I want to see fewer first-half kneel downs

[TheMarathonContinues]

I'm sorry but giving your opposing team a chance to score before the half because you tried to score but failed is just silly football IMO. It may look and sound good in Madden but the last thing you want to do is fail and give the opposing team a chance to score and give them momentum going into the 2nd half.

 

[Red Dragon]

I'm all for it, but there's the 13-7 Commanders game to consider. Season opener, 2010 season, Choice fumble returned for a Skins TD right before the end of the first half.

 

[DFWJC]

I'm all for it, but there's the 13-7 Commanders game to consider. Season opener, 2010 season, Choice fumble returned for a Skins TD right before the end of the first half.

That was the first thing I thought of when this thread was opened.
What a nightmare.

 

[Chocolate Lab]

I'm all for it, but there's the 13-7 Commanders game to consider. Season opener, 2010 season, Choice fumble returned for a Skins TD right before the end of the first half.

And that's probably the reason Garrett takes a knee so often since then.

However, there's a big difference between doing it on the last play of the half vs doing it when you have a minute or so and a timeout or two.

 

[Future]

And that's probably the reason Garrett takes a knee so often since then.

However, there's a big difference between doing it on the last play of the half vs doing it when you have a minute or so and a timeout or two.

To me, this whole thread comes down to situational awareness. Others have mentioned, its not a black and white case...you don't either go for the score or take a knee.

This is where I think JG got a bit better last year, but where he still needs to drastically improve.

 

[AbeBeta]

And that's probably the reason Garrett takes a knee so often since then.

However, there's a big difference between doing it on the last play of the half vs doing it when you have a minute or so and a timeout or two.

I honestly think that he asked himself what sort of result he expected from that Choice play. My guess is that the answer was "I expected to get a player the ball so he could get a touch and stop complaining about getting too few touches."

 

[Red Dragon]

However, there's a big difference between doing it on the last play of the half vs doing it when you have a minute or so and a timeout or two.

Totally agree. As long as you have 30 seconds or more left, one or two timeouts remaining, and are on your own 30-yard line or closer to your opponent's end zone, you should always try to go for the last-second score.


Who knows, you might even draw a deep pass interference penalty.

 

[Red Dragon]

In my opinion, teams that play not to lose, deserve to lose.

 

[Doomsday101]

I just want to see a few more TD and fewer points allowed. Kneeling down with seconds before half time is the least of my concerns.

 

[AbeBeta]

Totally agree. As long as you have 30 seconds or more left, one or two timeouts remaining, and are on your own 30-yard line or closer to your opponent's end zone, you should always try to go for the last-second score.


Who knows, you might even draw a deep pass interference penalty.

Yet the data show that the average number of points teams derive from starting at the 30 is 1.0. What that means in reality is that you are unlikely to score when you start at the 30.

I know it is fun to just say "go for it! be aggressive!" but the reality is that it is not a good decision unless you are maybe around the 40 or closer.

 

[Doomsday101]

In my opinion, teams that play not to lose, deserve to lose.

True and teams who do things to beat themselves will lose a lot more games.

No one won a game at half time but you can do a lot to lose a game by half time. Circumstance and situation have to play a part in whether a team goes for it before half or not. Sometimes the best move is to get in to half time and regroup.

 

[Nav22]

Yet the data show that the average number of points teams derive from starting at the 30 is 1.0. What that means in reality is that you are unlikely to score when you start at the 30.

I know it is fun to just say "go for it! be aggressive!" but the reality is that it is not a good decision unless you are maybe around the 40 or closer.

1 point > 0 points. So every 3 attempts at "being aggressive" from your own 30 leads to a FG, on average.

Unless there's data which shows that it's more likely to hurt your team with a late turnover that leads to points than it is to score yourself, the original point is still valid.

And there's no way the odds of your OPPONENT scoring are higher than the odds of you scoring yourself. It's a conservative move which generally hurts your own chances.

Why forfeit a scoring opportunity just because you're scared of the highly-unlikely worst case scenario? Because you're afraid of what the media will say about you if the highly-unlikely worst case scenario happens?

 

[joseephuss]

1 point > 0 points. So every 3 attempts at "being aggressive" from your own 30 leads to a FG, on average.

Unless there's data which shows that it's more likely to hurt your team with a late turnover that leads to points than it is to score yourself, the original point is still valid.

And there's no way the odds of your OPPONENT scoring are higher than the odds of you scoring yourself. It's a conservative move which generally hurts your own chances.

Why forfeit a scoring opportunity just because you're scared of the highly-unlikely worst case scenario? Because you're afraid of what the media will say about you if the highly-unlikely worst case scenario happens?

The data does not include how much time is left on the clock, which is pretty important in these situations. None of the situations that Dallas faced last year going into halftime illustrate that they were conservative. They didn't appear to forfeit any of their scoring opportunities.

 

[Red Dragon]

Let's look at it this way instead.

If the Cowboys' opponent had one or two timeouts, the ball at their own 35, and forty seconds remaining in first half, would you prefer for them to kneel, or try to go for a field goal?


I think the majority of posters here would be more nervous and worried if the opposing team were to try to move downfield for a score, and would feel more relief if the opposing team simply knelt out the clock.

 

[conner01]

I honestly think that he asked himself what sort of result he expected from that Choice play. My guess is that the answer was "I expected to get a player the ball so he could get a touch and stop complaining about getting too few touches."

choice getting the ball was not the play call at all. it was a dump off. geez

 

[Idgit]

I'm all for it, but there's the 13-7 Commanders game to consider. Season opener, 2010 season, Choice fumble returned for a Skins TD right before the end of the first half.

I didn't have a problem with that call, either. I had a problem with the turnover, but not with going for it.

I think there's a lot to be said for just being aggressive. 30 seconds isn't a ton of time to score, but with a couple of timeouts, you can get into fg range, if nothing else. It's really demoralizing to the other team if you put points up on them right at the half. It also reinforces the idea that you're going to play to the last minute as a squad and always be aggressive. And we've got the QB who's capable of making big plays and who does well in the hurry up.

Inside the 20, or without the ability to stop the clock, it's probably too risky for my blood, but other than that, I'd have a standing policy of going for it, and I'd only consider holding off if I were playing a team that also had their timeouts and had a QB capable of exploiting me deep with very little time. That definitely was a consideration in that Saints game, and it should have been a consideration in the NE game. Against that Commanders team, not so much.

 

[AbeBeta]

1 point > 0 points. So every 3 attempts at "being aggressive" from your own 30 leads to a FG, on average.

Unless there's data which shows that it's more likely to hurt your team with a late turnover that leads to points than it is to score yourself, the original point is still valid.

And there's no way the odds of your OPPONENT scoring are higher than the odds of you scoring yourself. It's a conservative move which generally hurts your own chances.

Why forfeit a scoring opportunity just because you're scared of the highly-unlikely worst case scenario? Because you're afraid of what the media will say about you if the highly-unlikely worst case scenario happens?

What you are not interpreting correctly in those data is that one point average is across all situations where you get the ball at the 30. With limited time on the clock in what amounts to a pass only situation, your chance of scoring is greatly reduced. Additionally, those data do not address what happens if you go three and out. If you end up having to punt, you are giving the opponent an even stronger shot at scoring. For example if you punt and they get a decent return to their own 40, you've just put them in a better position to score than what you had. So it isn't scoring a field goal every three times you go for it -- it may very well end up with opponent averaging more points over the long run as a result of the silly "go for it!" attitude.

This isn't about media perception -- it is about understanding probability and not just doing things so it looks like you've got brass %$^@s.

 

[AbeBeta]

choice getting the ball was not the play call at all. it was a dump off. geez

Oh, so you know what the play call was? You know that usually any play has several options, right?

 

[joseephuss]

I didn't have a problem with that call, either. I had a problem with the turnover, but not with going for it.

I had a problem with continuing to go for it in that Washington game. Going for it when they initially got the ball with 27 seconds on the clock wasn't the problem. At least run a play and see what you can initially get. Continuing to go for it after running a few plays and not really getting anywhere was a huge problem. The problem got exasperated when Choice fought for useless yards and coughed up the ball. He wasn't going to score(best case scenario) once he was surrounded by several defenders, so he should have just gone down instead of turning it over for a TD(worst case scenario). That is just a case of not knowing the situation.

Dallas Cowboys start drive at 00:27
1-10-DAL 30 27) (Shotgun) 9-T.Romo pass short right to 23-T.Choice pushed ob at DAL 32 for 2 yards (23-D.Hall).

2-8-DAL 32 22) (Shotgun) 9-T.Romo pass incomplete deep left to 88-D.Bryant (31-P.Buchanon) [98-B.Orakpo].

3-8-DAL 32 16) (Shotgun) 9-T.Romo pass short right to 88-D.Bryant ran ob at DAL 46 for 14 yards.

1-10-DAL 46 11) (Shotgun) 9-T.Romo pass incomplete short right to 88-D.Bryant. PENALTY on DAL-71-A.Barron, Offensive Holding, 10 yards, enforced at DAL 46 - No Play.

1-20-DAL 36 04) (Shotgun) 9-T.Romo pass short right to 23-T.Choice to DAL 37 for 1 yard (23-D.Hall). FUMBLES (23-D.Hall), RECOVERED by WAS-23-D.Hall at DAL 32. 23-D.Hall for 32 yards, TOUCHDOWN.

With only 4 seconds left to play there was no sense in running a play after the holding call pushed them back to their own 36 yard line. The odds of putting themselves in position to score were very low. It was a pointless decision to not kneel down at that point. You don't kneel down because they possibly may score. You kneel down because you most likely won't score in that situation.

 

[Idgit]

...The problem got exasperated when Choice fought for useless yards and coughed up the ball. He wasn't going to score(best case scenario) once he was surrounded by several defenders, so he should have just gone down instead of turning it over for a TD(worst case scenario). That is just a case of not knowing the situation.

This was the part I had a huge issue with. He should have known better, and/or he should have been coached better, or he shouldn't have been on the field. It was careless.