Last drive: 4th and 5

[theebs]

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?

Oh geez.

 

[theebs]

And for the record manning threw again on second down when we only had 1 timeout left because they were playing smart and to win.

 

[Nova]

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.

Yes... they still could have gone for the touchdown. And they would have had to gone 74 yards instead of 80. Not a big difference.

So there is no real difference for the threat of a TD in that situation, is there?

 

[dupree89]

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.

Hey did you call into WFAN Radio today? A cowboy fan called in and basically said the same thing and he presented at least a decent argument. Saying your best players on offense are Romo, Dez and Witten.
You go for it on 4th down and try to seal it by using your best players. If you dont get it, in all likelihood Detroit will play for a FG to tie it. They probably wouldnt even go for the win by trying to get in the end zone. They set up for a FG and its OT. And if they DID score a TD so Dallas loses 31-27 rather than 31-30. He really thought you go on 4th down and let your best players win the game.

Dont know if I agree or not. I am exhausted mentally from re-hashing this game...but I keep doing it.

 

[Nova]

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.

I think you've nailed it here. Although I don't know if that play called for Tanner to flip it outside, so I can't say that was on the play caller. But still, at that point it was doubtful we were going to get the first down, at that point I'm okay with a run, but there was more that could go wrong with a run than a kneel down. I would have preferred a kneel down there, but can't be too upset with a run there since we committed to running out the clock at that point.

 

[Nova]

Hey did you call into WFAN Radio today? A cowboy fan called in and basically said the same thing and he presented at least a decent argument. Saying your best players on offense are Romo, Dez and Witten.
You go for it on 4th down and try to seal it by using your best players. If you dont get it, in all likelihood Detroit will play for a FG to tie it. They probably wouldnt even go for the win by trying to get in the end zone. They set up for a FG and its OT. And if they DID score a TD so Dallas loses 31-27 rather than 31-30. He really thought you go on 4th down and let your best players win the game.

Dont know if I agree or not. I am exhausted mentally from re-hashing this game...but I keep doing it.

Haha. No I've been avoiding the radio today. Really I've tried to avoid this place, but I've been carrying all these burdening thoughts so I thought it might be therapeutic to post.

But that's basically what I'm getting at, so that guy and I are on the same page.

 

[Coy]

They were out of timeouts at that point. What are you talking about?

For the record, I think they handled the drive okay at that point... things were still salvageable. I'd rather have seen a QB kneel on 3rd down, but once the penalty happened and Schwartz accepted, there was only one course of action that made more sense.

This, Romo takes a knee, we punt and win the game, Detroit gets the ball inside the 20 (and probably inside the 10) with no TO´s and around 20 seconds on the clock. Sometimes you just have to think outside the box as a HC in order to get the win, the good coaches do, Garrett is obviously not one of them.

 

[Blackspider214]

I think you've nailed it here. Although I don't know if that play called for Tanner to flip it outside, so I can't say that was on the play caller. But still, at that point it was doubtful we were going to get the first down, at that point I'm okay with a run, but there was more that could go wrong with a run than a kneel down. I would have preferred a kneel down there, but can't be too upset with a run there since we committed to running out the clock at that point.

Agree. I'd have to see the play again to see if it was designed to go inside and Dunbar or Randle bounced it outside. I guess you can't fault them for that if they did as they are just trying to make a play and they darn near got the 1st. But when you bounce a run outside, that's when guys are more likely to hold. Just out of instinct. Or accidentally runs out of bounds like we have seen so many times at all levels. Marion Barber did it a few years ago for the Bears. Just run a dive up the middle and fall down.

It was just a horrible playcalling from that drive and the drive prior. When we run on 2nd and 13 but pass on 3rd and 14. Why not knowing you aren't going to get it, just run the ball and force them to use a timeout or let another 40 seconds run off if they don't.

 

[Coy]

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.

I agree with everything here except the 3rd down run, when your first 2 runs where for - 4 yards, there’s nothing to gain by running it for a 3rd straight time, just kneeled down, take the penalty or the runner going out of bounds or a fumble out of the equation and run 40 seconds off the clock and punt it.

 

[BAT]

An incomplete pass and you've saved them a timeout. And we'd have heard all week about what a poor time manager Garrett is.

All week? This has been Garrett's bane his entire career as HC.

 

[Blackspider214]

I agree with everything here except the 3rd down run, when your first 2 runs where for - 4 yards, there’s nothing to gain by running it for a 3rd straight time, just kneeled down, take the penalty or the runner going out of bounds or a fumble out of the equation and run 40 seconds off the clock and punt it.

I agree. That's why I mean if we were to run, basically a dive where the RB takes the ball and just falls down after a second or so. Basically the line just stands up their men and there is no chance of holding like we had. Or a chance to fumble.

A kneel down would have worked fine. Heck, even putting Romo in shotgun and have him run around for a little then drop straight down. Would have wasted maybe an extra 5 seconds. Then take the delay and punt it sky high into the endzone on 4th. Game over.

 

[Tricericon]

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.

Burkian model (which does not include timeouts, alas) gives go-for-it a 91% chance to win and a field goal an 83% chance. That works as a baseline; burden of proof is on you. Prove your statement or retract it, please.

 

[Coy]

I agree. That's why I mean if we were to run, basically a dive where the RB takes the ball and just falls down after a second or so. Basically the line just stands up their men and there is no chance of holding like we had. Or a chance to fumble.

A kneel down would have worked fine. Heck, even putting Romo in shotgun and have him run around for a little then drop straight down. Would have wasted maybe an extra 5 seconds. Then take the delay and punt it sky high into the endzone on 4th. Game over.

My thoughts exactly

 

[WV Cowboy]

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

LOL, you act like your arrogant opinion is fool proof and anyone that disagrees is a troll.

Guess what, they did what you suggested and we lost. Oops.

I agree with trying to win instead of playing not to lose.
I would have loved to see us try to get a first down.
On the 3rd down, if Romo fakes the handoff, and Williams does a zig in and then back out he is wide open for the first down.

Only I would have tried it on first down, .. instead we ran right into the teeth of their defense, doing just what they wanted us to do.

I am tired of playing not to lose, only to do just that. (and so is Dez) We have tried that enough, let's try to win some games and see what happens.

 

[Coy]

Also, just to point out that Tanner was not instructed to just barrel his way into the line, that my friends is the coaches responsibility and that´s where Garrett always seem to fail. This quote from him makes me mad, talk to Tanner and tell him to not even think about taking it outside for crying out loud.


ESPN Report:

The Cowboys did not instruct Tanner to just barrel his way into the line.
“Certainly you can try to go man for man and tell him exactly what you want him to do but when we design that play from that personnel group that's where that play hits and typically that's where it goes,” Garrett said. “That's why we call it and he instinctively saw some daylight and green grass and bounced the thing all the way back and I think that contributed to the holding penalty.”

http://espn.go.com/blog/dallas/cowb...why-tyron-smiths-penalty-didnt-have-to-happen

 

[Red Dragon]

Hindsight is 20/20.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Hindsight is 20/20.

 

[nalam]

If garret is really playing conservative , his and teams first preference should have been reducing the time available , run as much clock as possible, Lions had 2time outs and so it was evident you need to run the 1st two times , would have to be s error free and time consuming , through the middle is best to avoid the holding flag etc. if we did get yards even 2-3 at time, could be a point to attempt the 3rd down run to get 1st down , to finish the game. When it was not the case we should have gone for kneel down and take 40 secs on clock, we could have taken delay of game and wasted another few secs, then kicked the field goal . Why wasn't that done , what was the idea in running a 3rd and 14 play ?

Not hindsight, no foresight