Quote:
Originally Posted by Colts And Orioles
o
There were several significant differences between those 2 situations.
For starters, the Cowboys had 4th down and half a yard to go ........ the Colts had 4th down and 4 to go, which is considerably more challenging.
Secondly, the Cowboys were on the opponents' 42 yard-line ........ the Colts were on their own 43 yard-line, which is also a considerably higher risk of gambling and going for it.
Finally, in the Colts-Texans game, there were only 27 seconds left to play. If they had punted the ball, there would have been less 20 seconds left play by the time the punt landed, and it is highly unlikely that the Texans would have been able to get the ball from deep in their own territory and still get into field goal position for the win. In the Cowboys-Texans game, there was still 5:40 left to play in the overtime period. That's still plenty of time for your defense to get a stop, get the ball back, and try for the win if they had chosen to punt.
So there was one common thread between the 2 situations, but multiple differences between them which makes the comparison between them much more complex than simply pointing out the option of going for it on 4th down in an overtime period.
o
|
I realize all that
But of the two coaching decisions, I am still glad we have the coach going for it on fourth down rather than punting away in OT.
If you view it as basically as Reich does, it seems, which is a tie is a loss, you don't play to tie, punting away means you lose the game, you aren't getting the ball back.
He plays to win and nothing else. He is not settling for a tie or just accepting a tie.
The outcome sucked, but still, of the two decisions, I like Reich's better. In both situations the outcome was a loss in these cases, but in the long run, I still think you are better off with the coach playing to win that settling for a tie
And frankly even beyond that I have no idea how Jason Garrett keeps his job so long