Quote:
Originally Posted by DrSpaceman
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
|
o
Reich
DID play for the win before that 4th down situation, and that is what is being ignored by some who simply want to judge the decision as if it were made in a vacuum.
After the Texans tied the game with a field goal in overtime, the Colts immediately threw the ball and got a first down with a 12 yard gain. At that point, there was 1:22 left to play, and the Texans only had 1 timeout left. If Reich was going to play for the tie, he could have called for 3 conservative running plays, and run the clock out. He
DID NOT do that. He continued to have Luck aggressively throw the ball downfield to try to get into field goal range for the win. Once it was 4th down and 4 from their own 43 yard-line, the stakes had changed considerably. After having tried to win the game by being aggressive on 1st, 2nd, and 3rd downs, it probably would have been wise to salvage a tie at at that point because of the risk/reward factors that were now in play in regard to the decision to either punt or go for it.
There is being aggressive, and there is being foolish and low-percentage/high risk. Continuing to throw the ball downfield with a little over a minute to play was aggressive and pro-active, and that is what the Colts did. Punting on 4th and 4 from your own 43 yard-line would not have been passive and meek, it would have been accepting the reality (and the risk-reward factors) of the situation.
o