Can anyone explain not punting with 1 minute left?

[Nightman]

It's actually really informative to see threads like this one that show you first-hand just how far backwards people will bend in order to believe a non-existent criticism (and by that I mean a criticism a reasonable person would entertain and immediately reject) is valid.

If we can get 12 pages out of the obvious rationale for not punting last week (and I"m sorry, guys, but the rationale for that was completely obvious), how much more likely are people going to be about more-debatable topics like play calling or who ought to be getting snaps in what situations? It underscores how fruitless these discussions can be sometimes.

For my part, as long as we seem to be adding depth, and we have what looks like an actual contender on paper when everybody's healthy and in the lineup, I'm going to be happy with our direction. When we're losing talent faster than we can add it, or actually costing ourselves games with poor coaching decisions, that's what I'll reserve my concern for on the coaching front.

You seem awfully interested in such a non-debatable topic.

The only thing that is obvious is that you refuse to realize that the thought process and the result of the play were mistakes.

 

[Dodger12]

It's actually really informative to see threads like this one that show you first-hand just how far backwards people will bend in order to believe a non-existent criticism (and by that I mean a criticism a reasonable person would entertain and immediately reject) is valid.

If we can get 12 pages out of the obvious rationale for not punting last week (and I"m sorry, guys, but the rationale for that was completely obvious), how much more likely are people going to be about more-debatable topics like play calling or who ought to be getting snaps in what situations? It underscores how fruitless these discussions can be sometimes.

Problem is that Garrett's not going to get the benefit of the doubt. I thought the squib kick was far more egregious to end the half but that's just me. At the end of the day we were up by 2 possessions and Tannehill wasn't going to lead the dolphins to victory with one minute left. Against the Pats or another quality team, punting would have been the right call most probably.

For my part, as long as we seem to be adding depth, and we have what looks like an actual contender on paper when everybody's healthy and in the lineup, I'm going to be happy with our direction. When we're losing talent faster than we can add it, or actually costing ourselves games with poor coaching decisions, that's what I'll reserve my concern for on the coaching front.

Not sure where all this depth is, especially if they can win one game without the QB. Romo won before he had all this "depth" and it's become obvious what the team is without him.

 

[Dodger12]

He redid the scouting organization when he took over, and he's been the leading voice in juggling how they work with the coaches and, you can probably safely bet, who's getting promoted and who moved around or out in the scouting group, as well.
That's been pretty well documented at this point, based off of Garrett's long history with NFL scouting through his family and his familiarity with how it's worked previously with the Cowboys.

Where did this come from? Do you think Garrett wanted McClay over TC and pushed for the change? And it's been mentioned that Kiffin was a Lacewell move.

 

[Dodger12]

Two or three little mistakes can turn a win into a loss. No coach is above criticism and football isn't so complicated that ordinary fans can't debate an NFL coach on strategy. JG struggled with game management so much that he stopped calling plays so he could focus on the entire team.

No doubt but I don't think that last series is one I hang my hat on with Garrett. As I mentioned earlier and it's just my opinion but I may think different if it was the Pats or GB or maybe even Carolina. Speaking of which, Carolina is going to be a decent test of where this team is or could have been if Romo hadn't gotten injured. Should be a good game.

 

[Garrettop]

Cowboys rank 26th this year in pass play percentage, at 54%. Carolina is 32nd at 49%, Tennessee is 16th at 60%, and Detroit is first at 68% (numbers rounded). (Low/Median/High)

 

[Nightman]

No doubt but I don't think that last series is one I hang my hat on with Garrett. As I mentioned earlier and it's just my opinion but I may think different if it was the Pats or GB or maybe even Carolina. Speaking of which, Carolina is going to be a decent test of where this team is or could have been if Romo hadn't gotten injured. Should be a good game.

I think that the idea was OK on 4th and 6 from the 31. If they picked up 3 or 4 yards they give the ball up at the 27 yard line. Not great but worth the chance of getting a first and ending the game. But then they got the 5 yard penalty.

At that point they had to punt. They weren't running for a first and the Dolphins just saw your thinking. Instead they ran a half-hearted play and lost 2 more yards and turned the ball over at the 38 yard line. With only 64 seconds left, another 30 yards in field position is a big deal and well worth the minuscule risk in punting.

 

[Proximo]

This thread is the gift that keeps on giving!

 

[DandyDon52]

He redid the scouting organization when he took over, and he's been the leading voice in juggling how they work with the coaches and, you can probably safely bet, who's getting promoted and who moved around or out in the scouting group, as well.
That's been pretty well documented at this point, based off of Garrett's long history with NFL scouting through his family and his familiarity with how it's worked previously with the Cowboys.

that could be , I know his dad was a dallas scout for awhile.
The thing is especially with the draft, we dont know who does what or who wants who.
I think the jones have final say and the rest of the group tell the jones what they think, and decisions are made.
So you really cant say any one person drafted any specific player.

Also Romo played a part and had a say in the drafting of frederick, and probably tyron.
Then martin fell into their laps as a surprise, because most felt the giants would pick him , but didnt,
Lael was just another opportunity that came easy for them.

I dont think they set out to build a line of #1's, it just happened.

 

[pancakeman]

Not sure where all this depth is, especially if they can win one game without the QB. Romo won before he had all this "depth" and it's become obvious what the team is without him.

To be fair, the team was missing more guys from their roster than just Romo during the losing streak.

 

[Idgit]

You seem awfully interested in such a non-debatable topic.

The only thing that is obvious is that you refuse to realize that the thought process and the result of the play were mistakes.

It's fascinating to me. And of course they weren't mistakes. I'm not even entertaining that argument.

This should have been a thread where the OP asks a question, it gets answered, and he says "Oh, that makes sense." End of thread.

 

[Cowboy4ever]

that could be , I know his dad was a dallas scout for awhile.
The thing is especially with the draft, we dont know who does what or who wants who.
I think the jones have final say and the rest of the group tell the jones what they think, and decisions are made.
So you really cant say any one person drafted any specific player.

Also Romo played a part and had a say in the drafting of frederick, and probably tyron.
Then martin fell into their laps as a surprise, because most felt the giants would pick him , but didnt,
Lael was just another opportunity that came easy for them.

I dont think they set out to build a line of #1's, it just happened.

And jimmy didn't want Troy or E. Smith but he still gets credit for them.

 

[Nightman]

It's fascinating to me. And of course they weren't mistakes. I'm not even entertaining that argument.

This should have been a thread where the OP asks a question, it gets answered, and he says "Oh, that makes sense." End of thread.

When the answer is that the coach is so afraid of punting with a ten point lead and a minute left that he orders the RB to fall down in the backfield for an even bigger loss then that should call for a little more discussion.

 

[rpntex]

Final post on this subject from me, and this one is only because I remembered something and confirmed it this morning.

The "book" would say to go with the choice that had the least chance of yielding a quick score by Miami. Neither option was a very high percentage, but you see a LOT more punt team screwups than you see teams drive 60 yards with no timeouts against a prevent defense. The people who say "99 out of 100 coaches" would punt in that situation need to revise their statement. In Super Bowl X, Chuck Noll chose to run a play on 4th down from the Dallas 41 with 1:28 to go, and Dallas with no timeouts. Now, the score at the time was 21-17, so it was even a ONE-SORE GAME. Pittsburgh failed to convert, giving Dallas the ball at their 41 with 1:22 remaining. When asked after the game of his decision Noll said he would rather trust his defense than take a chance on a bad snap or blocked kick. Knowing that Dallas needed a TD to win the game, he felt the odds were good that his defense could keep Dallas out of the end zone .He was right ( as was Garrett Sunday).

I guess it's 98 out of 100.

 

[dallasdave]

God call, no risk involved.

I agree !!!

 

[Nightman]

Final post on this subject from me, and this one is only because I remembered something and confirmed it this morning.

The "book" would say to go with the choice that had the least chance of yielding a quick score by Miami. Neither option was a very high percentage, but you see a LOT more punt team screwups than you see teams drive 60 yards with no timeouts against a prevent defense. The people who say "99 out of 100 coaches" would punt in that situation need to revise their statement. In Super Bowl X, Chuck Noll chose to run a play on 4th down from the Dallas 41 with 1:28 to go, and Dallas with no timeouts. Now, the score at the time was 21-17, so it was even a ONE-SORE GAME. Pittsburgh failed to convert, giving Dallas the ball at their 41 with 1:22 remaining. When asked after the game of his decision Noll said he would rather trust his defense than take a chance on a bad snap or blocked kick. Knowing that Dallas needed a TD to win the game, he felt the odds were good that his defense could keep Dallas out of the end zone .He was right ( as was Garrett Sunday).

I guess it's 98 out of 100.[/t ]

Two wrongs don't make a right and having to go back 40 years tells me my 99 out of 100 still stands.

Also DAL's Win Probabilty shot way up from 1.7% to 11.1% after the failed 4th down. Two plays later they were PITT's 38 and had improved to 28.4%. A tipped pass knocked the ball away from a Percy Howard game winning TD.

Some questioned why Noll would elect to go for it on fourth down but, as later explained by NFL Films, his entire kicking game had been suspect all game long with Gerela missing an extra point and two field goals while Walden fumbled a snap on a punt and nearly had two others blocked. (Gerela's problems may have begun on the opening kickoff when he was forced to make a touchdown saving tackle on Hollywood Henderson.)

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You seem awfully interested in such a non-debatable topic.

The only thing that is obvious is that you refuse to realize that the thought process and the result of the play were mistakes.

This would be interesting if you actually hadn't stopped arguing on merit yesterday. You not 'giving up' is besides the ultimate point. So far we have gotten cliches like '2 wrongs don't make a right,' blackjack analogies, and pulling percentages out of your *** since then.

It would be nice if you actually listed all possible outcomes including what opportunity the return provides. You won't do that because if you do it becomes obvious. Instead you just wave your hands at the outcome you hope for.

Fact is punt provides a return which in turn provides an opportunity for a player in space against a questionable ST unit ie a quick TD. The only outcome is not pinning them on the 5 likes you hope for. In fact your punt allows for things worse than them getting the ball at midfield.

Turnover on downs makes them play conventional offense with no return possible. It might be interesting if we actually had empirical figures to work with but all things being equal it is pretty obvious your way risks more for the same reward.

 

[Nightman]

This would be interesting if you actually hadn't stopped arguing on merit yesterday. You not 'giving up' is besides the ultimate point. So far we have gotten cliches like '2 wrongs don't make a right,' blackjack analogies, and pulling percentages out of your *** since then.

It would be nice if you actually listed all possible outcomes including what opportunity the return provides. You won't do that because if you do it becomes obvious. Instead you just wave your hands at the outcome you hope for.

Fact is punt provides a return which in turn provides an opportunity for a player in space against a questionable ST unit ie a quick TD. The only outcome is not pinning them on the 5 likes you hope for. In fact your punt allows for things worse than them getting the ball at midfield.

Turnover on downs makes them play conventional offense with no return possible. It might be interesting if we actually had empirical figures to work with but all things being equal it is pretty obvious your way risks more for the same reward.

All you geniuses tell me how dangerous not punting is in the other thread but then you tell me I should do that exact thing except when it is most warranted, like late in the game up by 10 with a minute left.

I use analogies to help people like you understand more better. I gave you the big people stats about Expected Points and Win Probability but you brush them off without a glance.

A dropped pass on a fake punt is one of the many negative outcomes. You could fumble the snap, get the punt blocked, get the punt returned, shank the punt or get a penalty. I admit that simple things can go terribly wrong.

OR you could get the punt off and lose possession of the ball 40 yards away. That is the good outcome that happens most of the time, that increases your odds of winning that late in the game.

So if you want to add something of value besides five dollar words and a ton attitude please start now, otherwise bug off.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All you geniuses tell me how dangerous not punting is in the other thread but then you tell me I should do that exact thing except when it is most warranted, like late in the game up by 10 with a minute left.

I use analogies to help people like you understand more better. I gave you the big people stats about Expected Points and Win Probability but you brush them off without a glance.

A dropped pass on a fake punt is one of the many negative outcomes. You could fumble the snap, get the punt blocked, get the punt returned, shank the punt or get a penalty. I admit that simple things can go terribly wrong.

OR you could get the punt off and lose possession of the ball 40 yards away. That is the good outcome that happens most of the time, that increases your odds of winning that late in the game.

So if you want to add something of value besides five dollar words and a ton attitude please start now, otherwise bug off.

Link me it again if you would. I don't recall seeing it. What was the dataset? just general NFL?

And this is the way I think. Excuse me if it offends you. I cannot help but speak as I do.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All you geniuses tell me how dangerous not punting is in the other thread but then you tell me I should do that exact thing except when it is most warranted, like late in the game up by 10 with a minute left.

I use analogies to help people like you understand more better. I gave you the big people stats about Expected Points and Win Probability but you brush them off without a glance.

A dropped pass on a fake punt is one of the many negative outcomes. You could fumble the snap, get the punt blocked, get the punt returned, shank the punt or get a penalty. I admit that simple things can go terribly wrong.

OR you could get the punt off and lose possession of the ball 40 yards away. That is the good outcome that happens most of the time, that increases your odds of winning that late in the game.

So if you want to add something of value besides five dollar words and a ton attitude please start now, otherwise bug off.

Could you point out which word you thought was $5 in my post? Conventional? Analogies? Empirical?