I was getting annoyed on the Chiefs' last possession, the one where we had the ball on our own five with a minute left and were just doing kneeldowns.
On every kneeldown, the Patriots would create a big pileup by diving into our linemen.
It annoyed me because it's not going to work 999 times out of 1000. The general protocol of football is that if a team is kneeling down you let them do it because the game is essentially over. It's tradition, and it's generally frowned upon to do otherwise. (See Tom Nalen diving into Igor Olshansky's knees as an example.)
The Patriots were crashing hard into our linemen on every one of those kneeldowns even though Patrick was pulling off some of the greatest kneeldowns I've ever seen. Did you notice that? He was down in a split second and moving back. He may be the most talented kneeldown quarterback I've ever seen.
Having said all of that, the game ain't over until the final gun goes off, or Brady's bedtime, whichever comes first. If diving into the line works 1 time out of 1000, that's one extra game you're going to win. So it's good practice to do it from a pure win-loss perspective.
It makes me think that there should be a rule change to automatically take the clock down at the end of the game and the defending team can stop it by taking time outs, since kneeldowns are for the most part boring from a game perspective. Why should the league risk the knees of a Patriots player flying into them on a play that's essentially meaningless.
But back to the point. Was it good football that that Patriots were attacking our kneeldowns or bad sportsmanship?
Poll coming if I can keep Donta Hightower from diving into it. [Reply]
I wasn’t thrilled with it. I understand it but I wish they wouldn’t have done it. There is far higher probability of injury than a fumble. But I get it.
I do wonder what the narrative would have been if the roles were reversed. Would there be great whaling and gnashing of teeth at the slight chance that Brady would sustain an injury? I’m guessing at least one assface would roll that out there. [Reply]
I tend to agree but occasionally weird crap happens on a snap and they were positioned at a great spot to take advantage if they got lucky. Just gotta deal with it.
If we're just evaluating it based on the probability of injury, consider other "long odds" situations. How about a team down by 28+ in the 4th quarter? That's like a 99% chance of a loss, so should they just take a knee the entire quarter and concede the game? That would avoid injuries for both teams.
I don't see how that's any different than playing through a kneel down. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Buehler445:
I wasn’t thrilled with it. I understand it but I wish they wouldn’t have done it. There is far higher probability of injury than a fumble. But I get it.
I do wonder what the narrative would have been if the roles were reversed. Would there be great whaling and gnashing of teeth at the slight chance that Brady would sustain an injury? I’m guessing at least one assface would roll that out there.
This. A botched snap and they have the ball on the 5. Would have bothered me more if it was the other end of the field. I think it's more "how" they do I rather than if. Trying to blow them off the line like a normal play, fine. Going after cheap shots and knees, not cool [Reply]
IMO, just do away with the kneel downs. If you are at a point where 3 kneels ends the game or whatever, just do like they've done with the extra point or the intentional walk in baseball.
Just allow coaches to say "we're kneeling to end the game, they don't have any time outs and we can salt it away" run the clock and end the game. There is a fumble on a snap what, every 8 years on a kneel?