Down by 1, and Garrett goes for the FG?

[RoyTheHammer]

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

Is this sarcasm?

I haven't been following the whole thread, but if this isn't sarcasm its the dumbest thing i've ever heard.


Honestly, i usually try to stay objective and respect others opinions on this forum.. because they're all just opinions most of the time, but this thread is ridiculous.

ANYONE WHO DOES NOT THINK THAT ANY COACH IN THAT SAME SITUATION WOULD TAKE THE POINTS TO GET THE LEAD IS INSANE.

Taking the points does NOT guarentee the loss, it guarentees that you ARE IN THE LEAD. EVERY coach in the NFL would do the same thing if they were trying to win. EVERY COACH.





END OF THREAD. PLEASE.

 

[Blast From The Past]

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.

Those points weren't nearly automatic given our talented but none the less erratic young kicker.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Those points weren't nearly automatic given our talented but none the less erratic young kicker.

Please don't.

It was an extra point. He hasn't missed from under 30 yards all year.

 

[theogt]

ANYONE WHO DOES NOT THINK THAT ANY COACH IN THAT SAME SITUATION WOULD TAKE THE POINTS TO GET THE LEAD IS INSANE.

Sup, dawg.

 

[alsmith]

Yea that's is EZ to say sitting in your recliner.. Can't score in three tries then the FG is te right call, down by one...

 

[dbair1967]

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.

We do, and when we do you see people complain about the play calling, just like your doing now.

 

[Tusan_Homichi]

The fact that this is even an argument makes my head hurt. Of course you take the points there. You just tried 3 times and couldn't even get a yard. At this point, you can either take the lead or possibly have the game end on one play. You take the lead there and let the game play out at that point.

 

[casmith07]

You always take the points.

 

[Zman5]

We do, and when we do you see people complain about the play calling, just like your doing now.

I don't remember the last time we ran out of pass formation and pass from run formation when we were few yards away from the goal line.

Do you?

 

[peplaw06]

Sup, dawg.

http://sports.rightpundits.com/wp-content/photos/Bill_Belichick__1.jpg

That was also a completely different situation. The Pats weren't in FG range, they were on their own end of the field. They were attempting to run out the clock with their lead. If the situation were the same as ours, I'd pretty much guarantee even an ego the size of Belichick would take the sure points and the lead.

 

[theogt]

That was also a completely different situation. The Pats weren't in FG range, they were on their own end of the field. They were attempting to run out the clock with their lead. If the situation were the same as ours, I'd pretty much guarantee even an ego the size of Belichick would take the sure points and the lead.

Seems to me that his decision was an even bigger risk, so I don't see why you can make that assumption.

People can say "take the points" as much as they like. But it's about winning, not scoring points. If you think your chance of winning is better, regardless of your ability to score immediate points, then you make that decision.

 

[Doomsday101]

Seems to me that his decision was an even bigger risk, so I don't see why you can make that assumption.

People can say "take the points" as much as they like. But it's about winning, not scoring points. If you think your chance of winning is better, regardless of your ability to score immediate points, then you make that decision.

Then why did the Colts only go for the extra point instead of the 2 to take the lead in the game? I think most coaches would take the 3 and the lead instead of risking go away with no points and still trailing in the game.

 

[theogt]

Then why did the Colts only go for the extra point instead of the 2 to take the lead in the game? I think most coaches would take the 3 and the lead instead of risking go away with no points and still trailing in the game.

Risk aversion? How is this at all relevant?

 

[Doomsday101]

Risk aversion? How is this at all relevant?

Walking away from the lead would have been stupid just as it would for the Colts to go for 2 instead of the extra point to tie the game. You don't walk away from the points since you have no clue as to what will happen on the next drive.

 

[theogt]

Walking away from the lead would have been stupid just as it would for the Colts to go for 2 instead of the extra point to tie the game.

Or not.

 

[Doomsday101]

Or not.

Nothing or not about it. No coach in his right mind is going to walk away from taking the lead. What Garrett did almost every coach would have done the same because there is no way of knowing what will happen after that point. If it was ealier in the game you may go for it but that late in the game with the lead there for the taking only a dope would pass it up

 

[peplaw06]

Seems to me that his decision was an even bigger risk, so I don't see why you can make that assumption.

People can say "take the points" as much as they like. But it's about winning, not scoring points. If you think your chance of winning is better, regardless of your ability to score immediate points, then you make that decision.

I don't think his decision was a bigger risk. He did not want to give the ball back to Manning (who was playing much better than he is right now), he didn't think his defense could stop him. If you convert the 4th down he tried, you run out the clock and win the game. If not, then you give them a short field, maybe they score quickly and you get the ball back. But there was no decision to be made about leaving sure points out there. It was a field position question, not points.

 

[Stautner]

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

Completely diffeerent? Same team, same opponent, same yardage needed to get into FG range.

Granted that at the end of regulation the Colts would not have punted and would have used all 4 downs, but for a team that is so absolutely dominant over it's opponent that it would be GUARANTEED they would win if they get the ball back with Dallas only having a 2 point lead, surely they wouldn't have that much doing the same in OT? But they didn't, and if fact, the absolutley dominant team didn't even move the ball at all, which leads me to believe that them having the ball doesn't guarantee anything.

Gotta go with what HAMMER said - every NFL Coach would have taken the guaranteed lead. Obviously it would have been difficult to stop the Colts, but you hav to give your team a chance. We had struggled getting teh ball in the end zone already, which didn't give us a lot of confidence to try one more time, and our defense had made some surprising stops of the Colts offense throughout the course of the game, so the only choice was to take the guaranteed lead and give the defense a chance to make a play.

 

[theogt]

Granted that at the end of regulation the Colts would not have punted and would have used all 4 downs

But they're the SAME!!!1111

 

[Hook'em#11]

Take the FG. Offense couldn't get it in on 3 tries, Why would 4th be the charm?