I still disagree with this. Seeing if he has value is certainly a side benefit of the decision to bench Tua, but it is 0% a reason to do it. When they were deciding if Tua would play, seeing what the kid had was not in the “pros” column. It was not a factor until after the decision was made.
Sure, it’s to protect Tua for any potential trade value, even if it’s busted 30 year old Winnebago value, but any tanking is a coincidental bonus and would be unlikely to succeed. The big consideration is Tua’s contract - potentially tens of millions at stake if he gets injured before they can either offload him or decide to keep him around another season. Forget multi-faceted. Those huge contract numbers are facets 1 through 10.
It’s too late to improve or worsen their draft position by more than a couple spots. Even if they lose out and they get a lot of help from other teams, they’re moving up from 12 (current standings) to maybe 9 or 10. And that’s only with a lot of help if other bad teams win. That’s improvement but not “tank job” improvement. Most likely they stay within 1 spot of their current draft pick no matter what they try.
Likewise, seeing if their late round QB has any value is a coincidental bonus. It’s not a meaningful strategic consideration at this stage.
If you don’t understand this, it’s not worth discussing this with you. We’ve already gone back over this enough in this thread, and it’s not worth relitigating the same thing over and over again. At this point it’s a tired argument.
Possibly because if this ever happened, the QB bombed and was never heard from again.
This is a good summary, although I think protecting Tua is the major factor, especially if they put on the trading block.
I don’t know if we have any Miami fans following this thread, but here’s a question: will any other starters be benched for the rest of the season? I’m guessing that any number of non-playoff-bound teams do this to a certain extent. Both to protect their starters and give the subs some game experience. And I don’t remember hearing a whole lot of tanking complaints.
This is a great anti-tanking argument.
I don’t see how you could possibly know this with the absolute confidence you are projecting (hint: you cannot), but whatever. I don’t think we actually meaningfully disagree that much at all.
Very true. But what’s the fun in that?
Agreed. Even if Mahomes hadn’t been hurt and was perfectly healthy, I would have had the 6-8 Chiefs finish the season with Mahomes safely on the bench.
I guess you have to manufacture fun wherever you can as a Lions fan…
Zing!
I was wondering if it was a “luck-version” or a “savvy-version”. Lack of celebration indicated Charb did not know he had made the two points but if he knew the rules and it was clear the pass might have been a lateral it was a great move to pick up the ball just in case.
Here’s what’s puzzling me: The pass was initially ruled incomplete, which implies that a whistle blew the play dead when the ball touched the ground (where it spent several second before being casually picked up by Charbonnet). Wouldn’t this whistle have precluded a later ruling that the play was still alive due to the throw having been ruled a backward pass?
(I didn’t see the game - just a clip of the play. Maybe this was discussed?)
I don’t think there was a whistle. In one of the angles, you see the sideline judge giving the sign for a tipped pass, not an incomplete. It’s unclear at what point the incomplete ruling was made, and if that was before or after the ball was picked up.
This might be what you already saw, but it includes many angles and some discussion:
ETA: actually on second view, there does seem to be a brief whistle just before the ball is recovered. Hmmm…
Seems kinda weird for the refs to say, in effect: “We definitely thought it was incomplete, but decided not to whistle the play dead.”
I did see the game.
I did not hear a whistle and the commentators did not mention a whistle, though that doesn’t mean there wasn’t one. There was about 2 seconds between the ball hitting the ground and Charbonnet picking it up. The pass was clearly backwards (from slow motion replays, neither me not the commentators thought of the possibly while the play was live).
My take was that the refs initially thought the pass was forward but did not blow the play dead so review could determine whether or not it was a lateral.
I was watching the game and I didn’t hear a whistle. I think that the announcers mentioned that no whistle was blown.
And from my vantage point in my recliner, it was clear that it was a backwards pass.
Great point. At no time did the officials wave the play dead, or signal a successful conversion.
That was my first recollection as well. But watch the play linked above - it sure sounds like a whistle maybe 1 second before the ball is picked up. Am I hearing things?
I heard a whistle as well. It was a very brief, short one, not the long whistle you normally hear, but there was a tiny squeak of one.
I agree - in the video you linked, at 0:06 there is what I hear as a clear (though brief) whistle.
You guys have better hearing than me (which, granted, is a low bar…just ask my wife).
Lots of discussion on reddit about the whistle, with many people saying that if a whistle blows prematurely and it is determined that the ball was fumbled, it is awarded to the team who possesses it as if the play was “played out”. But the discussion on reddit is pretty convoluted with various people arguing about the distinction between a fumble and lateral, and special rules for conversions vs regular plays.
I have no idea what’s correct.
I don’t know if I’d call that particularly savvy. You see players players grabbing the ball after a “not 100% clear” incomplete pass or a ground-caused non-fumble all the time. I’m sure they are all coached to grab any loose ball just in case. I’d call what Charbonnet did there basically a rote action. Turned out to be a genius rote action, of course 