Can anyone explain not punting with 1 minute left?

[tyke1doe]

Oh, btw didn't we give them the ball at the exact same spot right before the half and they went down and scored in like 40 seconds?

So?
Did we give it to them at the end of the game?
That's the point. It DIDN'T backfire on us. And we did it for a reason.
And most people understand why we didn't punt.

 

[tyke1doe]

It wasn't the right decision just because we won. We just happened to overcome it with a huge sack on the next play.

Yes, it WAS the right decision because the goal was to keep the ball, run the clock down and minimize a possible turnover. Mission Accomplished!

 

[MRV52]

Excuse me. Didn't we win? Did going for it cost us?
It was the RIGHT decision.

What if it backfired? Tannehill throws a hailmary and then onside kick. The right decision is kick and it will always be the correct call in that situation. We won and I am only one of the few that has stuck with this team while 3/4 jumped off the bandwagon along time ago. Go boys!!!

 

[bsbellomy]

So?
Did we give it to them at the end of the game?
That's the point. It DIDN'T backfire on us. And we did it for a reason.
And most people understand why we didn't punt.

So your basic defense is that since it worked it was a good decision.

 

[Nightman]

So?
Did we give it to them at the end of the game?
That's the point. It DIDN'T backfire on us. And we did it for a reason.
And most people understand why we didn't punt.

how many punts get blocked??
how many fumbles snaps occur on a regular handoff??

risk aversion is one thing but just giving up on a play out of fear is another

Pin them inside the 5 and increase your chances of winning from 95% to 98% instead of the other way around

 

[bsbellomy]

Yes, it WAS the right decision because the goal was to keep the ball, run the clock down and minimize a possible turnover. Mission Accomplished!

You can run at a minimum 6 more seconds off punting than you can running the ball. Maybe we should have just had Romo fall down on the ball rather than risk a fumble there. Is it possible Frederick could have just kept it and kneeled it down without actually to start the play?

 

[loublue22]

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.

I'm not "entrenched" lol, they were more likely to score on the first play from scrimmage from the 40 yard line than from a punt block and return.

 

[Slashar00]

If you know Miami's personnel, then you know a couple of things are generally true: Tannehill has struggled with his long ball accuracy since making it to the NFL, making him a game manager at best. Secondly, Jarvis Landry is top 5 returner. Thirdly, Miami is top 10 at blocking kicks.

They didn't want to let Miami beat them on special teams. They would rather continue embarrassing Tannehill who had a 18.6 QBR out of 100 versus the Cowboys today.

 

[tyke1doe]

What if it backfired? Tannehill throws a hailmary and then onside kick. The right decision is kick and it will always be the correct call in that situation. We won and I am only one of the few that has stuck with this team while 3/4 jumped off the bandwagon along time ago. Go boys!!!

What if we didn't lose seven straight? What if Romo didn't get hurt?

Anything is possible in the what if world. The fact is it did work because it accomplished its purpose, which was not to put us in a position where a muffed punt could be returned by the Dolphins setting up a score and an onside kick.

Mission Accomplished!

 

[tyke1doe]

So your basic defense is that since it worked it was a good decision.

That's generally the criterion by which we measure something that turns out in our favor.
What? Do we measure good decisions on the fact that they don't work?

 

[AzorAhai]

It's not about the result of the game. It's about basic decision making.

If the Cowboys lost that game that decision was not going to be it. If he punted people would have asked why he didn't go for it or why he didn't kick a FG. If he kicked a FG they would have asked why not a punt or why not go for it. This isn't new and you and everyone else who is complaining about it are just looking for a reason to rag on Garrett.

 

[ElGatoGrande]

Not punting is a debatable decision but there is a decent argument for it,,, the decision for that horrific kickoff before halftime on the other hand. What the hell?

 

[Proximo]

Some of ya'll are really showing off your football smarts (or lack thereof) in this thread.

 

[lostar2009]

If I'm not mistaken before the penalty they was looking to milk the clock. If we would have punt most likely it would have been a touch back and we did spot then 20 yards. But essentially you took away an opportunity for them to score and to be honest their offense was never threating us. Also a lot of starters still play special teams so you also gave them a break. But me once the clock was stop after the penalty I would have punted.

 

[AzorAhai]

Yes, it WAS the right decision because the goal was to keep the ball, run the clock down and minimize a possible turnover. Mission Accomplished!

And to WTDG, which is what they did.

 

[AzCowboysFan]

With our luck, something bad would've happened on the punt.

 

[bsbellomy]

If you know Miami's personnel, then you know a couple of things are generally true: Tannehill has struggled with his long ball accuracy since making it to the NFL, making him a game manager at best. Secondly, Jarvis Landry is top 5 returner. Thirdly, Miami is top 10 at blocking kicks.

They didn't want to let Miami beat them on special teams. They would rather continue embarrassing Tannehill who had a 18.6 QBR out of 100 versus the Cowboys today.

So you want to risk Jarvis housing it from the 5 yard line or housing it from midfield catching the ball in space?

 

[Slashar00]

So you want to risk Jarvis housing it from the 5 yard line or housing it from midfield catching the ball in space?

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying the Cowboys made the right decision based on Miami's personnel. I'm sure they gameplanned for this situation, and they didn't want to get beat by special teams.

 

[bsbellomy]

That's generally the criterion by which we measure something that turns out in our favor.
What? Do we measure good decisions on the fact that they don't work?

You should not measure success solely based upon whether something works or not. Is a 3 pointer in basketball a great decision every time it goes in?

 

[bsbellomy]

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm saying the Cowboys made the right decision based on Miami's personnel. I'm sure they gameplanned for this situation, and they didn't want to get beat by special teams.

They started from around midfield, so if he catches the ball even ten yards past the line of scrimmage he's already running into our territory. If we punt and he gets to field it, he's starting from around the five. If you gameplan not to get beat by special teams returns, you simply punt away from the guy. It's not that hard.