Goal line field goals

[Galian Beast]

We should adopt a new philosophy with the Cowboys where Garrett goes for it every 4th down on the goal line.

2 rushing touchdowns are worth 14 points assuming we get both extra points...

You need FIVE field goals to match up to that value.

Field goals are BAD, I wouldn't settle on field goals unless scoring isn't immediate upon converting the down.

The other factor involved in going for it on 4th down is that even if we don't convert, at least the other team is backed up in their own endzone, and if the defense can stifle them, at least we should get good field position to try again.

Going for it on 1st down twice, and making it just ONCE gives more points than two field goals...

 

[tupperware]

Part of me wants to agree and the other part says take the guaranteed 3 points considering how close we play opponents (usually).

 

[Cowboys&LakersFan]

Disagree. You gotta take points when you can. Unless you have to go for it kick the FG.

 

[Eskimo]

Some of it depends on the game situation - sometimes you absolutely need the 7 and sometimes 3 will do just fine.

However, I think you are generally better off going for it if you can convert about 1/3 of the time. The reason is that having opponents backed up on the 1 is worth about 1.5 points in and of itself. So kicking the FG and then giving it back to them at the 20-25 is only worth about 1.5 points. However, scoring 1/3 of the time gives you 2.3 extra points which is thus worth more.

Now ideally the odds would be even in more in your favour than 1 in 3. I do think we need to beef up the interior of our OL in the next offseason. The other thing we should do is line up in the 21 personnel group more (2 RBs, 1 TE, 2 WRs). This will take some people out of the box and open up some creases for our RBs. If they stack the box we should get a 1-on-1 opportunity with our WRs.

 

[Galian Beast]

Again let me say it. You need FIVE field goals to match TWO rushing touchdowns...

FIVE. That is 5 successful drives to the goal line essentially wasted.

The value isn't there.

I'm not talking about regular field goals. I'm talking about when we get right up there. Once we get into goal line territory, we need to come away with touchdowns not field goals.

 

[Tabascocat]

I like going for it on 4th at least half the time if inside the 2yd line, as long as the Def is playing good and we are tied or only up a little. Run the first 3, then play-action on 4th. At worst they are backed up, anything can happen, safety, pick-six, etc.

 

[Galian Beast]

Some of it depends on the game situation - sometimes you absolutely need the 7 and sometimes 3 will do just fine.

However, I think you are generally better off going for it if you can convert about 1/3 of the time. The reason is that having opponents backed up on the 1 is worth about 1.5 points in and of itself. So kicking the FG and then giving it back to them at the 20-25 is only worth about 1.5 points. However, scoring 1/3 of the time gives you 2.3 extra points which is thus worth more.

Now ideally the odds would be even in more in your favour than 1 in 3. I do think we need to beef up the interior of our OL in the next offseason. The other thing we should do is line up in the 21 personnel group more (2 RBs, 1 TE, 2 WRs). This will take some people out of the box and open up some creases for our RBs. If they stack the box we should get a 1-on-1 opportunity with our WRs.

I agree with you that it is also situational, I'm not saying this is a concrete rule. We're not dealing with absolutes here. I think that is how Jason Garrett got into trouble running it on those last few downs in New England. I'm just saying generally speaking, we can't leave these points on the field.

 

[Galian Beast]

I would like to see us go out there in I formation. 2 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB, 1 FB.

I think that gives us ultimately the greatest amount of options in terms of scorers.

Putting Witten on the end rather than the slot also forces teams to respect both the run and the pass.

You can leave Fiammetta into block on passing downs, or you can have him go out on a route.. and have a WR block for him.

Same with the rb.

This 23 formation that we bring up with 3 tight ends needs to stop.

 

[tupperware]

Again let me say it. You need FIVE field goals to match TWO rushing touchdowns...

FIVE. That is 5 successful drives to the goal line essentially wasted.

The value isn't there.

I'm not talking about regular field goals. I'm talking about when we get right up there. Once we get into goal line territory, we need to come away with touchdowns not field goals.

You only need to miss or not attempt a FG to lose a game, though. At the end of the day I'd rather increase my chances to win that way, rather than go for it given our problems near the goal line. This team plays the opposition very close under JG. These FGs really do matter.

Jets game if we get a FG when Romo fumbles it's possible we get a chance at OT and win the game

49er game if we have 3 less points we may not of went to OT and won. Though I understand the 3 was to tie the game and not some goal line situation, bear with me here as I'm just trying to outline the importance of 3 points.

Commanders game we lose if we're down 3 more points.

And I'm sure I could go back to last year and find a boatload of games too. I agree with where your heart is and your reasoning, but the way our team plays and the inconsistency of our team in short yardage situations, I take the 3.

 

[Galian Beast]

You only need to miss or not attempt a FG to lose a game, though. At the end of the day I'd rather increase my chances to win that way, rather than go for it given our problems near the goal line. This team plays the opposition very close under JG. These FGs really do matter.

Jets game if we get a FG when Romo fumbles it's possible we get a chance at OT and win the game

49er game if we have 3 less points we may not of went to OT and won. Though I understand the 3 was to tie the game and not some goal line situation, bear with me here as I'm just trying to outline the importance of 3 points.

Commanders game we lose if we're down 3 more points.

And I'm sure I could go back to last year and find a boatload of games too. I agree with where your heart is and your reasoning, but the way our team plays and the inconsistency of our team in short yardage situations, I take the 3.

I would argue that we play them so close because we rely too much on field goals because we can't execute on the goal line.

I'm not saying don't kick field goals, just not on the goal line. I promise you it would add up. There is still being situationally aware though.

 

[links18]

Do we have a fake FG play? We used to run it now and again under Gailey and Campo. Isn't Campo still on the staff somewhere?

Hmm, maybe we should watch for the Bills running a fake FG tomorrow?

 

[peplaw06]

If we had kicked the FG in the first quarter against Detroit it would have been 34-33 on our last drive. Could have won it with another FG.

 

[Eskimo]

If we had kicked the FG in the first quarter against Detroit it would have been 34-33 on our last drive. Could have won it with another FG.

Your accounting is partly skewed because we held them deep, got good field position back and subsequently scored a TD. If we had kicked the FG and they got more normal field position perhaps we get the ball back in less favourable field position and don't score the next TD.

 

[big dog cowboy]

If we more efficient and committed to the running game we wouldn't wouldn't be in the type of situation as often.

 

[peplaw06]

Your accounting is partly skewed because we held them deep, got good field position back and subsequently scored a TD. If we had kicked the FG and they got more normal field position perhaps we get the ball back in less favourable field position and don't score the next TD.

There are lots of variables that could have changed things, true. But they weren't even close to stopping us in that first half. We came away with 0 points when we could have had 3. Simple enough math for me.

 

[Rockytop6]

If we had kicked the FG in the first quarter against Detroit it would have been 34-33 on our last drive. Could have won it with another FG.

The problem as I see it when we get inside the 5 is that we are too predictable. I hate the fade where Romo throws the ball like he is trying for a first down instead of putting enough air under the ball to clear the db and give the wr an opportunity to jump for the ball.

 

[Steve_Deadload]

Too much math in this thread, see ya.

 

[Beast_from_East]

We should adopt a new philosophy with the Cowboys where Garrett goes for it every 4th down on the goal line.

2 rushing touchdowns are worth 14 points assuming we get both extra points...

You need FIVE field goals to match up to that value.

Field goals are BAD, I wouldn't settle on field goals unless scoring isn't immediate upon converting the down.

The other factor involved in going for it on 4th down is that even if we don't convert, at least the other team is backed up in their own endzone, and if the defense can stifle them, at least we should get good field position to try again.

Going for it on 1st down twice, and making it just ONCE gives more points than two field goals...

We have the worst red zone offense in the league and you want to go for it every 4th and goal?

You realize we will not be converting the majority of the time, right?