Can anyone explain not punting with 1 minute left?

[Tommy]

Why risk a kicking mistake like a block/mishandled snap for 20 net yards? They had to drive 60 yards for a TD, recover and onside kick and drive another 30 yards for a FG in a minute. Why are you this concerned about it?

This is just another case of fans "I don't understand it so the coach must be wrong. "

 

[JD_KaPow]

Dumbest decision ever again by Garrett. You never ever give up the ball there Punt it idiot, they were fortunate to get the two sacks but this could have backfired in their faces.

And if the punt was blocked and returned, you'd be calling punting the dumbest decision ever by Garrett.

They were at the Miami 36. You're probably talking about a gain of 16 yards in exchange for the risk of a disaster. Even if the punt was a better choice (and I'm not convinced it was), we're talking about incredibly marginal differences in probabilities. Talk about overreactions.

 

[DenCWBY]

IMO Best call would have been a quick kick by Romo

 

[Bizwah]

Have you ever seen a team not punt in a similar situation? I've been watching football for nearly 40 years and I don't recall ever having seen that. I'd understand if you only needed a yard or two for a first but not 11.

Actually, it's pretty standard practice. Happens all the time.

 

[landroverking]

It was the right call.

 

[Tommy]

Have you ever seen a team not punt in a similar situation? I've been watching football for nearly 40 years and I don't recall ever having seen that. I'd understand if you only needed a yard or two for a first but not 11.

Yes. I have seen it happen more than once. This forum loves to question everything Garret does so things like this just get magnified.

 

[AzorAhai]

This is just another case of dumb fans "I don't understand it so the coach must be wrong. "

I really wouldn't have had a problem punting if thats what he chose to do. Either situation would have resulted in the same thing so I don't understand the fuss. I do understand why he would have thought it was the better move though. I think people are freaking out because it wasn't what they are used to, so it must be wrong and nothing more.

 

[rpntex]

I can't for the life of me figure out what they were thinking. I know the game is seamingly in hand but if you are just going to hand it off on 4th and 11, why not punt? If you are worried about a return, then boot it into the endzone or out of bounds inside the 20. You can run more clock with a punt and pin them back deeper. I think it was foolish to just hand them the ball on the 40. One play and they are attempting an onside kick down by one score. That kind of end of game decision making can kill a team. If you aren't going to attempt to get the 1st down, punt the damn ball and make them go 90 yards in less than a minute just to try an onside kick.

Easy...

Miami is down two scores with no TOs left. The LAST thing Dallas wants is a quick-strike score by Miami, such as what cpould happen on a bad snap (scoop and score), por a long return, or a blocked punt. That would leave the Dolphins time to onside kick and scoire again.

By running a play there, Dallas completely eliminated the possibility of a quick score by Miami. For the Dolphins to score, they were going to have to drive the length of the field with no timeouts and a minute left.

 

[loublue22]

Wrong. Do you understand the game of football?

I understand it was a 2 possession game. The value of 30 yards of field position vs the miniscule chance of a punt block, recovery and return, it's not really close.

 

[Idgit]

I understand it was a 2 possession game. The value of 30 yards of field position vs the miniscule chance of a punt block, recovery and return, it's not really close.

The one thing that gets you beat in a situation where they have no timeouts and need two scores is a quick score/on sides kick.

 

[JD_KaPow]

I understand it was a 2 possession game. The value of 30 yards of field position vs the miniscule chance of a punt block, recovery and return, it's not really close.

Well sure, in some parallel universe where that was the comparison, you might be right. But the most likely result was a gain of 16 yards of field position.

 

[Proximo]

And if the punt was blocked and returned, you'd be calling punting the dumbest decision ever by Garrett.

They were at the Miami 36. You're probably talking about a gain of 16 yards in exchange for the risk of a disaster. Even if the punt was a better choice (and I'm not convinced it was), we're talking about incredibly marginal differences in probabilities. Talk about overreactions.

Exactly.

 

[loublue22]

The one thing that gets you beat in a situation where they have no timeouts and need two scores is a quick score/on sides kick.

instead we gave them the ball at the 45, where a "quick score" is much more likely than inside the 10

 

[Fritsch_the_cat]

didn't we win?

Exactly, and that's all that matters.

Though I still haven't figured out the timeout by Dallas just before the 2 min warning.

 

[rpntex]

I understand it was a 2 possession game. The value of 30 yards of field position vs the miniscule chance of a punt block, recovery and return, it's not really close.

If those odds are "miniscule", the odds of Miami being able to drive 60 yards, recover an onside kick, then drive again to kick a game-tying FG - all within a minute of clock time with NO timeouts remaining - are even longer. Neither call would have been terrible, but the odds still favor the decision Garrett made.

 

[Risen Star]

I thought it was a dumb call. I don't understand the logic behind it. I'm not giving up a potential 30 yards of field position because of a fear of a blocked punt.

 

[Idgit]

instead we gave them the ball at the 45, where a "quick score" is much more likely than inside the 10

It's not, though. That's the point. They didn't have time for two drives. They needed to score on one play and then somehow get the ball back. Which is what we were avoiding.

Look, I know you get it at this point and are too entrenched to back out of it, but the explanation is obvious, and it was the right thing to do there where a FG doesn't help you extend the game another possession.

 

[Nav22]

If that is that big of a concern, then it's pretty sad. I'm not sure I've ever seen a team do that before in that situation. I feel like most teams punt and pin them deep.

It doesn't have to be a "big concern".

Just needs to be a bigger concern than the possibility of them somehow scoring a 60-yard TD while we're in full prevent mode with DBs waiting near the goalline.

I've seen teams tell the punter to run around the endzone to waste time and then take a safety in order to avoid the potential disasters of a punt. There's nothing "sad" about it.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

This was not the call that should be questioned. The short sqib kick after a 15 yard penalty already hurting the kick... If you guys are going to question or complain about a call concerning a kick or not... Question the one that should be questioned.

 

[landroverking]

Exactly, and that's all that matters.

Though I still haven't figured out the timeout by Dallas just before the 2 min warning.

That really allowed us to run more time off the clock. Let it run down to the 2min warning there's still two minutes left. Call the timeout at 2:01 and the play runs inside two minutes.