Should have Onside Kick in OT

[LandryFan]

It's too high risk of a play. You're basically conceding the game if they recover it. Even if we get the onside kick, we still have to score a TD to end the game. Playing the odds, I think kicking it deep, hoping to get a stop or hold them to a FG, and then getting the ball back has a much higher win probability.

Actually, any score would have won the game had Dallas recovered an onside kick because NO would have had the opportunity to possess the ball, which is all that's required. That said, JG played the percentages properly.

 

[BAT]

I am sorry but given the way the defense was gassed and getting abused more and more as the game went on, it made ZERO sense to me to kick off to the Saints. You HAVE to try an onside kick there.

No way were they going to stop them from at least getting a FG and 20 - 30 yards of field position is nothing in that scenario. If they do hold the Saints to a FG, then they have 4 downs to work with to win or tie the game.

I dont think you can make an argument that taking a shot to get the ball back isnt the ONLY move in that scenario.

Not going for it on 4th and 2 in the 4th quarter was also a head scratcher to me as well. Cowboys were lucky to get the ball back and promptly waste minimal time on the clock before scoring TD, giving Brees and the Saints another shot to win in regulation. Cowboys had no business being in position to win game last night. Coaches, and some players, did not look like they wanted to win.

 

[JohnsKey19]

They could have gone for 2.

So Weeden can throw yet another fade to Williams from the 2 yd line????

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Not going for it on 4th and 2 in the 4th quarter was also a head scratcher to me as well. Cowboys were lucky to get the ball back and promptly waste minimal time on the clock before scoring TD, giving Brees and the Saints another shot to win in regulation. Cowboys had no business being in position to win game last night. Coaches, and some players, did not look like they wanted to win.

They wanted to win. They just don't have the horses right now.

 

[BAT]

So Weeden can throw yet another fade to Williams from the 2 yd line????

Wondering why no back shoulder throws?

 

[dallasdave]

In retrospect, probably the best thing we could have done to change the outcome of overtime would have been to call "heads".

 

[Kevinicus]

It's too high risk of a play. You're basically conceding the game if they recover it. Even if we get the onside kick, we still have to score a TD to end the game. Playing the odds, I think kicking it deep, hoping to get a stop or hold them to a FG, and then getting the ball back has a much higher win probability.

Actually if we recovered an onside kick to start overtime, we'd only have to get a FG, not a TD. In that instance, the Saints would have been considered to have had their opportunity with the ball.

A.R. 16.2 ONSIDE KICK
On the opening kickoff of overtime, Team A legally recovers the ball at the A41.
Ruling: A's ball, first-and-10 on A41. A kickoff is considered an opportunity to possess for the receiving team. Team B is considered to have had an opportunity to possess the ball.

 

[PA Cowboy Fan]

You know I really can't disagree. I knew we would lose as soon as we lost the toss. I just didn't think it would be that quick. The defense continues to surprise me.

 

[Doomsday]

You know I really can't disagree. I knew we would lose as soon as we lost the toss. I just didn't think it would be that quick. The defense continues to surprise me.

Seriously I just dont see the downside to trying it. That 20 or 30 yards of possession they gain from kicking it is gone in 2 plays whenever our defense is gassed like that.

You could also argue that mathematically it is the higher percentage play based on the percentage of time you recover vs the # of times your opponent actually gets a TD.

 

[xwalker]

I am sorry but given the way the defense was gassed and getting abused more and more as the game went on, it made ZERO sense to me to kick off to the Saints. You HAVE to try an onside kick there.

No way were they going to stop them from at least getting a FG and 20 - 30 yards of field position is nothing in that scenario. If they do hold the Saints to a FG, then they have 4 downs to work with to win or tie the game.

I dont think you can make an argument that taking a shot to get the ball back isnt the ONLY move in that scenario.

Interesting idea but the probability of recovering the onside kick is low. Even that High School coach that always does an onside kick and has his players practice it extensively, only recovers it about 1/5th of the time.

Going to 2 in regulation was probably a better idea.

 

[Beast_from_East]

They wanted to win. They just don't have the horses right now.

Against a winless team with a one arm QB, we didn't have the horses?

 

[Boyzmamacita]

Against a winless team with a one arm QB, we didn't have the horses?

Do you realize who is missing from our roster? Be realistic. Any win will be a miracle until we get our best players back.

 

[dalboy]

I would of rather seen them go for 2 in regulation rather than them kicking an onside kick.

 

[Idgit]

Lol at the idea of *having* to kick an onside kick in any overtime situation. I wouldn't have minded it, though.

Hated the idea of going for 2 points at the end of regulation, though. Way too much risk for a team that's not proven it can convert in short yardage at any point this season. Had we won the coin toss, I think we'd have scored, too.

 

[Irvin88_4life]

It would take a HC who has a pair. That is willing to make bold moves to help a team in dire straits....that's not Garett's MO. He is a plug an play coach an refuses to be creative to help his team.

Thats false Garrett has went for surprise onside kicks before

 

[Jstopper]

i wanted 11 men on the field and no free 3 points to the saints.

outside of that, 2pt conversion

last time we played the saints i watched tony tie the game only for the defense to let brees march down the field for a game ending TD. no way I would have let that scenario happen again. But JG did!

That was like 3 years ago. In 2013 the saints smoked us, breaking records literally destroying us and in 2014 we beat the tar out of the saints.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

That was like 3 years ago. In 2013 the saints smoked us, breaking records literally destroying us and in 2014 we beat the tar out of the saints.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=321223006

 

[Jstopper]

http://espn.go.com/nfl/boxscore?gameId=321223006

That was 2012. 3 years ago.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

That was 2012. 3 years ago.

Point is...that was the game I was discussing. No way would I let the saints have even a partial chance at getting it in OT and marching down the field on us AGAIN.

 

[Jstopper]

Point is...that was the game I was discussing. No way would I let the saints have even a partial chance at getting it in OT and marching down the field on us AGAIN.

That's what I'm saying is that nobody would be thinking about what happened when we played the saints 3 years ago, when we've played them twice since then. Not to mention that's not even the way the game played out. We were down 14 points to them in the 4th qtr and Romo marched us down the field for 2 straight touchdowns which took us into overtime. Then in OT we got the ball first but went 3 and out, then the saints hit a game winning field goal.