Down by 1, and Garrett goes for the FG?

[Marktui]

Because you don't turn down points to take the lead. You are right this team is 3-8 but he is coaching to win these games.

Right call, you take the lead from there and play defense. Doesn't matter if you are 3-8 or 8-3, he is trying to win the game!! The Tuna would have done the same thing.

YOU TRY TO WIN THE GAME:laugh2:

 

[Ken]

I really can't believe this is even a question. Take the lead and make them beat you.

Are you kidding? This forum.....sometimes.....wow.

 

[theogt]

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.

Agree that it'll be rare, but that doesn't make it right or wrong. Personally I would only go for it against certain opponents -- Manning being at the top of that list.

 

[Muhast]

I've questioned Garrett's call not to try and get into FG position at the end of the game because no matter if Peyton threw 3 picks earlier, he just drove down the field and scored on you.. and had racked up 350 yards on us already, and bottom line.. he's Peyton Manning. He's a machine under pressure and can strike at any time regardless of the 3 picks he threw already.


However, i don't understand how you can be upset that on 4th down Garrett chose to take the lead. Really?

You say our defense couldn't possibly stop Manning.. but if we don't even have the lead it doesn't matter anyway.

I agree, the 4th down call was a good decision, b/c you ultimately can't turn down a chance to take the lead when you are down. Whether it puts you up by 2 or 6 points doesn't matter. I agree with you on that.

I also was angry that we didn't at least TRY. Run one play, if you get a good chunk of yards good. If not throw it away and then take a knee. I don't see the harm in at least trying.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Agree that it'll be rare, but that doesn't make it right or wrong. Personally I would only go for it against certain opponents -- Manning being at the top of that list.

If you don't convert, it doesnt matter who the opposing QB is

It isnt even a question, you kick the field goal in that situation every single time

 

[theogt]

If you don't convert, it doesnt matter who the opposing QB is

There isn't a question of whether you convert or not. There's no conversion to be made. You have to score.

And if you don't score, then absolutely it matters who opposing QB is.

 

[The30YardSlant]

There isn't a question of whether you convert or not. There's no conversion to be made. You have to score.

Okay captain semantics

And if you don't score, then absolutely it matters who opposing QB is.

Why? I can turn and hand the ball off three times

 

[theogt]

Okay captain semantics

Okay, guy that was clueless of the game situation.

Why? I can turn and hand the ball off three times

Fantastic, but I'm sure you're a terrible passer, which means I'd be willing to give you control of the ball with 3 minutes left down by two points.

Now, if you were a good QB with no running game, I might be more inclined to stake a claim on stopping your running game.

 

[The30YardSlant]

Okay, guy that was clueless of the game situation.

I know exactly what the game situation was. It was fourth down and goal. If you score a TD on fourth and goal, you convert just as you would if you got three yards on fourth and two. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing here.

Fantastic, but I'm sure you're a terrible passer, which means I'd be willing to give you control of the ball with 3 minutes left down by two points.

Now, if you were a good QB with no running game, I might be more inclined to stake a claim on stopping your running game.

Even in the best case scenario where you have three timeouts, they are one first down away from ending the game.

 

[theogt]

Even in the best case scenario where you have three timeouts, they are one first down away from ending the game.

If this were true, you may be right. But it's not, so you're not. With 3 timeouts left, they'd have to convert at least two first downs to end the game.

However, giving Manning the ball with 3+ minutes left and down by 2 points is virtually a guaranteed loss.

 

[jobberone]

If this were true, you may be right. But it's not, so you're not. With 3 timeouts left, they'd have to convert at least two first downs to end the game.

However, giving Manning the ball with 3+ minutes left and down by 2 points is virtually a guaranteed loss.

Something about digging a hole comes to mind here.

 

[peplaw06]

Agree that it'll be rare, but that doesn't make it right or wrong. Personally I would only go for it against certain opponents -- Manning being at the top of that list.

Belichick did that last year and it bit him in the butt. And Manning hasn't been the same Manning the past few games... he's thrown something like 11 picks in the last 3 games.

However, giving Manning the ball with 3+ minutes left and down by 2 points is virtually a guaranteed loss.

I don't know why this is any more of a guaranteed loss than it would be giving it to him with 3 minutes left when he's up 1.....?

 

[The30YardSlant]

If this were true, you may be right. But it's not, so you're not. With 3 timeouts left, they'd have to convert at least two first downs to end the game.

Depends on when a coach decides to use his TOs and how many downs it takes to get the first down. You take three downs and the coach uses his timeouts, you end up with about 2:40 on the clock with no timeouts and the two minute warning. One play gets you to the two minute warning. Assuming the average run play takes 5 seconds or so, two more plays gets you to about 15-20 seconds left. At that point, it's one punt and maybe one offensive snap for the other team. In other words, over.

However, giving Manning the ball with 3+ minutes left and down by 2 points is virtually a guaranteed loss.

Not the way he's playing this year

 

[Stautner]

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.

This is crap. Not getting the TD was disappointing, but the bottom line is that the team HAD to get the lead, and couldn't risk not getting it. Though not guaranteed, you are in position to win if you have the lead, and in position to lose if you don't. It's as simple as that.

Besides, there was some time left in the game, and if the Colts scored that 3 points may have been coupled with another FG or TD late in the game to make the difference between a win or a loss. You can't act as if the fate of the entire game rests with a haing a TD over a FG at that very moment. That's the kind of thing that can too easily bite you in the butt.

 

[gimmesix]

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

Exactly. I guess the assumption here is that Dallas would have scored the touchdown when there's no evidence to suggest that.

If Garrett had went for it and failed, the same posters criticizing him for not going for it would be blasting him for not taking the sure lead.

 

[theogt]

Belichick did that last year and it bit him in the butt.

Eh...you play the percentages. Sometimes it doesn't work out.

And Manning hasn't been the same Manning the past few games... he's thrown something like 11 picks in the last 3 games.

Did anyone ever doubt he'd march down and score the last minute TD?

Nope.

I don't know why this is any more of a guaranteed loss than it would be giving it to him with 3 minutes left when he's up 1.....?

Because you likely only have to stop him on one of two passing plays.

Depends on when a coach decides to use his TOs and how many downs it takes to get the first down. You take three downs and the coach uses his timeouts, you end up with about 2:40 on the clock with no timeouts and the two minute warning. One play gets you to the two minute warning. Assuming the average run play takes 5 seconds or so, two more plays gets you to about 15-20 seconds left. At that point, it's one punt and maybe one offensive snap for the other team. In other words, over.

They had 3:30 left. Let's say that a play is 6 seconds long. On first down, 6 seconds run off. Timeout. On second down, 6 seconds run off. Timeout. On third down, they 6 seconds run off, they convert. Timeout. At that point it's 3:12 left in the game and they have a first down. If you stop them on all three downs, you get the ball back with at least a minute left in the game.

Not the way he's playing this year

Yeah, whatever. He's still Peyton Manning and he still walked right down the field on us and scored a TD like it was easy as can be.

 

[AdamJT13]

However, giving Manning the ball with 3+ minutes left and down by 2 points is virtually a guaranteed loss.

Apparently not, considering that he had more time than that AND was down by less than that (tied actually) and couldn't even get past his own 40 on two consecutive possessions.

He went 1-for-3 in situations needing to score in order to tie or win. For the game, he drove into scoring position on only four of 11 possessions. Using those figures, kicking the field goal gives you about a 65 percent chance of winning, even if you never get the ball back.

That's a MUCH greater percentage than the odds of converting on fourth down AND getting the two-point conversion AND either stopping the Colts from scoring a touchdown in regulation or winning in overtime (when they have a 50 percent chance of getting the ball first with 15 minutes to get a field goal).

 

[8FOR!3]

I don't buy taking risks because you have nothing to lose, we had the game to lose and taking the points gave us the league, complain all you want about not getting in the endzone, but kicking the field goal was the right call. I'm glad we did it. You kick the field goal and trust your defense to do their job.

 

[TNCowboy]

I guess I can over look that one. IMO, in that situation against Peyton Manning, you always go for it. Odds of holding him to a FG or less in that situation are not great, especially they way they moved it after the 1st quarter.

But then again, when Bellichick went for it last season at his own 30 yrd line on 4th and 1 in the final 2 minutes against the Colts, I thought he made the right call as well.

In the Cowboys current situation, with nothing to play for, I think you always err on the side of agression.

 

[utrunner07]

Never seen so much ridiculous questioning of extremely sound coaching decisions.