Should Alex Smith Have laid down on the 5 instead of running it in ???
 

Same thing couldve been said when Alex smith ran it in with about 2 minutes left. They couldve run the saints 1 trime out, and the 2 minute warning and a bunch of time off the clock and still maybe gotten a TD...

Nope. See my advice in other thread.
Posted via Mobile Device

I agree...100%

Should Pwnsmoker have posted this in the other thread instead of being a dumbass and posting as a stand alone thread, especially since it's a repost?

No. It's a stupid question both times, and yes I know you were mocking the other thread.

Thank god

Finally a question we can say yes too.

I like the feeling of you all up on my nuts, its warm on a cold night.

they won

true but they did have to come from behind with about 1:30 left to do so....

I agree with with KCRock as a 'no' to the question , but I'm just playin devil's advocate.

Sensible play if you're up by 1, and the clock / timeout situation means you can end the game without giving the ball back.

If he doesn't get the TD, they lose. The answer to your question is quite simple.

I considered starting my first thread about Alex Smith instead of Graham. But my thoughts were since the Niners offense isn't as high powered as the Saints, it was more important for them to go ahead and score in that situation.

The odds of the Saints laying down at the 5 and still scoring were much higher than the Niners odds based on redzone effectiveness.

But it is actually a legitimate decision in the Niners case, because they only needed a FG and Akers will make that chipshot 98% of the time. As he was running into the endzone, I thought it was the wrong move. I was sure NO would score a TD and was saying the best they can hope for is a tie by converting the 2. The choice is between a TD beating/tie you and they have 2:10 and a timeout vs having 30 seconds and no timeouts to get into FG range. I think the 30 seconds and no timeouts will typically be more successful vs elite QBs.