach.

As to let's say the four minute offense, or when you start trying to run out the clock in the third quarter (as Shanny was famous for), I contend you have a much greater risk of injury, because the defense knows what's coming and just pounds the crap out of the blockers and RB. It's the rushing play equivalent of how the defense tees off on the QB when a team is way behind and has to throw.

So, there are multiple aspects. Yes, when you finally reach the point of kneeling down, there is no question that lining up for a play action pass is much more dangerous in terms of injury. Lining up for a FG, a bit, but marginal. When it comes to the 4:00 minute, 6:00 minute clock killing offense, running on every play is MUCH more risky than having a balanced approach.

All of that said, as I indicated in the initial thread, it is a pet peeve of mine, but I also will agree it is unlikely to be a true factor in determining outcome (it can happen, but is unlikely) and I don't think it's happened since '98.

The ultimate root of my pet peeve is the fact that fans and media call it unsportsmanlike when teams don't kneel, or choose to pass down in the red zone vs. run, when they have a large lead. That's silly. I say that because first, this is a professional sport, not peewee football or the like, and second, because it is written into the rules that scoring differential is part of the tie-breaking process, so even if unlikely, it means that it can never be unsportsmanlike in the NFL to score whenever possible.

[BroncoWave]

The ultimate root of my pet peeve is the fact that fans and media call it unsportsmanlike when teams don't kneel, or choose to pass down in the red zone vs. run, when they have a large lead. That's silly. I say that because first, this is a professional sport, not peewee football or the like, and second, because it is written into the rules that scoring differential is part of the tie-breaking process, so even if unlikely, it means that it can never be unsportsmanlike in the NFL to score whenever possible.

I completely agree with this part of your post. People who complain about it being unsportsmanlike need to unwad their panties. It's a professional freaking sport. While I think running up the score is an unnecessary risk, there is nothing foul about it.

[Dapper Dan]

If you're afraid of players getting hurt, add these team rules:

You're not allowed to walk your dog.
You're not allowed to "pop" your toes.






It seems like an extra snap is an extra play to get your guys experience. I would play the game and not kneel down. But I'm probably a douche bag.

If I am the opposing coach, I'm frustrated and embarrassed seeing your opponent kneel down.

[Army Bronco]

Its kinda like fist bumping before an MMA Bout. Its not in the rules to do it but some fighters do. If you sucker punch your opponent its not illegal but you just don't do it.

[pnbronco]

I understand that you are not talking about last nights game'. I would still rather they do the kneel down than risk injury. I would be more upset if we lost a good spot or missed with something else that happened or didn't (dropped ball, fumbled) during one of the 16 games.

[chazoe60]

This whole macho man "I'd play to the bitter end argh!!!l" thing is annoying. Just like Tampa's coach and what he does against the Victory Formation, it's within the rules but it's just tough guy bullshit and it's silly. Wasn't the first 58 minutes of bashing and bloodying each other macho enough?

Not calling you out tned because I see your reasoning, I'm calling out the guys who act tough.

[Dapper Dan]

What if you're losing and there's no chance to come back? Do you still kneel the ball?

[BroncoWave]

This whole macho man "I'd play to the bitter end argh!!!l" thing is annoying. Just like Tampa's coach and what he does against the Victory Formation, it's within the rules but it's just tough guy bullshit and it's silly. Wasn't the first 58 minutes of bashing and bloodying each other macho enough?

Not calling you out tned because I see your reasoning, I'm calling out the guys who act tough.

What if the Bucs force a fumble and win a game doing that? Is it still macho man bravado?

[Broncos Mtnman]

Ok, this is a major pet peeve of mine. While I'm not a fan of Belicheck in general, this is one area where I think he has it right and most of the rest of the league, like Mr. Fox, has it wrong.

An NFL team SHOULD run up the score if at all possible, and like in the case of the Broncos last night, the team should have either tried to score a TD, or at minimum, kicked a field goal at the end.

My reasoning is simple, yet sound, or maybe you could say it's simply, sound.

Scoring is part of the NFL tie breaking process. Granted, it isn't a frequently used tie breaker, but it is used.

When it comes to looking at seeding or who will make the playoffs, we are often talking about strength of victory and strength of schedule, because after head-to-head, conference record and common game record (you have to have four in common for this to even apply), you then get to the two strength of schedules, so very likely scenarios.

What's up after strength of victory/schedule? You got it, points. The next four tiebreakers (6-10) are based on points. The next is based on TD's scored, and then finally a coin toss.

Therefore, since this isn't peewee or high school football, it is my contention that any head coach that doesn't score every point possible is not doing his job. If scoring points at the end of the game, even with a sure win, didn't matter, then half of the tiebreaker steps wouldn't be based on scoring.

I completely agree. This has been a pet peeve of mine for years.

[dogfish]

Not talking about "slinging it" with under two minutes, but kicking a 35 yard or so field goal has virtually no injury potential and is the right thing to do, since net points do matter.



It's degrees. I don't think kicking a field goal introduces a higher injury risk than a kneel down, since at least at the line, quite a few teams fire off a bit if they are within scoring reach.
minute, 6:00 minute clock killing offense, running on every play is MUCH more risky than having a balanced approach.


T, you did see that the patriots lost gronkowski on an end of the game PAT just a few weeks ago, right?

i can't say for sure that no one's ever been hurt on a kneel-down, but i certainly don't remember ever seeing it happen. . .


In my mind this is not a black or white question. It's more of a question like do you go for 2 points or kick the FG. I know you are saying in general but in this case Allen was a coach under Fox, his father had just died and the Raiders are really struggling in general. I just don't enjoy kicking a dog when it's down so I have no trouble with the kneel down.

Fox brought back this team from major disarray and part of that reason is that he is a gentleman. He has earned the respect of everyone in the organization and IMO he and Elway are a big part of reasons that Peyton came here.

I would not be upset if we didn't make the second seed because they didn't kick the FG in the garbage time. I would be beyond upset if someone got hurt in garbage time. Since it takes 16 games to get to a playoff game there are plenty of "what if" opportunities if it came down to points at the end of the year.

great post, P. . . it ISN'T a zero-sum game, at all-- there are a lot of factors involved. . . sportsmanship being only one of them, and IMO probably not a driving one. . . the NFL is very much a results-oriented business, and if running up the score had proven to be a particularly effective strategy, everyone would be doing it. . .

coaches want to shorten the game once they're up by more than a score-- it's the easiest and most effective way to get the win, first and foremost. . . and beyond that, no coach wants to send a tired defense back on the field, for all sorts of very good reasons. . . getting more points for the tiebreaker just isn't a good enough risk-reward proposition to justify extending the game. . .

[Army Bronco]

This whole macho man "I'd play to the bitter end argh!!!l" thing is annoying. Just like Tampa's coach and what he does against the Victory Formation, it's within the rules but it's just tough guy bullshit and it's silly. Wasn't the first 58 minutes of bashing and bloodying each other macho enough?

Not calling you out tned because I see your reasoning, I'm calling out the guys who act tough.

What if the Bucs force a fumble and win a game doing that? Is it still macho man bravado? I see your point but if there is an unwritten gentlemens code among the players then they should follow it. I highly doubt they can force a fumble in this formation now a days. The only team who attacks the V are the Bucs so everyone expects it. Just look at the reaction of the Olines after they attack, its as if its a cheap shot. The Giants lineman were even putting their knees on the Buc players throats cause of this.

[Chef Zambini]

What if the Bucs force a fumble and win a game doing that? Is it still macho man bravado?tampa and their coach have earned the right to get thjeir asses kicked at every opportunity, thats one rabbies infested dog that should be kicked when its down.
I would design a fake victory play where the QB throws to an uncovered receiver for a score against that asshoile in tampa !
his rational for doing that at the end of a game is pure horseshit !
no team should show them any mercy !

[Chef Zambini]

as it turns out, every team in the afc that we can face in the play=offs, we will have faced already in the regular season so the points have no chance of making ANY determination. the one exception being the colts.
wow it would be horrible if PM had to play a play-off game in INDY in front of all those #18 jerseys !

[Dapper Dan]

thats one rabbies infested dog that should be kicked when its down.

Seriously?

[Dzone]

Plus it gives extra time of real game experience. Try out some new stuff on that last play. Throw a flea flicker. Mess with the heads of the other teams of what we might have up our sleeve.:lol:

[Dapper Dan]

They should just make a mercy rule. If a team is up by about 30 with 1 minute to go, just keep the players off the field and run out the clock. Wouldn't that keep guys from getting hurt? Just keep them off the field.

[Chef Zambini]

a previous post proclaimed. "I dont believe in kicking a dog when its down"
it was an amalgamation of cliches.
I just worked off of that, added the rabbies because no dog should be kicked.
I will never forgive or forget mike vick!
never.
never forget, never forgive.
grabbing dogs by their hind legs and slamming theur heads against the cement. never !

[Chef Zambini]

They should just make a mercy rule. If a team is up by about 30 with 1 minute to go, just keep the players off the field and run out the clock. Wouldn't that keep guys from getting hurt? Just keep them off the field.they should just go to commercial and when they come back, tell everyone the game is over.

[Chef Zambini]

... and for the fans in the stadium, just start a wave and do some dancing on the field.

[bcbronc]

no to risking injury for an additional 3 points.

yes to risking injury vs the victory formation if you are within one score.

[Dzone]

I would love to see a hail mary on the last play. Even if we are up by 40. Especially against Schicano

[Tned]

T, you did see that the patriots lost gronkowski on an end of the game PAT just a few weeks ago, right?

i can't say for sure that no one's ever been hurt on a kneel-down, but i certainly don't remember ever seeing it happen. . .



lol, I was kind of hoping nobody would bring up Gronk, as he is the biggest, most recent kicking injury that came to my mind.

[Chef Zambini]

what about the kicker who injured himself celebrating after a kickand had to go on IR?

[Nomad]

what about the kicker who injured himself celebrating after a kickand had to go on IR?

Gramatica (I think)

[I Eat Staples]

I see your point but if there is an unwritten gentlemens code among the players then they should follow it.

Why? If you don't agree with something you just go along with it because everyone else is?

[Dapper Dan]

Again. If you're the loser and there's no way to win, do you kneel the ball? The game is basically over. You don't want anyone to get injured. I never see it happen. Are all losers not gentlemen? Do they not care about unnecessary injuries?

[Army Bronco]

I see your point but if there is an unwritten gentlemens code among the players then they should follow it.

Why? If you don't agree with something you just go along with it because everyone else is? Have you ever been a part of an organization or a team sport that you agree with absolutely everything? Whatever man, its my opinion on the matter. You can disagree with it all you want.

[Joel]

The fifth tiebreak (sixth within a division) actually doesn't come up very often; even with three teams finishing 8-8 and the other 7-9 the AFC West only went as far as common opponents last year. This year points REALLY don't matter for our playoff seeding, because all of last years AFC division champs will almost certainly repeat as THIS years champs (Denver and NE have already clinched,) meaning each has played the others or will. So the first tiebreak, head-to-head, is the applicable one in every case. The only way that wouldn't be true is if Houston lost AND Indy won all their remaining games, so the Colts won the division (even if the Steelers somehow catch the Ravens, we beat them in week 1.) Otherwise, all that matters to us is winning, by 1 or 1 million.

That said, running up the score always nauseates me unless retaliatory, because the points tiebreaks are so low in precedence I can't remember the last time they were relevant to anyone. There's a reason for that; the points tiebreak has trivial importance because it has trivial meaning. Even that doesn't let Belicheat off the hook; you can't tell me he was worried about playoff seeding when the Pats were posting the only 16-0 record in history: He was worried about setting records and humiliating the rest of the league, because he's an ass and thinks he's the reincarnation of Lombardi (though I'm not aware of Lombardi ever doing anything that classless.) Going for it on 4th and somethingteen with a small lead late in Super Bowl XLII was a pointless jerk move for which the Cheatriots were justly rewarded.

[I Eat Staples]

Have you ever been a part of an organization or a team sport that you agree with absolutely everything? Whatever man, its my opinion on the matter. You can disagree with it all you want.

No, and I didn't follow any unwritten rules. If it doesn't break a rule, there's really no reason not to do it.

[Army Bronco]

Have you ever been a part of an organization or a team sport that you agree with absolutely everything? Whatever man, its my opinion on the matter. You can disagree with it all you want.

No, and I didn't follow any unwritten rules. If it doesn't break a rule, there's really no reason not to do it. HAha..and roger.

[Dzone]

Godwin Turk is infamous for dislocating his own shoulder while over exuberantly spiking the ball in jubilation after recovering a turnover during a regular season home game in Denver

[zbeg]

This happened in 1999. What a highlight. The Panthers brought it. The Packers brought it. Chris Berman brought it.

This clip is just...wow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBJI5pKtMrk&feature=youtu.be&t=4m2s

[Dapper Dan]

This happened in 1999. What a highlight. The Panthers brought it. The Packers brought it. Chris Berman brought it.

This clip is just...wow.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBJI5pKtMrk&feature=youtu.be&t=4m2s

That was exciting!!!

[zbeg]

That was exciting!!!

Yeah, Berman did a great job setting it up and communicating the excitement of the situation. He really really nailed it. Bravo, Berman. Bravo. Even Ditka got caught up in the excitement!