After watching the replay over and over, it looks like they did. Probally to get the ball back. But that is the way it look. If anyone recorded the game, check it out see if that was the case. Green Bay did it against Denver in the Super Bowl.
the only way that they allowed themselves to lose was not putting Vinny in the game, but to say they intentionally threw the game is asinine. and how exactly did Green Bay throw the 97 Super Bowl???
In a tie game, I'd say YES because in a TIE GAME, INDY could sit on the ball and kick a FG and win. Up 3, I say NO WAY. THey could stop Indy there and go to OT. If they were going to allow them to score, they would have taken time out after that 1st down run with 2 miutes remaining . I think that was their big mistake.
It would be stupid to do that. It was 3rd and 2, if they stop them there, it's a tie game at the least. Letting them in would be retarded.
nobody is saying that they intentionally threw the game. he is saying they gave up the score because they knew they weren't going to stop them anyway and thus they could get the ball back with enough time to attempt to score themselves. this is not the same as throwing the game. and this is why they didn't. they still had a chance to play for OT.
plus they had timeouts, meaning they stop the clock, and im sure they wouldve gladly traded 4 points in exchange for 1 timeout of being able to stop the clock, it puts that much less pressure on them on the final drive. if they had NO timeouts, hed have a point as they couldnt stop the clock, but in this spot they had timeouts.
I was actually yelling at the TV for NE to call a TO. It was 1st & goal I believe and there was basically no way Indy wasn't going to score at least a fg to tie the game. Why on earth didn't NE call a TO after the first play, which would have left them with at least 30 more seconds?
yes, you're right. i misinterpreted what he meant by "final score", i thought he meant the final score of 38-34, meaning they threw the game after they got up big, at first i didnt realize he meant the last score of the game. my bad mate!
Only someone who has little to no knowledge of Bill Belichick would start a retarded thread like this. Or, maybe a Pats troll that knows little to nothing about trolling.
I heard people say that, but Belichick would not do that in that situation. he had 2 timeouts, so he would rather stop them and hold them to a FG then go to OT. IMO that defense was getting pushed around all 4th quarter and fatigue was definitely an issue. The Pats D-line was simply manhandled on the final 3 plays. Also, Green Bay did allow Denver that TD. Anyone watching that game let alone that play would know that.
It wasnt that they threw it, they allowed the TD. Packers coach Mike Holmgren told his team to let the Broncos score to maximise the time the Packers would have on the clock for a potentially game-tying drive. He admitted later that he had thought that it was first and goal rather than second and goal, crucial to clock management decisionmaking on the play[1]. Davis did score his third rushing touchdown on second and goal, leaving 1:45 on the clock. The Broncos now had a one touchdown lead, at 31-24. The Packers attempted one final drive to try to tie the game before the end of regulation and send the contest into overtime. Freeman returned the Broncos kickoff 22 yards to the 30-yard line, and the Packers advanced to the Broncos' 35-yard line with 1:04 left in the game with a pair of completions from Favre to Levens for gains of 22 and 13 yards on the next 2 plays. After a 4-yard pass to Levens, Favre's next 2 passes fell incomplete. Then on fourth down, Denver linebacker John Mobley broke up a pass intended for Chmura, enabling the Broncos to take the ball back and run out the clock for the victory. Holgrem gambled, and lost. He assumed Favre with 2 minutes and 2 timeouts could tie it. Belichick is to smart to do this. The Patriots D-line was simply fatigued and overmatched by the Colts O-Line
Up by 3 points as the Patriots were yesterday? You must attempt to halt the opponent. Hopefully, you make them attempt a FG and then you will get the ball after the kickoff in an attempt to win the game. ___ A team should consider allowing a touchdown in the type of scenario mentioned in this thread if they are: trailing by 1 tied leading by 1 leading by 2 The reasons: If you are trailing by 1 point, a field goal would put you down by 4 points and a touchdown with an XP would put you down by 8 points. Either way you will have to score a touchdown. (You would also need a successful 2-point conversion play in the latter scenario.) In a tie game with the ball inside the 10-yard line, it is highly likely you will soon fall behind on the scoreboard. The opponent is in position to run down the clock as far as possible if your timeout situation is not good. Your opponent's worst-case scenario, other than a turnover, is a field goal attempt to tie the game. Leading by 1 or 2 points- essentially the same as if the score was tied.
Here is the best example of when a touchdown allowed actually helped the team that allowed the touchdown and hurt the team that scored the touchdown. In the end, however, the team that scored the "bad" touchdown still won the game. Second greatest regular season comeback in NFL history September 21, 1997, at Buffalo Bills 37, Colts 35 Colts led 26-0 at one point in the 2nd quarter. Halftime lead was 26-10. Score at end of 3rd quarter: Colts 26, Bills 16. Colts took 29-16 lead in 4th quarter. Bills later took a 30-29 lead with 4:43 remaining. The Colts did not score on their next drive. Right around that time I began to watch the game. Whatever game I was watching (probably a Jets game) had ended and NBC put on the conclusion of the Colts-Bills game. All the Bills had to do was run out the clock and the game was over. If I recall correctly the Colts were out of timeouts and the two-minute warning had already passed. Rookie Antowain Smith busted out for a 54-yard touchdown run. After the successful XP try the Bills led 37-29. The clock read "1:24." That touchdown allowed by the Colts was their only hope to stay in the game! (Well, other than forcing a fumble on the drive, Miracle at the Meadowlands-like.) If Smith was savvy enough to stop short of the end zone at any point beyond the first down marker, the game was over. A kneel down or two and that was the game. On the ensuing drive, Indianapolis moved the ball right down the field. Paul Justin connected with Marvin Harrison on a 2-yard touchdown pass. Bills 37, Colts 35. The two-point attempt was a pass from Justin. The ball was deflected by Kurt Schulz. Without the deflection, the game would have gone to overtime because the intended receiver was open. *** On the play in question the Colts had stacked the box. Smith found a hole and was untouched once he got past the line of scrimmage. I'm sure the Colts defenders wanted to cause a fumble. Allowing a touchdown was the next best thing, as it turned out. This is the only case I know of where a touchdown actually helped the team that allowed the touchdown as opposed to helping the team that scored the touchdown. If Smith ran 53 yards and kneeled down at the 1 the game ends 30-29 after two more kneel down plays. Instead he went that one extra yard. In turn, the other team was later able to almost tie the score. One of the most bizarre endings to an NFL game.
Don't forget the Jets-Raiders playoff game in the 2001 season. The Jets were trailing by a score, but Vinny had started moving the team like the 2000 vintage. The Raiders had the ball and all they had to do was kill the clock. They scored a long-range rushing TD that everyone said killed the game, but actually it gave the Jets a chance to win because it put the ball in Vinny's hands again. If the raiders running back had stopped or just jogged out of bounds after getting the first down the Raiders could have run the clock out. As it happened, Vinny took the Jets right down to the red zone again and nearly scored. A TD, onside kick and another drive could have won the game for the Jets. This was another case of a TD potentially hurting the team that scored it. I remember at the time thinking the Raiders had made a mistake. Shame it didn't work out for the Jets!
I remember a game against Miami in 2003 when the Jets would have benefitted from allowing a TD, instead Herm allowed Miami to run the clock right down in the hope his guys could block the chip shot FG. They didn't, and we lost.
If that was the case they sure allowed the Colts far more time then they expected cause they only got the ball back with 1 minute left.
Didn't mean to get people worked up. Looking at the DB, have to watch again to get his name, just through his arm at the Colts RB then just kept running to the sideline seemed kind of odd. Didn't wrap up, through his body into or nothing. It seemed to be a tackle that would have normally been made. Also I wasn't saying they wanted to give the game away. But wanted to get brady the ball with enough time to make something happen, like he does most of the time.
I know what you are saying, but it is a big stretch to compare the '01 Wild Card game to that Colts-Bills game from September '97. Charlie Garner broke off an 80-yard touchdown run to put the Raiders up 38-24 after the XP. 1:27 remained on the clock. The odds of a team scoring 14 points in that situation are slim to none. Off the top of my head, I'm going to say that that Garner run was the third longest postseason run. Somebody will correct me or I'll correct myself tomorrow, if need be.
