First, for the fans who suspect this was a designed hook-and-lateral, I don't know what to tell you. Moving on... After the game, Brandon Marshall called his decision to lateral the worst play in football history. I'm curious: if the flip had been neatly converted for an extra 20 or even 5 yards... would Marshall be second-guessing himself? Would the announcers have criticized him? Or would they have praised a superstar on his creativity in jump-starting a struggling offense? What if the play had picked up just two more yards, but the Jets then drove down the field and scored, and later won the game... would ANYONE be questioning Marshall's decision? Or would teammates have credited Marshall's initiative, aggressiveness and will to win in sparking them? Let's hypothetically play 200 game simulations, with the following criteria: Jets trail 17-0 at home after 20 minutes. The offense is lifeless, and has shown nothing to indicate that they can get it going. A pass is completed to Brandon Marshall (the Jets second first down of the game?), and he has a little room in the secondary. He's being dragged down, and sees an open teammate behind him. 100 times, Marshall flips it. (We're not replaying the exact lateral 100 times. Similar, but not exact. We're ssuming that most of the time a defender's helmet will NOT suddenly appear between Marshall and the intended recipient of the lateral, but a small percentage of the time -- as we saw -- this will happen.) How many times do we win the game? The other 100 times, Marshall is dragged down without flipping the ball. How many times do we win the game? Is there a marked difference in the results? I'm not arguing that Marshall's decision was sound. But Brandon Marshall is not stupid. He did not learn the risk-reward of flipping the football after the game was over. He knew it already, which is why he's not constantly looking to lateral the ball every time he makes a catch. In this situation, he flipped it, and it didn't work out. A "bad" play? I'm not convinced that if he tries it in 200 simulations, we don't win more games than if he didn't try it. I'm certainly not convinced that the difference isn't negligible. We were down 17 points at home, and we couldn't do shit on offense. For your star offensive player to try something risky in that spot is hardly the worst play in football history. tl; dr -- laterals that work are NEVER second-guessed by dumb-ass announcers or reporters.
I'm pretty sure if it was successful, people would have been calling it brilliant Me personally, I never like seeing players pitch the ball back, unless it was designed. Too many things can go wrong As soon as he did it, I was screaming at my TV
If it was successful and it gained 2-3 yards, which is almost the only possible result, I still would've torn him a new one for it. On the infinitesimal chance that Cumberland takes it 60 yards for a touchdown, fine, I'd have praised him.
I'd rather run 200 simulations of him shoving the ball up his ass than attempting a lateral to jeff fucking Cumberland
It's an ill-advised play even if it's pulled off successfully. I get why he did it and for that reason I can't come down too hard on him; the guy is super competitive and was trying to jump start a sputtering offense. That doesn't change the fact that it's way too risky, especially considering the field position. Not to mention he was throwing it to freaking Cumberland. I think it's more indicative of his competitive nature than his football acumen so I won't let a play like that define him. I'm over it.
It's just inexcuseable. He was trying to erase a 17 point deficit with one play. He's a great player but he had a dumb day, and that wasn't even the only mental mistake. In the 2 minute drill of the second quarter, he caught a ball on an out route and instead of walking out of bounds to stop the clock with 21 seconds left, he turned it upfield and was tackled immediately, forcing the Jets to use their last time out. Another instance of just trying to do too much. Part of that can be attributed to the absence of the complimentary players which made him feel like he had to do everything, but a seasoned vet should be smarter. Still one of my favorite players and I'm excited to have him.
And even with all the points you made, I think the Jets still win more games in the 100 simulations without the flip than the 100 with them, by a wide margin. That turnover led directly to a touchdown, and the Jets lost by 7. If they don't get those points off the turnover, AND the jets score on that drive (they were already in good field position after the catch) then they're already winning. Plus, they probably lose the ball in 90+ simulations of that flip.
I appreciate the first sentence, and maybe you're right. We'll never know. The rest of your post precisely ignores the spirit of mine in about 6 different ways.
Are you saying 100 simulations where the lateral is attempted, or 100 simulations where the lateral is completed? I think if he attempts it 100 times it's a turnover the majority of the time, which makes the other points I made still reign true.
We all know that the consequences/ramifications of a decision always dictate how much that decision is analyzed. However, that was a bad idea, regardless of how it turned out, and I'd venture to say that if he attempted that play 100 times, the vast majority of them would result in disappointment.
Is it still inexcusable if the lateral hits Cumberland in the hands and he picks up ten yards? Because too often the play will result negatively and therefore cause the Jets to lose a game they otherwise would have won? If yes, ok. I can accept that, but then we should loudly criticize EVERY single lateral in every similar situation, whatever the outcome. In general, there are good decisions that turn out badly. This doesn't retroactively make them bad decisions. Unless you're a football broadcaster. That's my point. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm watching simulations of people shoving a football up their ass. I started with Brandon Marshall, but then I found a Selena Gomez option.
Thank you for clarifying. I'm saying he attempts 100 laterals, but not in the exact same scenario. In that exact scenario, the ball hits the defender's head 90 times. That's not what I mean. If we look at every unexpected lateral in NFL history made by an offensive player in the defensive backfield, what percentage resulted in turnovers? 10? 15? That's what I mean.
Move on? To talking about whether Fitz is better than Geno? Or to whether Bowles' laid-back attitude is superior to Rex's blowhard shtick? (sigh) Ok.
