Can we discuss that play call? (56 yd FG)

[links18]

Nope. That's the old way of thinking.

It's like people who say don't go for 2 unless you have to have it.

But what if you can convert the 2 point play more than 50% of the time?

Do you still only go for 2 when you have to have it?

That would be silly right?

LOL, we should just cut our punter altogether, just like how we are too cool for a FB.

 

[theebs]

I think he was talking about the Pittsburgh game though?

I don't think so but if he was the answer is if bailey misses the steelers are 20 yards from a field goal to win.

And all of these attempts were longer than anything bailey has made.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

LOL, we should just cut our punter altogether, just like how we are too cool for a FB.

Punting on the opponent's 40 is consistently the worst play coaches routinely make.

I am completely OK with not punting there.

 

[links18]

I don't think so but if he was the answer is if bailey misses the steelers are 20 yards from a field goal to win.

And all of these attempts were longer than anything bailey has made.

Yeah, it really was a bad decision. Why attempt a career long kick that is obviously at the limit of his range in that situation?

 

[links18]

Punting on the opponent's 40 is consistently the worst play coaches routinely make.

I am completely OK with not punting there.

I think math geeks have already worked it out that statistically it is better to just go for it on 4th down all the time. Still, there is probably a good reason why this approach has made no headway with professionals who understand game management.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

I think math geeks have already worked it out that statistically it is better to just go for it on 4th down all the time. Still, there is probably a good reason why this approach has made no headway with professionals who understand game management.

And the answer is blame shifting.

If you punt and net 20-25 yards and the defense in a couple of plays is past the point where you punted from...the blame is on the players.

If you play aggressively and the execution is not there...the blame falls on the coach.

Since the coach makes the decisions...is it any surprise you see punting units meekly trot onto the field over and over?

 

[Doomsay]

Do you honestly *not*? How is it you think HCs decide what the outer range of a FG is in a given game, exactly? That's determined weekly in the pregame warmups.

Really? A coach determines that a 3rd year kicker can exceed his longest professional kick by a large margin in an away stadium during in a very close game based upon how he is kicking in practice that week? There probably aren't too many coaches that survive in the NFL with that level of insightful preparation under normal ownership circumstances.

 

[Bleu Star]

And the answer is blame shifting.

If you punt and net 20-25 yards and the defense in a couple of plays is past the point where you punted from...the blame is on the players.

If you play aggressively and the execution is not there...the blame falls on the coach.

Since the coach makes the decisions...is it any surprise you see punting units meekly trot onto the field over and over?

Are you trying to dissect a decision or analyzing a game situation? We're analyzing a game situation.. Just in case you didn't notice.

 

[theebs]

And the answer is blame shifting.

If you punt and net 20-25 yards and the defense in a couple of plays is past the point where you punted from...the blame is on the players.

If you play aggressively and the execution is not there...the blame falls on the coach.

Since the coach makes the decisions...is it any surprise you see punting units meekly trot onto the field over and over?

That is total bs. We are not a risk taking team.

Our offense has been changed into a less risk taking less high reward system.

The defense was changed to a conservative bend don't break old defense.

So why in bloody hell would we be risk takers with 56 yd fg in tie games on the road in the second qtr.

 

[Idgit]

Really? A coach determines that a 3rd year kicker can exceed his longest professional kick by a large margin in an away stadium during in a very close game based upon how he is kicking in practice that week? There probably aren't too many coaches that survive in the NFL with that level of insightful preparation under normal ownership circumstances.

I'm talking about how he was kicking in pregame. And, yes. And you're wrong about it not being common practice. It's common in pregame for the coach and kicker to talk about his confidence level from whatever distance he's hitting at pregame and using that as the outer-range for a fg attempt during the game. Garrett's said as much after long kicks in previous circumstances, so I'm sure this was part of the basis for the decision today. If you think about it, it only makes sense.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

Are you trying to dissect a decision or analyzing a game situation? We're analyzing a game situation.. Just in case you didn't notice.

What does this even mean?

Unless it's an end of game or half scenario which changes the rules...one should make decisions from an unbiased point of view. Certainly it's ridiculous to think that a tie game on the road in the 2nd quarter is the wrong time to make the correct play. LOL

 

[Bleu Star]

What does this even mean?

Unless it's an end of game or half scenario which changes the rules...one should make decisions from an unbiased point of view. Certainly it's ridiculous to think that a tie game on the road in the 2nd quarter is the wrong time to make the correct play. LOL

Regardless of what Ask Madden tells you, it was an incorrect call.

 

[Doomsay]

Punting on the opponent's 40 is consistently the worst play coaches routinely make.

I am completely OK with not punting there.

What is the data on this?

 

[links18]

I'm talking about how he was kicking in pregame. And, yes. And you're wrong about it not being common practice. It's common in pregame for the coach and kicker to talk about his confidence level from whatever distance he's hitting at pregame and using that as the outer-range for a fg attempt during the game. Garrett's said as much after long kicks in previous circumstances, so I'm sure this was part of the basis for the decision today. If you think about it, it only makes sense.

Whatever Bailey said, a 56 yard FG is clearly at the very outside of his range. Why risk it there in that situation? That's on Garrett.

 

[Idgit]

It's an unnecessary and foolish one. There is no need to take the risk of giving the chargers the ball at midfield there. We did and it gave them an easy three points. If we punt and pin them snide the ten and they drive the ball 25 yds and punt then you get the ball back at your 30-40 yard line.

It's pretty basic stuff, no reason to attempt a long field goal in a time game in the second qtr, none.

Pin them down and maybe get a turnover or put I in the hands of romo and go for it, at least that way you save 7 yards.

It was bad football all the way around.

This presupposes you're going to miss what you think was a kick you're likely going to make, first of all. Then you're presupposing you're going to pin somebody inside the ten, which would require a very good play by both the punter and your coverage teams. Then that you hold them to 25 yards thereafter. Obviously, I'd take all of those outcomes, too, but they're not likely from that situation and given the circumstances we saw today. You're more likely to give them the ball on the 25 or so, and you risk an even better return than that. Basically, that's 30 yards of field position against the likelihood of 3 points. I don't think that's a crazy risk to take for a team that had confidence in their defense at that point earlier in the game.

I think he was talking about the Pittsburgh game though?

No, I was referring to today's game. But it applies to any game.

 

[Idgit]

Whatever Bailey said, a 56 yard FG is clearly at the very outside of his range. Why risk it there in that situation? That's on Garrett.

It is. I don't know why we risked it. I thought the chance of converting was better. I just happen to like the punting option even less than the fg kicking option.

 

[links18]

It is. I don't know why we risked it. I thought the chance of converting was better. I just happen to like the punting option even less than the fg kicking option.

That's why they call it "no man's land." No option is fantastic, but I think we agree the FG was the lest optimal at that point in the game.

 

[theebs]

This presupposes you're going to miss what you think was a kick you're likely going to make, first of all. Then you're presupposing you're going to pin somebody inside the ten, which would require a very good play by both the punter and your coverage teams. Then that you hold them to 25 yards thereafter. Obviously, I'd take all of those outcomes, too, but they're not likely from that situation and given the circumstances we saw today. You're more likely to give them the ball on the 25 or so, and you risk an even better return than that. Basically, that's 30 yards of field position against the likelihood of 3 points. I don't think that's a crazy risk to take for a team that had confidence in their defense at that point earlier in the game.



No, I was referring to today's game. But it applies to any game.

If we punt from the 40 you think they will get it at the 25? It should be routine to pin a team inside the ten wh3! Punting from the 40. It's not hard.

And expecting bailey to make a career long kick in the 2nd qtr of a tie game on the road is plain foolish.

 

[Toruk_Makto]

That's why they call it "no man's land." No option is fantastic, but I think we agree the FG was the lest optimal at that point in the game.

No that's actually not what he said at all. The least optimal was punting.

 

[Idgit]

If we punt from the 40 you think they will get it at the 25? It should be routine to pin a team inside the ten wh3! Punting from the 40. It's not hard.

And expecting bailey to make a career long kick in the 2nd qtr of a tie game on the road is plain foolish.

Honestly, I don't know what the numbers say in that situation. You can punt it down there and, if you don't bounce it into the end zone, stick it, get it fair caught, or roll it out. You can also get a touchback, or a return, or a block, though. All of which take some of the benefit out of giving the ball up there.

As I said, I think the pass play was the highest percentage option, overall. I just have a hard time faulting the team for trying a scoring play under those circumstances in a road game where, too often, we make the mistake of playing too conservatively.