Down by 1, and Garrett goes for the FG?

Stautner · Dec 7, 2010

theogt;3736411 said:
But they're the SAME!!!1111

So, your point is that by using 4th down to rung an offensive play it transforms the Colts into an absolutely unstoppible juggernaut that is so completely dominant over the Cowboys that they would be absolutely, unquestionably GUARANTEED to win in regulation, but with only 3 downs they are a falllible team that has flaws and imperfections like any other team, and is capable of being stopped at any given time?

Wow, that one down sure makes a difference.

How is it that on 3rd and 6 the Colts are fallible, yet on 4th and 6 they magically transform into steaming locomotive with only a small kitten blocking their way to the first down marker?

How does that happen?

Doomsday101 · Dec 7, 2010

Stautner;3736432 said:
So, your point is that by using 4th down to rung an offensive play it transforms the Colts into an absolutely unstoppible juggernaut that is so completely dominant over the Cowboys that they would be absolutely, unquestionably GUARANTEED to win in regulation, but with only 3 downs they are a falllible team that has flaws and imperfections like any other team, and is capable of being stopped at any given time?

Wow, that one down sure makes a difference.

How is it that on 3rd and 6 the Colts are fallible, yet on 4th and 6 they magically transform into steaming locomotive with only a small kitten blocking their way to the first down marker?

How does that happen?

Heck they had the ball 2 times in OT and could not score and ended up losing because of the int.

Quarterback Coach · Dec 7, 2010

ninja;3734123 said:
Anyone else question this?

And what does this say about Garrett as a head coach? Not much imo.

Cowboys had first and goal inside the one and couldn't punch it in. Not a good sign for Garrett and his playcalling.

And Garrett didn't have the cajones to go for it on 4th down. Why kick a Fg there? The team is 3-8. You have nothing to lose by going for it. And if you don't get the TD, you at least have them pinned inside their one with 3 minutes left. Stop them and you get the ball back in good field position and kick a FG to win it at the end. And do you think going up by two points with 3 minutes left, that the defense was likely to hold Manning? At the time, I wouldn't have bet on the defense stopping Manning from at least a FG ( However, the defense did hold twice in OT)

Of course, Garrett got lucky with the Colt penalty.

Wait...what...the guy made a decision to get the lead and it was wrong...what???? I get the "what if" Manning crap, but seriously...they took the lead...

kmd24 · Dec 7, 2010

Garrett treats the defense like part of the team. He's not afraid to ask them to step up and make a play, and he doesn't treat them like failures when they don't. That role is reserved for the fans, apparently.

In fact, Garrett said that the defense played well in his post-game presser.

RoyTheHammer · Dec 7, 2010

kmd24;3736671 said:
Garrett treats the defense like part of the team. He's not afraid to ask them to step up and make a play, and he doesn't treat them like failures when they don't. That role is reserved for the fans, apparently.

In fact, Garrett said that the defense played well in his post-game presser.

Has anyone here said the defense is a failure or not part of the team?

kmd24 · Dec 7, 2010

RoyTheHammer;3736681 said:
Has anyone here said the defense is a failure or not part of the team?

It's more or less implied by the idea that Manning is going to march right down the field for the winning score. e.g.,

You're "forcing him to win" if you kick the field goal or if you go for the TD and don't make it. The difference is that in one situation, you're taking your fate into your own hands and in the other you're completely putting it in Manning's hands.

The Cowboys are no longer two halves of a team. Garrett is willing to give his players an opportunity to excel, not just throw the baby out with the bathwater because a very good QB put together a couple of drives on them.

rysko · Dec 7, 2010

good call if you ask me. he is coaching to win every game.

theogt · Dec 7, 2010

Stautner;3736432 said:
So, your point is that by using 4th down to rung an offensive play it transforms the Colts into an absolutely unstoppible juggernaut that is so completely dominant over the Cowboys that they would be absolutely, unquestionably GUARANTEED to win in regulation, but with only 3 downs they are a falllible team that has flaws and imperfections like any other team, and is capable of being stopped at any given time?

Wow, that one down sure makes a difference.

Okay. So instead of 3 downs, let's give them only 2 downs to make a first down. How does that compare? Are those comparable situations?

No. This is getting pretty stupid.

How is it that on 3rd and 6 the Colts are fallible, yet on 4th and 6 they magically transform into steaming locomotive with only a small kitten blocking their way to the first down marker?

How does that happen?

I can't believe you actually typed this out.

Beast_from_East · Dec 8, 2010

ninja;3734123 said:
Anyone else question this?

And what does this say about Garrett as a head coach? Not much imo.

Cowboys had first and goal inside the one and couldn't punch it in. Not a good sign for Garrett and his playcalling.

And Garrett didn't have the cajones to go for it on 4th down. Why kick a Fg there? The team is 3-8. You have nothing to lose by going for it. And if you don't get the TD, you at least have them pinned inside their one with 3 minutes left. Stop them and you get the ball back in good field position and kick a FG to win it at the end. And do you think going up by two points with 3 minutes left, that the defense was likely to hold Manning? At the time, I wouldn't have bet on the defense stopping Manning from at least a FG ( However, the defense did hold twice in OT)

Of course, Garrett got lucky with the Colt penalty.

You take the FG and get the lead, this is like football 101.

What if the Colts would have fumbled the following kickoff, we did. What if a receiver drops an easy 1st down, Wayne did. What if a CB gets his hand on a ball and tips it for a pick, Jenkins did.

See, this is why you dont say "we cant stop Manning, might as well go for it". You never know what is going to happen, so you do not turn down a chance to take the lead with just minuets left.

The decision to kick the FG was correct, now the playcalling on the first three downs is what can be criticized.

RoyTheHammer · Dec 8, 2010

kmd24;3736687 said:
It's more or less implied by the idea that Manning is going to march right down the field for the winning score. e.g.,

The Cowboys are no longer two halves of a team. Garrett is willing to give his players an opportunity to excel, not just throw the baby out with the bathwater because a very good QB put together a couple of drives on them.

I don't think it matters what team you play or if its the Steelers defense.. any time you assume that Manning is going to get the ball in the clutch and find a way to get points on the board, that's a fair assumption in most people's eyes i would think.

Especially when the last two possessions before, he marched 80 plus yards for TD's both times.

I don't think the team being united and not split into two halves is a rational argument for trying to say that Peyton wouldn't carve up most defenses in the clutch. Its not saying our defense is a failure, its saying he's a machine and the best QB in the game and they have all the momentum and the past two drives he's marched down the field on 80 plus yard drives to score TD's.

Makes a little bit of a difference if you look at it this way.

TNCowboy · Dec 8, 2010

Hook'em#11;3736417 said:
Take the FG. Offense couldn't get it in on 3 tries, Why would 4th be the charm?

By that rationale you would never, ever go for it on 4th down.....

TNCowboy · Dec 8, 2010

Beast_from_East;3736981 said:
You take the FG and get the lead, this is like football 101.

What if the Colts would have fumbled the following kickoff, we did. What if a receiver drops an easy 1st down, Wayne did. What if a CB gets his hand on a ball and tips it for a pick, Jenkins did.

See, this is why you dont say "we cant stop Manning, might as well go for it". You never know what is going to happen, so you do not turn down a chance to take the lead with just minuets left.

The decision to kick the FG was correct, now the playcalling on the first three downs is what can be criticized.

That's just it. You factor in all the "what ifs" and take the best odds. I don't have a problem that Garrett went for the FG. I wouldn't have had a problem if he'd gone for it either.

You kick the FG, you're giving Manning 3 minutes to go 40 or so yards. The odds are - given how good the Colts 2 min offense is, that the Dallas D is always susceptible in that situation, and that they would definitely be going on any 4th downs - that they are going to march down the field and probably score.

I think odds were in that situation dictated you go for it. But most coaches would do the same thing Garrett did, the conservative thing, because the last thing they want is a week of 2nd guessing by the media. On the other hand, Belichick is in a position that he can disregard what media and fans say, and can do things like going for it on 4th and inches in his own territory late in a game.

RoyTheHammer · Dec 8, 2010

Double Trouble;3737011 said:
By that rationale you would never, ever go for it on 4th down.....

Not in that situation you wouldn't, no.

Stautner · Dec 9, 2010

Doomsday101;3736457 said:
Heck they had the ball 2 times in OT and could not score and ended up losing because of the int.

Exactly. If the Colts weren't able to score in 2 possessions in OT, how is they would have been GUARANTTED to score on one possession in regulation?

theogt;3736704 said:
Okay. So instead of 3 downs, let's give them only 2 downs to make a first down. How does that compare? Are those comparable situations?

No. This is getting pretty stupid.

I can't believe you actually typed this out.

I never said having 4 downs wouldn't give the Colts a greater chance to succeed, and in fact, I conceded that. What I disputed is that having 4 downs GUARANTEED success.

What I was clearly saying is that if it is possible to stop the Colts on 3rd and 6, for example, then it is possible to stop them on 4th and 6. There simply is not logic to saying one is possible, yet the other isn't.

Cowboys&LakersFan · Dec 9, 2010

I think he made the right decision.

Doomsday101 · Dec 9, 2010

Beast_from_East;3736981 said:
You take the FG and get the lead, this is like football 101.

What if the Colts would have fumbled the following kickoff, we did. What if a receiver drops an easy 1st down, Wayne did. What if a CB gets his hand on a ball and tips it for a pick, Jenkins did.

See, this is why you dont say "we cant stop Manning, might as well go for it". You never know what is going to happen, so you do not turn down a chance to take the lead with just minuets left.

The decision to kick the FG was correct, now the playcalling on the first three downs is what can be criticized.

I agree. When you have the chance to take the lead you can't pass it up with a bunch of what if.

Doomsday101 · Dec 9, 2010

Stautner;3738538 said:
Exactly. If the Colts weren't able to score in 2 possessions in OT, how is they would have been GUARANTTED to score on one possession in regulation?

I never said having 4 downs wouldn't give the Colts a greater chance to succeed, and in fact, I conceded that. What I disputed is that having 4 downs GUARANTEED success.

What I was clearly saying is that if it is possible to stop the Colts on 3rd and 6, for example, then it is possible to stop them on 4th and 6. There simply is not logic to saying one is possible, yet the other isn't.

That is it in a nutshell there are no guarantees. You have to take what is in front of you and continue to play. If we are talking early 4th qrt with a 4th and 1 at the goal then maybe you go for it but in the closing min you have to take the points and believe in your defense to do their jobs.

Stautner · Dec 9, 2010

Doomsday101;3738568 said:
That is it in a nutshell there are no guarantees. You have to take what is in front of you and continue to play. If we are talking early 4th qrt with a 4th and 1 at the goal then maybe you go for it but in the closing min you have to take the points and believe in your defense to do their jobs.

That's it. You simply can't risk not taking the lead when you know you may not get the ball back again.

elcowboi · Dec 9, 2010

ninja;3734123 said:
Anyone else question this?

And what does this say about Garrett as a head coach? Not much imo.

Cowboys had first and goal inside the one and couldn't punch it in. Not a good sign for Garrett and his playcalling.

And Garrett didn't have the cajones to go for it on 4th down. Why kick a Fg there? The team is 3-8. You have nothing to lose by going for it. And if you don't get the TD, you at least have them pinned inside their one with 3 minutes left. Stop them and you get the ball back in good field position and kick a FG to win it at the end. And do you think going up by two points with 3 minutes left, that the defense was likely to hold Manning? At the time, I wouldn't have bet on the defense stopping Manning from at least a FG ( However, the defense did hold twice in OT)

Of course, Garrett got lucky with the Colt penalty.

Either way people would have complained. The boys won and people still question it. It seems like a no win situation for Red. LOL.

Stautner · Dec 10, 2010

elcowboi;3738778 said:
Either way people would have complained. The boys won and people still question it. It seems like a no win situation for Red. LOL.

The thing is none of us are chastizing Garrett for his decision. This has not been a bash Garrett session by any means. I think most of us have tried to be fair and understood Garrett had reasons for making the choice he did, and though we disagreed, we haven't treated it as a horrible lapse of judgement. Some on here have tried to portray us as saying that, but that isn't the case.

Down by 1, and Garrett goes for the FG?

New Member

Well-Known Member

Benched

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

New Member

Surrealist

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Double Trouble

Double Trouble

Well-Known Member

New Member

Benched

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member