Why did BP go for it instead of taking FG?

[daniukid]

I was at a sports bar in Seattle, and didn't have audio as to why BP decided to pass on the FG attempt twice and instead not get the 1st down on 4th down. I understand the rationale to run down the clock and kill the game with another 1st, but it seems rather odd that we didn't just take the points. Especially since we have Vandy on the team.

Can someone please share with me what we were doing and the reasoning behind it?

 

[rexrobinson]

I think because the game was out of reach and didn't want to disrespect the other team but moreso I think just to run down the clock.

It was like a punt sorta.

EDIT: maybe he had the under LOL

 

[BigDFan5]

we were up by 17 points with 2-3 minutes left, no need to humiliate Arizona (who's owner is good friends with Jerry)

 

[dallasfaniac]

Let's see:

Didn't want to run up the score.
Vandy misses, hurts his confidence.
Maybe we are having issues with our kick-blocking that we don't want others to have more film of.
Run out the time if we get a first.
To pad Kincades stats so we have people calling for him to get more touches.

 

[Dale]

A field goal would have still kept it a three possession game (17-point lead would have become 20). So, it wouldn't have affected how many times Arizona needed to touch the ball to attempt the comeback.

Also, you had the possibility of a blocked kick returned for a touchdown.

I think there was nothing positive that could have come from the play, other than seeing 30 on the scoreboard.

 

[Wolfpack]

Still seemed an odd call. Most coaches would think kicking the FG is "being nice".

 

[SupermanXx]

EDIT: maybe he had the under LOL

:laugh2: that's freakin hilarious

 

[big dog cowboy]

Why did BP go for it instead of taking FG?

He really wasn't going for it. He was just running a play to kill some time without rubbing Green's face in yet another loss. NO need to run it up against a team everyone can plainly see is inferior. Nice to see a little class.

 

[Shaun]

I pushed instead of winning the second half over because of this.

 

[AMERICAS_FAN]

A field goal would have still kept it a three possession game (17-point lead would have become 20). So, it wouldn't have affected how many times Arizona needed to touch the ball to attempt the comeback.

Also, you had the possibility of a blocked kick returned for a touchdown.

I think there was nothing positive that could have come from the play, other than seeing 30 on the scoreboard.

BULLCRAP! My feling is that you must take the points - ALWAYS! These were bad coaching decisions by Parcells. At the time, Zona was down by 17; that's 2 TDS and one FG with enough time to make that up - yes maybe on a longshot but still possible by a fluke. It was by a fluke that we lost last week's game so assuming it's impossible is bad reasoning by the coaches. Had we kicked the FG we'd be up 20, meaning Zona would need 3 TDs, which would be much more improbable for them to make up. FGs would have iced the game, but by not taking the points, Parcells prolonged the game longer than he needed when he alreasdy had the win in hand. This was plainly a bad decision that you cannot sugar-coat.

**

 

[sad_otter]

I was thinking that Parcells felt our defense had their offense under control, whereas a kickoff return might give the Cards a chance for a big play. But, yeah, it was a bit odd.

 

[aznhalf]

Because he wanted to screw over my fantasy team.

Luckily I ended up squeaking it out by 4 points but I really could have used an extra FG.

 

[Dale]

BULLCRAP! My feling is that you must take the points - ALWAYS! These were bad coaching decisions by Parcells. At the time, Zona was down by 17; that's 2 TDS and one FG with enough time to make that up - yes maybe on a longshot but still possible by a fluke. It was by a fluke that we lost last week's game so assuming it's impossible is bad reasoning by the coaches. Had we kicked the FG we'd be up 20, meaning Zona would need 3 TDs, which would be much more improbable for them to make up. FGs would have iced the game, but by not taking the points, Parcells prolonged the game longer than he needed when he alreasdy had the win in hand. This was plainly a bad decision that you cannot sugar-coat.

**

Well, if it's a bad decision then I was hoping we'd make a bad decision. Because prior to Parcells making the decision, I said aloud to those I was watching the game with that I thought we should go for it.

Personally, I thought the move was very Belicheck-like. He avoided the "obvious" move. My point about the points is that whether you're up 20 or 17, it's still a three-possession game -- where as with one ill-fated kick, it could have been a mere two-possession game.

As I said, I was hoping we'd make the move before it was called and actually thought it was a much better use of game management than his decision to go for two last week.

But, to each his own.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

He really wasn't going for it. He was just running a play to kill some time without rubbing Green's face in yet another loss. NO need to run it up against a team everyone can plainly see is inferior. Nice to see a little class.

 

[rynochop]

I pushed instead of winning the second half over because of this.

That's why i never bet on the Cowboys, win or lose, over or under. Being pissed about a win is not a good thing.

 

[CrazyCowboy]

Respect for the Cards is all I can think of.

 

[conner01]

BULLCRAP! My feling is that you must take the points - ALWAYS! These were bad coaching decisions by Parcells. At the time, Zona was down by 17; that's 2 TDS and one FG with enough time to make that up - yes maybe on a longshot but still possible by a fluke. It was by a fluke that we lost last week's game so assuming it's impossible is bad reasoning by the coaches. Had we kicked the FG we'd be up 20, meaning Zona would need 3 TDs, which would be much more improbable for them to make up. FGs would have iced the game, but by not taking the points, Parcells prolonged the game longer than he needed when he alreasdy had the win in hand. This was plainly a bad decision that you cannot sugar-coat.

**

thats two td's, two 2 point conversions,and a fg in what 3 minutes? get real, this is the nfl not madden you treat fellow teams with respect (unless it's the eagles.lol)

 

[Doomsday101]

I was at a sports bar in Seattle, and didn't have audio as to why BP decided to pass on the FG attempt twice and instead not get the 1st down on 4th down. I understand the rationale to run down the clock and kill the game with another 1st, but it seems rather odd that we didn't just take the points. Especially since we have Vandy on the team.

Can someone please share with me what we were doing and the reasoning behind it?

Because he felt the game was in hand and saw no reason to run up the score. Feel free to disagree with the move but he had his reason.

 

[chinch]

why run up the score nevermind give them 15-20 yards better field position.

those were the right calls.

 

[Angus]

Because he wanted to screw over my fantasy team.

Luckily I ended up squeaking it out by 4 points but I really could have used an extra FG.

Your fantasy team and the gambler's over/under were not and should not have been any concern of Parcells' or the Cowboys. That stuff is for kids and not-real-fans.