Down by 1, and Garrett goes for the FG?

[Doomsday101]

Are you talking about fans or coaches? :laugh2:


Because im pretty sure coaches focus on "how" the game was won or lost.

Sure but at the end they are trying to put up a W in a league where it is not easy. Fans tend to under estimate teams every week and act as if the game is not a blow out then the team did bad. Winning is not that easy

 

[dbair1967]

It still boggles my mind that Garrett refuses to call a QB sneak in short yardage situations.

For a QB sneak to work, you either need a really good push by your OL, or a big, strong QB who can generate his own "push"

We have niether of those.

 

[links18]

For a QB sneak to work, you either need a really good push by your OL, or a big, strong QB who can generate his own "push"

We have niether of those.

How about spread them out and run a QB draw? Or how about role Kitna out and give him a run pass option? He's 38, but he can still move.

 

[dbair1967]

Anyone else question this?

And what does this say about Garrett as a head coach? Not much imo.

Cowboys had first and goal inside the one and couldn't punch it in. Not a good sign for Garrett and his playcalling.

And Garrett didn't have the cajones to go for it on 4th down. Why kick a Fg there? The team is 3-8. You have nothing to lose by going for it. And if you don't get the TD, you at least have them pinned inside their one with 3 minutes left. Stop them and you get the ball back in good field position and kick a FG to win it at the end. And do you think going up by two points with 3 minutes left, that the defense was likely to hold Manning? At the time, I wouldn't have bet on the defense stopping Manning from at least a FG ( However, the defense did hold twice in OT)

Of course, Garrett got lucky with the Colt penalty.

What evidence did he have that we were gonna get it had we went for it? Choice had been stuffed in short yardage a couple times already (and on another possession earlier)

He made the right call. You have no clue how the game would have played out at 30-28. Maybe Pasqualoni doesnt play so conservative with just a two point lead. Maybe the Colts would have fumbled the ensuing kickoff.

 

[ETex]

Garrett would have been butchered on this very forum if he had opted to go for the touchdown and failed. Butchered.

He's getting butchered regardless of what he does around here. Jeez.

 

[dbair1967]

How about spread them out and run a QB draw? Or how about role Kitna out and give him a run pass option? He's 38, but he can still move.

I wondered why they didnt try that too, but perhaps they were concerned about the speed of the Colts front 7 vs our OL.

The other thing is I think its obvious Garrett is trying to create a really physical team, with a physical mentality. He really wanted to puncg that ball in, like they did in a couple other instances the past couplem weeks.

 

[ETex]

Anyone else question this?

And what does this say about Garrett as a head coach? Not much imo.

Cowboys had first and goal inside the one and couldn't punch it in. Not a good sign for Garrett and his playcalling.

And Garrett didn't have the cajones to go for it on 4th down. Why kick a Fg there? The team is 3-8. You have nothing to lose by going for it. And if you don't get the TD, you at least have them pinned inside their one with 3 minutes left. Stop them and you get the ball back in good field position and kick a FG to win it at the end. And do you think going up by two points with 3 minutes left, that the defense was likely to hold Manning? At the time, I wouldn't have bet on the defense stopping Manning from at least a FG ( However, the defense did hold twice in OT)

Of course, Garrett got lucky with the Colt penalty.

Did an ant crawl up your leg? Did your dog get run over by a guy in a Cowboys jersey? OR Do you root for big blue or the Egirls?

 

[ETex]

You make a lot very questionable assertions and assumptions here. You say the fact that they couldn't punch it in is a product of playcalling. I say it's because our OL can't block well line in short yardage situations. We ran two inside runs, and a slant to Austin. Miles was open out of his break, and the DE knocked it down. So what play should they have run, and how can you be sure that play would have worked better? And after failing 3 times to get a couple yards, you think they should have gone for it on 4th? That doesn't make sense.


This thread just smacks of blind Garrett hate. I hope I'm wrong, for your sake, because he will be our next HC. Hate all you want. Question all you want. It won't change anything.

The coach that needs to go is the DC.

quoted for truth.

 

[MonsterD]

For some reason I keep thinking of the Seattle playoff game under Bill Parcells. We attempted the field goal to take like a 2 point lead but Romo fumbled the snap. Only thing I remember was how Seattle abused our defense all game long and we were giving Seattle like 1:30 after that attempt. Seattle would have just drove down and done what they were doing throughout that game, no one remembers how stupid that field goal call was.

 

[Dhragon]

I've never been enamored about Red as an OC, but I can't really fault him for going for the FG. It was the correct thing to do. Take the lead when you can.

And Red didn't have "nothing to lose being as we were 3-8" since his very HC job is on the line. No, Red might make a number of boneheaded calls during a game, but I don't think this was one of them.

 

[Doomsday101]

How about spread them out and run a QB draw? Or how about role Kitna out and give him a run pass option? He's 38, but he can still move.

or throw the out to Witten for the TD. Oh yeah that is what we ended up doing to score. :laugh2:

 

[ShiningStar]

Are you talking about fans or coaches? :laugh2:


Because im pretty sure coaches focus on "how" the game was won or lost.

are you sure about that? Is JJ going to take this win away or Garrett give it back because there was a bad penalty during some part of the game, or maybe Pasquanoli planned for a patient game with no turn overs and we got turn overs?

Can you still win regardless of "how" you plan for the game? Were McCanns run backs planned on a how? I dont think they were, nor were they part of the formula.

Let me ask you something, when planning on "how" to win the game, "how many interceptions are planned?"

Do we give them back if they make a difference in the game in our favor?

You can plan a how, you take any freaking win you get.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Sure but at the end they are trying to put up a W in a league where it is not easy. Fans tend to under estimate teams every week and act as if the game is not a blow out then the team did bad. Winning is not that easy.

These are fairly obvious statments that i think most understand. I never suggested that winning wasn't' easy. Just that coaches, especially Garrett, focus on the process and there's a very complex way to how they go about preparing to win a ballgame. The poster i was responding to made it sound like all that matters is we won, even if we made 100 bad decisions doing it.

Im just saying that coaches put alot of thought into their decisions and im sure they go back and question themselves at times and go over things in their head to make sure they know what to do next time.

 

[This is Our Year]

Take the FG--no doubt--he'd be an idiot if he went for it and failed--

Agree 100%, it a no brainer decision, you take the lead every time. Can't take the gamble

 

[RoyTheHammer]

are you sure about that? Is JJ going to take this win away or Garrett give it back because there was a bad penalty during some part of the game, or maybe Pasquanoli planned for a patient game with no turn overs and we got turn overs?

Can you still win regardless of "how" you plan for the game? Were McCanns run backs planned on a how? I dont think they were, nor were they part of the formula.

Let me ask you something, when planning on "how" to win the game, "how many interceptions are planned?"

Do we give them back if they make a difference in the game in our favor?

You can plan a how, you take any freaking win you get.

Yes im pretty sure coaches focus on "how" to win the game. Why do you think they watch film? Or practice? Shouldn't they just show up Sunday and say "ok boys lets go out there and win."?

Are we really having this conversation? :laugh2:

 

[AdamJT13]

Not as dumb as if you kick the field goal and they drive down and score without giving you any opportunity whatsoever.

I completely disagree. And I'd be surprised if you could find one instance of an NFL coach being inside the 5 and going for it on fourth down with less than 4 minutes remaining instead of kicking a field goal to take the lead.

 

[jobberone]

I find it hard to believe anyone faults the FG. You have to take the lead there. Thankfully we were given a gift and took advantage of it.

Our defense is a mess though.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

do they ask you if you "won the game" or "how you won the game?"

A win is a win is a win. At the end of the day the W stands, doesnt matter how you get it.

If it doesn't matter how you won or lost a game.. why do teams go back and watch game film after every game?

Honestly the thought is just ridiculous. Of course coaches focus on how you win a game. Moving on..

 

[Doomsday101]

These are fairly obvious statments that i think most understand. I never suggested that winning wasn't' easy. Just that coaches, especially Garrett, focus on the process and there's a very complex way to how they go about preparing to win a ballgame. The poster i was responding to made it sound like all that matters is we won, even if we made 100 bad decisions doing it.

Im just saying that coaches put alot of thought into their decisions and im sure they go back and question themselves at times and go over things in their head to make sure they know what to do next time.

Sure coaches are going to look closer on things that worked things that didn't things we need to do better and yes plays they called or did not call within a game. That will happen week in and week out win or lose. I will say even coaches know at the end of the game it is about winning 1st and foremost. You can always go back and take a second look after the fact. As for the choice going for it I think many factors came into play in his mind but I don’t think he is second guessing himself for doing what he felt was the right move at that particular time. Who knows none of us are mind readers.

 

[Doomsday101]

I completely disagree. And I'd be surprised if you could find one instance of an NFL coach being inside the 5 and going for it on fourth down with less than 4 minutes remaining instead of kicking a field goal to take the lead.

True, why did the colts go for 1 instead of going for 2 to win the game? You always go for the lead or to get the game tied up then worry about what you have in front of you.