Super Bowl Thoughts

I still don't understand why people are saying using 12 men on defense would be a strategy. The defense gains absolutely nothing by doing it. If they get a sack, an INT, an incompletion, it all gets negated and if the offense gains more than 5 yards they just decline the penalty. The defense gains nothing.

They didn't gain anything. The Patriots still were able to run the play. If they completed the pass would you say they lossed 6 seconds? If there was 11 on D the time would still have run down 6 seconds.

If the Patriots can score against 12 guys more power to them.

The Defense gained having to play Defense for only nine more seconds (two snaps). Unfortunately they didn't cover Danny Woodhead.

You're not arguing with me, dude - you're arguing with Tom Coughlin et al.

I suppose you're going to tell Belichick he shouldn't' have let Giants score with 57 seconds left, too - take a chance on a missed FG.

On to something important:

1. Justin Tuck has an awesome sack celebration

2. Chris Canty has the best facemask in the league (I know Tuck has the same one, but the visor makes the difference. My wife says he looks like a "scary robot."

3. That beard makes Tuck look like a Sephardic Jew.

so let me get this straight, If there are minimal seconds left in a half and they are in automatic field goal position (not always a given in hs) and there is a strong chance they will score, it is to your advantge to try and sneak and extra player out there and have the possibility of them missing a fg..Why not put 2 extra players? 3?

According to Mike Golic on ESPN Radio this AM when he was playing for Eagles Buddy Ryan once put 15 guys on field Defensively on purpose to run time down (referenced in an earlier post by morris).

You'd have to be real sneaky about it because if the ref realizes this before the snap then the play is whistled dead right there at the snap. Then you look like an idiot/cheater as a coach.

Can't be with rule as written now.

Penalty is "Illegal Participation" meaning they have to take part in the play, not just be on the field even at snap.

Different than Offense having too many players in the huddle.

The logic behind the Ryan "Polish" defense is that the time is more important than the yardage. This is not a last play scenarior because the offense will get another shot with an untimed down since a game/half can't end on a defensive penalty.

The scenario you described above would be the perfect one to use it in. Who cares if they get five yards because you had too many men on defense? They will only have one shot left at the end zone.

If the NFL started seeing a ton of this, I'm sure they would implement a rule where the clock reverts back to the prior down if the penalty is accepted. The Ryans just played on a loophole in the rule book.

You don't put 12+ defenders on the field on last play because of Untimed Down possibility.

You put them out there to get to last snap. If you get Offense to have to kick FG instead of scoring TD you've accomplished something. And if they're behind by 4+ and they go for it on last play (would have to obviously at end of game) - you just have to stop them once.

I hear you on that, but that's the wrong way to think about it. Your job as a coach is just to maximize your chance of winning/success on a given play ex ante, i.e. before the play. The Polish Goalline idea *should* reduce that success by limiting the number of shots the offense gets at winning. It's true that on any given play there is a chance you do something great on defense, like they have a 40% chance of scoring and there's a 5% chance you get a big sack or a turnover, but the fact that the 5% is what happens doesn't make the decision wrong. Again, all you can really do is maximize your chances ahead of time and hope it works out for the best. Anything else is hindsight bias.

That said, if we sent 13 guys out and they fumbled the snap and we fell on it and had to give the ball back, I'd feel kind of stupid too.

I understand their are ethical considerations, but at the same time, I have NEVER seen a coach decline an obvious penalty that wasn't!

If the rules allow it, I feel fine using it. That's not to say I would ever use this strategy, but it is interesting.

And if you could kick the ball out of the end zone, you could run off infinite time! What a stupid rule, with such a transparent logic behind it.

What I think is more interesting is how the Patriots bungled letting the Giants score. Made NO sense to stop them, call time out..and THEN let them score. Should have let them score on first down..not second down.