Schiano's "antics"

[Bemular]

This reminds me a bit of a moment from my glory days of JV high school football. In our first game, the coach calls a QB kneel-down. I was playing center, and the RG didn't like me much as I'd bumped him from center that year. I snap the ball, and HE takes a knee. He gets up after our QB also kneels - thankfully the D didn't do what the Bucs did - and starts yelling at me, "Take a knee!" I was like, "That's just the QB, moron." Very amusing.

The RG takes a knee then yells at YOU to take a knee - My god, so you went oh-and-what that year?

 

[TheNinerMind]

My problem with the reactions (I only saw those on sportscenter and the NFL network) is no one acknowledged the fact that it very nearly worked. Eli fell. I wouldn't have been shocked if he dropped it. Reality is they were one score down and needed the ball back. It was desparate, but plausible. Tom Coughlin is just too rigid in his thinking.

 

[Crimsoncrew]

The RG takes a knee then yells at YOU to take a knee - My god, so you went oh-and-what that year?

We were actually something like 7-1-1 and shared the league title (which was galling, cause we beat the piss out of the co-champions head-to-head). But the RG was a bit of an idiot.

 

[Bemular]

We were actually something like 7-1-1 and shared the league title (which was galling, cause we beat the piss out of the co-champions head-to-head). But the RG was a bit of an idiot.

Ahh bit indeed

 

[tomikcon1971]

I can't believe this is even a story. Yawn.

 

[imac_21]

If Schiano was in the right with this move because he was doing everything he could to win, then I guess we should be crushing him now for not calling his last time out after the kneel down and making the Giants kneel again so TB could try to force a fumble?

If you're going to say you did it because you play to the final whistle, then you damn well better play to the final whistle.

The Giants also knelt (inside their own 10 yard line no less) to end the first half. TB had a 3 man DL and didn't try to force a fumble on that one.

Schiano said he forced 4 fumbles at Rutgers with this move. Someone (don't have the article right now, sorry) asked RU about it. He actually only forced 2. One was recovered by the offense, the other Rutgers was called for offside.

I hope next time a team is kneeling against TB they fake the kneel down and throw deep.

 

[imac_21]

Also, I'm pretty sure it's illegal to go at the QBs legs. I'd be willing to bet that at least one of the Bucs DL dove toward Manning to try to force the fumble.

That would be a 15 yard personal foul and potential fine.

So yes, the move is illegal (if you expect to force the fumble.

 

[NinerSickness]

If Schiano was in the right with this move because he was doing everything he could to win, then I guess we should be crushing him now for not calling his last time out after the kneel down and making the Giants kneel again so TB could try to force a fumble?

If you're going to say you did it because you play to the final whistle, then you damn well better play to the final whistle.

The Giants also knelt (inside their own 10 yard line no less) to end the first half. TB had a 3 man DL and didn't try to force a fumble on that one.

Schiano said he forced 4 fumbles at Rutgers with this move. Someone (don't have the article right now, sorry) asked RU about it. He actually only forced 2. One was recovered by the offense, the other Rutgers was called for offside.

I hope next time a team is kneeling against TB they fake the kneel down and throw deep.

All valid points, but being a crybaby about it is still lame.

 

[Kinzu]

I have no problem with it and don't understand why more team don't do it.

Funny thing about this is they were saying on ESPN Radio today that Tom Coughlin has a sign up in the Giants locker room that says something like "Play Hard for 60 Minutes" and yet he flips out at the other team doing just that. Yup Tom Coughlin is a hypocrite. He should be mad at his own team for not playing a full 60 minutes and just assuming the game was over simply because they were going to kneel the ball.

 

[MHSL82]

I don't think they'd be able to catch NY off-guard twice in a row, so I don't see the problem with him not calling timeout and doing it again. He lost the surprise factor there.

 

[Bemular]

I have no problem with it and don't understand why more team don't do it.

Funny thing about this is they were saying on ESPN Radio today that Tom Coughlin has a sign up in the Giants locker room that says something like "Play Hard for 60 Minutes" and yet he flips out at the other team doing just that. Yup Tom Coughlin is a hypocrite. He should be mad at his own team for not playing a full 60 minutes and just assuming the game was over simply because they were going to kneel the ball.

Well damn, I sure wish they would have followed their own mantra during last year's Conference Championship Game - Bastards!

 

[SY8goat]

All valid points, but being a crybaby about it is still lame.

Tom Coughlin can bitch all he wants. The man has two SB rings. If that happen to the 49ers you would all be pissed!

 

[Bemular]

I don't think they'd be able to catch NY off-guard twice in a row, so I don't see the problem with him not calling timeout and doing it again. He lost the surprise factor there.

You are missing the point - By calling a timeout it would have given the Bucs another opportunity to attempt to force a TO - regardless of the play called.

 

[SY8goat]

I bet if Suh and the rest of the Lion's D-line pulled the same thing as the Bucs, they would have been labeled as "dirty" players/team.

All hell would have broken loose on this board too.

 

[MHSL82]

You are missing the point - By calling a timeout it would have given the Bucs another opportunity to attempt to force a TO - regardless of the play called.

My bad, Bem. My fault for not explaining to imac. I understood what he was saying, that's why I didn't quote him. I know he was saying it was inconsistent for him to claim it was a "play for 60" principle when he doesn't consistently and stubbornly play to the whistle (even if the chance at forcing the turnover is minimized further by the Giants being aware of it.)

My thinking is, I'm okay with him doing it if he has a chance at winning (by forcing a turnover by surprise). I feel he did it because he thought he might succeed. (I don't believe it was purely just to play 60 minutes.) Imac's post made me think about the timeout possibility, and I think that if he called timeout, there wouldn't be that advantage of going hard when the opponent is not expecting it - because now it would be expected. Of course, there'd still technically be a chance to get the turnover, but it'd be so remote that I would think it would be meaningless and would just tick the other coach off.

I had no problem with this one because there was a reasonable, although remote, chance for fumble and recovery. Twice in a row seems unreasonable to me. This, of course, has little to do with a claim to play 60 minutes, but more to do with practicality. I agree with Imac that the play for 60 minutes is a rediculous claim, because then he should do that when losing by 20.

 

[Bemular]

My fault for not explaining to imac. I understood what he was saying, that's why I didn't quote him. I know he wants him to consistently and stubbornly play to the whistle even if the chance at forcing the turnover is minimized further by the Giants being aware of it. Otherwise, by not going for the turnover until the whistle he's being a hypocrite.

My thinking is, I'm okay with him doing it if he has a chance at winning (by forcing a turnover by surprise). I feel he did it because he thought he might succeed. (I don't believe it was purely just to play 60 minutes.) Imac's post made me think about the timeout possibility, and I think that if he called timeout, there wouldn't be that advantage of going hard when the opponent is not expecting it. Of course, there'd still technically be a chance to get the turnover, but it'd be so remote that I would think it would be meaningless and would just tick the other coach off.

I had no problem with this one because there was a reasonable, although remote, chance for fumble and recovery.

What if there was a problem with the exchange and the ball hit Eli's hands and popped on the ground - have you ever seen that happen? I have. It doesn't matter how remote the possibility.

The point Imac made was simply that if Schiano were sincere about his intentions then he would have called his last time-out to give himself a shot at that possibility regardless of how remote it may have been.

 

[NinerSickness]

Tom Coughlin can bitch all he wants. The man has two SB rings. If that happen to the 49ers you would all be pissed!

1) I've defended Coughlin since his Jacksonville days; I've ALWAYS thought he was a great HC. He'll be a HOFer one day IMO.

2) No I wouldn't be pissed at that. I'd think it was pathetic. I'd be pissed if they purposely hurt players like the Saints did.

 

[imac_21]

My fault for not explaining to imac. I understood what he was saying, that's why I didn't quote him. I know he wants him to consistently and stubbornly play to the whistle even if the chance at forcing the turnover is minimized further by the Giants being aware of it. Otherwise, by not going for the turnover until the whistle he's being a hypocrite.

My thinking is, I'm okay with him doing it if he has a chance at winning (by forcing a turnover by surprise). I feel he did it because he thought he might succeed. (I don't believe it was purely just to play 60 minutes.) Imac's post made me think about the timeout possibility, and I think that if he called timeout, there wouldn't be that advantage of going hard when the opponent is not expecting it - because now it would be expected. Of course, there'd still technically be a chance to get the turnover, but it'd be so remote that I would think it would be meaningless and would just tick the other coach off.

I had no problem with this one because there was a reasonable, although remote, chance for fumble and recovery. Twice in a row seems unreasonable to me. This, of course, has little to do with a claim to play 60 minutes, but more to do with practicality. I agree with Imac that the play for 60 minutes is a rediculous claim, because then he should do that when losing by 20.

He coached at Rutgers for 11 seasons and forced 2 fumbles in his time there against the victory formation. On one of them, he was offside. The other, the offense recovered.

So, if it worked 0 times in 11 years at college, what makes you think there was a "reasonable, although remote" chance at it working (that sentence fragment contradicts itself to a ridiculous degree as it is. Reasonable yet remote?).

But let's break down how "reasonable" this was in terms of being successful. Had he called the timeout, there would have been 1 second left, now, let's imagine they forced the fumble. Some questions:

1. What are the odds of TB recovering the fumble?
2. What are the odds they recover the fumble in a position to return it?
3. What are the odds that 1 second doesn't tick off the clock during the scramble for the ball?
4. What are the odds of TB completing a 30 yard TD pass when NY knows they have to throw to the endzone?

Now, what are the odds of the fumble actually occurring? Well, considering the QB is giving himself up and is deemed to be down and the play over once his knee touches the ground, I would say those odds are extremely slim.

I guess that's why it never worked for him at Rutgers.

 

[imac_21]

And let's remember, the Bucs are diving at the QB's feet, which by definition is a 15 yard roughing the passer penalty.

So please, don't say it isn't dirty.

 

[NinerSickness]

I can't find the video to double check, but everyone I've heard comment on this says that the Buccs did nothing illegal. They're all wrong?