I really wanted for the Giants to convert that 2 pt. conversion, was I wrong?

[Coy]

Hear me out for a second, I obviously understand that it´s always better to be leading by 2 with 4 minutes to go than to be tied but my thinking was that if we were leading by two our play calling would have been much more conservative (like we´ve seen before) with probably 2 runs and a pass coming a yard short of the first down or something like that, we would´ve punted it and Eli would drive down the field for the Giants to kick a game winning field goal.

And I thought that if they tied the game we had to be more aggressive and go for the field goal to win the game.

It may not be a popular opinion but I actually was rooting for the Giants to tie the game, your thoughts???

 

[5Stars]

Hear me out for a second, I obviously understand that it´s always better to be leading by 2 with 4 minutes to go than to be tied but my thinking was that if we were leading by two our play calling would have been much more conservative (like we´ve seen before) with probably 2 runs and a pass coming a yard short of the first down or something like that, we would´ve punted it and Eli would drive down the field for the Giants to kick a game winning field goal.

And I thought that if they tied the game we had to be more aggressive and go for the field goal to win the game.

It may not be a popular opinion but I actually was rooting for the Giants to tie the game, your thoughts???

I see your point, but I never root for a team to score or tie the game. That's just...lazy!

 

[Nightman]

Hear me out for a second, I obviously understand that it´s always better to be leading by 2 with 4 minutes to go than to be tied but my thinking was that if we were leading by two our play calling would have been much more conservative (like we´ve seen before) with probably 2 runs and a pass coming a yard short of the first down or something like that, we would´ve punted it and Eli would drive down the field for the Giants to kick a game winning field goal.

And I thought that if they tied the game we had to be more aggressive and go for the field goal to win the game.

It may not be a popular opinion but I actually was rooting for the Giants to tie the game, your thoughts???

I had the same feeling. We get way too conservative with the lead and 4 minutes would be impossible to just RUN out. Tony unleashed is much more effective.

 

[Red Dragon]

By the same logic, would you prefer for the Cowboys, if trailing 21-19, to NOT make a two-point conversion to tie the game? I mean, it would make the Cowboys' opponent much more conservative in their subsequent playcalling, wouldn't it?

 

[Coy]

By the same logic, would you prefer for the Cowboys, if trailing 21-19, to NOT make a two-point conversion to tie the game? I mean, it would make the Cowboys' opponent much more conservative in their subsequent playcalling, wouldn't it?

Of course not, this is based on our play calling not other teams, we tend to play extra conservatively in those situations.

 

[Coy]

I see your point, but I never root for a team to score or tie the game. That's just...lazy!

Not even in the Denver Game? You'd rather they milk the clock and kick a 25 yrd field goal to win the game?? When they got that first down at the half yrd line with less than 2 minutes left i knew it was over, hey even Payton Manning didn't want to score on that occasion.
I get what you are saying, it's not like I'm rooting against the Cowboys but IMO there are certain situations throughout the year that it may be in the best interest of winning.
And obviously I am not saying they should have let them score the 2 pt conversion, I'm talking as a fan.

 

[5Stars]

Not even in the Denver Game? You'd rather they milk the clock and kick a 25 yrd field goal to win the game?? I get what you are saying, it's not like I'm rooting against the Cowboys but IMO there are certain situations throughout the year that it may be in the best interest of winning.
And obviously I am not saying they should have let them score the 2 pt conversion, I'm talking as a fan.

I know what you mean and I am not saying you are wrong, but you never let another team score. That is not what the game is about.

Who knows what would have happened if the Cowboys would have stopped that 2 point conversion? But, when the did not stop it, I was like, oh hell, here we go, again...a big loss may be coming up!

 

[Red Dragon]

Not even in the Denver Game? You'd rather they milk the clock and kick a 25 yrd field goal to win the game?? I get what you are saying, it's not like I'm rooting against the Cowboys but IMO there are certain situations throughout the year that it may be in the best interest of winning.
And obviously I am not saying they should have let them score the 2 pt conversion, I'm talking as a fan.

I think a better analogy would have been the part earlier in the Broncos game where Dallas led 48-41. In that situation, if the Broncos score a TD, it would quite obviously be in the Cowboys' interest for the Broncos to NOT make that extra point kick.

Cowboys leading 48-47 would have been better than the game being tied 48-48. As it was, the game was tied, and Romo subsequently threw an interception on the next drive (trying to put the Cowboys nearer field goal range.)

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Nick Eatman said the same thing on The Break. He said if the Giants didn't make that conversion to tie it, Dallas would've lost.

 

[Coy]

I think a better analogy would have been the part earlier in the Broncos game where Dallas led 48-41. In that situation, if the Broncos score a TD, it would quite obviously be in the Cowboys' interest for the Broncos to NOT make that extra point kick.

Cowboys leading 48-47 would have been better than the game being tied 48-48. As it was, the game was tied, and Romo subsequently threw an interception on the next drive (trying to put the Cowboys nearer field goal range.)

You're not getting my point, if that had happend we probably dont get a first down, punt and Payton drives for the winning FG. They were agressive, unfortunately Tony threw the interception and we all know what happened but they were trying to win the game, if they are winning by one point they are just trying to hold on to the lead and play calling changes. I am confident enough on Romo on those situations that if they let him do his thing most of the time he'll pull it out.

 

[Red Dragon]

You're not getting my point, if that had happend we probably dont get a first down, punt and Payton drives for the winning FG. They were agressive, unfortunately Tony threw the interception and we all know what happened but they were trying to win the game, if they are winning by one point they are just trying to hold on to the lead and play calling changes. I am confident enough on Romo on those situations that if they let him do his thing most of the time he'll pull it out.

I understand where you're coming from. But I still want my team to be leading. I understand the whole aggressive vs. conservative debate, but a lead is still a better situation to be in than a tie.


Conversely, I would always prefer for the Cowboys to be in a game where the score is tied, rather than to be trailing.

 

[Coy]

I understand where you're coming from. But I still want my team to be leading. I understand the whole aggressive vs. conservative debate, but a lead is still a better situation to be in than a tie.


Conversely, I would always prefer for the Cowboys to be in a game where the score is tied, rather than to be trailing.

And I get what you're saying as well, it's obvioulsy better to have a lead than to be tied as I said on my original post, but I based my comments under the actual circumstances and how this team has played in those situations in the past 3 years.

 

[percyhoward]

I thought that if they tied the game we had to be more aggressive and go for the field goal to win the game.

I think you've got a point. Maybe not in a purely general way, but in a Cowboys-specific way.

 

[TwoDeep3]

Hear me out for a second, I obviously understand that it´s always better to be leading by 2 with 4 minutes to go than to be tied but my thinking was that if we were leading by two our play calling would have been much more conservative (like we´ve seen before) with probably 2 runs and a pass coming a yard short of the first down or something like that, we would´ve punted it and Eli would drive down the field for the Giants to kick a game winning field goal.

And I thought that if they tied the game we had to be more aggressive and go for the field goal to win the game.

It may not be a popular opinion but I actually was rooting for the Giants to tie the game, your thoughts???

This may be one of the more brilliant points made on this board lately.

The way The Ginger would have called that game - when will they drop on this guy, really? - this game could have ended with the Giants winning in the last minute.

Because does anyone really believe Opie has learned from the Detroit contest?

 

[big dog cowboy]

It may not be a popular opinion but I actually was rooting for the Giants to tie the game, your thoughts???

It might be backwards thinking but it does make sense. Can't say that I disagree completely with your point.

 

[Coy]

It might be backwards thinking but it does make sense. Can't say that I disagree completely with your point.

Haha got that right.