Why don't we run it to win? Time for Billick to go.

**festivus** · 11-19-2007, 11:46 PM

2001, 2006. 2003. Notable in 2001 and 2003 was that we were also overcoming significant deficiencies in the quality of available personnel. I'm not even including 2000, when our offense was arguably "effective," insofar as we did win the Superbowl.

**StingerNLG** · 11-20-2007, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by festivus

2001, 2006. 2003. Notable in 2001 and 2003 was that we were also overcoming significant deficiencies in the quality of available personnel. I'm not even including 2000, when our offense was arguably "effective," insofar as we did win the Superbowl.

I wouldn't include 2000 at all. QB change in the middle of the season. 5 games without a touchdown. That's not effective. We just had the defense to overcome that.

Killing Rich Gannon and not allowing New York over the 50 yard line more than once an entire game is how we won the Super Bowl.

**WxKevin** · 11-20-2007, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Greg

We could have run for the first down and probably gotten 5-6 yards, they were playing pass.

Probably? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe McGahee gets caught in the backfield and loses 3 yards and puts Stover out of range.

**StingerNLG** · 11-20-2007, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by WxKevin

Probably? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe McGahee gets caught in the backfield and loses 3 yards and puts Stover out of range.

True. But with the pass protection not being there all day, who is to say Chester or Odgen doesn't let someone else through to sack Boller for 9 yards, and then you're still out of field goal range.

Running ball was the only real option in that situation. If you can't trust your OL and your RB to get one single yard, then what does that say?

**ClericBlackDave** · 11-20-2007, 10:40 AM

Honestly, I agree that on the surface, running the ball is a better decision.

HOWEVER

They had 3 time outs. It really wouldn't have mattered if they had made the stop anyway, which is possible even if we ran the ball. People are acting like that yard is guaranteed when you run it. It isn't, even if you think that running it is better.

If they had no timeouts, or even just 2, I'd agree. But in this case, I can put the loss solely on Billick's playcall there.

the biggest decision has to be kicking to cribbs / not having Rhys Lloyd active.

**StingerNLG** · 11-20-2007, 11:15 AM

Originally Posted by ClericBlackDave

They had 3 time outs. It really wouldn't have mattered if they had made the stop anyway, which is possible even if we ran the ball. People are acting like that yard is guaranteed when you run it. It isn't, even if you think that running it is better.

BUT..........

It's not 3rd and 1, it's 2nd and 1. Even if we don't make the yard, we have another down to run the ball with. And Cleveland has to take 1, maybe 2 timeouts before we attempt the FG or kick deep and go to overtime. Maybe Cleveland doesn't get the ball down that far and only has one TO to burn at that point.

Passing the ball can stop the clock, and save all Cleveland's TO's. It was the wrong thing to do.

**purplepoe** · 11-20-2007, 11:20 AM

Originally Posted by StingerNLG

BUT..........

It's not 3rd and 1, it's 2nd and 1. Even if we don't make the yard, we have another down to run the ball with. And Cleveland has to take 1, maybe 2 timeouts before we attempt the FG or kick deep and go to overtime. Maybe Cleveland doesn't get the ball down that far and only has one TO to burn at that point.

Passing the ball can stop the clock, and save all Cleveland's TO's. It was the wrong thing to do.

Exactly.

I have yet to hear an argument that makes sense of Billick's play calling in that situation.

Really, it's football 101.

PP

**ClericBlackDave** · 11-20-2007, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by purplepoe

Exactly.

I have yet to hear an argument that makes sense of Billick's play calling in that situation.

Really, it's football 101.

PP

I agree on the 2nd and 1. At this same time, think about it. It was a 47 yarder where it stood. Any loss in yardage could be a missed field goal with stover's leg.

If we had gotten it down to the 20, then its obviously to run it twice on 2nd and 1

As it was, I can't put the entire blame on Billick, although I'd rather have a different offense coordinator, I agree.

**WxKevin** · 11-20-2007, 02:00 PM

Originally Posted by purplepoe

Exactly.

I have yet to hear an argument that makes sense of Billick's play calling in that situation.

Really, it's football 101.

PP

If it were that easy to coach a team, we all would be doing it.

**Greg** · 11-20-2007, 02:21 PM

Running the ball at least once was called for if for no other reason that to mix up the play calling for balance. Something bad can happen regardless of what you do. We were averaging over 5 yards per carry in any case.

You run, get the first down, maybe try a pass to get closer in the next 3 plays, a run or two to force their TOs and run clock. If we had gotten that first down their TOs would have been burned up and they still would have had less time than they had. Not getting that first down was a killer.

**4G63** · 11-20-2007, 02:26 PM

Originally Posted by festivus

They had 3 timeouts. The clock was not as much of an ally as many here are saying. The important thing was the first down, not the running of the clock.

:2c:, I don't anticipate persuading anybody. Just my opinion.

But you're forgetting that if they wouldn't have had any timeouts, they wouldn't have had any time to move down the field and make their kick!

**4G63** · 11-20-2007, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by StingerNLG

BUT..........

It's not 3rd and 1, it's 2nd and 1. Even if we don't make the yard, we have another down to run the ball with. And Cleveland has to take 1, maybe 2 timeouts before we attempt the FG or kick deep and go to overtime. Maybe Cleveland doesn't get the ball down that far and only has one TO to burn at that point.

Passing the ball can stop the clock, and save all Cleveland's TO's. It was the wrong thing to do.

Yes.....