Down by 1, and Garrett goes for the FG?

[aikemirv]

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.

One of the biggest blunders of the year would have been to forgo points abd fail on 4th down. No coach in their right mind does that!

3-8 or 8-3 you take the lead!

That would rank right up their with Bellichik going for it on 4th and 2 a couple of years ago, or last year on his own 27 because he did not trust his D. Just stupid!

 

[tyke1doe]

They made the FG, which gave Dallas the lead. Things could have gone differently from that point and Dallas could have still won. If Indy drives down and scores a TD as fast as they did, Dallas could have gotten the ball back with close to 2 minutes on the clock possibly. It was a good choice for Garrett. You don't make decisions based on the attitude to you have nothing to lose. There is always something to lose. Credibility. The confidence of those around you. You play football.

This.

You can't play the game like you're scared of Peyton Manning. You have to play to win. You take the lead and worry about the rest later. Fortunately, the leverage penalty allowed us to score the touchdown. But if we had to do it again, I'd take the field goal.

 

[theogt]

One of the biggest blunders of the year would have been to forgo points abd fail on 4th down. No coach in their right mind does that!

3-8 or 8-3 you take the lead!

Yes, if we can look back and assume that (1) we didn't make the touchdown and (2) didn't hold them to punt, then it sure as heck would have been a bad decision wouldn't it?

Also, Mr. Lincoln should have stayed home to read a book instead.

 

[tyke1doe]

One of the biggest blunders of the year would have been to forgo points abd fail on 4th down. No coach in their right mind does that!

3-8 or 8-3 you take the lead!

That would rank right up their with Bellichik going for it on 4th and 2 a couple of years ago, or last year on his own 27 because he did not trust his D. Just stupid!

Careful, you're about to be asked for proof and be involved in an argument where hypotheticals take the place of what actually happened in this situation. :laugh2:

 

[Stautner]

Yes, if the we can look back and assume that (1) we didn't make the touchdown and (2) didn't hold them to punt, then it sure as heck would have been a bad decision wouldn't it?

Also, Mr. Lincoln should have stayed home to read a book instead.

But the bottom line is that we HAD to take the lead. There were no if's ands or buts about that. No option at all, no chance of winning at all, if we didn't take the lead.

So, the choice was between being absolutley certain of taking the lead (or next to absolutely - as kicking FG's from that distance is virtually certain), or attempt a play that carried dramatically lower odds of us taking the lead. Hell, we had already struggled trying to punch the ball into the end zone during the game, so that would have made the odds seem even lower.

 

[aikemirv]

Yes, if we can look back and assume that (1) we didn't make the touchdown and (2) didn't hold them to punt, then it sure as heck would have been a bad decision wouldn't it?

Also, Mr. Lincoln should have stayed home to read a book instead.

How many possesions did Manning have on Sunday?

How many times did they score?

How many times did we score on their possesions?

I would say based on that game the odds were with us (the defense)!!

 

[Stautner]

How many possesions did Manning have on Sunday?

How many times did they score?

How many times did we score on their possesions?

I would say based on that game the odds were with us (the defense)!!

But wait, you forgot his argument. Since Manning wouldn't have punted on 4th down and would have been going for it, then it was GUARANTEED Manning would move the ball into FG range, and GURANTEED that Vinatieri would kick the winning FG.

Of course, that ignores the fact that the reason the Colts didn't go for it on 4th down throughout the course of the game is that they knew that have 4 downs does NOT guarantee success moving the ball.

 

[theogt]

But the bottom line is that we HAD to take the lead. There were no if's ands or buts about that. No option at all, no chance of winning at all, if we didn't take the lead.

We didn't "HAVE" to attempt to take the lead via a field goal if it meant we had a lesser chance of winning the game.

So, the choice was between being absolutley certain of taking the lead (or next to absolutely - as kicking FG's from that distance is virtually certain), or attempt a play that carried dramatically lower odds of us taking the lead. Hell, we had already struggled trying to punch the ball into the end zone during the game, so that would have made the odds seem even lower.

False alternative.

How many possesions did Manning have on Sunday?

How many times did they score?

How many times did we score on their possesions?

I would say based on that game the odds were with us (the defense)!!

It's hindsight, but the number of possessions that Manning had when the game was on the line and he needed to score to win or tie was one and he scored a TD on that one drive.

But if you think the odds were with our defense on stopping them, then the better choice is going for the touchdown rather than the field goal.

 

[theogt]

But wait, you forgot his argument. Since Manning wouldn't have punted on 4th down and would have been going for it, then it was GUARANTEED Manning would move the ball into FG range, and GURANTEED that Vinatieri would kick the winning FG.

Of course, that ignores the fact that the reason the Colts didn't go for it on 4th down throughout the course of the game is that they knew that have 4 downs does NOT guarantee success moving the ball.

I wish I could have been there to make a bet with you as to whether they were going to score a TD to tie the game on that last drive before OT.

Easy money.

 

[Doomsday101]

I wish I could have been there to make a bet with you as to whether they were going to score a TD to tie the game on that last drive before OT.

Easy money.

so then why didn't the colts score on the 2 possesions in OT?

 

[peplaw06]

Garrett also went against the school of thought that once you have points on the board, you don't take them off. Buehler made the FG, and there was a penalty called. In hindsight, we ended up scoring a TD... But say that we had a penalty that pushed us back after the first down and Buehler shanked one, or turned the ball over.

When all is said and done, we won. There are many different choices such as this one that happen in every game. In the end, if you win the game, you made enough right choices.

 

[theogt]

so then why didn't the colts score on the 2 possesions in OT?

Because they played it differently.

When all is said and done, we won. There are many different choices such as this one that happen in every game. In the end, if you win the game, you made enough right choices.

No, that's not how you judge a decision. You don't judge a decision based on how the events unfold after the decision was made. You judge a decision based on the information that is on hand at the time the decision is made. You can luck into a win. And you can make every right decision and still lose.

If I have a 99.9999% chance of winning a massive lottery by betting my entire life savings, I take that chance. If for some strange twist of fate, it turns out to be the 0.0001% case in which I lose, it was still a good decision to make the bet. That doesn't change based on how the events unfolded.

 

[Doomsday101]

Because they played it differently.

I'm sure the Dallas defense would have played it differently had they been trying to hold in to a 1 point lead. Dallas was only rushing 3 on Indy last drive in regulation yet in OT we went back to rushing 4 to 5.

 

[theogt]

I'm sure the Dallas defense would have played it differently had they been trying to hold in to a 1 point lead. Dallas was only rushing 3 on Indy last drive in regulation yet in OT we went back to rushing 4 to 5.

They probably would have played it the same way they played when hanging on to a 7 point lead -- i.e., by giving up the points.

 

[Doomsday101]

They probably would have played it the same way they played when hanging on to a 7 point lead -- i.e., by giving up the points.

No way to know since that was not the case. Had Dallas gone for it on 4th the Colts only need a couple of 1st downs to end the game. I just do not see many coaches walk away from taking the lead. Dallas got a break on the PF call on the colts and it all became moot but the fact Garrett did take the points when he had to was the right call

 

[theogt]

Here's the equation as to which is the better decision to make. I'm sure I screwed up somewhere as I just threw this together. All you have to do is assign your percentages and plug into the equations.

Go for field goal:

Percentage chance FG is made: A
Percentage chance hold Colts to no FG: B

Percentage chance we win in FG scenario: A * B = X

Go for touchdown:

Percentage chance make a TD: C
Percentage chance Colts held to no TD: D
Percentage chance Colts held to punt: E
Percentage chance Cowboys kick field goal to win: F

Percentage chance we win in TD scenario: (C * D) + (E * F) = Y

So, you go for a field goal if X > Y, and you go for a touchdown if X < Y.

Edit: Just realized this doesn't factor in the chance of ending regulation play in a tie, which would make Y much more likely and more desirable.

Percentage chance of win/OT: (C*(1-D)) + (C*D) + (E*F) = Y

Is that right? Screw it, I hate math.

 

[Doomsday101]

Here's the equation as to which is the better decision to make. I'm sure I screwed up somewhere as I just threw this together. All you have to do is assign your percentages and plug into the equations.

Go for field goal:

Percentage chance FG is made: A
Percentage chance hold Colts to no FG: B

Percentage chance we win in FG scenario: A * B = X

Go for touchdown:

Percentage chance make a TD: C
Percentage chance Colts held to no TD: D
Percentage chance Colts held to punt: E
Percentage chance Cowboys kick field goal to win: F

Percentage chance we win in TD scenario: (C * D) + (E * F) = Y

So, you go for a field goal if X > Y, and you go for a touchdown if X < Y.

Please no coach in his right mind is going to walk away from a sitatuion where his team gets the lead that late in a game that is why Garrett went for the FG that is why most go for the FG. There is no way of knowing what would happen afterwards but to walk off the field trailing when the oppertunity to take the lead was there is just stupid.

 

[Stautner]

We didn't "HAVE" to attempt to take the lead via a field goal if it meant we had a lesser chance of winning the game.

False alternative.

It's hindsight, but the number of possessions that Manning had when the game was on the line and he needed to score to win or tie was one and he scored a TD on that one drive.

But if you think the odds were with our defense on stopping them, then the better choice is going for the touchdown rather than the field goal.

No, they didn't HAVE to try to take the lead via FG, I never said they did. What I said was that they HAD to take the lead, and that FG was the sure method of doing that, and that going for the TD carried dramatically lower odds of taking the lead.

As for your "false alternative", let's hear you expand. Anser this question - if using 4 downs to get a 1st down GUARANTEES the Colts would score, then why did they ever punt during the game?

I wish I could have been there to make a bet with you as to whether they were going to score a TD to tie the game on that last drive before OT.

Easy money.

This statement is so void of logic it's actually a vaccuum. I was never the one suggesting certainties, and I never said the Cowboys were assured of stopping the Colts. The certainties were all in your mind, and all I ever said was that your suggesting that the Colts success was GUARANTEED was off base.

so then why didn't the colts score on the 2 possesions in OT?

He cana't answer that. Or why if 4 downs GUARANTEES succes why the colts would have ever punted in the game. Or how we ever intercepted 3 passes prior to OT or how we ever stopped other possessions throughout the game. All we hear is that one particular possession would have been GURANTEED despite all evidence that nothing is guranteed.

 

[theogt]

No, they didn't HAVE to try to take the lead via FG, I never said they did. What I said was that they HAD to take the lead, and that FG was the sure method of doing that, and that going for the TD carried dramatically lower odds of taking the lead.

Yes, it's a sure way of taking a lead at some point in the game. But that's completely meaningless. The only time being in the lead means anything is when time runs out. And if going for the field goal gives you less chance of being in the lead at that time, then you don't go for it.

As for your "false alternative", let's hear you expand. Anser this question - if using 4 downs to get a 1st down GUARANTEES the Colts would score, then why did they ever punt during the game?

See my post on calculations of possibilities.

He cana't answer that. Or why if 4 downs GUARANTEES succes why the colts would have ever punted in the game. Or how we ever intercepted 3 passes prior to OT or how we ever stopped other possessions throughout the game. All we hear is that one particular possession would have been GURANTEED despite all evidence that nothing is guranteed.

Please tell me you're not really this dense.

 

[theogt]

Please no coach in his right mind is going to walk away from a sitatuion where his team gets the lead that late in a game that is why Garrett went for the FG that is why most go for the FG. There is no way of knowing what would happen afterwards but to walk off the field trailing when the oppertunity to take the lead was there is just stupid.

You're not walking off the field. You're giving yourself the chance to take a bigger lead, a lead that helps better ensure you win the game.