Gase Finalizing Deal with Miami to be their new Head Coach

[beardown07]

Yeah, in the hearts of both fans, they both were left feeling jilted by their teams the way they last those games.
It would be tough to pick which was worse.....Hill hangs on to the ball, game over.
Walsh kicks a gimme fg,game over.

And the laces in my opinion, sorry Collinsworth,had nothing to do with him missng that.
I would tend to blame it on the pressure he had than the laces.

Certainly doesn't help, but ya...27 yarder!? He should be able to knee that fucker in ffs!

 

[anotheridiot]

he did kick an earlier one in with the laces facing him, but that holder was making no attempt to spin the ball in any case. He also had one blocked earlier in the game. Bottom line you cant trust a kicker to put up all your points.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

ok, I have to ask....AI, do you think Minnesota should have been trying for the touchdown there instead of kicking a FG?

 

[richig07]

Yeah, in the hearts of both fans, they both were left feeling jilted by their teams the way they last those games.
It would be tough to pick which was worse.....Hill hangs on to the ball, game over.
Walsh kicks a gimme fg,game over.

And the laces in my opinion, sorry Collinsworth,had nothing to do with him missng that.
I would tend to blame it on the pressure he had than the laces.

Meh... I have to say that you're wrong here. I kicked briefly (and not very well, I might add) in high school. Kicking the ball on the laces can make the ball spin off of your foot very unpredictably, and completely F the entire kick up. You have no idea which way a ball is going if you kick it on the laces. In short, you basically are in a position where you have to strike it completely square, with no room for error at all. Not even a centimeter's worth.

The first thing you're taught as a holder, is that the laces go away from the kicker. There's a reason for that.

 

[richig07]

ok, I have to ask....AI, do you think Minnesota should have been trying for the touchdown there instead of kicking a FG?

Clearly should have gone for it on 4th down.

 

[anotheridiot]

ok, I have to ask....AI, do you think Minnesota should have been trying for the touchdown there instead of kicking a FG?

thanks, Dick. No, more aggressive play calling on first and second down to get another first down is all I ever look for instead of settling and trusting that a kicker is going to make 5 field goals a game.

 

[cubzzzfanincali]

you are most welcome, My Very Very Good Man (British accent implied). Now, just so I understand, you aren't criticizing the decision to go for FG there. OK....but it sounds like you wanted them to be more aggressive on first and second downs. Which means what? Passing? So...well within FG range, you would take the ball out of Peterson's hands, put it in Bridgewater's, and risking interceptions (percentagewise the biggest risk in that part of the field....a lot higher than a missed FG, for sure), or certainly incompletions that would stop the clock and give Seattle more time to mount a return strike? Remember, there was 1:26 on the clock when first down rolled off.

I don't criticize MIN's play calling there one, single iota. They did absolutely nothing wrong. Calling plays on the presumption that one of the league's best kickers will hit a chip shot is not a mistake. At all. Ever. No matter how much benefit of hindsight you have. I don't even think you really believe that.

This laces thing, I have no idea, I never kicked a football. I've seen arguments on both sides of this. I guess my question is, how frequently do kickers wind up having to kick field goals with the laces turned away from them? I mean, is it like 5% of the time? I guess now this is something new to watch for in football thanks to this thing.

 

[beardown07]

you are most welcome, My Very Very Good Man (British accent implied). Now, just so I understand, you aren't criticizing the decision to go for FG there. OK....but it sounds like you wanted them to be more aggressive on first and second downs. Which means what? Passing? So...well within FG range, you would take the ball out of Peterson's hands, put it in Bridgewater's, and risking interceptions (percentagewise the biggest risk in that part of the field....a lot higher than a missed FG, for sure), or certainly incompletions that would stop the clock and give Seattle more time to mount a return strike? Remember, there was 1:26 on the clock when first down rolled off.

I don't criticize MIN's play calling there one, single iota. They did absolutely nothing wrong. Calling plays on the presumption that one of the league's best kickers will hit a chip shot is not a mistake. At all. Ever. No matter how much benefit of hindsight you have. I don't even think you really believe that.

This laces thing, I have no idea, I never kicked a football. I've seen arguments on both sides of this. I guess my question is, how frequently do kickers wind up having to kick field goals with the laces turned away from them? I mean, is it like 5% of the time? I guess now this is something new to watch for in football thanks to this thing.

LACES OUT!! DIE DAN DIE!!!



By the time they're pros, it should be an automatic IMO. Holders are taught to spin that fucker as they set it down.


It's actually a helluva process that is taken for granted. Good snapper, holder and kick....even more emphasized now with the dumb extra point rule change.

richig is right. If it's laces in, it's pure chance. 50/50 you either luck it thru or shank the fuck out of it

 

[wood20ks]

Meh... I have to say that you're wrong here. I kicked briefly (and not very well, I might add) in high school. Kicking the ball on the laces can make the ball spin off of your foot very unpredictably, and completely F the entire kick up. You have no idea which way a ball is going if you kick it on the laces. In short, you basically are in a position where you have to strike it completely square, with no room for error at all. Not even a centimeter's worth.

The first thing you're taught as a holder, is that the laces go away from the kicker. There's a reason for that.[/QUOTE]

Noooooo,for real? Are you serious? No way......It can't be true.

And Im telling you BULLSHIT!!!

I could see if it was from a distance,but not from that close......It was more peer pressure than those laces.

Now if you said it was rigged cause of Vegas,I would have bought that story.......Especially being Walsh made one with the laces facing him earlier.And from a further distance......laces my ass.

 

[wood20ks]

If it for a long distance,I could see where he would kick it towards the third of the ball(where the laces would be), but being it was very short fg,youd kick it towards the very bottom f the ball to give it lift ver the lineman to kept it from being blocked...... The actually had nothing to do with it..... Maybe case the ball was slightly tilted is more believable..... But then again, maybe Walsh likes it that way.

 

[richig07]

Well, Walsh struck the hell out of that ball. I know exactly the kick you're talking about, and remember being amazed on the replay that he hit as well as he did.

The second time when it knuckled on him and hooked. It made perfect sense as to why. No doubt, he did not put a great swing on it. However, if the laces are away, I'd be willing to bet it sails through.

 

[anotheridiot]

you are most welcome, My Very Very Good Man (British accent implied). Now, just so I understand, you aren't criticizing the decision to go for FG there. OK....but it sounds like you wanted them to be more aggressive on first and second downs. Which means what? Passing? So...well within FG range, you would take the ball out of Peterson's hands, put it in Bridgewater's, and risking interceptions (percentagewise the biggest risk in that part of the field....a lot higher than a missed FG, for sure), or certainly incompletions that would stop the clock and give Seattle more time to mount a return strike? Remember, there was 1:26 on the clock when first down rolled off.

I don't criticize MIN's play calling there one, single iota. They did absolutely nothing wrong. Calling plays on the presumption that one of the league's best kickers will hit a chip shot is not a mistake. At all. Ever. No matter how much benefit of hindsight you have. I don't even think you really believe that.

This laces thing, I have no idea, I never kicked a football. I've seen arguments on both sides of this. I guess my question is, how frequently do kickers wind up having to kick field goals with the laces turned away from them? I mean, is it like 5% of the time? I guess now this is something new to watch for in football thanks to this thing.

Look, I understand you guys always wanting to kick the field goals, but can you both please stop using games that a team has lost because they went for the field goal and not just tried to put the other team away?

Its almost as exhausting as me repeating myself.