Take the Points or End the Game with the Ball?

[MassSkinsFan]

After seeing that comment about making the reading of an entire thread before commenting a mandatory prerequisite, I'm going to do just that! :-)

 

My thought when I read the first three pages of this thread yesterday, and my thought still, is that having your offense underachieve to protect the team from potential underachievement by the defense sends a bad message: your coaches do not believe you have what it takes to win the game. Regardless of whether the probabilities point to one path or the other, the Redskins right now are forging a team identity, and learning to win. Part of learning to win is having the faith and fortitude to give your best effort and hope that it will be enough to prevail. I'm glad it went down the way it did.

 

After we put the D back on the field, that Kerrigan strip sack was humongous, right? Think of how the risk we took actually paid off - our coaches gave the D a vote of confidence, and the D validated them. That right there is an incredibly valuable experience for a team to have.

 

Sure, it could have turned out the other way. But it didn't! :-)

[TD_washingtonredskins]

1 minute ago, MassSkinsFan said:

My thought when I read the first three pages of this thread yesterday, and my thought still, is that having your offense underachieve to protect the team from potential underachievement by the defense sends a bad message: your coaches do not believe you have what it takes to win the game. Regardless of whether the probabilities point to one path or the other, the Redskins right now are forging a team identity, and learning to win. Part of learning to win is having the faith and fortitude to give your best effort and hope that it will be enough to prevail. I'm glad it went down the way it did.

 

 

I don't disagree with some of this sentiment. But I guess I'm basing my answer on the assumption that everyone is 100% devoted to winning the game at all costs. Not necessarily how a decision impacts team growth or what a coach might have to explain to the team if something backfires. I'm basically looking at this as a critical, must-win game...and what decision maximizes my chance to win. 

 

If Cooley got correct intel (and I never truly trust him, for what it's worth), then Gruden wanted us to avoid scoring that quickly. To me, that tells me all I need to know about how the decision-makers in Ashburn feel about the defense in a big spot. 

[TD_washingtonredskins]

We aren't the Patriots and weren't playing the Colts (not to mention, we won!) so I wouldn't expect to see a similar story about this game. But the below article is the thought-process that I'm using when I compare a short, chip-shot FG to take the lead vs. having to defend a 5-point lead for almost 2 minutes: 

 

http://fifthdown.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/16/defending-belichicks-fourth-down-decision/?_r=0

 

 

[MassSkinsFan]

3 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

If Cooley got correct intel (and I never truly trust him, for what it's worth), then Gruden wanted us to avoid scoring that quickly. To me, that tells me all I need to know about how the decision-makers in Ashburn feel about the defense in a big spot. 

I would believe that. I don't think calling Thompson on that run was designed to produce a quick score. More likely, Gruden wanted the O to grind out a first down or two and run out time. But, sometimes you have to make adjustments when things don't go to plan, and I believe they didn't.

 

It is also a possibility that the Iggles coaches told the D to allow a running play to go for a TD so they could get the ball back ASAP. 

 

Who knows?

 

If we told CT to go down at the 1, and the Iggles told their guys to let him score, that could have been a really odd-looking play, but that's not how it happened. Given the situation, I think the decision everyone is debating wasn't even a consideration - the score happened before the decision could be put on the table.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

19 minutes ago, MassSkinsFan said:

I would believe that. I don't think calling Thompson on that run was designed to produce a quick score. More likely, Gruden wanted the O to grind out a first down or two and run out time. But, sometimes you have to make adjustments when things don't go to plan, and I believe they didn't.

 

It is also a possibility that the Iggles coaches told the D to allow a running play to go for a TD so they could get the ball back ASAP. 

 

Who knows?

 

If we told CT to go down at the 1, and the Iggles told their guys to let him score, that could have been a really odd-looking play, but that's not how it happened. Given the situation, I think the decision everyone is debating wasn't even a consideration - the score happened before the decision could be put on the table.

 

I didn't explain it well. Cooley clearly stated that the coaches told Cousins that they wanted all the players to know that they should 1) stay in bounds and 2) not score. We were at the point where that decision was made and communicated to the QB. Apparently, Cousins didn't pass the second instruction along to the team...possibly because HE didn't think it would come into play on a second down run from the 25. 

[TheGreek1973]

Again the issue is Hopkins has missed relative short FGs including one that would have us in the playoff picture right now.  Then again with our D the best would have been for him to go down on the 2 and then we kneel it a couple of times, kick, game over (either way).  In my mind it is a very legitimate way to play smart when already you have been involved in a game where you D has been abused.  Or have they?  All in all the D only gave up 15 points. 

 

 

[slaga]

To that point, in 2 games, in 118 minutes against the Redskins defense Wentz has scored exactly 1 TD and threw exactly 1 interception. His track record did not exactly inspire visions of Tom Brady. The RB that caught that TD, arguably one of their most dynamic players, was no longer in the game either. If you factor in the Redskins' red zone prowess this year into the equation along with their propensity for presnap penalties in pressure situations, I am not sure why there is so much more confidence in milking the clock and the kicking game over the defense. The Redskins defense is not built to stop the run. If anything they are built to go after the QB in passing situations, which is exactly the situation the Eagles were put in. Heck, the Eagles' special teams and defense have scored 3 times as many TDs against the Skins than Wentz has in the 2 games Wentz has played. The Redskins defense did what they were built to do.

 

An alternate scenario is the Redskins do everything right. Kneel, kneel and then run a play to center the field goal and do not lose much yardage. They line up for the field goal and the Eagles send a player to hurdle the long snapper and block the field goal. It is a plausible scenario and hurdling the long snapper has happened twice in the last couple weeks. The Redskins do everything right, and still lose. This is not accounted for in the 95% argument.

 

I am firmly in the position that neither option in the original poll is significantly better than the other. I just do not see the love for giving up the points and trying to kick a last second field goal over letting your defense do what it was built to do.

 

 

[TMK9973]

I think there are a few things missing in this argument. 

1 -Skins were down. If its tied I prob think taking the clock down to 1 and kicking the FG is the better option. But being down?  No -I want to get the lead.

 

2- Being down by 1 matters as well.  Down by 2 -I might even consider taking the clock down. But down by 1 - I am thinking score..Score a 2 point conversion (We failed) and worst case Eagles Tie it.  

 

But this was a must win game. We had only given up 1 TD to their offense all game and we were down.  

We could not lose the game..we had to score...whenever the chance was there.  

[Stefanskins]

I understand the statistics...I felt the same way after he scored.."oh, chit....way too much time..." but you absolutely gotta take the points...no question...for a myriad of reasons...the whole team's psyche, chemistry etc. etc....you are trying to build up a team and I think that might have torn it down...football is a game of inches n' momentum...hell, I think we should keep pondin' it instead of takin' a knee in the victory formation...lol jus kiddin' bout that one...well maybe ; )

[TheItalianStallion]

3 hours ago, slaga said:

If you factor in the Redskins' red zone prowess this year into the equation along with their propensity for presnap penalties in pressure situations, I am not sure why there is so much more confidence in milking the clock and the kicking game over the defense.

 

RZ prowess and pre-snap penalties are moot when it comes to kneeling several times then kicking a FG.

[slaga]

1 hour ago, TheItalianStallion said:

 

RZ prowess and pre-snap penalties are moot when it comes to kneeling several times then kicking a FG.

Some on the "kick a field goal" bandwagon suggested a run play to center up the field goal. The RZ prowess and pre-snap penalties are a valid concern in that situation, are they not? In that situation you are trying to get the ball to a certain place without losing yardage, especially if some want to argue the 95% success rate of a 19 to low 20s yard field goal.

[Tsailand]

18 hours ago, s0crates said:

the false premise that we couldn't trust the defense to keep them out of the end zone

Games this season our defense has allowed a go-ahead scoring drive in the 4th quarter:

cowboys

giants

lions

bengals

cardinals

eagles

 

[Morneblade]

8 minutes ago, Tsailand said:

Games this season our defense has allowed a go-ahead scoring drive in the 4th quarter:

cowboys

giants

lions

bengals

cardinals

 

 

So, all of our losses, and the tie?

 

False premise indeed. /facepalm

 

Edit: Point still stand TS

[Tsailand]

The Eagles game wasn't a loss.  It felt like a loss, because we put our defense back on the field to defend a 5 point lead with 2 minutes to play. 

[Voice_of_Reason]

2 hours ago, Tsailand said:

The Eagles game wasn't a loss.  It felt like a loss, because we put our defense back on the field to defend a 5 point lead with 2 minutes to play. 

This might be the most apt thing I've read about the game all week.

[s0crates]

It felt like a loss?

 

The criticism of the defense is usually deserved, but the criticism of the defense in the Eagles game is completely baseless.

 

I grant that they allowed the Eagles to control the clock, but in the end they only allowed one touchdown, forced two turnovers, only allowed 3 second half points, had 4 sacks, and sealed the win with an outstanding play when the game was on the line. 

 

It felt like a win to me, and not only that, but it felt like a win because of the defense. Do we really despise Joe Barry so much that we cannot give credit when credit is due?

[slaga]

11 hours ago, Tsailand said:

Games this season our defense has allowed a go-ahead scoring drive in the 4th quarter:

cowboys

giants

lions

bengals

cardinals

eagles

 

The premise of the conversation in this thread was to keep them out of the end zone for the final 1:53, not an entire 1/4 of a game.

[MassSkinsFan]

17 hours ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I didn't explain it well. Cooley clearly stated that the coaches told Cousins that they wanted all the players to know that they should 1) stay in bounds and 2) not score. We were at the point where that decision was made and communicated to the QB. Apparently, Cousins didn't pass the second instruction along to the team...possibly because HE didn't think it would come into play on a second down run from the 25. 

 

So this kind of goes to my other point that if we weren't supposed to score, maybe the Iggles let CT go. In that case, if you're CT, you're trained to score. Your whole life you've been told to run to daylight and put the rock in the end zone. Maybe the opportunity presented itself and his instincts took over, which is what you want to happen (how many times have coaches yelled at their players for over-thinking things? I know I was on the receiving end of that rant more than once LOL).

 

I think the optimal situation would have been to get the ball inside the 10 with enough time to run three plays and then kick if none of them scored. It just didn't turn out that way.

12 hours ago, Tsailand said:

Games this season our defense has allowed a go-ahead scoring drive in the 4th quarter:

cowboys

giants

lions

bengals

cardinals

eagles

 

 

We had 5 games where our D held onto the lead:

 

Week 3 - @ NYG: Su’a Cravens interception ended the Giants’ final drive, W 29-27

Week 5 - @ BAL: Defense holds off final drive, W 16-10

Week 6 – PHI: With 4:17 left, Skins punt. After driving 53 yards, Wentz was sacked by T. Murphy and P. Smith, forcing a punt. Skins ran out the clock. W 27-20

Week 10 – MIN: A last-second sack by P. Smith ends the Viking drive; Skins D shut out the Vikings in the second half. W 26-20

Week 14 – Redskins D holds off a last-minute Eagles drive. W 27-22

So, it looks like our D is 50/50 right now when it comes to holding a lead at the end of the game. 

[RFK Lives]

5 hours ago, s0crates said:

 

It felt like a win to me, and not only that, but it felt like a win because of the defense. Do we really despise Joe Barry so much that we cannot give credit when credit is due?

Strongly agree here.  Not to mention, the defense did not give up 7 of those 22, KC did.  To the point of Gruden instructing the offense to grind out first downs, while it can be perceived that he did not trust the defense, it is also his job to put the team in the best position to win and if you asked him in a press conference, that is the spin he would play and I am likely to believe that.  The less time for the other team to have the ball the better. 

I think somebody had already mentioned it in this thread but is it possible Joe Barry let them have some yardage underneath and kept the heat off to burn some of the clock?  Here is a rookie QB, slim playoff hopes on the line and while it could be argued that he is letting him get in a rhythm, I suggest he was forcing the Eagles to use their last timeout, burn time and allow them a shorter field to act as an extra defender.  Keep it all in front of you.

[Tsailand]

3 hours ago, MassSkinsFan said:

So, it looks like our D is 50/50 right now when it comes to holding a lead at the end of the game. 

 

50/50 is about right. 

 

I will take a FG from the 1 with :05 on the clock over putting our 50/50 defense on the field.

[NewCliche21]

3 hours ago, MassSkinsFan said:

We had 5 games where our D held onto the lead:

 

Week 3 - @ NYG: Su’a Cravens interception ended the Giants’ final drive, W 29-27

Week 5 - @ BAL: Defense holds off final drive, W 16-10

Week 6 – PHI: With 4:17 left, Skins punt. After driving 53 yards, Wentz was sacked by T. Murphy and P. Smith, forcing a punt. Skins ran out the clock. W 27-20

Week 10 – MIN: A last-second sack by P. Smith ends the Viking drive; Skins D shut out the Vikings in the second half. W 26-20

Week 14 – Redskins D holds off a last-minute Eagles drive. W 27-22

 

So, it looks like our D is 50/50 right now when it comes to holding a lead at the end of the game. 

 

Is 50/50 good?  If it's worst in the league for any given third down, I'd imagine it's pretty damned bad in the game-deciding drives.  The defense did great against Baltimore, I'll give them that.  The rest were when 26+ points by the offense wouldn't be good enough.  That's bad.

 

And that's only for the ones they didn't allow to win.

[Bang]

Before the D can hold a lead, we have to take the lead. 

We did not have the lead. we took it.

If Jay told Kirk to make sure we went down, played monkey games with the clock...  then it is as damning a finger as can be pointed directly at Joe Barry .

IF that was a conversation that was had, then Barry has to go. If there was such a lack of faith that they could not hold a rookie QB with a patchwork OL from going 75 yards with one timeout in under two minutes, then barry needs to be packing his bags to the moment the Redskins season comes to an end.

i don't care how hurt we are, how beat up our defense is.. how low on talent it may be...  

75 yards

1 timeout

Rookie QB

Rookie coach who had been making clueless calls all day long

2nd and 3rd string OL.

best offensive weapon sidelined with concussion.

The odds any offense can go the distance in the time allowed with one timeout are stacked against even the best of them.

If there is such little faith Barry's defense can stop THAT.. so much you will consider NOT taking the lead when you have the opportunity.. ..    he's got to go, with much prejudice.

 

~Bang

[Redd]

Honestly?   Hold the ball and kick the field goal.  I was legit worried the Eagles would drive down and score the winning touchdown.......they almost did too.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

6 hours ago, RFK Lives said:

Strongly agree here.  Not to mention, the defense did not give up 7 of those 22, KC did.  To the point of Gruden instructing the offense to grind out first downs, while it can be perceived that he did not trust the defense, it is also his job to put the team in the best position to win and if you asked him in a press conference, that is the spin he would play and I am likely to believe that.  The less time for the other team to have the ball the better. 

I think somebody had already mentioned it in this thread but is it possible Joe Barry let them have some yardage underneath and kept the heat off to burn some of the clock?  Here is a rookie QB, slim playoff hopes on the line and while it could be argued that he is letting him get in a rhythm, I suggest he was forcing the Eagles to use their last timeout, burn time and allow them a shorter field to act as an extra defender.  Keep it all in front of you.

 

Not to nitpick, but this has always been my point and the premise of the entire thread. The best position to win was us keeping the ball away from the opponent while we were in scoring position with the last chance to put points on the board. Even though that means we would have trailed deeper into the game, we would have had a better probability of winning. 

[RFK Lives]

15 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Not to nitpick, but this has always been my point and the premise of the entire thread. The best position to win was us keeping the ball away from the opponent while we were in scoring position with the last chance to put points on the board. Even though that means we would have trailed deeper into the game, we would have had a better probability of winning. 

I don't think you are nitpicking, I still stand by my always take the TD philosophy for the reasons I outlined earlier however I was just using some of your points to lend credence to what s0crates was stating.  Without being on the sideline at the moment, we will never know what Gruden or Barry was thinking or what their strategy was in this instance.  I forgot who said it earlier but the playing the percentages and treating it like a Moneyball type thing just doesn't seem to translate to football as easily in my mind.  Just my humble opinion.