Should Dungy have gone for the FG? (1 Viewer)

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

At the time, I thought it was probably right to go for the TD. The Indy D hadn't stopped San Diego pretty much all game. But afterwards, it dawned on me that San Diego probably goes into conservative, run the ball up the middle and run the clock down mode. Nothing fancy, no passes unless its 3rd and forever. So going for the FG puts Indy down 1 and they probably end up with the ball again with about as much time left on the clock as they ended up getting anyway.

 

[The Dawg]

Absolutely not. At worst SD gets the ball on their own like ten and IND had all its timeouts left. They had a shot to take the lead, and they had to take it.

 

[awesomeness]

hinesight is 20/20. With the way that San Diego could do almost whatever they wanted against the Indy D, there is no doubt that going for the TD was the right call at the time.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I'm kinda torn. If they get the TD, they rely on their D. If they don't get it, they still have a shot.

If they make the FG, they still HAVE TO score again. It's up to both their O and D, where if they get the TD, it's only up to their D. Given the full array of timesout (two minute warning would have expired during the FG or kickoff unless it was a touchback so was unimportant), it would take more things to go right to get the two FGs. Going for it basically gave them an extra timeout. I think the odds were pretty even either way you go, but with Rivers and LT on the sideline, I probably would have gone for the FG, so that's how I voted.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Now that I've had a night to sleep on it, I am still conflicted. And I'm usually the guy on the boards chiding coaches for not being aggressive enough. Maybe this time Dungy wasn't not too aggressive enough.

 

[Tau837]

He definitely should have kicked the FG. They would have kicked away to San Diego and used their 3 timeouts on defense. And here is the key: San Diego would have run a conservative offense, especially with Volek in, so Dungy should have felt like they had a good chance to stop them. Assuming they held them, they would have gotten the ball somewhere between their 30 and 40, with about 1:30 left, with no timeouts. But they would have needed only a FG, not a TD. And they have Vinatieri, so they could have potentially won with a long FG.

It's not like it was 4th & 1. It was 4th & 7. What does one suppose the success rate is on 4th & 7 plays from the 7, given that the defense is all confined in a smaller space of field? I'd estimate it is lower than getting a FG, holding a conservative offense, and then driving 30-40 yards in 1:30 with no timeouts left and getting another FG.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

He definitely should have kicked the FG. They would have kicked away to San Diego and used their 3 timeouts on defense. And here is the key: San Diego would have run a conservative offense, especially with Volek in, so Dungy should have felt like they had a good chance to stop them. Assuming they held them, they would have gotten the ball somewhere between their 30 and 40, with about 1:30 left, with no timeouts. But they would have needed only a FG, not a TD. And they have Vinatieri, so they could have potentially won with a long FG.

It's not like it was 4th & 1. It was 4th & 7. What does one suppose the success rate is on 4th & 7 plays from the 7, given that the defense is all confined in a smaller space of field? I'd estimate it is lower than getting a FG, holding a conservative offense, and then driving 30-40 yards in 1:30 with no timeouts left and getting another FG.

If the Tomlin thread is any indication, it's probably much higher than any of us think.

 

[fred_1_15301]

At the time, I thought it was probably right to go for the TD. The Indy D hadn't stopped San Diego pretty much all game. But afterwards, it dawned on me that San Diego probably goes into conservative, run the ball up the middle and run the clock down mode. Nothing fancy, no passes unless its 3rd and forever. So going for the FG puts Indy down 1 and they probably end up with the ball again with about as much time left on the clock as they ended up getting anyway.

You go for the td there. You have one of the best offenses in the league and you take your shot hoping that if you miss, you may still get another shot. If they kick the fg, I doubt SD comes out conservative. Given how poorly the Indy defense played, they never would have seen the ball again.

 

[Wu-banger]

I was screaming at the TV to take the FG ... 3 To's left , a D that should step up and stop the Volek led Chargers and the greatest clutch kicker in the game.

For those saying that the Colts have a great offense and should have been able to score a td..guess not huh..??

Why not make it even easier on the great offense by giving them them ball back and only needing a fg to win.

Bottom line --- kick the FG ... stop the Chargers ..... put the ball back in the hands of the second best offense in the game with about 1:30 on the clock only needing a FG to win.

 

[malice]

Hindsight's always 20/20...

Vinatieri hit his 1st FG from 40+ this season in this game. The defensive scheme on the last drive fit the fact that the Chargers were playing vs. the big play and TD and were going to allow small stuff over the middle if the Colts were willing to get rocked for it. Manning's your million $$$ man, so put it on him for the win. He's not going to put the game in the hands of a "silly kicker" anyway.

Regardless of what the offense did differently, the fact is, the Colts D let them down vs. backups. I'm guessing they did just like the Jags did and decided to look past the first game and prepared for the Pats thinking SD just got lucky last time. Oops. The way both of these teams beat up on each other, there's only one true winner from the result of this game- the Pats- since either way they were going to face a pretty beat up team.

 

[jbalicki10]

Hindsight's always 20/20...

I agree, but he's the head coach so he's the b*tch...

 

[Maroney=Speed]

No, they had two shots at it.

Things would have played out different and then the

Question would have been why did'nt they go for the td.

 

[BassNBrew]

Has anyone ever seen Indy pass on first down when it's 1st and goal from the nine? I don't think Indy knows how predictable they've become.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

Has anyone ever seen Indy pass on first down when it's 1st and goal from the nine? I don't think Indy knows how predictable they've become.

As we all know Now, last year it was the Def. and NOT Manning who won the Super Bowl for the Colts.Manning just can't get it done we He has to.We thought it was just against NE, no it's in the Playoffs. NE now has a harder road to get to the Super Bowl, lets face it SD is just a better team.

 

[Synthesizer]

Just remember that if the Colts make the field goal and then kick-off, they lose that extra timeout they kept because of the 2 minute warning.

 

[pats3in4]

He definitely should have kicked the FG. They would have kicked away to San Diego and used their 3 timeouts on defense. And here is the key: San Diego would have run a conservative offense, especially with Volek in, so Dungy should have felt like they had a good chance to stop them. Assuming they held them, they would have gotten the ball somewhere between their 30 and 40, with about 1:30 left, with no timeouts. But they would have needed only a FG, not a TD. And they have Vinatieri, so they could have potentially won with a long FG.

It's not like it was 4th & 1. It was 4th & 7. What does one suppose the success rate is on 4th & 7 plays from the 7, given that the defense is all confined in a smaller space of field? I'd estimate it is lower than getting a FG, holding a conservative offense, and then driving 30-40 yards in 1:30 with no timeouts left and getting another FG.

The key is a big assumption that I'm not sure would have been true in a 1pt game. If the Colts drew to within 1 and kicked off, San Diego knows that the Colts will be using their timeouts to get the ball back, but this time for a FG. I'm not sure Norv would have run 3 straight plays in that scenario.

 

[Maroney=Speed]

Just remember that if the Colts make the field goal and then kick-off, they lose that extra timeout they kept because of the 2 minute warning.

Like I said, it would have changed everything.Norv believed in His Def. and why shouldn't He.Great coaching job by Norv, there I said it.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

No, they had two shots to score a TD and they couldn't do it. It's the chance they took and I think a reasonable one. I wouldd not have kicked the FG at the time when you have Peyton Manning as your QB. They didn't get the job done with the 2 chances they had, they lost.

 

[Koya]

Of course not. Playing for the FG there is definately not playing to win. It is barely playing not to lose.

Sometimes the right decision does not work. That doesnt mean the decision itself was incorrect.

 

[KnowledgeReignsSupreme]

Just remember that if the Colts make the field goal and then kick-off, they lose that extra timeout they kept because of the 2 minute warning.

I thought about that too.

 

[Fallerjw]

At the time, I thought it was probably right to go for the TD. The Indy D hadn't stopped San Diego pretty much all game. But afterwards, it dawned on me that San Diego probably goes into conservative, run the ball up the middle and run the clock down mode. Nothing fancy, no passes unless its 3rd and forever. So going for the FG puts Indy down 1 and they probably end up with the ball again with about as much time left on the clock as they ended up getting anyway.

I was there, and immediately thought they should have kicked the FG.

 

[Delusions Of Adequacy]

I remember wondering at the time why they weren't considering a FG, given that they had 3 timeouts left plus the 2:00 warning. Might not have worked, but I thought it was a better percentage bet than 4th and goal from the 9.

 

[Iwannabeacowboybaby!]

Of course not. Playing for the FG there is definately not playing to win. It is barely playing not to lose. Sometimes the right decision does not work. That doesnt mean the decision itself was incorrect.

Exactly....the right thing doesn't always work out, otherwise there would be no such thing as a tough decision.Maybe if you're the Bears and you have Rex Grossman as QB, you may alter your decision making some but if you have Peyton Manning, it's a no brainer.You guys think Belichick would have kicked the field goal there? I gaurantee you he would NOT have kicked a field goal in that situation.

 

[Tau837]

Just remember that if the Colts make the field goal and then kick-off, they lose that extra timeout they kept because of the 2 minute warning.

I thought about that too.

But they would have kicked off to get to the two minute warning and then called timeout after 1st, 2nd, and 3rd downs, assuming they held them without a first down. It would have cost 10 seconds at the most.

 

[Tau837]

You guys think Belichick would have kicked the field goal there? I gaurantee you he would NOT have kicked a field goal in that situation.

Yeah, but he has Brady, not Manning.