Garrett: we don’t use those numbers during a game

DakPresgoat said:
On 105.3 the fan. Jason Garret was asked about the odds of winning a game, based on analytics, between kicking the last FG or going for it on 4th.

Garret said “we don’t use those numbers during the game”.
Click to expand...

It was checkers vs chess again yesterday, because math is hard.
 
408Cowboy said:
Garrett didn't know what to do either there
Click to expand...

Playclock is at what, 5. Raining and the center has to be immediately on point to snap. On the road, don't really know the crowd noise at the time The punter has to be aware that he is allowed to make that call in the horrible conditions. He has to be confident he can throw the ball in those conditions. The gunner has to make the catch in those conditions. the wind is gusting at 30-40. That is a lot to do in great conditions

All those decisions in like 5 seconds on the clock....
 
Haimerej said:
Whatever. They made the right call for that point in the game. They go for it and fail you guys would whine about not getting points.
Click to expand...

Building a straw man doesn't make it the right decision.
 
Haimerej said:
I think this whole, "should have gone for the TD," thing is a perfect example of lemmings jumping on a narrative.

It was 4th and 7. The WRs and QB had multiple issues with handling the ball. There was nearly 7 minutes left in the game and but for good field position from turnovers and a blocked punt NE hadn't done much offensively all game. They in fact got points and the ball back with an opportunity for the lead. That situation was played fine.
Click to expand...
AND...most importantly I covered!
 
Future said:
If you plan on kicking the field goal, your playcalling on 2nd and 3rd down is much different. You're probably not in 4th and 7.

I don't actually hate the FG there but...you go from needing a stop and a touchdown to...needing a stop and a touchdown. The field goal doesn't change much.
Click to expand...
Lol, well obviously they werent running their 1st and 2nd down plays with the intention of kicking a FG. That decision was made when they failed to get a 1st down or TD
 
Hennessy_King said:
Even if it's a 70 yard drive. What kind of drive did you think. You knew we weren't getting a turnover. And you knew they weren't going to go 3 and out.
Click to expand...

We held New England to almost the same 3rd down conversion percentage that game as they did. There was a good chance for 3 and out.

When teams have 4th down on a final drive, the odds increase. We see it every week in the NFL. I take the FG and the possiblility with extra downs on a drive. 4th down in the field of play is a much better chance than in the confined endzone.

I don't mind if people disagree, I see their point. I just think that was the best decision at the time. You are welcomed to disagree.
 
The one thing working on offense was the run and they stopped doing it. I'm not a run 50 times at all costs guy by any means, but by my count Zeke had 2 rushing attempts in the 4th quarter in a 10-6 bad weather game.
 
sean10mm said:
The one thing working on offense was the run and they stopped doing it. I'm not a run 50 times at all costs guy by any means, but by my count Zeke had 2 rushing attempts in the 4th quarter in a 10-6 bad weather game.
Click to expand...


Amazing isn’t it.
 
We converted only 2 of 13 third downs yesterday. There was a very high probability we wouldn't have converted the 4th and 7. If it were 4th and short I could see the second guessing, but I have zero confidence they would have converted that 4th and 7. I'll take the points in that situation and make a run at a game winning drive with hopefully better down and distance. (which didn't occur)

Either way, it's not a clear cut decision. It's a matter of preference, not a no-brainer for either call. Of course, most people believe their opinion is the only correct opinion and the should've, could've, would've is undefeated.

That said, not using analytics during the game is asinine. Some jaw dropping revelations continue to surface way too often. Like the LBs admitting they didn't watch the tape of the Rams playoff game and we wonder why we continue to get gashed on the ground.
 
Last edited:
aikemirv said:
We held New England to almost the same 3rd down conversion percentage that game as they did. There was a good chance for 3 and out.

When teams have 4th down on a final drive, the odds increase. We see it every week in the NFL. I take the FG and the possiblility with extra downs on a drive. 4th down in the field of play is a much better chance than in the confined endzone.

I don't mind if people disagree, I see their point. I just think that was the best decision at the time. You are welcomed to disagree.
Click to expand...
The way the game was going and the analytics did not agree with the call. Chances of winning the game actually went down by kicking a fg.
 
Hennessy_King said:
The way the game was going and the analytics did not agree with the call. Chances of winning the game actually went down by kicking a fg.
Click to expand...
LIke Avian pointed out, we were 2/13 on 3rd down, so just given that we had a 15% chance of converting and that does not take into account the shortened field in the endzone.

So those analytics give you 1 point for the possible TD try and I would say 2.55 for the FG (thats given an 85% chance at the FG try from that distance.

Then you still have to kick a FG to win at some point either in reg or OT
 
Haimerej said:
I think this whole, "should have gone for the TD," thing is a perfect example of lemmings jumping on a narrative.

It was 4th and 7. The WRs and QB had multiple issues with handling the ball. There was nearly 7 minutes left in the game and but for good field position from turnovers and a blocked punt NE hadn't done much offensively all game. They in fact got points and the ball back with an opportunity for the lead. That situation was played fine.
Click to expand...
I agree
I think it was the right call in that position
On the goal line it’s very congested. A 4th and 7 at the 30 is easier than on the goal line to me
 
aikemirv said:
LIke Avian pointed out, we were 2/13 on 3rd down, so just given that we had a 15% chance of converting and that does not take into account the shortened field in the endzone.

So those analytics give you 1 point for the possible TD try and I would say 2.55 for the FG
Click to expand...
If you don't think they can convert a 4th and 7, what makes you think they will drive down the length of the field? Like I said the numbers say it was a bad call. And so did the flow of the game.
 
Hennessy_King said:
If you don't think they can convert a 4th and 7, what makes you think they will drive down the length of the field? Like I said the numbers say it was a bad call. And so did the flow of the game.
Click to expand...
For the same reason you have 4 downs to get 10 yards instead of one try for 10 yards
 
Win probability says you go for it on 4th down there. And as others have pointed out, you don't approach play calling the same way when you know you're in a 4-down situation.

The team was simply out-executed on the punt block and INT that led to 10 points for the opponent, but a coach can't expect his team to execute better than the opponent on every play anyway. What you can control as a coach is you can stress situational football. Much like the punt when the Patriots had no one back to return, the Cowboys were at a loss for what to do because they obviously don't practice these situations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Members online

... and 127 more.
Total: 6,942 (members: 227, guests: 6,715)

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
464,053
Messages
13,786,128
Members
23,771
Latest member
LandryHat
Back
Top