Pages

Monday, December 17, 2007

The Smartest Play in Football

I was just watching some of the week's highlights on NFL.com, and when watching the Eagles-Cowboys highlights, I immediately was impressed. Brian Westbrook made what I think is the smartest play in football - one that is very difficult to do for a number of reasons, but brilliant nonetheless.

With 2:19 left in the 4th quarter, and Dallas with 0 timeouts remaining, the Eagles were up 10-6. Westbrook broke through the line and a couple of tacklers, easily on his way to a touchdown that would make it 17-6... but then he turned his head, slowed, and stopped. At the 1. And let himself get tackled.

The clock ran down to two minutes, and the Eagles downed the ball three times to end the game.

Last week, while watching the Browns-Jets game, (I think) I remarked to G sitting next to me that Jamal Lewis would really have been better off not scoring on that late TD run where he ran over the Jets' secondary; it simply gave the Jets a last shot to score, onside kick, and try to score again (though the Browns recovered that onside kick to end the game). But running backs are trained to run hard, go for the end zone... and of course, stats DO matter when trying to work out contracts, and we're talking about millions of dollars. Nobody will criticize a player for scoring a touchdown...

...which is why what Westbrook did is so much more impressive. To have the selflessness and most importantly, presence of mind, to simply take a dive at the 1 and end the game rather than allow Dallas even the remotest of chances to come back is simply brilliant. It's the smartest play I've ever seen in football.

13 comments:

  1. According to what I read on another website, either si.com or espn.com,
    Westbrook was going to score but teammate Jon Runyon yelled at him to stop, so he did. I guess it was a smart play but on other hand, being up 17-6 with 2 minutes left is a pretty safe lead. In other circumstances I'd hear it but in this case I don't know how necessary it was.

    ReplyDelete
  2. If they would've fumbled the ball subsequently, we wouldn't be saying it was so smart.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Fumble from the victory formation?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Why it's not so smart...

    The Cowboys would've still had to score twice (including 2 point conversion)with 2 minutes and 0 timeouts left. Nearly impossible to do.

    He almost got injured on the play while diving into the ground.

    He cost some of us who own him in Fantasy Leagues 6 points!!

    What if Philly fumbles a kneel down - almost as likely as Dallas scoring twice with 2 minutes.

    But I do agree that Westbrook is truly unselfish and may be the most underrated player in the NFL. His numbers are amazing each week. On pace for over 2000 yards from scrimmage, and almost 100 receptions - and he missed a game. If the Eagles were a little better he'd deserve MVP.

    ReplyDelete
  6. **sigh**
    The Cowboys would've still had to score twice (including 2 point conversion)with 2 minutes and 0 timeouts left. Nearly impossible to do.

    --True, but while that is nearly impossible to do it is totally impossible for them to score if THEY NEVER TOUCH THE BALL AGAIN!

    He almost got injured on the play while diving into the ground.

    --This little piece of info comes from where exactly, other than your active imagination?

    He cost some of us who own him in Fantasy Leagues 6 points!!

    --Ahhhhhhh, the truth.

    What if Philly fumbles a kneel down - almost as likely as Dallas scoring twice with 2 minutes.

    --Really!! How much shall we wager on the number of times those two set of events has happened? I'll take a team scoring twice in 2minutes and spot you 5x.

    There is no way to look at that play as having been a poor decision.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Jewboy - Not "necessary", but still better. Runyan yelled at him in the huddle before the play to do it, apparently, and all the linemen were yelling as he was running to 'get down, get down'. Just shows you that OL are still the smartest players in football.

    AlanLaz - What G said.

    Gabagoo - What G said. :)

    G - I like the new profile picture. Niiiice... :)

    ReplyDelete
  8. Oh, as a note, I've seen many teams this year score twice in less than two minutes - some teams even more than that! - and I've yet to see anyone fumble on a kneel.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Tell me the last time a team scored 11 points in under 2 minutes with ZERO timeouts.

    Also, Westbrook was drilled as he dove into the ground. Could've resulted in an injury or fumble.

    If there is a fumble - Dallas only needs one score to win.

    "Oh, as a note, I've seen many teams this year score twice in less than two minutes - some teams even more than that! - and I've yet to see anyone fumble on a kneel."

    None of those teams had ZERO timeouts.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The Texans scored 2 touchdowns in about 2-1/2 minutes earlier in the season without any timeouts (still lost when TEN came back with a FG). This is far easier because they only need a FG for the second score.

    Depending on when you want to start counting from, the Cowboys scored twice in the last 25 seconds against the Bills.

    The Jets last week actually HAD a chance to win specifically because Lewis scored that TD. They drove down, kicked a FG right away (which mind you was the second time they'd done that), and had they gotten the onside kick, they'd have had a good minute or so to score.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Okay, let's play:

    Tell me the last time a team scored 11 points in under 2 minutes with ZERO timeouts.

    --tell me the last time a team scored any points WITHOUT THE BALL.

    Also, Westbrook was drilled as he dove into the ground. Could've resulted in an injury or fumble.

    --oh, so now we've downgraded from "almost got" to "could've". A fumble, really, how do you figure? He hadn't dropped the ball to that point and if it comes out as a result of his dive it matters not as the ground cannot cause a fumble.

    If there is a fumble - Dallas only needs one score to win.

    --What fumble!!!

    I repeat, there is no sensible way to look at that decision as being wrong or dangerous.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Tell me the last time a team scored 11 points in under 2 minutes with ZERO timeouts.

    --tell me the last time a team scored any points WITHOUT THE BALL.


    Hehe!

    Or, more simply put:

    Teams have come a lot closer to pulling off choice (A) than seeing all of the following occur.

    1) A fumble occur on a snap for a kneel-down.
    2) Said fumble to be recovered by defense.
    3) Trailing team to drive approximately 98 yards with no timeouts and either 1:55, 1:15, or :35 seconds left (depending on what down the fumble occurred).
    4) Not leaving enough time on clock for other team to come back and then hit a game-tying/winning FG or score winning TD.

    Or yet another way, what's easier:

    Going about 70 yards for a TD OR returning a kick for a TD vs. going 99 yards for a TD? (Hint: 70 < 99)

    And what's more likely:

    Getting an onside kick, driving 20 yards, and kicking a FG vs. getting a fumble when the other team messes up the snap while trying to kneel.

    I'm betting on A.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I can just imagine the riots in the streets and death threats to Westbrook if it would have affected the spread or the over/under.
    Lucky for all involved, all the lines were already clinched.

    ReplyDelete