Taking the safety would've been moronic

[abaskin18]

I actually won my bet because they didnt take the safety so Im happy with that. It was just a stupid move regardless of whether it worked or not and to answer your question I think the only time I can remeber a team fumbling a victory snap was once but that is still 1 more time than i remember a team getting 2 onsides kicks, driving 70 yards and then 40 yards to score with no timeouts in the last 40 seconds of a game

Ok...rack your brain and try to remember the last time a player on the receiving team was hurt on a special teams play. What does that matter though, right? Those guys are just cannon fodder. No one important plays special teams. My bad.

How about the last time a team recovered a single onside kick when the other team knew it was coming? That ever happen? Because that's all it would have taken for the defense to have to take the field and risk an injury to a cornerstone player. But hey, players are at risk of injury on every play so what does it matter, right? It's just as likely that a player gets hurt running full speed at another player running full speed in the other direction as it is during victory formation. My bad again.

/are you fuckin kidding me, man? Mode

 

[clyde_carbon]

I actually won my bet because they didnt take the safety so Im happy with that. It was just a stupid move regardless of whether it worked or not and to answer your question I think the only time I can remeber a team fumbling a victory snap was once but that is still 1 more time than i remember a team getting 2 onsides kicks, driving 70 yards and then 40 yards to score with no timeouts in the last 40 seconds of a game

Bro, you're embarrassing yourself here. Just stop.

 

[joshuar56]

2 simple kneel downs, KNEEL DOWNS??!!

why even continue playing when you can kneel down two times? why focus on the complicated, longer version, rather than the simple, shorter one? victory formation is probably the simplest thing you'll see in a football game.

anyway, you won't change your mind no matter, so i'll leave this alone already.

I don't think either are the wrong decision, I just think taking the safety is the higher % chance of winning. Both are pretty high though, about as close to 100 as you can get.

 

[Dodub]

That doesn't make any sense. The only way Harbaugh said he was gonna decline the safety was if it was forsure the Seahawks were short.

But the penalty was declined before the review, I'm not actually sure if he could go back and accept the penalty after it was overturned.

 

[abaskin18]

But the penalty was declined before the review, I'm not actually sure if he could go back and accept the penalty after it was overturned.

Get sure. It's been happening since replay returned to the NFL.

 

[rmilia1]

Bro, you're embarrassing yourself here. Just stop.

I honestly cant believe as many people think it was a good move as there is. Makes zero sense if you are trying to win the game. Now the injury thing is different, if that is what he is thinking then I can see it but I truly doubt that. Otherwise he would instruct all his guys to take knees on kicks into the end zone, he wouldnt run 1 minute offense when his team gets the ball late in the first or second halves etc etc. If you think an opinion of trying to do the statistically best thing to win is embarassing then thats on you.

 

[rmilia1]

All you guys must have already forgot the Rivers incident last year when he fumbled the late snap and cost the Chargers a win. Wasnt a victory formation but might as well have been since it was the SNAP that was fumbled. Or the Mircale in the meadowlands which was in victory formation. If anyone can name me one instance of a team recovering 2 onsides kicks and scoring a TD and a FG in the last mintue of a game with 0 timeouts then I will gladly cede my thought but you cant Id wager because its virtually impossible.

 

[abaskin18]

I can't tell what this thread has more of: flawed logic or outright density. I feel like you could make a case for either.

 

[rmilia1]

I can't tell what this thread has more of: flawed logic or outright density. I feel like you could make a case for either.

Eh both sides have an argument. Depends on whether you are basing your thought solely on trying to win the game or whether you are basing it on variables such as potential injuries. I mean lets be real, the odds of losing the game either way are infintissimal so its probably a waste of time debating it, but thats the good part about message boards. Wasting time

 

[abaskin18]

Eh both sides have an argument. Depends on whether you are basing your thought solely on trying to win the game or whether you are basing it on variables such as potential injuries. I mean lets be real, the odds of losing the game either way are infintissimal so its probably a waste of time debating it, but thats the good part about message boards. Wasting time

I disagree.

Unless your saying that Flawed Logic & Outright Density each have an argument.

 

[Robotech]

All you guys must have already forgot the Rivers incident last year when he fumbled the late snap and cost the Chargers a win. Wasnt a victory formation but might as well have been since it was the SNAP that was fumbled. Or the Mircale in the meadowlands which was in victory formation. If anyone can name me one instance of a team recovering 2 onsides kicks and scoring a TD and a FG in the last mintue of a game with 0 timeouts then I will gladly cede my thought but you cant Id wager because its virtually impossible.

Miracle at the Meadowlands was not victory formation.

 

[rmilia1]

I disagree.

Unless your saying that Flawed Logic & Outright Density each have an argument.

Shocker. LOL. The only flawed logic being appilied is by the people who think that not taking the safety was the best route when it comes strictly to winning the game. Of course when you factor in the aforementioned variables such as injuries then an argument can be made that it was the best way to go. However speaking strictly based on probability it was not. Now on with the thread.

 

[rmilia1]

Miracle at the Meadowlands was not victory formation.

Yeah it was, it was the Giants version of victory formation. I can provide you with numerous links if you like. It was not todays version of the V formation but it was still a version.

 

[Robotech]

Eh both sides have an argument. Depends on whether you are basing your thought solely on trying to win the game or whether you are basing it on variables such as potential injuries. I mean lets be real, the odds of losing the game either way are infintissimal so its probably a waste of time debating it, but thats the good part about message boards. Wasting time

Let's use your logic here. If the odds of losing the game are infinitesimal either way, then why not choose the option that greatly minimizes injury?

 

[rmilia1]

Let's use your logic here. If the odds of losing the game are infinitesimal either way, then why not choose the option that greatly minimizes injury?

Because its still the riskier play to lose the game. I said all along thats all i was talking about.

 

[rmilia1]

Miracle at the Meadowlands was not victory formation.

Also did you know that this game is the main reason for the victory formation we now see??? Teams used to line up in I formation to run out the clock. Now they use what we see every week.

 

[abaskin18]

Shocker. LOL. The only flawed logic being appilied is by the people who think that not taking the safety was the best route when it comes strictly to winning the game. Of course when you factor in the aforementioned variables such as injuries then an argument can be made that it was the best way to go. However speaking strictly based on probability it was not. Now on with the thread.

The statistical variance between the two situations in a vacuum is far too small as to outweigh the variables (like injury) you so casually tossed aside earlier in the thread when calling Harbaugh's decision "stupid."

Oh yeah...Games are also not played in a vacuum. But I'm sure you can think up some play where, while not technically in a vacuum, it was "their version" of a vacuum like you described the victory formation in the Miracle at the Meadowlands. :p

I think you should heed the advice from Clyde. He was trying to help.

 

[Robotech]

Yeah it was, it was the Giants version of victory formation. I can provide you with numerous links if you like. It was not todays version of the V formation but it was still a version.

The Miracle at the Meadowlands involved a snap and an attempted handoff to the running back. It was a running play. Regardless, whether or not that Giants team called that victory formation does not matter to our discussion because what the Giants did was nothing like what the Niners did last night.

 

[Robotech]

Also did you know that this game is the main reason for the victory formation we now see??? Teams used to line up in I formation to run out the clock. Now they use what we see every week.

Yeah, which makes your attempt to use the Miracle at the Meadowlands to support your argument even more ridiculous. You used it as an example of a team losing even when they used the "victory formation". I don't care what the 1978 Giants called that play. It was a running play, pure and simple.

 

[abaskin18]

Here's my impression of anyone who thinks accepting the penalty was the right move to make after reading this thread: