It goes without saying is that you're trying to score. What I am saying is that trying to score without paying attention to the other side of the ball, the game situation et al is foolhardy. The best example is when a team is driving for what would be the game winning points and they get into game winning FG position with 2 minutes left and the other team with 1 timeout. So with 1st and goal at the 9 yard like do they throw three passes into the end zone trying to score a TD and if they fail kick the FG with 1:40 left? Or do they run the ball three times, consume that last timeout, then 40 seconds each on the next two runs and kick the FG with maybe 15-20 seconds left? In that situation "do what you do to score and then worry about the time" is the worst decision you could make. That's what I am talking about.. you have to be playing the long game. The Washington game was an outlier because you were playing a vastly inferior team. In those games you can pretty much do whatever you want. I'm talking about taking on somebody closer to your own weight class. Play stupid against that team and you get your lights punched out.
Your scenario is not what I’m talking about. If you're tied, ahead, or even behind 2, and the FG is all but assured. In that case, you run the rock to burn the clock and kick the FG.
But when you are behind and have to get a TD, you prioritize that and don’t worry about how much time you leave. It may not work out, but neither will burning clock and then not scoring.
There is absolutely no way what they did Thursday night was the best course in my opinion. Absolutely they should’ve run the ball, burned 39 more seconds and then kick the FG. Sure, he could’ve missed, but that’s no more likely than what they did.
I harken back to that 51-48 Broncos game after Romo threw that late pick. That game was tied at that time. Manning told the RB in the huddle to not score under any circumstances; let’s just take the FG and get out if here with a win. That’s a QB that understands game management.
