fantasy master 0 Posted January 15, 2007 Why throw the red flag on that fumble and lose a much needed Time out? With 8 seconds left why not run one more sideline pass and gain 4 or 5 yards? That field goal would have been good if it were 5 yards closer. He's worse then Peyton when it comes to winning the big game. Flat on his face again. I hope he goes to the Dolphins next. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cuse9 131 Posted January 15, 2007 Why throw the red flag on that fumble and lose a much needed Time out? With 8 seconds left why not run one more sideline pass and gain 4 or 5 yards? That field goal would have been good if it were 5 yards closer. He's worse then Peyton when it comes to winning the big game. Flat on his face again. I hope he goes to the Dolphins next. He's not worse, he just, he....he.......okay he's worse. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,433 Posted January 15, 2007 Why throw the red flag on that fumble and lose a much needed Time out? With 8 seconds left why not run one more sideline pass and gain 4 or 5 yards? That field goal would have been good if it were 5 yards closer. He's worse then Peyton when it comes to winning the big game. Flat on his face again. I hope he goes to the Dolphins next. Not only did he lose the timeout, but he had no more challenges left afterwards. They used one challenge in the first half (Gates non-fumble) that they won, but once you lose on one of your first two challenges, you don't get another. So, if there had been a close play between that point and the two-minute warning, they would have been screwed I agree on that FG try. They had enough time for one quick out to get it closer for Kaeding. I love Marty Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Dutch1 0 Posted January 15, 2007 I agree, that challenge was a horrible call. Its not like he HAD to challenge that play or his team had no chance. If the call was even remotely questionable then ok, its understandable, but jesus it wasnt even close. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fumbleweed 555 Posted January 15, 2007 Not only did he lose the timeout, but he had no more challenges left afterwards. They used one challenge in the first half (Gates non-fumble) that they won, but once you lose on one of your first two challenges, you don't get another. So, if there had been a close play between that point and the two-minute warning, they would have been screwed I agree on that FG try. They had enough time for one quick out to get it closer for Kaeding. I love Marty It was up to Rivers, Eric Parker, and Vincent Jackson to execute a quick out and get out of bounds in less than 8 seconds. As such, I think they did the right thing by attempting the field goal. I agree, that challenge was a horrible call. Its not like he HAD to challenge that play or his team had no chance. If the call was even remotely questionable then ok, its understandable, but jesus it wasnt even close. The game didn't turn on that play. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FBIGUY 0 Posted January 15, 2007 Come on guys....what lost that game was not bad coaching......it was.......... The Chargers D letting the Pats score before the half The Chargers D giving the Pats an easy three points after giving them a first down with a head butt! The Chargers D after picking a pass and sealing the game, trying to run for extra yards and fumbling the ball back to the Pats who took it in for the tie. That is why they lost the game.......THE PLAYERS DID ALL THAT..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BigE47 0 Posted January 15, 2007 Well Marty is to be blamed for not going for the FG in the 1st quarter. I mean who passes up a 47 yard FG in good weather conditions, to go for it on 4th and 11. And look they lost by 3 points. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fumbleweed 555 Posted January 15, 2007 Well Marty is to be blamed for not going for the FG in the 1st quarter. I mean who passes up a 47 yard FG in good weather conditions, to go for it on 4th and 11. And look they lost by 3 points. That decision was questionable to be sure. Didn't understand it at all. Still, the Chargers had the game in hand and didn't secure the ball on the interception when up by 8. You can't pin that on Marty. All coaches make questionable decisions in a game....almost every week. This one decision you're speaking of is just magnified because of who the coach is. If the Chargers don't fumble that interception or just knock the pass down, we're discussing how Marty and the Chargers were able to tame the Patriots..... Why spend all one's time looking for the person to blame? That seems to be the new American trend. This was a great game and both teams for the most part played really well. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,433 Posted January 15, 2007 That decision was questionable to be sure. Didn't understand it at all. Still, the Chargers had the game in hand and didn't secure the ball on the interception when up by 8. You can't pin that on Marty. All coaches make questionable decisions in a game....almost every week. This one decision you're speaking of is just magnified because of who the coach is. If the Chargers don't fumble that interception or just knock the pass down, we're discussing how Marty and the Chargers were able to tame the Patriots..... Why spend all one's time looking for the person to blame? That seems to be the new American trend. This was a great game and both teams for the most part played really well. It is much more fun to blame Marty. When a guy consistently leads a team to wins during the regular season only to lose in the playoffs, you have to think that perhaps it is that guy who is lacking. Some points here: - I did not find that the game was played well. Lots of missed plays (drops, bad throws, etc.). Some of that could be attributed to the opponent's play, but it seemed like a lot of mental mistakes. That is not on Marty. - One thing that has not been mentioned here is "Why did Rivers throw the ball 32 times?". They ran it 33 times with LT and Turner each averaging over 5 yards a carry. Why did they need a balanced attack? That is on Marty. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chiz3 1 Posted January 15, 2007 How about LT only getting 9 touches in the second half, after he was 75% of their offense in the first half. Gee, what was the score then. LT(and Turner) were running all over NE but the coaches decided to let Rivers and the great play of their wr corp take over. Keading is more than capable of making a 47 yd FG-54 well thats his career high-not really a gimme period, let alone in a playoff game. The staff was so conscious about the "martyball" theory, that when they should be running(i.e like martyball) they feel they need to throw? I have one question about the head butt penalty. It was after the play, why did NE get the ball back? Anyway Marty is gone. His coaching cost the playoff game vs. the Jets two years ago(when he went REALLY "martyball" and his coaching has come in question again. Face it, he's 5-13 in playoff games, he's doing something wrong, its not all bad luck. F*CK HIM. It is much more fun to blame Marty. When a guy consistently leads a team to wins during the regular season only to lose in the playoffs, you have to think that perhaps it is that guy who is lacking. Some points here: - I did not find that the game was played well. Lots of missed plays (drops, bad throws, etc.). Some of that could be attributed to the opponent's play, but it seemed like a lot of mental mistakes. That is not on Marty. - One thing that has not been mentioned here is "Why did Rivers throw the ball 32 times?". They ran it 33 times with LT and Turner each averaging over 5 yards a carry. Why did they need a balanced attack? That is on Marty. Its the Martyball stigma, that they try NOT to do, even when they should be doing it. Like was mentioned, they were avg. 5yds/carry, why did they keep throwing on 3rd-2 or 2nd-5? Im sick. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Patriotsfatboy1 1,433 Posted January 15, 2007 How about LT only getting 9 touches in the second half, after he was 75% of their offense in the first half. Gee, what was the score then. LT(and Turner) were running all over NE but the coaches decided to let Rivers and the great play of their wr corp take over. Keading is more than capable of making a 47 yd FG-54 well thats his career high-not really a gimme period, let alone in a playoff game. The staff was so conscious about the "martyball" theory, that when they should be running(i.e like martyball) they feel they need to throw? I have one question about the head butt penalty. It was after the play, why did NE get the ball back? Anyway Marty is gone. His coaching cost the playoff game vs. the Jets two years ago(when he went REALLY "martyball" and his coaching has come in question again. Face it, he's 5-13 in playoff games, he's doing something wrong, its not all bad luck. F*CK HIM. See my note above on the running attack for SD. I agree. As far as the headbutt, it was after the play on 3rd down. Hence a first down resulted. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
parrot 790 Posted January 15, 2007 How about LT only getting 9 touches in the second half, after he was 75% of their offense in the first half. Gee, what was the score then. LT(and Turner) were running all over NE but the coaches decided to let Rivers and the great play of their wr corp take over. : The smartest thing I heard any commentator say yesterday leading up to the game - it was Jimmy Johnson I think - was that it was "time for the return of Marty ball." You have the best player in football, give him the ball. The Patriots could not stop Tomlinson and if the Chargers would have just kept feeding him the ball they would have won. But it almost seemed like the fell into the same trap the Rams did in 01, not being content just to win, but wanting to win in a certain way and maybe prove something they really didn't need to prove. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fumbleweed 555 Posted January 15, 2007 Both the Browns and Chiefs ran Marty out of town and neither franchise has ever sniffed the AFC title game since. Be careful what you wish for. Cowher supposedly couldn't win the big game, either. A good coach is a good coach...some coaches are better in the postseason than others, but Marty is indeed a good coach. He is fundamentally very sound. Again, teams should be careful what they wish for. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Foghorn Leghorn 0 Posted January 15, 2007 Both the Browns and Chiefs ran Marty out of town and neither franchise has ever sniffed the AFC title game since. Be careful what you wish for. Cowher supposedly couldn't win the big game, either. A good coach is a good coach...some coaches are better in the postseason than others, but Marty is indeed a good coach. He is fundamentally very sound. Again, teams should be careful what they wish for. You beat me to it, Fumbleweed. I bet the Browns would love to have those 12-4, 11-5 seasons from Marty back. I don't understand why he seems to be treated as if he were Wayne Fontes or Barry Switzer. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
stosher1 0 Posted January 15, 2007 Come on guys....what lost that game was not bad coaching......it was.......... The Chargers D letting the Pats score before the half The Chargers D giving the Pats an easy three points after giving them a first down with a head butt! The Chargers D after picking a pass and sealing the game, trying to run for extra yards and fumbling the ball back to the Pats who took it in for the tie. That is why they lost the game.......THE PLAYERS DID ALL THAT..... There's people calling for Marty's head - I don't get it. Bad turnovers (is there such a thing as good to's?) and a bonehead personal foul cost them the game! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chiz3 1 Posted January 15, 2007 I thought the headbutt was on 4th down, my bad. Yes the Chargers fell into the reverse "martyball" game plan. I think the term alone puts too much pressure on the OC-NOT TO GO MARTYBALL. The last thing Marty wants to hear at a press conference is, "Why didnt you throw the ball more?" Cleveland and KC were both on the down swing of their success. SD is just starting theirs. As a die hard Bolt fan-MARTY MUST GO. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
murf74 461 Posted January 15, 2007 Marty had that team in position to easily win that game. Things like a muffed punt, a fumble on an interception return, Rivers fumbling in his own territory, a guy getting one of the most odd taunting penalties of all time. A coach cannot control things like that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Moz 72 Posted January 15, 2007 simply put -- If the Chargers -- only knocked it down on 4th down with NE driving -- chargers win ! That ave Brady the window he needed and Patriots always take advantage of mistakes ! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Texansfan 0 Posted January 15, 2007 How about Tomlinson only getting 9 touches in the 2nd half.... Way to use the best weapon in the game when you needed him most.... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Cuse9 131 Posted January 15, 2007 Both the Browns and Chiefs ran Marty out of town and neither franchise has ever sniffed the AFC title game since. Be careful what you wish for. Cowher supposedly couldn't win the big game, either. A good coach is a good coach...some coaches are better in the postseason than others, but Marty is indeed a good coach. He is fundamentally very sound. Again, teams should be careful what they wish for. On the flipside of that is Tony Dungy/John Gruden. People wore tired of Dungy in TB, he goes and they brought in Gruden and the Buccs won the Super Bowl. Either way you go, the Buccs route or the Steelers route, you can get the job done. I feel bad for Marty. After the game you could see the weight on his shoulders. He had that look of "It happened again!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
