Does any coach punt from the opponent's side more than Garrett?

[Proximo]

It would help if you don't remove the data from the post you are quoting.

You provided a few lame examples from a single game to support a poor claim that Garrett "punts a ton when in the opponents' territory".

Hardly qualifies as data.

 

[Idgit]

JG is typically very risk adverse so thats not likely to happen.

Go for it on 4th and 7 in opponent's territory with a two score lead in the 4th quarter? Yeah, it's not likely to happen. Because it would be tactically stupid.

 

[ActualCowboysFan]

It would help if you don't remove the data from the post you are quoting.

I got some data. 19-3

 

[wick]

You provided a few lame examples from a single game to support a poor claim that Garrett "punts a ton when in the opponents' territory".

Hardly qualifies as data.

Data hardly qualifies as data? That's an interesting perspective. How about this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html

 

[MRV52]

The data is clear. You go for it. Probably for all three, but certainly for the first two.

The data is not clear. Poll the other 31 NFL coaches and they would probably have done what Garrett did in those situations. Coaches are more conservative than gung-ho in the pro's. This isn't Ncaa.

 

[MRV52]

I got some data. 19-3

The only data and stats that count.

 

[Idgit]

Data hardly qualifies as data? That's an interesting perspective. How about this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html

This is really cool, wick. It's not adjusted for game situation, but it's still cool. Nice find.

 

[aikemirv]

Given the Dallas defense having them defend a short field is just stupid. No brainers? lol This is not a video game, NY defense is very stout and it is a risk not worth taking.

When it is a low scoring game - field position is key to who wins so in this game and with the way our D was playing, you have to punt!

 

[visionary]

Our defense was playing lights out before it had taken the field for the first of those 4th down decisions? Individual outcomes don't justify long-term strategy. Garrett didn't pay a price for these decisions Sunday, but he has at other times and will in the future.

I'm sorry wick but this is football 101 buddy
A lot of games are lost in the NFL (just see the last SB for example)
Don't give the other team the game
Garrett made the right calls

 

[GhostOfPelluer]

In a vacuum Wick has a point. However, against an offense struggling to get any momentum going, the last thing you do is potentially give them a short field. We played it right in this game.

 

[Proximo]

Data hardly qualifies as data? That's an interesting perspective. How about this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html

Holy moly that link is absolutely riddled with some very poor generalizations.

Legit LOL'd at their "guidelines".

 

[Direwolf63]

Data hardly qualifies as data? That's an interesting perspective. How about this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/05/upshot/4th-down-when-to-go-for-it-and-why.html

The writer talks about how the game is more wide open with a video game mentality. With the new rules, offenses move at will. As such coaches need to be more aggressive than they are.

But last Sunday night was a throwback to an older time. It was a tight, low scoring, field position game. In this situation, punting was the right play. He even implies that at the beginning of the article.

Garrett knew the Giants couldn't go 90 yards with that offense. He dared them to do it and they couldn't.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

The data is clear. You go for it. Probably for all three, but certainly for the first two.

I would like to see data from actual games of all teams for a season or two.
From actual NFL teams.

I would imagine if you found that info you would find it pretty similar to what Garrett chose to do.

Not just some article from a paper on what some guy thinks someone should do or some college or high school coach he thinks it is better to always go for it.

If you can provide that data of all teams and the average times they go for it vs punting in those situations you will convert what I think of your opinion...other wise I respectfully think you are wrong and think it is pretty normal for most coaches in those situations.

Keep in mind this is not a situation where we are down a bunch of points and we have to take chances to try and get back into the game.
This is a situation where we are clearly controlling the game, where our defense is playing lights out, where most of the game we controlled the starting field position and the giants were not starting beyond on their 30-35 yard line for most of the game.

 

[BrAinPaiNt]

Go for it on 4th and 7 in opponent's territory with a two score lead in the 4th quarter? Yeah, it's not likely to happen. Because it would be tactically stupid.

We pretty much gave them crappy starting field position all game long but now while we are ahead by two scores (and that two scores include going for 2 extra points on both of those) we decide to roll the dice and go for it instead of punting and take the chance of giving them better starting field position than they have had all night.

Seems like the correct plan.

/sarcasm off

 

[Chuck 54]

It sure feels like Garrett punts a ton from the opposition's side of the field, and Sunday night was certainly no exception. We punted four times from Giants territory out of nine total drives. Those fourth downs:

• 4th and 3 from the Giants 43
• 4th and 2 from the Giants 44
• 4th and 7 from the Giants 42
• 4th and 20 from the Giants 42

The last drive is definitely a punting situation. I'm not sure what the numbers say about the 4th and 7, but I'd go for that with our offense. The first two should be automatic go for it situations unless there is a compelling game situation, which there was not at those points.

NFC East...maybe any game...you don't even think about it unless behind. You let the other team's offense start at the 10, not the 40.

 

[jrumann59]

Against an opponent.like the giants Garrett was afraid to give them momentum. A stop on any of those 4th downs would have caused a momentum shift.

 

[jrumann59]

Our defense was playing lights out before it had taken the field for the first of those 4th down decisions? Individual outcomes don't justify long-term strategy. Garrett didn't pay a price for these decisions Sunday, but he has at other times and will in the future.

20/20 in hindsight.

 

[bark]

19-3
Garrett takes a risk here and there.
We were in total control of this game.
No need to gamble and besides it allows us to unleash the nfl's first legally weaponized player.
Pin em deep Chris jones

 

[wrongway]

On of the biggest reason the Giants only scored 3 points was because the Giants had to go 90 yards most of the time. And they didn't have the offensive game to do it.

If you think you are going to be in a shootout, the coach needs to be more aggressive. In this case, playing the field position game was the way to go.

Analytics isn't the answer to everything. Game situations and strategy matters.

Also if they were scoring touchdowns instead of field goals maybe you go for a couple. Not the way this game was going I agree.

 

[FaSho]

Given the Dallas defense having them defend a short field is just stupid. No brainers? lol This is not a video game, NY defense is very stout and it is a risk not worth taking.

Agreed