Would you fire Dan Quinn if you were the owner? (9 Viewers)

[Joe Bryant]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

why wouldn’t you go for it?

Because the odds of success on 4th and 14 are not good enough when weighed against the negative of a turnover on the 50. Same logic used for every 4th down decision.

Would you go for it there on 4th and 14 on the 50 with 15:00 left in the 4th quarter?

 

[Smack Tripper]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

why wouldn’t you go for it?

Because the odds of success on 4th and 14 are not good enough when weighed against the negative of a turnover on the 50. Same logic used for every 4th down decision.

Would you go for it there on 4th and 14 on the 50 with 15:00 left in the 4th quarter?

The score is the calculus here, and the later decisions that followed. They're down 38-7.

You're doing the math of possessions at that point. You're not getting the ball back 4 times to tie it.

I am ok with punting, but I'm also putting the game on ice, and I'm not exposing Daniels throwing to jobbers so these decisions tie in.

You are playing Daniels because you're declaring yourself "in the game" so to speak. Punting is a surrender at that point.

 

[miqws]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

why wouldn’t you go for it?

Because the odds of success on 4th and 14 are not good enough when weighed against the negative of a turnover on the 50. Same logic used for every 4th down decision.

Would you go for it there on 4th and 14 on the 50 with 15:00 left in the 4th quarter?

The score is the calculus here, and the later decisions that followed. They're down 38-7.

You're doing the math of possessions at that point. You're not getting the ball back 4 times to tie it.

I am ok with punting, but I'm also putting the game on ice, and I'm not exposing Daniels throwing to jobbers so these decisions tie in.

You are playing Daniels because you're declaring yourself "in the game" so to speak. Punting is a surrender at that point.

Agree 100%.

 

[dickey moe]

I'd fire him because he's an NFL head coach who wears his hat on backwards.

 

[STEADYMOBBIN 22]

I'd fire him because he's an NFL head coach who wears his hat on backwards.

You’re not wrong.

 

[JohnnyU]

I'd fire him because he's an NFL head coach who wears his hat on backwards.

He still thinks he's in high school

 

[Neil Beaufort Zod]

I understand treating quarterbacks like assets instead of human beings because there's so much invested in them. But players want to play, and they might have been trying to build some momentum for the next game. Get some good plays on tape, feel like a functional offense, at least leave with a sense of potential if they can start out better. Something to build on for the rest of the season. And Daniels isn't a grizzled vet. He could use more reps, especially after missing games this year.

It's like when the Giants played a meaningless game against the undefeated Patriots when they could have created a bye week for their players heading into the playoffs. Instead, they played them right down to the wire, and I think it gave them a lot of confidence (and maybe some hesitancy in the Patriots) that resulted in an amazing Super Bowl upset. But if a skill player had gotten hurt in a game that meant nothing, Coughlin would have looked like an idiot. Sometimes it just doesn't work out.

 

[Joe Bryant]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

why wouldn’t you go for it?

Because the odds of success on 4th and 14 are not good enough when weighed against the negative of a turnover on the 50. Same logic used for every 4th down decision.

Would you go for it there on 4th and 14 on the 50 with 15:00 left in the 4th quarter?

The score is the calculus here, and the later decisions that followed. They're down 38-7.

You're doing the math of possessions at that point. You're not getting the ball back 4 times to tie it.

I am ok with punting, but I'm also putting the game on ice, and I'm not exposing Daniels throwing to jobbers so these decisions tie in.

You are playing Daniels because you're declaring yourself "in the game" so to speak. Punting is a surrender at that point.

Of course the score is part of the calculus.

I'm still not going for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15:00 left to go in the fourth quarter. That is far from surrender with 25% of the game left in my opinion.

Corrected.

 

[Joe Bryant]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

why wouldn’t you go for it?

Because the odds of success on 4th and 14 are not good enough when weighed against the negative of a turnover on the 50. Same logic used for every 4th down decision.

Would you go for it there on 4th and 14 on the 50 with 15:00 left in the 4th quarter?

The score is the calculus here, and the later decisions that followed. They're down 38-7.

You're doing the math of possessions at that point. You're not getting the ball back 4 times to tie it.

I am ok with punting, but I'm also putting the game on ice, and I'm not exposing Daniels throwing to jobbers so these decisions tie in.

You are playing Daniels because you're declaring yourself "in the game" so to speak. Punting is a surrender at that point.

Also, would you fire Quinn?

 

[Joe Bryant]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

why wouldn’t you go for it?

Because the odds of success on 4th and 14 are not good enough when weighed against the negative of a turnover on the 50. Same logic used for every 4th down decision.

Would you go for it there on 4th and 14 on the 50 with 15:00 left in the 4th quarter?

The score is the calculus here, and the later decisions that followed. They're down 38-7.

You're doing the math of possessions at that point. You're not getting the ball back 4 times to tie it.

I am ok with punting, but I'm also putting the game on ice, and I'm not exposing Daniels throwing to jobbers so these decisions tie in.

You are playing Daniels because you're declaring yourself "in the game" so to speak. Punting is a surrender at that point.

Agree 100%.

Would you fire Quinn?

 

[Joe Bryant]

I am ok with punting, but I'm also putting the game on ice, and I'm not exposing Daniels throwing to jobbers so these decisions tie in.

You're saying you would have pulled Daniels with 15:00 to go in the 4th quarter?

 

[Smack Tripper]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

why wouldn’t you go for it?

Because the odds of success on 4th and 14 are not good enough when weighed against the negative of a turnover on the 50. Same logic used for every 4th down decision.

Would you go for it there on 4th and 14 on the 50 with 15:00 left in the 4th quarter?

The score is the calculus here, and the later decisions that followed. They're down 38-7.

You're doing the math of possessions at that point. You're not getting the ball back 4 times to tie it.

I am ok with punting, but I'm also putting the game on ice, and I'm not exposing Daniels throwing to jobbers so these decisions tie in.

You are playing Daniels because you're declaring yourself "in the game" so to speak. Punting is a surrender at that point.

Also, would you fire Quinn?

It would be on the table for certain, but that's more because its Dan Quinn and I dont think he's a HC.

Daniels is the kind of guy who wouldn't have gotten a look in 2005. He would have been dismissed as too small and slight, maybe moved to WR. It's a new NFL

I think Dan Quinn is a dinosaur as a coach, he coached that 4th quarter like a defensive coordinator to me. It struck me as being hardheaded and trying to prove a point and not a concession to the modern NFL of 17 games. Daniels is a slight guy off an injury, you want to act like every down matters, thats ok ,but thats just not reality. We have multiple rules to protect QB's in football because we acknowledge they're the engine of a team. Quinn chose to pin the engine in the red on a cold winter morning.

I would have accepted playing Daniels if they were playing to win, as long shot and a fruitless case as it may be. They were not in hurry up, they had no pace, there was no urgency. You left your QB out there to take some live fire for what reason, I'm still searching for.

Damn did I just talk myself into firing him?

 

[dgreen]

They went for it down 31-7 on 4th and 15 from the Seattle 46 with 20 minutes left in the game. I think punting down 38-7 on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left was a clear sign of surrender.

 

[Smack Tripper]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

why wouldn’t you go for it?

Because the odds of success on 4th and 14 are not good enough when weighed against the negative of a turnover on the 50. Same logic used for every 4th down decision.

Would you go for it there on 4th and 14 on the 50 with 15:00 left in the 4th quarter?

The score is the calculus here, and the later decisions that followed. They're down 38-7.

You're doing the math of possessions at that point. You're not getting the ball back 4 times to tie it.

I am ok with punting, but I'm also putting the game on ice, and I'm not exposing Daniels throwing to jobbers so these decisions tie in.

You are playing Daniels because you're declaring yourself "in the game" so to speak. Punting is a surrender at that point.

Of course the score is part of the calculus.

I'm still not punting on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15:00 left to go in the fourth quarter. That is far from surrender with 25% of the game left in my opinion.

This is the old Falcons 28-3 situation. Barring the fantastical turnover or a 2 percent onside kick recovery, the seahawks could have kneeled it out and ended the game at that point. They can burn approximately 135 seconds each possession(allowing 5 seconds per play, 40 seconds of clock). Giving Washington 3 stoppages for their timeouts and the 2 minute warning, thats 7 minutes basically The Seahawks can burn doing nothing. So in those intervening 7 minutes, Washington needs 4 touchdowns and 3 two point conversions to tie the game.

Anything can happen, anything is possible. But trading the probability of converting 4th and 14 vs 2 minutes of game time if you are proposing you're in the game is not a good trade, I dont know what the probability.

Again this is operating in the impression this is still a game we are being competitive is, which I dont think it was.

You saw KC go for it on a crazier 4th down and convert a few hours prior.

So to me, the punt is the give up. and not a thing wrong in the world with that.

 

[Joe Bryant]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

why wouldn’t you go for it?

Because the odds of success on 4th and 14 are not good enough when weighed against the negative of a turnover on the 50. Same logic used for every 4th down decision.

Would you go for it there on 4th and 14 on the 50 with 15:00 left in the 4th quarter?

The score is the calculus here, and the later decisions that followed. They're down 38-7.

You're doing the math of possessions at that point. You're not getting the ball back 4 times to tie it.

I am ok with punting, but I'm also putting the game on ice, and I'm not exposing Daniels throwing to jobbers so these decisions tie in.

You are playing Daniels because you're declaring yourself "in the game" so to speak. Punting is a surrender at that point.

Also, would you fire Quinn?

It would be on the table for certain, but that's more because its Dan Quinn and I dont think he's a HC.

Daniels is the kind of guy who wouldn't have gotten a look in 2005. He would have been dismissed as too small and slight, maybe moved to WR. It's a new NFL

I think Dan Quinn is a dinosaur as a coach, he coached that 4th quarter like a defensive coordinator to me. It struck me as being hardheaded and trying to prove a point and not a concession to the modern NFL of 17 games. Daniels is a slight guy off an injury, you want to act like every down matters, thats ok ,but thats just not reality. We have multiple rules to protect QB's in football because we acknowledge they're the engine of a team. Quinn chose to pin the engine in the red on a cold winter morning.

I would have accepted playing Daniels if they were playing to win, as long shot and a fruitless case as it may be. They were not in hurry up, they had no pace, there was no urgency. You left your QB out there to take some live fire for what reason, I'm still searching for.

Damn did I just talk myself into firing him?

Thanks. That helps me understand knowing you feel that way about Quinn.

 

[Tau837]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

why wouldn’t you go for it?

Because the odds of success on 4th and 14 are not good enough when weighed against the negative of a turnover on the 50. Same logic used for every 4th down decision.

Would you go for it there on 4th and 14 on the 50 with 15:00 left in the 4th quarter?

The score is the calculus here, and the later decisions that followed. They're down 38-7.

You're doing the math of possessions at that point. You're not getting the ball back 4 times to tie it.

I am ok with punting, but I'm also putting the game on ice, and I'm not exposing Daniels throwing to jobbers so these decisions tie in.

You are playing Daniels because you're declaring yourself "in the game" so to speak. Punting is a surrender at that point.

Of course the score is part of the calculus.

I'm still not punting on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15:00 left to go in the fourth quarter. That is far from surrender with 25% of the game left in my opinion.

I'm confused. You mean you are punting in this situation?

 

[Joe Bryant]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

why wouldn’t you go for it?

Because the odds of success on 4th and 14 are not good enough when weighed against the negative of a turnover on the 50. Same logic used for every 4th down decision.

Would you go for it there on 4th and 14 on the 50 with 15:00 left in the 4th quarter?

The score is the calculus here, and the later decisions that followed. They're down 38-7.

You're doing the math of possessions at that point. You're not getting the ball back 4 times to tie it.

I am ok with punting, but I'm also putting the game on ice, and I'm not exposing Daniels throwing to jobbers so these decisions tie in.

You are playing Daniels because you're declaring yourself "in the game" so to speak. Punting is a surrender at that point.

Of course the score is part of the calculus.

I'm still not punting on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15:00 left to go in the fourth quarter. That is far from surrender with 25% of the game left in my opinion.

I'm confused. You mean you are punting in this situation?

Apologies. My mistake. Meant to write "I'm still not going for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15:00 left to go in the fourth quarter. That is far from surrender with 25% of the game left in my opinion. " I edited.

 

[Joe Bryant]

And I definitely would not fire Dan Quinn over this.

Wouldn't even consider it.

 

[miqws]

No, I would not fire him. However, I would ask Quinn why he punts the ball start of the fourth quarter down 38-7 and then has Daniels out there the next series. Disconnected decision process.

What was the down and distance?

Wasn't it like 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter? You're saying they should have gone for it?

I think going for 4th and 14 is better odds than an onside kick which likely would have been needed. Also saves time on the clock.

Washington used 4:51 off the clock prior to Daniels injury, not exactly a hurry up offense. Your QB is coming off a hamstring injury where there is an increased reinjury risk. Punting, no hurry offense, but leave Daniels in is a disconnected decision process. Quinn has since owned it.

Thanks. We'll just disagree there. I wouldn't go for it on 4th and 14 from the 50 with 15 minutes left in the 4th quarter.

why wouldn’t you go for it?

Because the odds of success on 4th and 14 are not good enough when weighed against the negative of a turnover on the 50. Same logic used for every 4th down decision.

Would you go for it there on 4th and 14 on the 50 with 15:00 left in the 4th quarter?

The score is the calculus here, and the later decisions that followed. They're down 38-7.

You're doing the math of possessions at that point. You're not getting the ball back 4 times to tie it.

I am ok with punting, but I'm also putting the game on ice, and I'm not exposing Daniels throwing to jobbers so these decisions tie in.

You are playing Daniels because you're declaring yourself "in the game" so to speak. Punting is a surrender at that point.

Agree 100%.

Would you fire Quinn?

No, as stated earlier. Fair arguments on when/how to go into surrender mode, but I think we all agree once you are in surrender mode you do not play your franchise QB.

 

[Runkle]

Of course I would. 1000%. 1,000,000%. If I was an NFL owner I would coach the team myself and hire a squad of Madden e-sports analytics nerds as all the consultants. Instant optimization of every single decision both in team construction and for in-game management. Game theory for every time-out. Not a single unsupported decision could ever be made. I'd also change the name of the team, the colors, and triple the number of cheerleaders. All the seats would be $10 for school kids and there would be a hot dog vendor in every section.