Last drive: 4th and 5

[JD_KaPow]

You have to go for it. It was an absolute no-brainer and this team is mind-numbingly stupid.

There was only one play that would absolutely, positively end the game at that point, and we decided not to even try?

Kick a FG and they get the ball back and can still win... it's not like teams haven't scored in less than a minute without using timeouts. All it takes is one play.

There are far more cons by not going for it.

Sorry, but this is nuts. It's 4th and 5 at the 26 yard line. Detroit has no TOs and there's 1:07 left on the clock. Here are the possibilities:

1. Kick the 44 yard FG. Go up 6 points, give them the ball at the 20 yard line (probably) with 1:02 left and no time outs, needing to drive 80 yards for a TD.
2. Miss the 44 yard FG. Give them the ball at the 34-yard line with 1:07 left and no time outs, needing to drive ~30 yards for a game-tying FG.
   
3. Punt. Give them the ball somewhere between the 10 and 20 (probably) with 1:02 left and no time outs, needing to drive ~45-55 yards for a game-tying FG.
4. Go for it and fail. Give them the ball at the 26-yard line with 1:07 left and no time outs, needing to drive ~40 yards for a game-tying FG.
5. Go for it and succeed. Game over.

#3 (punting) is clearly a pretty bad option, since you may only push them back about 10 yards.
The FG is a 90%+ proposition with Bailey from that range, indoors. So you can pretty safely discount #2 (missing the FG).
#5 is easily the best outcome and #4 is easily the worst. The 'Boys were 3-13 on 3rd-down conversions in the game. Ouch.
You might choose to go for it as a low-percentage desperation play if you had no other option. But you do have another option: #1. This is a really good one. Force them to go 80 yards in 1:02 with no time outs? Give me that every time and I'll win a ton of games. No, it didn't work, but it was obviously the best choice at that particular moment in the game.

 

[theebs]

Big Difference.

We had three timeouts. They would have burned only about 20 seconds and left us with a minute and a half on the clock

Not a big difference at all. Manning understood the situation.

A first down is a break breaker there and we were up playing the run just like Detroit was.

They were even closer.

 

[Nova]

You're being a complete hindsight-is-20/20 fan.

Now if Romo had completed, say, 75% of his pass attempts on the day, then I'd like the odds, especially if it were like 4th and 3. Unfortunately, it was perhaps Romo's worst game in terms of passing completion percentage this season.

Red, I'm really not being a hindsight guy.

I've seen this movie before, and yesterday I was just shaking my head as Bailey came on to the field to attempt a FG.

We've seen this team fail miserably before time and time again. The only way to ensure that didn't happen was to get the first down... we didn't even try. At the very least, break the huddle, run up to the line, get them to jump offsides.

I understand that you may not have had confidence in Romo, and I don't disagree-- he wasn't impressive. But you have to let them try.

 

[Tricericon]

No, you are totally wrong. Percentage wise you want to make them use their timeouts. The last thing you are going to do is save one for them

Prove that statement or retract it. Thanks.

 

[Red Dragon]

There's one reason why the Broncos example isn't a good one: Peyton Manning was completing passes at a much higher percentage against the Cowboys than Romo was against the Lions.


Manning could have thrown a pass attempt in a crucial situation like that, with lots of confidence. Romo completed fewer than 50% of his pass attempts. Trying to convert a 4th and 5 would have been one of the most foolish coaching decisions in recent times.

 

[Red Dragon]

Red, I'm really not being a hindsight guy.

I've seen this movie before, and yesterday I was just shaking my head as Bailey came on to the field to attempt a FG.

We've seen this team fail miserably before time and time again. The only way to ensure that didn't happen was to get the first down... we didn't even try. At the very least, break the huddle, run up to the line, get them to jump offsides.

I understand that you may not have had confidence in Romo, and I don't disagree-- he wasn't impressive. But you have to let them try.

Good points.


Don't get me wrong, I like bold and aggressive coaching, but 4th and 5 simply wasn't a good situation for this type of gamble. 4th and 1, I'd be all for it.

 

[theebs]

There's one reason why the Broncos example isn't a good one: Peyton Manning was completing passes at a much higher percentage against the Cowboys than Romo was against the Lions.


Manning could have thrown a pass attempt in a crucial situation like that, with lots of confidence. Romo completed fewer than 50% of his pass attempts. Trying to convert a 4th and 5 would have been one of the most foolish coaching decisions in recent times.

I didn't want them to go on fourth. I wanted them to play for a first and play regular offense.

 

[Nova]

Sorry, but this is nuts. It's 4th and 5 at the 26 yard line. Detroit has no TOs and there's 1:07 left on the clock. Here are the possibilities:

1. Kick the 44 yard FG. Go up 6 points, give them the ball at the 20 yard line (probably) with 1:02 left and no time outs, needing to drive 80 yards for a TD.
2. Miss the 44 yard FG. Give them the ball at the 34-yard line with 1:07 left and no time outs, needing to drive ~30 yards for a game-tying FG.
   
3. Punt. Give them the ball somewhere between the 10 and 20 (probably) with 1:02 left and no time outs, needing to drive ~45-55 yards for a game-tying FG.
4. Go for it and fail. Give them the ball at the 26-yard line with 1:07 left and no time outs, needing to drive ~40 yards for a game-tying FG.
5. Go for it and succeed. Game over.

#3 (punting) is clearly a pretty bad option, since you may only push them back about 10 yards.
The FG is a 90%+ proposition with Bailey from that range, indoors. So you can pretty safely discount #2 (missing the FG).
#5 is easily the best outcome and #4 is easily the worst. The 'Boys were 3-13 on 3rd-down conversions in the game. Ouch.
You might choose to go for it as a low-percentage desperation play if you had no other option. But you do have another option: #1. This is a really good one. Force them to go 80 yards in 1:02 with no time outs? Give me that every time and I'll win a ton of games. No, it didn't work, but it was obviously the best choice at that particular moment in the game.

So option 4 is the worst thing that could happen if we went for it? We tie and get a shot in OT?

So pro is: game over

Con is: we still have a shot?

^This is the point I'm trying to make. If you have a shot to win the game, go win it. Don't hope for the best.

 

[Red Dragon]

I didn't want them to go on fourth. I wanted them to play for a first and play regular offense.

In that situation - 1st and 10 at your opponents' 31-yard line - you have three primary objectives:

• Move the ball closer for a better field goal attempt;
• Force your opponent to drain all of their timeouts;
• Get a first down.

The Cowboys achieved 1# and 2#, but not 3#.

The problem with "regular offense" is that it could have resulted in a pass incompletion, which would go against goal #2: It would have spared the Lions a timeout.

 

[Nova]

Good points.


Don't get me wrong, I like bold and aggressive coaching, but 4th and 5 simply wasn't a good situation for this type of gamble. 4th and 1, I'd be all for it.

Yeah I would feel much better about it to in 4th and 1. But tell me you didn't think the Lions would do exactly what they did once they got the ball back.

.

 

[Red Dragon]

So option 4 is the worst thing that could happen if we went for it? We tie and get a shot in OT?

So pro is: game over

Con is: we still have a shot?

Many teams go for the touchdown even if they only need a FG. Final score could have been Lions 31, Cowboys 27.


They get into field goal range and then throw for the end zone to try to take the lead. If that fails, they can then try the FG.

 

[Red Dragon]

Yeah I would feel much better about it to in 4th and 1. But tell me you didn't think the Lions would do exactly what they did once they got the ball back.

.

I stopped following the game once the Cowboys kicked that field goal. I walked away and thought, "31-30.....31-30........31-30...... That had better not happen. NOT 31-30." Couldn't make myself follow the game anymore. But I DID think the Cowboys stood a great chance of getting the win; I mean, when a team has to go 80 yards in 50 seconds with no timeouts, you have to like the defense's odds, right?


I came back a short while later and, guess what the score was.

 

[theebs]

In that situation - 1st and 10 at your opponents' 31-yard line - you have three primary objectives:

• Move the ball closer for a better field goal attempt;
• Force your opponent to drain all of their timeouts;
• Get a first down.

The Cowboys achieved 1# and 2#, but not 3#.

The problem with "regular offense" is that it could have resulted in a pass incompletion, which would go against goal #2: It would have spared the Lions a timeout.

If you are aggessive and play for the first down you are not worried about their timeouts.

We lost the same exact way in New England in 2011.
Head coach asked the inferior unit to win the game for him when the better players and chance to win are on the backs of our offense.

 

[Nova]

Many teams go for the touchdown even if they only need a FG. Final score could have been Lions 31, Cowboys 27.


They get into field goal range and then throw for the end zone to try to take the lead. If that fails, they can then try the FG.

I don't entirely agree. Once they would get into fg range, I think you'd see a little bit more conservatism.

Eli Manning brought it up once. After he completed a 4th Q comeback where the Giants had to score a TD and said he was relieved when he realized that they "had to score a TD to win" rather than guessing whether or not they should go for the FG, play a little more conservatively and not screw up, etc.

But when you're down a TD? Well... Nothing more dangerous than a cornered fox.

 

[JD_KaPow]

So option 4 is the worst thing that could happen if we went for it? We tie and get a shot in OT?

So pro is: game over

Con is: we still have a shot?

^This is the point I'm trying to make. If you have a shot to win the game, go win it. Don't hope for the best.

Give me a break. Obviously, they could also go for the TD there. And we'd be putting them a whole lot closer to it. And forcing a team to drive 80 yards in 1 minute with no time outs is not "hoping for the best". It's asking your defense to not have a complete and total meltdown.

 

[Red Dragon]

I don't entirely agree. Once they would get into fg range, I think you'd see a little bit more conservatism.

Eli Manning brought it up once. After he completed a 4th Q comeback where the Giants had to score a TD and said he was relieved when he realized that they "had to score a TD to win" rather than guessing whether or not they should go for the FG, play a little more conservatively and not screw up, etc.

But when you're down a TD? Well... Nothing more dangerous than a cornered fox.

Let's put it this way then. Consider it from the other side. As a Cowboys fan, would you rather see the Cowboys trailing by 6 points, needing a touchdown, or trailing by 3 points, needing only a FG?

 

[vlad]

Maybe I'm missing something - but what is wrong with running the clock down to like 25 seconds and then if you want you can go for it, or you can try to angle a pooch to bounce around a while...and if you are at the right distance kick a FG to go up by 6.

Not that hard - just Tyron had the holding penalty which left like 40 more seconds on the clock.

The 3rd down call wasn't the problem, the penalty that stopped the clock was. Anything that stopped the clock, be it a penalty, running out of bounds, or an incomplete pass would have been a disaster. We got the penalty.

That glosses over the fact we had our tail kicked in the whole game, but that's neither here nor there with this sequence of events. And hey, I'm not blind Garrett fan, I've been saying for like 6 years his offense blows...

 

[AbeBeta]

Prove that statement or retract it. Thanks.

Only a troll would suggest that you have a higher chance fo losing if your opponent has time and time outs.

You go prove it is different and come back.

 

[AbeBeta]

Not a big difference at all. Manning understood the situation.

A first down is a break breaker there and we were up playing the run just like Detroit was.

They were even closer.

No. Is a huge difference. You cannot line up and run three times when your opponent has three time outs.

Silly agenda based arguments like this are what get you all hot and bothered and make you leave the board for months, huh?

 

[Blackspider214]

When the clock stopped because of the penalty, I would not be opposed to going for it. Why? Because I had more confidence that we would get 5 yards on a play than our defense with practice squad guys all over the field stopping an offense and Calvin from scoring. You knew if Detroit got the ball back it was game over. No timeouts or not.

And let's say we miss the FG. Then they get the ball back with pretty much the same amount of time left needing a FG. When all they need is a FG and no time outs, history has shown their mindset and philosophy changes. They are more willing to play for the tie.

Who knows how it would have played out but the correct strategy was to run it straight up the middle 3 times. Let the clock run all the way down. Take the delay. And punt. They have to go a minimum of 80 yards with around 22 seconds and no time outs. Not happening. There was no reason to run a sweep where holdings tend to occur or have a younf RB accidentally run out of bounds. Just silly play calling.