The 1:52 3rd down decision (re: The Break conversation)

[Kingofholland]

I liked the choice late in the game to go for the field goal and force Seattle to go for the winning Td. I didn't like the decision on 4th down to pass on the go ahead field goal towards the end of the 3rd. That 3 points could have given them a 9 point advantage down the stretch. It ended up not changing the game so doesn't matter now, but leaving points on the table can hurt you later.

 

[_sturt_]

something stupid

Kinda self-deceptively counterproductive to inherently admit that the best ammunition against a point is to call it names and hope for the best.

Just sayin.

You want to defeat substance, that's fine, but it requires substance in return. This kind of thing is just 5th grade playground talk.

 

[_sturt_]

There should be consensus by everyone as it was the obvious decision to make them go the length of the field to have to score a TD with no timeouts in a minute

On a night that your offense only generates 20-something points, sure.

On a night that your offense has been uber-productive?

Nonsense. You're at the friggin FOURTEEN yard line. That's no "obvious decision" either way.

 

[_sturt_]

Not really sure of your rambling point, but there’s a reason smart players and coaches instruct their players/teammates to go down once a first down is secured that enables a team to run out the clock. Outside of a point differential tiebreaker or a gambling interest (which has a whole different discussion), the odds are always in favor of the kneel down. The number of fumbles in that situation have to be close to zero (I can’t recall one). I’ve seen plenty of onside kicks and Hail Mary plays. Throwing a TD vs a pass for a first down (even going out of bounds after the catch) in that situation was a poor math decision. I won’t presume to know whether it was Mike’s or Dak’s but neither has a great track record in time sensitive situations.

I don't even know what you're talking about either, speaking of rambling points. There was never a "given" that you would have a chance at a kneel down in the first place. And you can make broad, ambiguous claims about the math... "poor math decision"... but anyone can say whatever. Self-evidently.

To be fair, I've at least not pretended to have any specific math at my fingertips... what I said is accurate... I've listened and read too much in the last 24 hours to specify what source told me that there was an ever-so-slight advantage mathematically (ie, to the outcome of the game) to run the ball there on 3rd down, giving yourself a shot at a first down and keeping the clock running. But that it wasn't a significant difference... and as just said in the previous post... that would seem to be especially the case on a night that your offense is producing as it was last night.

Some people are going to be predisposed, though, to the absolute merit of their take on what the decision should be in that situation. Again. Again. Again. I'm not one of those. I'm arguing something much less controversial... merely the idea that we can figure out pretty easily what the head coach was thinking. That was the point made in the OP. Shouldn't cause heartburn. I know. It does. But. Shouldn't.

 

[Reid1boys]

Worked against Seattle.

Didnt work against Jacksonville.

I still run, kick the 3 and they have 1 minute t

you mean like they just dud prior to the end of the 1st half>???

 

[Nav22]

Seattle was out of timeouts!!!

We didn't need to score. All we needed was 3 yards to ice the game.

Should've made sure to keep the clock moving... either you ice the game or you kill 40 seconds.

Hell, if you get it to a 4th and 1 or so, then you can even go for it to ice the game.

Fade to Lamb was a terrible decision.

 

[Carson]

Seattle was out of timeouts!!!

We didn't need to score. All we needed was 3 yards to ice the game.

Should've made sure to keep the clock moving... either you ice the game or you kill 40 seconds.

Hell, if you get it to a 4th and 1 or so, then you can even go for it to ice the game.

Fade to Lamb was a terrible decision.

I don’t hate the decision. But Cooks looked open underneath.

The problem is the Seahawks corner sat on that route. If 88 cuts inside he scores with ease.

Corner knew the route and sat on it

 

[Flamma]

Was a little surprised that there was agreement by everyone around the table on what they'd have rather seen McCarthy choose to do...



... because I think McCarthy had two very justifiable objectives.

Yes, defending a head coach I am... dangerous as that can be.

First, he was determined to get points. The almost last thing he wanted was to leave any chance that SEA could tie the game on a FG. So, once you make that decision, you've effectively established, then, you're definitely going for the FG on 4th down, no matter what happens on 3rd (ie, short of a first down or a TD).

Second, yes, you could run the ball on 3rd down to try to get the 1st. Or, you could take a shot at the end zone and pretty much win the game then and there.

I have zero problems with taking a shot at winning the game. Didn't work out, but the decision itself was stout.

Broaddus and Eagleton both passionately advocated for running the ball on both downs, and worst-case, turning the ball over on downs but having ran the clock to something in the neighborhood of 60 seconds left. Walker, not as passionate, but agreed.

Good heavens no.

That's still too much time, and especially when one of their weapons has burned you all night long with his speed... they could get to FG position very easily in that situation.

But what's crazy to me is they talk like it was/is so difficult for them to figure out McCarthy's thinking. Disagree, that's fine. But this wasn't rocket science. Even if it turned out to be a bad decision... and it didn't, of course... it was not hard to decipher the line of reason.

I can understand trying to win the game now. Because it sounds good. But every situation is different.

There was around 1:50 left, and Seattle had no timeouts. What if there was 1 minute left? Would it still be the right call? Or would running the clock down to 20 seconds be the better call?

My main problem was not that he called a pass play. But if the pass isn't there, Dak has to run it or take a sack. You can't just throw the ball away there.

 

[Hawkeye19]

That call was one of the worst calls I have seen MM make. A first down ends the game…. You absolutely run the ball in that situation.

Opting for a 3rd and 7 over the 2nd and 19 was also dumb.

Also the delay of game penalty that took us from 2nd and 2 to 2nd and 7 in the RZ. Inexcusable.

MM struggles with basic situational football awareness imo…

 

[buybuydandavis]

A first down increased the winning percentage more than a touchdown. That should have been the objective. I can’t gauge whether Mike’s math skills work well enough to process that.

End game situations is why you hire quants. Their evaluation should have been right under McCarthy's nose.

1st down with a minute left would be game over. Run, take time off the clock in case you fail, and then your playbook is wide open on 4th down. Or even just kick then. Making sure you took time off the clock on 3rd down should have been Job One.

You talk about winning percentage increased more by a first down. I agree, but is there a web site that will do that analysis for you? That would be cool.

 

[buybuydandavis]

My main problem was not that he called a pass play. But if the pass isn't there, Dak has to run it or take a sack. You can't just throw the ball away there.

Keeping the clock running after the play should have been top priority.

 

[cowboyed]

It was a tricky decision for Mike and let's not forget we have had the red zone yips as well as scoring relatively near their end zone. So 3 points was better than no points and keeping it a one score game at that stage of the game. If it was in the first half yeah go for the TD. You can make a case for it either way but let's not get over dramatic about the decision.

 

[DCwarrior]

If CD actually catches the pass everyone here would be saying what a great call that was. Play was there, CD just dropped it.he even acknowledged it on the field after the drop.

 

[Coogiguy03]

That's why we need Kellen; he would have tried to "jet sweep" them to death.

lol you must have heard me say that before lol, jet sweep to death lol lol

 

[DCwarrior]

It’s the kind of throw that Dak sometimes gets a pick 6 on but this throw was on the money where if CD didn’t catch it it’s incomplete.

 

[Jarntt]

Kinda self-deceptively counterproductive to inherently admit that the best ammunition against a point is to call it names and hope for the best.

Just sayin.

You want to defeat substance, that's fine, but it requires substance in return. This kind of thing is just 5th grade playground talk.

And you apparently read at a 5th grade level. I was calling the play call stupid not the post. Next time pay attention before bringing your passive aggressive BS

 

[Adiba1977]

Just get the 1st. Run with sweep. Qb keeper. Screen pass. Easy throw. Gotta keep clock running. Idiotic play call and dumb for dak to throw that. Check it down or run. Even take sack

 

[TheHerd]

I agree with ending the game. But with no timeouts left, a first down ends the game too. Can someone with access to the all-22 tell me if Cooks was as uncovered just past the first down as he looked? Just wondering. A safer pass seemed like to obvious choice, and pull it down and take a sack if it’s not there.

 

[BrassCowboy]

Sorry, but that was a very very dumb call. plain and simple.

 

[silvernblu]

Was a little surprised that there was agreement by everyone around the table on what they'd have rather seen McCarthy choose to do...



... because I think McCarthy had two very justifiable objectives.

Yes, defending a head coach I am... dangerous as that can be.

First, he was determined to get points. The almost last thing he wanted was to leave any chance that SEA could tie the game on a FG. So, once you make that decision, you've effectively established, then, you're definitely going for the FG on 4th down, no matter what happens on 3rd (ie, short of a first down or a TD).

Second, yes, you could run the ball on 3rd down to try to get the 1st. Or, you could take a shot at the end zone and pretty much win the game then and there.

I have zero problems with taking a shot at winning the game. Didn't work out, but the decision itself was stout.

Broaddus and Eagleton both passionately advocated for running the ball on both downs, and worst-case, turning the ball over on downs but having ran the clock to something in the neighborhood of 60 seconds left. Walker, not as passionate, but agreed.

Good heavens no.

That's still too much time, and especially when one of their weapons has burned you all night long with his speed... they could get to FG position very easily in that situation.

But what's crazy to me is they talk like it was/is so difficult for them to figure out McCarthy's thinking. Disagree, that's fine. But this wasn't rocket science. Even if it turned out to be a bad decision... and it didn't, of course... it was not hard to decipher the line of reason.

I could not disagree with you more.