Can anyone explain not punting with 1 minute left?

[rpntex]

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?

The Dolphins used two TOs on that drive before the half. They had none during that last minute. Down two scores, it's a much different scenario.

 

[tyke1doe]

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?

It was wet. A punt is a long snap. Apparently, Garrett didn't want to take the chance of a fumbled snap. Again, see the Michigan v. Michigan St. game.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Yes, I can.

 

[tyke1doe]

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

That's what the Michigan coach was probably thinking. It worked. Stats and chances be damned.

 

[Slashar00]

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.

That still does not account for the fact that Miami is 7th in blocking punts and that Tannehill was getting beat up by our defense. At that point in the game, they have no reason to believe that Tannehill would be able to score twice with 1min left. But they do have a reason to believe that Miami might block a punt.

I don't think this is what they would do versus Brady or even versus Eli or any other dangerous QB. They would punt in that situation. But against Miami, they probably gameplanned this situation, thinking that they would not allow Miami to beat them in special teams. For instance, that silly squib kick before the half to prevent a special teams return bit the Cowboys in the rear. But for the end of the game, it was the right call.

 

[tyke1doe]

And to WTDG, which is what they did.

Huh?

 

[bsbellomy]

It was wet. A punt is a long snap. Apparently, Garrett didn't want to take the chance of a fumbled snap. Again, see the Michigan v. Michigan St. game.

If you are saying Michigan made a bad decision by trying to punt, I'd also say you were wrong. You can't coach based upon a .00000001 probability of something happening.

 

[rpntex]

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

Yes...it was Garrett deciding to go with the strategy that involved the LEAST AMOUNT OF RISK. The punt would not have been especially risky, but it was more risky than a simple handoff, and forcing the Dolphins to drive - twice - in less than a minute with no timeouts.

 

[tyke1doe]

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?

It depends on when it comes in the game and the reason for it.
In this case, there's a reason. If it was done in the first quarter, I'd agree with you point.
But it was done near the end of the game with us up by 10.
I totally understand it, and it worked.

But I don't want to discuss this for several pages. You obviously disagree. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
The bottom line for me is we won.

 

[tomsanders921]

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.

If anything, throw one up in the endzone

 

[bsbellomy]

That still does not account for the fact that Miami is 7th in blocking punts and that Tannehill was getting beat up by our defense. At that point in the game, they have no reason to believe that Tannehill would be able to score twice with 1min left. But they do have a reason to believe that Miami might block a punt.

I don't think this is what they would do versus Brady or even versus Eli or any other dangerous QB. They would punt in that situation. But against Miami, they probably gameplanned this situation, thinking that they would not allow Miami to beat them in special teams. For instance, that silly squib kick before the half to prevent a special teams return bit the Cowboys in the rear. But for the end of the game, it was the right call.

Where the heck are you getting your stats from? They have one blocked punt this year, actually they are tied for 1st with 7 other teams. The rest have 0 blocked punts. We also actually lead the league in blocked punts, do you think other teams should game plan around us blocking their punt? This part of your argument is absolutely ridiculous and you should go revise your strategy.

 

[tyke1doe]

If you are saying Michigan made a bad decision by trying to punt, I'd also say you were wrong. You can't coach based upon a .00000001 probability of something happening.

No. The situation is different. I'm merely highlighting that a punt can be muffed. Michigan had to put because they were in their own territory. We were closer to Miami's goal (I can't remember where we were). Michigan was up by 3. We were up by 10.
I can see why we decided to run on 4th down instead of punt. Obviously, it worked.
You disagree. That's fine.
We won is all I really care about.

 

[Fla Cowpoke]

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.

I was at the game and was about to walk down the stairs, jump the fence, run to the sidelines and give Garrett a kick in the nutsack. That was one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. Go up 14 and then give them a short field with a minute left. Incredibly stupid.

 

[bsbellomy]

It depends on when it comes in the game and the reason for it.
In this case, there's a reason. If it was done in the first quarter, I'd agree with you point.
But it was done near the end of the game with us up by 10.
I totally understand it, and it worked.

But I don't want to discuss this for several pages. You obviously disagree. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.
The bottom line for me is we won.

No, you basically said your sole criteria for measure whether a decision is a success is whether it works or not. There isn't even a grey area as to whether that statement is right or wrong.

 

[AzorAhai]

Huh?

Win the damn game.

 

[rpntex]

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.

With no timeouts and less than a minute. AND two scores down.

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.

Okay, so address how to avoid a bad snap or a punt block...

It's far less risky to execute a simple handoff than a long snap, regardless of how effiicient LP has been in his career.

You guys are all missing the point. In a two-score game, the main objective is to avoid giving the Dolphins the possibility of a quick score. The odds of a blocked punt or a bad snap are small, bit they are still LARGER than the odds of them scoring quickly if they have to drive on offense in that limited amount of time with no timeouts. .

 

[anava]

Still playing scared. If we are going over the fumbled snap or blocked kick logic, what if McFadden would have fumbled. Maybe we should have went into victory formation

 

[Manster68]

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.

I was a bit puzzled by that decision also. I would have played the odds (especially after the false start) and pooched it down to the 5 yard line.
How often does Dallas muff a punt? Again, I would have played the odds and pinned them deep.
By doing what they did - what this tells me is that 1) Garrett trusts in his defense, and 2) Dallas doesn't think much of the Dolphins offense.
If this was against teams that can light up a scoreboard more than Miami, then the Cowboys would have punted.

 

[Dodger12]

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.

I was at the game and was about to walk down the stairs, jump the fence, run to the sidelines and give Garrett a kick in the nutsack. That was one of the dumbest things I have ever seen. Go up 14 and then give them a short field with a minute left. Incredibly stupid.

That was Garrett in a nutshell and a microcosm of why we couldn't win a damn game without Romo. Those are the types of errors that this team just can't overcome without Romo. Today, Romo hid those flaws but it was just incredibly stupid.

 

[tyke1doe]

No, you basically said your sole criteria for measure whether a decision is a success is whether it works or not. There isn't even a grey area as to whether that statement is right or wrong.

Actually, I miss read your comment. I thought you asked is a three point shot always a great decision.
But to answer your question whether a three point shot is good every time it goes it, yes, it is.
Anytime a play works, it's a good play. The reason why people do what they do is because they think it's going to work. But that doesn't mean it's not risky.
Aren't we talking about risk here? It would be more risky to try something like that when you're up by three vs. up by seven. It would be more risky if you did it in the first quarter than if you did it in the fourth.
But guess what, if it works, it was a good decision. Results determine whether it's good or not. How else would you judge such a thing?