Down by 1, and Garrett goes for the FG?

[Stautner]

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.

The thing is, if we go for it we are just forcing the Colts to make one play to win it, whereas if we take the lead they are going to have to put together a drive's worth of plays to win it. The most important thing is the lead because without it we were sure of losing, adn with it we had at least something of an advantage.

 

[theogt]

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.

It's a different situation with different concerns and different playcalling. For one glaring example, they wouldn't have punted on fourth down in regulation play.

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.

Actually, he was 1-for-1 in situations in which he needed to score in order to tie or win.

 

[Zman5]

Why don't we ever run out of spread formation in these situations? Or pass out of a jumbo package.

Freaking put Bennett, Whitten, and Rucker in to look like a run and then pass to one of the TE. They are all big passing catching TEs.

Or from the shotgun spread formation, have Gronk as a lone back to look like a pass blocker and either have him run it in or have him as a lead blocker and have Kitna sneak it in.

 

[Stautner]

It's a different situation with different concerns and different playcalling. For one glaring example, they wouldn't have punted on fourth down in regulation play.

Nevertheless, at least you are forcing Manning to earn the win rather than handing it to him if you fail on 4th and goal.

We need to realize this. If we chose to go for it, then the Colts ould only need to make one play to win the game, and we would have only had one shot to win, and even then no guarantee - the Colts would still get the ball with plenty of time left and a chance to get a TD.

If we choose to kick the FG we take the lead, and even though the Colts have plenty of time and only need a FG, it's still going to take several plays to get in FG range, therefore giving us several chances to make a play to stop them or put them in a hole.

In other words, we take the lead and force them to string together several successful plays to have a chance to win, rather than hinging our entire success on one play, and a play that carries no guarantees even if successful.

 

[theogt]

Nevertheless, at least you are forcing Manning to earn the win rather than handing it to him if you fail on 4th and goal.

You're "forcing him to win" if you kick the field goal or if you go for the TD and don't make it. The difference is that in one situation, you're taking your fate into your own hands and in the other you're completely putting it in Manning's hands.

 

[Displaced Cowboy]

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.

You say at 3-8 they have nothing to lose, I'm sure Garrett will tell you differently.

What he has to lose is his job. If he coached every game like it didn't matter and took crazy risks every chance he got and the boys went 1-7 under his watch, think he's keeping the job?

He needs to coach to win every game. While it is obviously a bad job by not being able to get the ball in the endzone the only move garrett had at that point in the game was to kick the field goal and try to preserve a win.

 

[peplaw06]

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

Nope.

I didn't doubt that he would do it in his first possession of overtime. Or the second. But he didn't.

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

Yeah but you HAVE to stop him. If you let him convert one, it's over. And even if you do stop him, they punt and you have to bring it back down the field and get into Buehler's range, which with him, the closer the better. We were in position for a chip shot as it was. That's certainly preferable to a 40 yarder to win it with under 10 seconds left.

With the field goal, you kick it off to him, being up 2, and having 4-5 sets of downs to try to stop him by turnover or loss of downs. I don't know the percentages, but IMO, it's just better to have the almost guaranteed lead in that situation.

 

[theogt]

I didn't doubt that he would do it in his first possession of overtime. Or the second. But he didn't.

Big difference giving him 4 downs vs. 3.

Yeah but you HAVE to stop him. If you let him convert one, it's over. And even if you do stop him, they punt and you have to bring it back down the field and get into Buehler's range, which with him, the closer the better. We were in position for a chip shot as it was. That's certainly preferable to a 40 yarder to win it with under 10 seconds left.

They have to convert twice for it to be over. If you stop him on the first set, you've got over two minutes left. If you stop in on the second, you have over one minute left. That's plenty of time to get into position to kick a field goal.

With the field goal, you kick it off to him, being up 2, and having 4-5 sets of downs to try to stop him by turnover or loss of downs. I don't know the percentages, but IMO, it's just better to have the almost guaranteed lead in that situation.

If Manning is down by 2 points, with 3 minutes left, I view it as the game is over -- Colts win.

 

[Stautner]

You're "forcing him to win" if you kick the field goal or if you go for the TD and don't make it. The difference is that in one situation, you're taking your fate into your own hands and in the other you're completely putting it in Manning's hands.

That only makes sense if the TD would put the game out of reach. As it was, even with a TD Maning could have taken the game in his hands, and would have had plenty of time to do it.

Besides, even though the FG wasn't as favorable as the TD, I would hardly characterize it as failing to take our fate into our own hands - we would have taken the lead, which is always essential to victory.

And even though Manning and the Colts would have been a challenge to stop, I wouldn't characterize that as putting fate into Manning's hands. Hopefully the 11 guys on defense would have had a say. And, again, you are forcing Mainng to make a number of plays to win, and if the defense could muster just one big play (sack for loss, fumble, int, force a penalty or two, things could go in our favor.

The bottom line though is that, as always, you can't be ahead when the clock expires unless you are ahead before the clock expires, You have to be certain of being ahead.

 

[theogt]

That only makes sense if the TD would put the game out of reach. As it was, even with a TD Maning could have taken the game in his hands, and would have had plenty of time to do it.

Besides, even though the FG wasn't as favorable as the TD, I would hardly characterize it as failing to take our fate into our own hands - we would have taken the lead, which is always essential to victory.

And even though Manning and the Colts would have been a challenge to stop, I wouldn't characterize that as putting fate into Manning's hands. Hopefully the 11 guys on defense would have had a say. And, again, you are forcing Mainng to make a number of plays to win, and if the defense could muster just one big play (sack for loss, fumble, int, force a penalty or two, things could go in our favor.

The bottom line though is that, as always, you can't be ahead when the clock expires unless you are ahead before the clock expires, You have to be certain of being ahead.

A touchdown doesn't guarantee a win, obviously, but a FG guarantees a loss.

 

[Stautner]

A touchdown doesn't guarantee a win, obviously, but a FG guarantees a loss.

All Indy had to do was make a FG range in OT, and that didn't guarantee a loss, did it?

 

[utrunner07]

A touchdown doesn't guarantee a win, obviously, but a FG guarantees a loss.

It does not guarantee anything (other than you being arrogant and wrong, neither of which is new territory for you). If you really think that you have no basis talking about football.

 

[CoCo]

I was pretty upset about it ... until we got the leverage call, then it was GENIUS!

You have to laugh at the idea that we could have prevented Manning from scoring at least a FG in his last drive.

The same way that Manning getting the ball first in OT meant a certain FG. Oh wait... (DANG! Stautner beat me to it...)

 

[The30YardSlant]

Actually, he was 1-for-1 in situations in which he needed to score in order to tie or win.

What does that even mean?

Are you suggesting he can simply turn it on and score at will when he "needs" to?

One would think he would just keep it on all game and drop 70

 

[Stautner]

All Indy had to do was make a FG range in OT, and that didn't guarantee a loss, did it?

The same way that Manning getting the ball first in OT meant a certain FG. Oh wait... (DANG! Stautner beat me to it...)

Great minds ........

 

[theogt]

All Indy had to do was make a FG range in OT, and that didn't guarantee a loss, did it?

How many times do I have to point out these are completely different situations?

 

[rcaldw]

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

You take the lead every single time. You don't pass up a chip shot FG for a lead, especially when your offensive line has already proven to have a hard time moving anybody out of the way.

 

[Don Corleone]

This is a dumb thread. You take the points and the lead in that situation every time and expect your defense and special teams to step up. I'm glad some of you aren't coaching this team.

 

[The30YardSlant]

You take the lead every single time. You don't pass up a chip shot FG for a lead, especially when your offensive line has already proven to have a hard time moving anybody out of the way.

Exactly

The odds of you kicking the FG and stopping them from getting a FG are higher than going for it, scoring and then stopping them from scoring. The FG there is almost a gurantee, leaving only one real uncertainty (stopping Indy). The other scenario involves two major uncertabties, scoring AND stopping them.

You take the lead. Period. I can't recall an NFL coach ever not kicing the FG in that situation

 

[newlander]

I look at the big picture: we blew the saints game and really should have won. We got pretty lucky and edged the Colts. Bottom line: we are a legit 3-1 since he took over. I think we'll beat Philly once, and then beat zona and the foreskins. That'll give Red a 6-2 record and 7-9 overall record. That will work moving forward. Dude is nails.