A Letterkenny resident had a shocking awakening on Sunday night after their car was damaged outside their home.The criminal damage incident occurred outside a house in Ardcrannagh, Gortlee on Sunday night/Monday morning at approx 1.45am.The car owner was awoken from their sleep to realise that two of their car windows were smashed. The passenger window and the rear windscreen of the car were targetted in the attack.Gardaí are appealing to the public for any information which may help with the investigation. If anyone saw anything suspicious please contact Letterkenny Garda Station on 0749167100 or the Garda Confidential Line on 1800666111Rude awakening for Letterkenny car owner after windows smashed was last modified: October 22nd, 2019 by Rachel McLaughlinShare this:Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window)Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)Click to print (Opens in new window)
Frank Gore Jr. is a chip off the ol’ blocking back. And he is challenging — in that loving fathers and sons way — his old man’s status as GOOF (Greatest Of Our Family).Frank Gore Sr., of course, is the former 49ers running back who has cracked the 1,000-yard mark nine times in his first 13 NFL seasons (Year No. 14 began with a 61-yard effort for the Miami Dolphins on Sunday).“I can return the ball, I can catch the ball, I can run the ball,” Junior told TMZ Sports. Senior, Junior says, “(is) …
(Visited 1,547 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0 There’s no stretching the truth any more. Cassini data have led all the ringmasters to the conclusion that the rings of Saturn are not billions of years old.Saturn’s rings seen from Voyager 2, 1981For over 15 years, Creation-Evolution Headlines has reported the tug-of-war between planetary scientists on the age of Saturn’s rings (e.g., 2/12/02). Indications that the rings are much younger than Saturn’s assumed age (4.5 billion years) go back to the Voyager missions. Several lines of evidence pointed to youth, but planetary scientists tugged back at the evidence, inventing ways to keep the rings billions of years old. Now, they have given up. Reality won the match: the rings are young!Paul Voosen reports in Science Magazine, “Saturn’s rings are solar system newcomers.”The rings of Saturn seem like permanent fixtures in the solar system, firing the imaginations of poets and scientists alike. But observations made this year by NASA’s Cassini spacecraft in the final months of its existence, and reported here last week at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union (AGU), show they are surprisingly youthful: Until a few hundred million years ago, they did not exist. Saturn acquired its jewels relatively late in life. If any astronomers had gazed at the sky in the time of the dinosaurs, they might have seen a bare and boring Saturn.Cassini high dives through Saturn rings in 2017 (JPL).Of course, to moyboy scientists, ‘young’ is a relative term. The new estimate of 200 million years max doesn’t sound young to most people. It is, however, only about 5% of the assumed age of the solar system. That conclusion leaves secular planetary scientists in a quandary: it will now require ad hoc special conditions to explain the rings in a separate theory, apart from the general theory of the solar system’s formation. Not only that, it will require a relatively recent event that makes humans look special, because we live in a rare epoch when the rings exist to be observed and enjoyed by sentient beings.The brightness of the rings was a primary evidence for youth, because rings should get dirty over time from meteorite bombardment. Added to that, the B-ring—thickest of all—turns out to be less dense than thought. The clincher came from the Cosmic Dust Analyzer (CDA), which measured far more dust than expected:After 12 years of painstaking measurements and analysis, the Cosmic Dust Analyzer, a Cassini experiment that measures small particles, has found that the micrometeorite flux is large—“inconsistent with an old ring,” says Sascha Kempf, a space physicist at the University of Colorado (CU) in Boulder who led the work. Dust from the outer solar system moves more slowly than expected, which allows Saturn’s gravity to pull more of it in. The flux, about 10 times higher than estimates from before the Cassini mission, suggests a ring age of between 150 million and 300 million years, or even younger. “Our measurement is the most direct way you can measure it,” Kempf adds. “There’s not much you can do about it. It has to be young.”Dr. Larry Esposito enjoying Cassini’s first view of Saturn’s rings, July 1, 2004 (photo by David Coppedge)How are the scientists dealing with this quandary? Basically, Voosen writes, they are appealing to the Stuff Happens Law (i.e., chance). Leading ringmasters Larry Esposito and Jeff Cuzzi have been worrying about this for decades. Eleven years ago, Esposito proposed a thick B-ring to keep at least that part going for a billion years (2/04/16). Now look what they say:In the early 1980s, Esposito says, the two Voyager spacecraft flew past Saturn and returned data that seemed to point toward a low ring mass—and a possible youthful age. But Voyager scientists had a hard time coming up with a compelling scenario to explain it—the notion that a saturnian moon might have shattered at a time when the solar system would have had few potential asteroids or comets to ram into it seemed far-fetched. “The best idea we had then was that we’re just lucky,” Esposito says. “I’m back to square one.”Scientists have only begun to study how the ring-forming collision could have happened. “Part of the reluctance for everyone to leap off this bridge into the unknown is we haven’t had any kind of feasible explanation,” Cuzzi says. It’s time for new ideas, he adds. “The solar system could be full of surprises like this.”Cuzzi’s last statement could be taken as a covering model for future upsets. Or, it could be taken as an indication that planetary scientists don’t understand the solar system as much TV specials make it seem.The situation is analogous to the fossil record for Darwinism. Theory predicts gradual change and clear lines of descent, but the evidence keeps showing abrupt appearance, living fossils and ‘convergent evolution’ (hear Casey Luskin talk about this on ID the Future). As I see it, the evidence is baffling for Darwinians because Darwinism is false. Similarly, the youthful rings of Saturn are baffling to secular planetary scientists because the solar system is young.I had occasion to meet these scientists when I was at JPL, and I spoke with them on rare occasions. I was responsible for their computers at their universities, and saw them often in periodic Project Science Group meetings at the lab. They were each amicable and pleasant in person. I listened to their presentations with great interest, wondering which view would prevail. It was clear to me that nothing would dislodge their belief in billions of years, but there was a subtext that it would be very troubling to them if the rings turned out to be young. These quotes show that to be the case: they are flummoxed and dumbfounded by the evidence. They have no explanation, and they admit it.I’ve been intrigued by this mystery ever since I read about it in Astronomy Magazine and Sky & Telescope back in the 1980’s, so it was good to actually meet the experts in person. In my non-JPL science presentations, I’ve long used Saturn’s rings as one of many examples that the solar system is young. While maintaining my humility as not in their league regarding math and physics, I do find some gratification, at least in this instance, at being found right in the end.
The Emerging Black Filmmakers Fund launched on Monday, which benefits films that have been directed and produced by black South Africans.The South African film Tsotsi won an Oscar for best foreign language film in 2005. It’s one of the films that the The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), invested in through its film and television production incentive scheme. (Image: TVGuide.com)Brand South Africa reporterHelp is at hand for emerging black South African filmmakers trying to break into the industry, in the form of a new, R90-million fund launched on Monday by the Industrial Development Corporation (IDC), the Department of Trade and Industry and the National Film and Video Foundation.Over the next three years, the Emerging Black Filmmakers Fund will bankroll the full R5-million production and marketing budget of six qualifying feature films a year – with R4.5-million earmarked for development and production, and R500 000 for marketing.To qualify, a film has to be directed and produced by black South Africans, meaning that a black producer must own at least 51% of the production company behind the movie.“We have identified a growing need to support the production of South African films and documentaries, particularly by black filmmakers and producers,” the IDC’s head of media and motion pictures, Basil Ford, said in a statement.National Film and Video Foundation (NFVF) chief executive Zama Nkosi said this partnership aimed to address past imbalances in South Africa’s film industry. “Creating this opportunity will benefit our industry immensely, as content is key in elevating our industry, and as we take the sector to another level of attracting new markets and investments,” Nkosi said.According to a study published by the NFVF last year, the film sector contributes R3.5-billion to South Africa’s gross domestic product (GDP), while providing employment for more than 25 000 people.The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI), through its film and television production incentive scheme, has invested more than R500-million in over 50 local films in just over a decade.These include Tsotsi, which won an Oscar for best foreign language film in 2005, and the acclaimed film adaptation of Nelson Mandela’s biography, Mandela: Long Walk to Freedom.Would you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See Using Brand South Africa material.
It’s also worth noting that Musk claimed last fall the solar roof would cost less to manufacture and install than a conventional roof, even without accounting for the electricity it produced. “Electricity is just a bonus,” he said. That’s clearly not the case. Three houses, three cost estimatesTo test Tesla’s claims, Consumer Reports ran the numbers for three houses — one in Yonkers, New York, one in a Houston, Texas, suburb, and the last in Thousand Oaks, California.The most compelling case for a Solar Roof came from the California house. Tesla recommended a 50-50 split between solar and non-solar tiles, with the 1,878 square feet of roofing and the Powerwall battery costing $56,800. Because the roof would generate an estimated $84,700 in electricity, the homeowner would recoup $41,800 over 30 years (the estimate includes a $13,900 federal tax credit).Texas didn’t do so well. The two-story, 4,467-square-foot house also would get a roof with 50% solar tiles, which would generate $46,800 in electricity over 30 years. But the size of the house and the fact it would need air conditioning 300 days per year means that the homeowner would be out $13,500 after 30 years. The roof plus Powerwalls (two of them in this case) would cost a total of $97,700.In Yonkers, the 2,700-square-foot house would need 70% solar roofing tiles and a single Powerwall battery. The upfront cost would be $45,400, but in the end the homeowners would net $13,900 if they lived there for 30 years and all of the other assumptions the calculator makes hold true.Tesla recommends a Powerwall battery as part of the package. But in states with net-metering, where homeowners are paid the full retail rate for excess electricity they send to the grid, it might be more economical to skip the Powerwall, providing the homeowners aren’t concerned about an occasional power outage. The basicsA Solar Roof uses two types of tiles, which both look the same. One type produces electricity; the other doesn’t. Depending on where the house is located, the mix of solar to non-solar tiles allowing the home to be completely powered by solar electricity will vary. That ratio also affects the total cost of the installation. Estimates also include the cost of a Powerwall 2.0 (13.5 kWh) battery, which comes with a 10-year warranty.Tesla has provided a cost calculator allowing homeowners to plug in a few basics about their home and get an estimate of how much the installed roof would cost and the value of the power it is expected to produce over 30 years (the warranty period for solar production.)Homeowners may order tiles with either a smooth or textured glass surface. Tiles made to look like slate and terra cotta will not be available until next year.Tiles come with a warranty described by Tesla as “infinity, or the lifetime of your house, whichever comes first,” while power and weatherization (no leaks) each have a 30-year guarantee. Tiles can be installed on a roof with a pitch of 3:12 or greater.If you want to place an order, you will be asked to place a refundable deposit of $1,000. Tesla says installations will start in California in June, “rolling out to additional markets over time.” Installations will be on a first come, first served basis. Details on Tesla’s Solar Shingles Are Slow to EmergeSolar Panels That Don’t Look Like Solar Panels Will a Merged Tesla-SolarCity Put a Solar-Powered Battery in Every Home?Dow Drops Its Line of Solar ShinglesSolarCity Is Getting Into the Roofing Shingle BusinessAn Introduction to Photovoltaic SystemsGAF Dives Into the Residential Solar Market RELATED ARTICLES Tesla has now answered one of the big remaining questions about its textured glass Solar Roof — just how much will it cost? — and the estimates show some homeowners could benefit financially over time despite substantial upfront costs, according to an analysis published by Consumer Reports.CEO Elon Musk promised last fall that the innovative roofing tiles, which can be made to look like one of several roof coverings, would cost less than a conventional roof.Did Tesla deliver? Broadly speaking, it looks like it. But there are many assumptions included in the mix. Consumer Reports said last fall that a Solar Roof would have to cost no more than $24.50 per square foot to beat the cost of an asphalt roof for an average house. Tesla’s current estimate for the same house sets the cost of the roof at $21.85 per square foot, just about 11% less than the Consumer Reports limit.The analysis was based on the value of 30 years’ worth of electricity. (Consumer Reports explained the assumptions it made in an article published last November.) What we still don’t knowHomeowners who buy a Solar Roof are paying for 30 years of electricity upfront, but most of them will move long before that. The National Association of Home Builders says that owners of single-family homes on average move every 13 years — less than half the tenure that would be required to see the financial gain in Tesla’s calculator.Electricity costs over time, the impact on property taxes, interest rates, even shading from trees on the lot or nearby buildings are all variables that would affect the financial outcome over a 30-year stretch.Tesla has published some information about the tiles, including hail, wind, and fire ratings. We know that each tile is 14 inches long and roughly 8 5/8 inches wide.But Tesla hasn’t said anything about the output of the solar tiles, how they are wired, and even what type of solar cell is beneath the textured glass surface. Does each tile have its own electrical connection — meaning hundreds or thousands of individual junctions on each roof — or will tiles somehow be ganged together to reduce the number of connections that must be made (and potentially repaired)?“We are not yet sharing the specific technical details you’ve requested,” a Tesla spokeswoman said in an email.A lack of information also makes it difficult to compare the cost of a Solar Roof with a conventional rooftop solar installation. In order to make an apples-to-apples comparison, homeowners would have to know the capacity (in kW) of the Tesla roof so they could get bids on a racked solar array of the same capacity from a local installer. Tesla doesn’t provide that information.Plus, homeowners have other options if they want something other than conventional panels in racks attached to the roof. There is GAF’s recently announced entry into the market, Tesla’s own low-profile solar panels, and SolarSkin panels from Sistine Solar, which are installed on racks like conventional solar arrays but manufactured so they have the appearance of any material the homeowner chooses.No matter how the number-crunching goes, Tesla hopes that homeowners will find the appearance of the tiles to be a major draw. How quickly are the orders coming in? The company isn’t saying. “We are not providing updates on orders at this time,” a spokeswoman said.
Essential Reading! Get my first book: The Only Sale Guide You’ll Ever Need “The USA Today bestseller by the star sales speaker and author of The Sales Blog that reveals how all salespeople can attain huge sales success through strategies backed by extensive research and experience.” Buy Now Too Little Activity: If your results this year are not what you wanted them to be, it is likely that you did too little activity to generate those results. The results that you wanted would have required that you take massive action (and still do). Dabbling here and there isn’t how you generate transformational, breakthrough, and breakout results. Too little activity is how you fail.Taken Too Inconsistently: You sometimes took the action you needed to take, for sure. On some days you did what would was required of you in order to reach your goals. That was some days, not every day. Taking action inconsistently doesn’t produce inconsistent results; it produces no results. That is the real difference between sometimes and always.For Too Long: This year is over. But there isn’t anything you can do to produce a better result now. As much as it pains me to tell you this, the first quarter of next year is already over, too. The better results you want in the first quarter of next year would have to have been built over the last two quarters. Too little activity, taken to inconsistently, for too long equals missed goals.Your recipe for next year is massive action, taken consistently, throughout the entire year. Start today. Start right now. It’s not too late to start working on next year.QuestionsLook at your biggest and most important goal. Have you taken massive action?Have you pursued that goal with a fervor that borders on religious?Have you taken that action over a long period of time?What part of this recipe needs to change?
He calls for targets, shoots them down with two quick bursts from his shotgun, then prepares for the next targets. Ronjan Singh Sodhi’s sport is just like his life now-a-days – there is no time to rest.Just a day after he returned home from Izmir, Turkey, where he shot the double trap gold at the ISSF World Cup Finals, Sodhi was back in action with his trusted Perazzi weapon at the Dr Karni Singh Shooting Range Wrestling in Tughlakabad.Speaking to MAIL TODAY while taking a break between practice rounds, Sodhi said his focus had not dwindled despite his big achievement.”I had said before I left for the Finals that I had three big competitions coming up and, for me, it’s just one down and two to go (Commonwealth Games and Asian Games). Yes, it was magnificent to win the gold medal, but my focus is very much in place, which is why I’m here practicing the day after I got back home,” Sodhi said.Reflecting on his performance in the Finals, Sodhi said the key to success had been confidence in himself. “It was pretty close at the end of the qualification round, but my competitors started falling behind early in the final. The best thing was the confidence that my training had given me, which was helped by the fact that I was hitting the targets right in the middle,” he said.”It has been a fantastic year for me – out of five ISSF competitions, I have shot well in three.advertisementBefore this gold, I had won the World Cup gold in Lonato ( Italy) and I had shot the world record ( 147 points) in Acapulco ( Mexico) in the first World Cup of the year. So I’m hoping to take this strong form forward with gold at the next two events as well.” On the contribution of shot gun coach Marcello Dradi of Italy, Sodhi said: ” Having somebody as experienced as Marcello around is really a big help. He travels to competitions with us and while he can’t change too much of the technical aspects at this stage, it is a tremendous boost to the mind to have him around and talking to you at the competitions.”His help has also reflected in the records this year – apart from my success, there’s been Manavjit [ Sandhu] winning a World Cup gold in trap, Asher [ Noria] has won the junior double trap at the World Championships and Seema Tomar has also won a silver medal – the first for an Indian woman shotgunner. Marcello has played a major role in taking the Indian shotgun team to an all- time high.” Sodhi also dismissed concerns over the form of Abhinav Bindra and Samaresh Jung, who are going through a lean patch.”Abhinav hasn’t shot in enough competitions since the Olympics to judge his form. I know that he is a big- game player and prepares himself with the mega events in mind. If you look at his past record, the bigger the stage, the better his performance gets.Be it the Olympic gold or the World Championships gold in 2006, he always succeeds on the big stage, so I have no doubt that come Games time, his performance will be at its peak,” he said.”As regards Samaresh Jung, the expectations had been heightened after he won five gold at the 2006 Melbourne Commonwealth Games. He is not in bad form, it is just that other shooters have done better than him in some events. I have no doubts that these champions will underline their greatness,” he said. ” Having said that, I believe the man to watch out for will no doubt be Gagan Narang. Not only is he in the fray for multiple gold medals, he has also been the most consistent among all our shooters.” On the last- minute concerns about the athletes’ accommodation and other facilities at the Commonwealth Games Village, Sodhi said he wasn’t letting them cloud his mind.”There has been too much negative publicity about every aspect of the Games. Yes, there is a little bit of concern about the Village and I would be lying if I said there were no concerns. But my gut feeling says everything is going to be all right. Senior level people have intervened now and I think everything should be in order,” he said.
(Main page image taken from Tsilhqot’in nation film Blue Gold)By Jorge BarreraAPTN National NewsCiting concerns over the infringement First Nations traditional rights and the impact on fish habitat, the British Columbia government rejected an expansion plan from a lodge that sits several kilometres from the site of a proposed copper and gold mine now facing intense opposition from area First Nations communities.Siegfried Reuter, owner of Taseko Lake Lodge, which sits about 10 kilometres away from the epicentre of the proposed Prosperity mine, was rejected by the provincial government in 2004 when he tried to expand his operations by 35 hectares.Reuter said he was stunned to learn the massive Prosperity mine project had passed B.C.’s environmental review. In 2004, Reuters said he had a much smaller proposal rejected on environmental and First Nations rights grounds.The 35 square-kilometre Taseko Mines Inc. project will destroy a watershed and drain Fish Lake, which is sacred to area First Nations communities.The Oct. 26, 2004, rejection letter Reuter received from the Land and Water Management division at Williams Lake, B.C., read in part:“I have decided to disallow your application as there are specific First Nations issues within the boundaries of this application concerning traditional and cultural use. In addition, the Ministry of Water, Land and Air Protection have brought forth information that development within the boundaries of this application would impact fish habitat including salmon and blue-listed bull trout.”The proposed mine would be built in the middle of one of Canada’s most pristine wilderness areas, surrounded by mountains and dotted with lakes.Reuter said the rejection of his plan makes no sense in light of the province’s decision to allow a massive mining project which would destroy an ecosystem with the promise of an artificial version to replace it.“There is a biased play going on within the government. We were pointedly denied in 2004 because of First Nations and fish concerns. Six years later they are approving a project that will not only kill…an entire ecosystem, it is entirely opposed by First Nations,” said Reuter. “It is a rather insane project.”A spokesman for the B.C. Ministry of the Environment said they would look into the issue.A spokeswoman for the Ministry of Forest and Range, which now oversees the former Land and Water Management division at Williams Lake, also said they were looking into the issue.The mining project, which would sit about 125 kilometres southwest of Williams Lake, is facing intense opposition from First Nations communities across the province and environmental groups across the country.Williams Lake is about 495 kilometres north-east of Vancouver.The project, which will turn Little Fish Lake and parts of Fish Creek into a tailings pond, poses a direct threat to the Tsilhqot’in people who have depended on the land and waters since time immemorial.The Tsilhqot’in nation has vowed to stop the project at all cost, even with their lives.The mine will also put the lodge out of business. Reuter said he has invested about $2 million into the lodge over the last 10 years. It sits about 2.5 kilometres from the edge of the proposed tailings pond. The main grazing area for the lodge’s horses is the site of the replacement Prosperity Lake proposed by Taseko Mines.With approval from the B.C. government already in hand, Prosperity mine now needs the blessing of the federal cabinet.Taseko Mines vice-president of corporate affairs Brian Battison said the company expects a decision by late September or early October.Battison said the company was “optimistic” the federal cabinet would approve the project.While cabinet confidentiality prevents disclosure of the type of information federal minister will have when they make their decision, an analysis of information on the project reveals widespread concern from federal departments about the mine’s environmental impact.Cabinet is expected to have at least four main documents on the Prosperity mine project. The documents include: The Canadian Environmental Review panel report, a First Nations consultation report; a memorandum to cabinet outlining the position of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), Natural Resources Canada and Transport Canada; and a report from the B.C. environmental assessment which approved the project.The federal environmental review panel report found that the project would have a devastating impact on the environment and on First Nations communities in the area.The First Nations consultation report is also expected to reflect the blanket rejection of the project by area communities.The cabinet memorandum on the position of government departments will likely also echo submissions by the departments to the federal environmental review panel.DFO expressed concerns that Taseko Mine’s plans for a replacement lake would not meet the department’s “no net loss” policy. Under the policy, if fish habit is destroyed it needs to be replaced by another habitat to make up for the loss.The department concluded the Taseko Mine’s “proposed fish and fish habitat compensation measures would not even meet a 1:1 ratio,” according to a DFO submission contained in the environmental review panel report.A former DFO scientist, who has since consulted internationally on fisheries, said Taseko Mine’s habitat compensation plan was “a bad joke” and impossible to accomplish.“They talked about replacing the loss habitat at a ratio of eight to one, they said they were going to create eight new units for the ones they destroyed,” said Gordon Hartman, who submitted a “yard by yard” analysis of Taseko Mine’s plan on behalf of the Tsilhqot’in nation. “It is just nonsense, the whole project.”Hartman said Taseko Mines classified as replacement habitat a dug-out, 11 kilometre ditch to collect water flowing down the sides of hills.“(Prosperity Lake) does not replace the kind of habitat that is lost in (Fish Lake),” said Hartman. “The fake streams they are putting in do not replace quantitatively or qualitatively the streams they are getting rid of.”Transport Canada also “expressed concerns” about the project. The department concluded that “Prosperity Lake would not adequately mitigate the losses of the fishing and recreational experience at Teztan Biny (Fish Lake) or the use by First Nations,” according to an outline of the department’s position contained in the environmental panel’s report.Natural Resources Canada also expressed initial concern that Taseko had underplayed the earthquake threat to the region in its construction plans. The department however said they were satisfied with the company’s updated designs.When contacted by APTN National News Wednesday, Battison asked for and obtained a list of questions he said would receive [email protected]
Every Super Bowl loser wants a do-over, but no team has had as disastrous an ending as Atlanta had in the final nine minutes of Super Bowl LI. If the Falcons were given 1,000 do-overs, they would have been expected, according to ESPN’s win probability model, to win the game 996 times.All the Falcons needed was one more point, one defensive stop or perhaps even just one more minute of burnt clock to zero out the New England Patriots’ 0.4 percent chance to surmount a nigh-insurmountable lead.Why didn’t they?“I think we ran out of gas,” Falcons head coach Dan Quinn said at his post-game press conference. Even so, Quinn’s offensive machine should have been able to coast to the finish line after being up 28-12 with possession of the ball and less than 10 minutes to play. Instead, bad decision-making turned domination into capitulation.The Falcons, as I wrote one FiveThirtyEight’s Super Bowl live blog, had been stunningly effective on the ground all game. The Patriots’ rush defense ranked fourth in Football Outsiders’ Defense-adjusted Value Over Average (DVOA) this season, yet the Falcons had piled up 94 yards and a touchdown on just 14 carries.Starting at the 9:40 mark, Falcons running back Tevin Coleman ran on first and second down, getting injured on the latter play but setting up 3rd-and-1 from the team’s own 36-yard line. Rather than dial up another clock-eating run, offensive coordinator Kyle Shanahan called a pass play. Coleman’s backfield partner, Devonta Freeman, whiffed on his blocking assignment, and Falcons quarterback Matt Ryan was strip-sacked.After the Patriots capitalized on the turnover with a touchdown, the Falcons ran 11 offensive plays — and only two of them were runs. Despite needing more than anything to wind the clock down to zero, Shanahan gave only two more carries to Freeman, who’d been averaging 8.2 yards per carry until that point.This is where football coaches, who spend numerous hours micro-analyzing schemes and matchups as they build out their game plans, can lose the forest for the trees. It may well be that Shanahan had a perfect play called up for that situation, or a matchup he knew Ryan could exploit. Ryan, after all, had completed 13 of 16 passes to that point; another short completion seemed like an easy ask. But the Falcons needed to maximize their chance of finishing the game with more points, not their offensive efficiency. Should Terrell Owens Be In The Hall of Fame? Related: Hot Takedown Even if the Patriots had stopped Freeman short of the sticks on 3rd-and-1, it would have run 30 more seconds off the clock, and an average Matt Bosher punt would have placed the Patriots inside their own 20-yard line with less than eight minutes to play. Instead, the Falcons’ only turnover of the game gave the Patriots the ball 5 yards from the red zone with 8:24 left on the clock. Even an unsuccessful run and decent punt at this juncture might have been enough to win the game, considering that the Patriots would go on to score the game-tying touchdown with just 57 seconds left. (Then again, having one fewer minute may have just meant that the Patriots would have scored even faster.)Incredibly, Shanahan and the Falcons later doubled down on their mistake.On the ensuing Falcons possession, Ryan gripped it and ripped it. The Falcons moved from their own 10-yard line to the Patriots’ 22 with a 2-yard run sandwiched between two deep passes. They then ran once, for a loss of a yard, shaving 44 seconds off the clock. Then, Shanahan dialed up another pass — and Ryan took his fifth sack.“You don’t think, just run the ball and make your guy kick a 50-yard field goal,” Shanahan told reporters after the game. But wait — why wouldn’t you think that?Running two more times, even for no gain, would have forced the Patriots to burn two timeouts. The Falcons were on the Patriots’ 23-yard line; a field-goal attempt from there would have been 40 yards, not 50. Falcons kicker Matt Bryant has made 78.2 percent of his career kicks from between 40 and 49 yards. With the score 28-20, going up by 11 with less than four minutes to play would likely have been as effective a dagger as going up by 15.In the end, Shanahan, Ryan and the Falcons offense can point to just about any metric and say they put together a masterful offensive game. They averaged a whopping 7.5 yards per play over the course of the game, far more than the Patriots’ 5.9, or even the Falcons’ league-leading regular-season average of 6.7.But sometimes the best performance in a vacuum isn’t the optimal performance in a game situation. That’s something Shanahan, reportedly set to become the head coach of the San Francisco 49ers, is going to have to learn.