In my 8-team Solitaire League that is posted elsewhere on this Bulletin Board a critical decision arose late in the 4th quarter of the Baltimore-Philadelphia game.
The Ravens and Eagles were tied at 17 with each team having one offensive turn left in regulation.
The Ravens went first in the last round and were faced with the following options:
Option #1: Play the Short Pass Receiving FG card (TE Receiving +3) with TE Ed Dickson (Receiving 56) along with Baltimore's "Long Distance Kicker" Audible card that gave the offense a +12 on any FG play. That amounted to a FG attempt with 71 rating points vs. the Eagles' Pass Rush.
Option #2: Play the Goal Line HB Dive TD card (RB Goal Line +6) with HB Ray Rice (Goal Line 62). That amounted to a TD attempt with 68 rating points vs. a Run Defense for the Eagles.
I "settled" for the successful FG, but following a post-play analysis, I discovered that the TD would also have been successful. The Eagles scored a TD on their following drive, so instead of Baltimore making it to overtime, the Eagles won 24-20.
This raises a question on how league or tournament procedures should be set up.
If coaches are permitted to take notes and perform extended analysis prior to making their play calls that would seriously bog down play and would allow a coach to definitively predetermine the success/failure of some critical late game play calls. In the example above, the Baltimore coach would have known from his notes that the three remaining Philadelphia defensive players (Williams/Boykin/Ryans) could not possibly have stopped Ray Rice's Goal Line run. Any consideration of kicking a FG would have been eliminated.
To maintain a fast, enjoyable pace during game play I plan on establishing a reasonable time clock for play calling. I also will probably prohibit written note taking regarding used players and playbook cards. Obviously coaches capable of making mental notes will still have an advantage when making calls.
Reply With Quote