OT: Do you get the feeling Marty Schottenheimer

[ecompt]

would have lost with the 1960s Packers? The guy was snakebit early in his career; now he's become clueless in postseason games.

[Marquette Fan]

I was interested in a Chargers-Colts game to see who would choke first with Schottenheimer's history and Dungy and Manning's history as chokers.  By the same token, I do feel a little sorry for Schottenheimer.  Interesting how both the 1 and 2 seeds went down in the AFC this weekend...

[ChicosBailBonds]

would have lost with the 1960s Packers? The guy was snakebit early in his career; now he's become clueless in postseason games.

I feel bad for him.  His team was the better team today but they choked so many times.  The muffed punt.  The interception fumble near the end of game that would have sealed it for San Diego.  The wide open touchdown where the receiver didn't get two feet in the end zone.

The guy is snakebit in a big way, at least today.


Happy Birthday Ecompt!!

[MU71]

Hard to blame the coach on the muffs.  Snakebit is a better term than clueless regarding yesterday.

[ecompt]

His challenge on the interception/fumble (when he had NO chance of getting  the call overturned) cost his team a vital timeout. Other than that, you;re probably right. But the guy gets that deer-in-the-headlights look in every big game.

[MU71]

You are right about the challenge.  Don't know if it would have made a difference, but one more play to get a better FG shot would have been nice.   
Too bad - I am getting sick of seeing NE there and they really ddin't deserve yesterday's game.

[Murffieus]

His decision to go for it on 4th & 11 in the first half instead of going for a FG or punting was assinine-----terrible decision----too early in the game to gamble against the odds!

Also his challenges on calls when the replays showed the chances that he would prevail were slim cost him TOs-----had he had a couple of TOs left on that final drive----it's likely he would have won the game!

Marty needs to take a course in risk/reward!

[ecompt]

right, Murff. If he doesn't have faith in his kicker booting a 47-yarder that might have proved the difference, then he has to punt. Funny thing is, two years ago, he sat on the ball in overtime against the Jets and then watched Kaeding miss a 40-yarder. That turned into yet another postseason loss for him.

[lab_warrior]

What do you mean, didn't DESERVE yesterday's game?  Just because you don't like the Patriots, or that the Chargers should win the game "ON PAPER" because they have overwhelmingly more talent? 
The team that scores more points deserves to win, that's all that counts!  The Chargers made some unbelievably boneheaded plays--that headbutt was beyond retarded, as well as the personal foul after the extra point.  You should probably deserve to win when you beat a guy deep on a 50 yard bomb late in the game, for sure.  You should DESERVE to win when you capitalize on really stupid mistakes by the other team.  There's no "mystique" to the Patriots, they just make clutch plays when the game is on the line, not mistakes.  Also, why challenge a play that you KNOW you won't win?!?   Great call there, "Marty Chokenheimer"; that was the play that cost them the game, with that last TO, they could have run one more play.  Also, maybe the kicker should have made that FG, too.  You make your own breaks--there's no such thing as "luck" or "snakebit", just idiocy.
I'm sorry you're TIRED of the Patriots--TOO BAD!!

[mviale]

Did anyone actually think the Charges could beat the smooth Brady led Patriots?  He is Montana like - a true winner.