With 3 TO’s in his pocket Garret should have punted

[phildadon86]

Oh i wasnt aware that Dak discussion is out of place when discussing Garrett, his head coach.


Thanks

I dont see how a thread about Garrett has anything to do with you saying Dak is a backup QB. This was about coaching. Thats all. You just have to bring Dak up in every single comment all the time. You and Pappy should be happy together one day. I would love to see Dak with a real coach and a QB coach that has you know, started more than 3 games in his life in the NFL. I remember a certain "if he had better coaches to get him the ball" comments regarding a certain WR. What was his name again? Funny how it only works for certain agendas and not others.

 

[WillieBeamen]

I dont see how a thread about Garrett has anything to do with you saying Dak is a backup QB. This was about coaching. Thats all. You just have to bring Dak up in every single comment all the time. You and Pappy should be happy together one day. I would love to see Dak with a real coach and a QB coach that has you know, started more than 3 games in his life in the NFL. I remember a certain "if he had better coaches to get him the ball" comments regarding a certain WR. What was his name again? Funny how it only works for certain agendas and not others.

So coaching has nothing to do with QB play?


Brilliant

 

[Hennessy_King]

I'll blame Garrett for a lot of issues in yesterday's game. He was responsible for the team being completely unprepared. But I will never, ever fault a coach for being aggressive on fourth down. I totally would have gone for it there (and wrote that in the game thread).

However the play call was horrid. I would have called a screen pass. The Carolina defensive line were teeing off and they were blitzing 6.

I'm all for a coach being aggressive and going for it. But 4th and 10 when we couldn't buy a first down all day I don't think was the right call when our defense was holding up pretty well.

 

[phildadon86]

So coaching has nothing to do with QB play?


Brilliant

That falls on Garrett or our newly appointed QB coach? LOL

 

[JustChip]

I was told going on 4th was the new craze . I heard it here, I heard passive is for losers and aggressive is for winners. I guess now the narrative has change.....lol what tells you we was getting the ball back? If we didn't stop them and they ran the clock out. You'd be *****ing he should've gone for it....lol

The bottom line is the result always frames the narrative. Go for it and don't get it and it becomes "should've punted". Punt it and never get the ball and the narrative is "should've gone for it". Parcells summed it up best - the right call is what worked. Unfortunately, that's only viewable in hindsight.

 

[JustChip]

I'm all for a coach being aggressive and going for it. But 4th and 10 when we couldn't buy a first down all day I don't think was the right call when our defense was holding up pretty well.

I think punting or going for it had about the same chance of success. Punt it and Carolina just needs to pick up 1 first down. And even if the defense kept them from getting a first, the offense still has to move the ball to score without any timeouts. And, as you point out, the offense couldn't get out of it's own way save for one drive. Ordinarily, I fall on the conservative side and would've punted, but in this case, I can't fault going for it. It didn't work (although it would've had Dak throw and better ball). Conversely, I wouldn't criticize punting had they done that and it didn't work. The problem wasn't that one play, but the offensive ineptitude for the other 55 or so plays.

 

[Cowboysheelsreds053]

OP! are you really asking red to adjust or think coaching? This is the same coach who iced his own kicker several years ago. He should have been fired then.

 

[Aviano90]

The bottom line is the result always frames the narrative. Go for it and don't get it and it becomes "should've punted". Punt it and never get the ball and the narrative is "should've gone for it". Parcells summed it up best - the right call is what worked. Unfortunately, that's only viewable in hindsight.

Very few people can admit they believe there was a good call with a bad result OR a bad call with a good result. Decisions are made without the outcome being known so I avoid using hindsight.

I would have thought it were a bad call even if Dak completes the pass for a 1st down. I didn't like our odds of converting (Dak's lack of accuracy being part of the reason).

Just like to this day, I believe it was the wrong call to go for it on 4th down in overtime against Philly in 2016. I felt we should have kicked the FG. We ultimately scored the TD and won the game, but I still thought we needed to take the lead in that situation.

But you are right, too many people flip flop on what they would do without any reason other than it really didn't work. I really don't mind a difference of opinion. I'm interested in hearing why it was a good decision to go for it. What was occurring that made the decision sound (prior to knowing the outcome)? To this day, I still don't fault Pete Carrol for passing the ball in the SB at the goal line. He had a rational reason for doing it, whether other people would do something different. He was actually thinking about "why" he needed to pass there.

 

[Hennessy_King]

I think punting or going for it had about the same chance of success. Punt it and Carolina just needs to pick up 1 first down. And even if the defense kept them from getting a first, the offense still has to move the ball to score without any timeouts. And, as you point out, the offense couldn't get out of it's own way save for one drive. Ordinarily, I fall on the conservative side and would've punted, but in this case, I can't fault going for it. It didn't work (although it would've had Dak throw and better ball). Conversely, I wouldn't criticize punting had they done that and it didn't work. The problem wasn't that one play, but the offensive ineptitude for the other 55 or so plays.

Agreed, i think it was a lose, lose for him. But on this day I would have felt better about my defense making a stop than my offense converting a 4th and 10.

 

[erod]

Three timeouts and a two minute warning ...

You punt the rock deep and make Carolina play ... then hopefully you force punt and get the ball in Austin’s hands somewhere around the 50.

Yes we got the ball back eventually but on our 20.

I mean let’s stop this lying to ourselves Jason Garret never belonged in the NFL. He lived off that TGivimg miracle for years.

My fandom used to be so passionate, I had Jerseys , I’d fly to see them , scream @ TVs but now .. I just kinda tune in and observe.

I don’t feel the fire I once had for the team an Garret is a huge reason.

This was idiotic. I was screaming at Garrett on this.

It wasn't 4th and short. The odds weren't good at all. Punt, and trust your defense that has played well. Don't put it on your impotent offense right there.

 

[JustChip]

Very few people can admit they believe there was a good call with a bad result OR a bad call with a good result. Decisions are made without the outcome being known so I avoid using hindsight.

I would have thought it were a bad call even if Dak completes the pass for a 1st down. I didn't like our odds of converting (Dak's lack of accuracy being part of the reason).

Just like to this day, I believe it was the wrong call to go for it on 4th down in overtime against Philly in 2016. I felt we should have kicked the FG. We ultimately scored the TD and won the game, but I still thought we needed to take the lead in that situation.

But you are right, too many people flip flop on what they would do without any reason other than it really didn't work. I really don't mind a difference of opinion. I'm interested in hearing why it was a good decision to go for it. What was occurring that made the decision sound (prior to knowing the outcome)? To this day, I still don't fault Pete Carrol for passing the ball in the SB at the goal line. He had a rational reason for doing it, whether other people would do something different. He was actually thinking about "why" he needed to pass there.

We are absolutely in 100% agreement here. You do what you think is best at the time - sometimes it work, sometimes it doesn't. I've gotten in friendly disagreements with people about the Seattle situation. There was sound reasoning for passing the ball there. It was executed well, but didn't work because of better execution by the NE DB. There is ZERO guarantee that running the ball 4 times there scores so it can't be said they absolutely win had they done that, but people leap to that conclusion. It's the same with so many of the tactical decisions Garrett is criticized over like calling time out to "ice his own kicker". He called that timeout for a valid reason; the result makes it the "wrong" decision.

I, too, would've punted, but am not going to lambaste him for going for it. Given what he had seen from his offense all game, he felt that was their best chance to potentially tie the game and I can't say he was unequivocally wrong. It just didn't work.

 

[JustChip]

This was idiotic. I was screaming at Garrett on this.

It wasn't 4th and short. The odds weren't good at all. Punt, and trust your defense that has played well. Don't put it on your impotent offense right there.

Right, except your impotent offense would still have to win the game for you if the defense stops them.

 

[erod]

Right, except your impotent offense would still have to win the game for you if the defense stops them.

I felt all day that we had a better chance to score on defense than on offense.

 

[Batman1980]

I felt all day that we had a better chance to score on defense than on offense.

As did I. Still don't think Brown should be on this team, he's straight poopy. Play Lewis.

 

[JD_KaPow]

If you give them the ball, one first down and the game is over, no matter where you give it to them. That's a high-risk proposition that people are ignoring here.
If you go for it, you're balancing maybe 20 yards of field position (remember the CAR punt resulted in a touchback) vs. a chance to not give up the ball at all. Yes, it's a high-risk move, but not as high-risk as people are making it out to be.

 

[Vanilla2]

i saw a play in the ATL / Phillly game where matt ryan threw a pass before julio even turned around. that's some trust and anticipation

They ran the same route earlier in the game and it got picked

 

[Avery]

I was okay with going for it. We just can't put ourselves in that position to begin with.

 

[Denim Chicken]

I had no issue with going for it there with Kuechly off the field (everyone is always clamoring about attacking teams weaknesses), but it did cost us field position.

 

[Doomsday]

So coaching has nothing to do with QB play?


Brilliant

Yep, tell that to Jared Goff and Trubisky. They both looked like dear in the headlights, then they get good offensive coaches and start to flourish.

This scheme asks Dak to excel at things that just aren't in his wheel house. He is more of a Russel Wilson type QB, we need to run more crossing routes to take advantage of his ability to extend plays.

 

[JustChip]

I felt all day that we had a better chance to score on defense than on offense.

I wouldn't necessarily argue that, but it can't be said that the defense absolutely would've scored.