Twitter: McCarthy on letting the clock run down to :03

Wait...so if Jerry wanted to take a shot, but they didn't take a shot, and nobody does anything without Jerry's permission...

Mind...blown
Jerry didn't think it necessary to explicitly tell his HC that trying to score a TD is preferable to a FG. He will clear that up this week.
 
Okay, here's another thought. If MM hadn't told the official to run the clock down, and tried another play, they probably would have reset it to 3 seconds just before the snap, and when we didn't score a TD, time would have expired and they would have told him he never called a TO.
 
A SMART coach looks at how a game is going and reacts to it. We were getting a lot of flags; and the D was playing well and Dak was playing well but not lighting it up and our Running game was frankly the pits.

PUT that all together and I really do not have a problem with that decision
I agree, but that’s not the popular answer. Too many people need something to ***** about.
 
I didn't like the conservative approach but I understand the logic, the team wasn't playing disciplined football and he didn't want to risk a turnover or a negative play/flag that could have taken them out of field goal position.
Plus, a little nervous remembering the game ending Dak run against SF?
 

I don't have a problem with this. If there had been 12-14 seconds I would have a different opinion because that clearly allows enough time give the receivers route options and time for Dak to make a read before throwing the ball. 8 seconds is a tighter window. Obviously it can work, but there is less room for error and adjustment.
 
Last edited:
He did not want to take the chance of the ball bouncing around and being picked. We were getting flags. But I would have took the shot or even run it. 8 seconds you could have done what you wanted and had 2 time outs left. We won by 3.
Which is the result of playing it safe, so in the end it was the right call. There is no difference between winning by 3 or 7... unless you had money on the spread.
 
if Garrett had MIke's eyes he would have been unstoppable. He could see the whole field at the same time. Another guy could use that too.
 
I didn't like the conservative approach but I understand the logic, the team wasn't playing disciplined football and he didn't want to risk a turnover or a negative play/flag that could have taken them out of field goal position.
Playing not to lose is not good!
 
A SMART coach looks at how a game is going and reacts to it. We were getting a lot of flags; and the D was playing well and Dak was playing well but not lighting it up and our Running game was frankly the pits.

PUT that all together and I really do not have a problem with that decision
Look how much crazy stuff that happened in that game. It's the right call and is the reason we won.
 
Reviewing the thread, got many on here defending a scared coach.

Coaching to not lose rather than coaching to win is never going to work out long term.
 
Look how much crazy stuff that happened in that game. It's the right call and is the reason we won.
It was not the right call, and an entire second half of football makes it impossible to extrapolate that this cowardly decision was the reason we won the game.
 

Forum statistics

Threads
464,089
Messages
13,788,215
Members
23,772
Latest member
BAC2662
Back
Top