Coaching Question About Game Management

[TwoDeep3]

This loss stinks. However, the team seemed to make a surge at the end after gifting a TD to the hated Commanders.

This is my question(s).

On the final drive, Garrett appeared to be playing for the tie. (Just like 4th and 1 earlier in the season.) We see the results, although not all of it was Garret's fault. But once again he played it safe.

What if he just pushed all in and played for the TD and win or nothing?

Would you be as irritated about the loss as you are now?

If the team tried throwing for a touchdown with hopes of using the time out if that failed, would you still be fuming about the team's loss? Would you still be despising Garrett?

 

[Bob-Lillys-War]

You're saying Garrett would have lost either / or ...

Answer: We need another coach .

 

[Hennessy_King]

No.

 

[Zordon]

The problem wasn't how they handled the final 12 seconds. The problem was how they handled the prior ~40seconds. The urgency dissipated after the big Beasley catch.

The cake was baked once we reached 12 seconds. No way you try a 30+ yd pass from there. That would require the oline to block for 4+ seconds and risk a sack. It's just disappointing that Zeke couldn't get more yardage on that run when the Skins were playing the pass.

 

[Colombiacowboy]

I think of teams like the Packers and the Pats. In games like this, they score TDs at the end of games. That is why they win. We have a loser coach and a mediocre QB. So we play for a tie and then commit penalties that cause our kicker to miss.

 

[Tenkamenin]

This loss stinks. However, the team seemed to make a surge at the end after gifting a TD to the hated Commanders.

This is my question(s).

On the final drive, Garrett appeared to be playing for the tie. (Just like 4th and 1 earlier in the season.) We see the results, although not all of it was Garret's fault. But once again he played it safe.

What if he just pushed all in and played for the TD and win or nothing?

Would you be as irritated about the loss as you are now?

If the team tried throwing for a touchdown with hopes of using the time out if that failed, would you still be fuming about the team's loss? Would you still be despising Garrett?

For starters, I’m always irritated with a loss, however with 1 timeout left, and the safest QB in the NFL at the helm, our options were endless. We could take a shot deep on a slant or go route or take advantage of the middle since the defense was playing the boundaries.

Garrett played too cute by blowing a valuable timeout to center the game losing kick.

 

[Bob-Lillys-War]

Burning 50 seconds for a 52 yard FG attempt just to tie the game... doesn't sound like a HC who wants to win.

 

[Floatyworm]

Problem is clock management...

Garrett either doesn't know how to read a clock...own a watch...nor tell time or all the above. He's just pathetic.
Playing not to lose again...Going for the tie.

Garrett has the killer instinct of a pacifist...

 

[Colombiacowboy]

Problem is clock management...

Garrett either doesn't know how to read a clock...own a watch...nor tell time or all the above. He's just pathetic.
Playing not to lose again...Going for the tie.

Garrett has the killer instinct of a pacifist...

Kind of like when in the first half the team seemed shocked by the 2 minute warning.

 

[TwoDeep3]

You're saying Garrett would have lost either / or ...

Answer: We need another coach .

I'm asking if Garret went balls to the wall and try to just win, baby, and came up short would you be as frustrated as him playing safe?

I thinking there is an approach like was said in a post earlier. That you play to win. I also believe teams like the Packers practice those one minute win big or lose series, and what was displayed was play to tie.

Urgency was lacking from the sidelines. My opinion.

 

[Zman5]

Even if he had no intentions of taking a shot to the endzone, the give up play to Zeke was the dumbest thing to do. The Deadskins probably thought we would take a shot and have their defense defending the endzone leaving lot a room in the middle. It would have been easy to get a quick pass for a 10 yards for a closer kick. Instead, JG was happy to have his kicker try a long FG in swirling wind on grass.

As usual, JG doesn't do his players any favors. Instead, he makes it harder for them to succeed.

 

[TheSkaven]

This loss stinks. However, the team seemed to make a surge at the end after gifting a TD to the hated Commanders.

This is my question(s).

On the final drive, Garrett appeared to be playing for the tie. (Just like 4th and 1 earlier in the season.) We see the results, although not all of it was Garret's fault. But once again he played it safe.

What if he just pushed all in and played for the TD and win or nothing?

Would you be as irritated about the loss as you are now?

If the team tried throwing for a touchdown with hopes of using the time out if that failed, would you still be fuming about the team's loss? Would you still be despising Garrett?

I thought about this as well. I hate playing for the tie. There was enough time to take at least a few shots down the field.

This loss stings because it makes two games (the Texans game is the other) which we probably should have won.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Doesn't the gutless decision making by Garrett take any possibility of a win out of the hands of the players?

 

[Hennessy_King]

Even if he had no intentions of taking a shot to the endzone, the give up play to Zeke was the dumbest thing to do. The Deadskins probably thought we would take a shot and have their defense defending the endzone leaving lot a room in the middle. It would have been easy to get a quick pass for a 10 yards for a closer kick. Instead, JG was happy to have his kicker try a long FG in swirling wind on grass.

As usual, JG doesn't do his players any favors. Instead, he makes it harder for them to succeed.

This X1000

 

[Bob-Lillys-War]

Doesn't the gutless decision making by Garrett take any possibility of a win out of the hands of the players?

how dare you sir!?
how dare you bring logical reasoning into this thread !

That will not be tolerated ... we demand dumb and stupidity !

 

[AbeBeta]

Burning 50 seconds for a 52 yard FG attempt just to tie the game... doesn't sound like a HC who wants to win.

Yeah. Totally shoulda known it would be 5 yards longer.

 

[Hennessy_King]

Yeah. Totally shoulda known it would be 5 yards longer.

I heard Beta males love to play it safe.

 

[mardwin]

I think of teams like the Packers and the Pats. In games like this, they score TDs at the end of games. That is why they win. We have a loser coach and a mediocre QB. So we play for a tie and then commit penalties that cause our kicker to miss.

Was thinking the same thing, you give Aaron Rodgers 52 secs and a timeout inside the 40's down 3-points, that's game over. The HC has to be more aggressive and better manage the clock on those situations.

 

[waving monkey]

This loss stinks. However, the team seemed to make a surge at the end after gifting a TD to the hated Commanders.

This is my question(s).

On the final drive, Garrett appeared to be playing for the tie. (Just like 4th and 1 earlier in the season.) We see the results, although not all of it was Garret's fault. But once again he played it safe.

What if he just pushed all in and played for the TD and win or nothing?

Would you be as irritated about the loss as you are now?

If the team tried throwing for a touchdown with hopes of using the time out if that failed, would you still be fuming about the team's loss? Would you still be despising Garrett?

There did seem like time wasted in the last 40 seconds. But I think you start going for the win if the yardage and time are reasonable.

 

[waving monkey]

I heard Beta males love to play it safe.

Thats still a win?