I don't know if this has been discussed if so my bad, but wouldn't it have been better to have given up the safety instead of putting them in a position to score a TD. In the heat of the battle I guess the thought process was to not let them get any points.
We didn't recover the ball. There was no giving up a safety if we did not get the ball, but yes, US recovering it in the end zone would have been better than them at the 1.
at first i thought so, but after thinking about it, no. Lets say you take the safety, Tennessee gets the ball back, with a chance to get the TD anyway.
I disagree. I think that Mangold made the right play by batting the ball out of the endzone. if we had recovered we could have punted. But in giving up a safety, we give them 2 points, and then the opportunity to score again when we punt the ball off to them (Safety Kick).
I disagree. We would give them 2 points AND the ball back. We give up the 6 they still need to get the 2 pt conversion and then we get the ball back with 6-7 minutes left rather than giving it to them to run the clock and get in position to win the game. It was quick thinking by Mangold to knock the ball back into the field.
That's showing 0 confidence in the defense. We punt the ball, with no dropback from the 20. That turns a 48 yd punt into a 60 yd punt. That gets them catching it at the 20, returning it to the 35 or so? If our D can't stop them, we do not deserve to win. Recover the ball. Then worry about where you are.
Mangold's decision was definitely spot on. Even Solomon Wilcots said so. The above statement is in no way endorsing the opinion of Solomon Wilcots, the worst announcer of all-time.
how do you put that much meaning behind anything he says? He sucks. I forget the few things he said that was just idiotic that I had to rant with my boy about him. He's a big moron, but Randy Cross is still the biggest asshat on TV. On topic though, a safety there is a bad move. That would have given them a chance to go ahead instead of, at best, tie the game. It really isn't about having ne confidence in the D so much as the momentum they'd have in that position would have helped them a lot. Granted that the TD was a big morale boost, them tying is a better deal than them going for, and possibly getting, the lead.
I'm pretty suprised at some of the responses here. You'd rather give up 6 points at least and have them kicking off then 2 and them getting the ball back? Anyway, it didn't look like Mangold was swatting the ball out of the endzone as much as trying to recover the thing himself. Solomon Wilcots is a buffoon.
i mentioned this in another thread, I was stunned at Wilcots saying what a "great" play Mangold made to keep it from going in the ez. The play there is to knock it out of the EZ take the 2 and trust your D. It would have been beter off up 16-10 than tied 16-16. Oh well at least it all worked out.
The best play would've been to recover on the 1 and punt, which is what it looked like Mangold was actually trying to do. If it were in the endzone, the safety is the smart move, obviously. If he were merely swatting it away from a defender, batting it through the back of endzone is a much better move than batting it forward and just praying we recover it and can punt
I agree completely....our defense could have managed the game had we just taken the safety. It eventually comes down to the titans scoring a td, but the safety takes the pressure of the offense to score. In order of preference Recover at the 1 Recover for a safety They Recover at the one They Recover for a td They scored once the whole game....we have a great punter and a defense that already had 3 picks. I would rather have Collins trying to score from 50 yards away then Travis Henry from the one.....
I don't think so. The best they could do once Mangold batted it out of the endzone was tie the game. Giving our guys a chance to win it on offense. They still needed to punch it in in from the 1, then get the two point conversion. Mangold gave the Jets a chance to recover outside of the endzone and then the offense a chance to win the game. IMO it was the right move.
Well, to each his own....IMO stopping the titans on O is easier then stopping the titans on O AND scoring, and lets remember the condition of our kicker that game....
exactly. i see the logic behind both of them. but this games over. this all depends on whether you have more faith in your offense or defense. it worked out in the end didnt it.
