2/1/09 - Super Bowl XLIII - Arizona Cardinals vs Pittsburgh Steelers

Da Bomb said:
1) arizona has no run game
2) pittsburgh has the best run defense in... well, awhile
3) if you pass from the "inch" line, you have very little time to operate with
4) if you pass from the "inch" line, you are going to be running like 5 seconds off the clock MAX on each pass play
5) james harrison 100 yard INT
6) arizona's defense had effectively shut down the steelers offense since the first quarter (it had been 10-7 and pitt had the pick 6 plus one FG from a drive that stalled with about 6 plays inside the five yard line)
7) arizona would be protecting a FG lead, meaning the defense is most likely either ending the game or sending it to OT where you have all the momentum

i think thats about enough for me. i dont buy your logic at all. arizona's defense really stepped it up this postseason, but with a championship on the line, they simply couldn't make one final stop. it was that, and not the decision to not stop inches from the endzone, that cost them a title.
Click to expand...

If you cant get one inch in four tries, you don't deserve to win the Super Bowl. I don't care how good/bad the run game/run D is or isn't. I will always be convinced that the Cardinals are Super Bowl champions if they take the knee. They didn't and they gave the Steelers a much easier way to beat them.

If I'm the Steelers and Fitz takes the knee. I literally allow the Cardinals to score the TD on their first attempt. Stopping them for no gain is worse than allowing the TD because you lose precious seconds or a timeout. You wouldn't pass the ball if your Arizona even once - it's about eating the clock and destroying the Steelers chances. Its an incredibly difficult scenario that Pittsburgh would have been faced with there, their chances of winning would drop from about 50-60% down to 10-20%. Just because it would be an incredibly awful way to lose the game doesn't mean that you triple your opponent's chances of winning instead.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. Everyone would rather give the Steelers a final drive with plenty of time against a tired Arizona defense... are you freaking kidding me? Four chances at 1inch to win a Super Bowl... nobody wants that? Unbelievable.

When I saw Fitzgerald run into the end zone with 2:38 left on the clock I knew right then that the Cardinals were more than likely going to lose the game. Tomlin seemed happy that they left them so much time and even implied that this is the only reason they were able to win the game.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
"tired" defense or not, arizona had held the steelers to one field goal over the last 3 quarters of play, and that was on a drive where they gave pittsburgh three personal fouls and tons of yardage and first downs. that is a championship caliber defense at that point, and you let them finish the job. was the defense tired when they stopped pitt each of the last two drives and had all the momentum with the lead? were they tired when they scored the safety and stymied pitt from even gaining a few inches?

fitzgerald and whisenhunt wouldve never lived it down the rest of their lives if they stop at the 1 in what is a pretty arrogant move and then dont actually score and lose the game because of it.
 
Birdman said:
As long as people don't consider kneeling at the inches "cheating" or "unsportsmanlike" etc. you do it. You maximize your chances of winning the game that way. If Arizona had done that I believe they are SB champs right now.
Click to expand...

Bomb was totally on point with all of the cons behind that strategy. If you're recalling the extremely heads-up Brian Westbrook play against Dallas a couple years ago, I believe the situation was much different and the intentional kneel down to burn time was the best course of action in that scenario.
Anything could've happened from the 1 such as more false starts/holding penalties, or a Warner fumble.
(Especially since the officials were on the Steelers' payroll, after all LOL)
Besides, on that stage after the way the 4th quarter developed, I'm really sure Fitz wasn't thinking of anything else besides putting his team ahead, and rightly so.
Had they been down by 1 or 2 instead of 4, the "intentional downing" theory makes absolutely perfect sense.
 
i think in the westbrook example the eagles were up already by a score and Washington needed to score twice in limited time
 
WesDawg said:
Bomb was totally on point with all of the cons behind that strategy. If you're recalling the extremely heads-up Brian Westbrook play against Dallas a couple years ago, I believe the situation was much different and the intentional kneel down to burn time was the best course of action in that scenario.
Click to expand...


Look, I understand all the negatives involved. It's not a 100% sure thing.

My only point was that your chances of winning go up significantly if you take my advice and knee it an inch or two from the goal. I mean, they ended up losing the game scoring so quickly - it's not like it was a sure thing either way.

Brian Westbrook knelt the ball because it was a 100% sure thing. That situation was different and obviously it was the best thing to do there. My argument is that it's not just a smart thing to do when it's 100%, but also a smart move when it's 70-80% or whatever variation of percentage points you want to give to it. If its better than 50/50 odds, I take that option over what I consider to be less than 50/50 odds (trying to stop the Steelers with all the time in the world and an average, tired defense).

WesDawg said:
Anything could've happened from the 1 such as more false starts/holding penalties, or a Warner fumble.
Click to expand...

You're worried about that? You have the 2minute timeout after the knee. Talk to your players and let them know - THIS IS IT. THIS IS THE SUPER BOWL. You have 4 chances and do not mess this up by jumping or lining up incorrectly.

WesDawg said:
Had they been down by 1 or 2 instead of 4, the "intentional downing" theory makes absolutely perfect sense.
Click to expand...

Why does it have to make "perfect" sense? It might just make sense because the pros outweigh the cons.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
eaglechick said:
i think in the westbrook example the eagles were up already by a score and Washington needed to score twice in limited time
Click to expand...

Again, it was different because it was certain when B-west did it.

But does it have to be certain for it to be smart? It might be a lot more likely to work than going with the alternative.
 
I haven't read every page of this, but the several I did read talk about Harrison's TD, the refs screwing over the Cards, and now Fitz not taking a knee. My biggest issue with this superbowl was the strategy of the Cards. #1 Gandy blocking Harrison 1 on 1 the whole game. Wow! #2 and most important, why did it take the Cards damn near 3 full quarters to figure out that Fitz is the man? The pick Warner threw could have easily been a lob to the back of the endzone for Fitz instead of jamming it into Q. I know Warner said he didn't see Harrison, but it just seems like all year Q is Warner's first option. I know Q is a stud WR as well, but Fitz is rediculous. His first TD was a jump ball and he just went and got it. Why not do that every time. Hell, it doesn't even seem to matter if he has 2 or 3 guys on him. I don't buy the double team arguement either, Fitz catches the ball regardless of how many guys cover him. (see the regular season games where Boldin was injured or EVERY playoff game) Fitz didn't even have a ball thrown towards him until something like 4 minutes left in the first half.
 
this was one of the most poorly coached big games -- on BOTH sides -- that i have seen in quite awhile.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top