New York Jets Should Have Gone for the Win Against the Detroit Lions
by John B on Nov 8, 2010 8:20 PM EST
Email
PrintLate in the fourth quarter of Sunday's game, the Jets did something that really troubled me. After LaDainian Tomlinson's catch run, and drawn penalty to put the ball on the 28 with 40 seconds left, Gang Green had a chance to win the game. Detroit was on its heels. The Jets had just put up a touchdown and were driving again. There was a chance to win the game. Did Gang Green continue attacking? No, Shonn Greene got a handoff to set up a field goal. The coaching staff played for overtime.
I couldn't get the Doug Brien game out of my head, when Herman Edwards and Paul Hackett chose to settle for a field goal try rather than risk advancing the ball. Had they advanced the ball, they could have scored a touchdown or at least set up a chip shot.
The same principle works here. What if Folk had missed the kick? What if the Lions had won the toss in overtime and run the kick back? The Jets had their foot on Detroit's throat and stopped attacking 28 yards from the victory with plenty of time left. Getting conservative and no longer attacking out of fear of a mistake is playing not to lose. It costs teams games.
For all of the brevado coming from the coaching staff, I am a bit troubled by their refusal to play for the win.
36 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
+1 with what you said john
you can’t be afraid to fail…
we had some we could have at least taken a shot in the end zone….oh well
we won
"Pass me the damn ball, I don't need a pick at all, And don't worry about my shot Cause I'm a get that off..Yea, I drops 40 on your double team...Then I drop 81 on another team."
we had some time*
"Pass me the damn ball, I don't need a pick at all, And don't worry about my shot Cause I'm a get that off..Yea, I drops 40 on your double team...Then I drop 81 on another team."
totally disagree
If we take a shot at the end zone, then that’s 8 seconds off the clock. With 20 seconds left, if we ran it we would run off another 15 seconds before we get set to spike the ball, but that’s cutting it real close. The other option would be to throw a quick out. So, we could end up having to attempt a 46 yard field goal to to tie instead of a 36 yard kick to tie the game. That’s a big difference. I like the call.
Much more importantly, with Stafford injured our chances in overtime were real high. So the goal should have been to get the game into overtime and win it there. If there were a little more time on the clock(5 seconds) then I would say we could have taken a shot. Good coaching decision.
I agree.
Normally, I say go for the win.
However, with Stafford out of the game I think this was the wiser choice. Also, Sanchez still has some clock management issues (please refer back to the Minnesota game) that I don’t trust. If Stafford was still in the game, I think going for it would have been the better call.
In fact, a field goal on third down isn’t entirely unheard of in that situation. Might be fun to fake one right there.
NO WAY we were going to lose in overtime against the 3rd string QB
No reason to risk a sack, fumble, or INT. Our probability of winning was much higher by just running and kicking the FG.
Jets - Knicks - Mets
this!
Why even risk it? Especially with all those reasons mentioned above. The odds were in the Jets favor, not to mention they had all the momentum.
by dulciusXasperis on Nov 9, 2010 12:04 AM EST up reply actions
Dude stop it. You are all OVER my frequency and hijacking my wavelength.
I had this EXACT conversation watching this play out in real time. Don’t play for a f’ing FG, win the game! And the response was, we’re in FG range so you don’t take chances here. And I’m like, remember the playoff game vs Pitt when we were in FG range? TWICE?
Point is, anybody who disagrees with this approach, ask yourself what Manning would do? Or what plays Belichick would call? Y’know, guys who are proven winners aren’t playing for a tie. Anything could happen in overtime, and “hoping” a coin toss goes your way is a losing mentality. Playing not to lose is for losers. Ask Herm Edwards. Better yet, ask the only coach who ever got fired after a 14-2 season because he went into a conservative shell with any big game on the line. Pretty much explains his regular season win pct of .618 compared to a playoff win pct of .278. Guess the apple doesn’t roll far from the tree, because that guy is the famous father of our very own offensive coordinator.
Not a lot of objection around here because of how it turned out, but we lucked out this time. Sorry to bring the bad news, but that will NOT happen against good teams. Shame on the Jets for playing Marty Ball. They should know better…
I disagree
Not because of how it turned out but because as has been mentioned a few times, they had their third string QB, they didn’t have their starting kicker, and Best was hurt. Without their kicker they would’ve needed a chip-shot (or a touchdown) to win the game. No way would they drive that far without a real running back and with a terrible QB, Stafford was the main reason they scored at all in that game and he was donezo. Plus if we go for the endzone or keep attacking then we have a much better chance of giving the ball away or taking a sack to make the fieldgoal harder. Running lets us hold onto the ball, center our field position, and pick up a couple of yards.
Also, yeah Belicheck or Manning may have called something different, but we are a different team than those two are, we have a young QB who WILL make mistakes.
There’s a reason that Manning’s and Belichick’s teams are different than most others. And it’s the same reason they total six Superbowls between them. The same formula that makes death and taxes less reliable than these two winning their respective divisions every year.
The argument about their kicker (who only missed one play to get his cortisone shot, BTW) being hurt, or 3rd string QB is IRRELEVANT for three huge reasons:
1. If you want to talk like a champion, play like one. Great teams don’t adapt to their competition, they impose their will on them. Perfect example is the Minnesota game, that we won on an INT because we pressed and didn’t submit to a “play not to lose” defense otherwise known as the ‘prevent’.
2. Overtime is sudden death. One mistake and it’s over. So Lions win the toss, and #11 runs one all the way back. Or we win the toss, and Sanchez throws a pick six. Or Greene coughs it up again first play from our 20. A hundred things could go wrong. One score and it’s over means the game has come down to a matter of chance. You don’t sign up for that arrangement unless it’s the only way around an outright loss.
3. What difference does it make as to who would be playing in Detroit’s offense in OT if Folk misses that 36yd field goal? He’s missed twice from that distance already this year, so don’t say it couldn’t happen, especially in such a high pressure situation.
by nationalist88 on Nov 9, 2010 12:19 AM EST up reply actions
the kicker was shaky at best, cortizone is not an on the fly solution. And there is a reason he is a 3rd string QB. With no timeouts 1 mistake the game is over so lets not pretend Greene can only fumble in OT and not in the process for going for a TD during the 2 minute offense or Mark can’t throw an INT.
In an Ideal world I would have all ten fingers on my left hand so my right hand could just be a fist for punching./ Free Free
Totally disagree...
1. “Great teams don’t adapt to their competition, they impose their will on them.”
This is the statement I agree with the least. The only teams you get to impose your will on are teams you outclass at almost every level. You wanna see what happens to teams that don’t adapt and are entirely too used to “imposing their will” on competition? Look no further than Super Bowl XLII.
2. Any of those mistakes could have happened right there at the end. We were already basically in sudden death. In fact, I’d argue that the situation to tie the game had an even smaller margin of error than going to overtime.
3. He’s pretty solid in domes historically and the field goal he missed against the Packers WAS in a pretty windy game. He’s a solid enough kicker this year that I’ve got faith in him and clearly the coaching staff did too.
I wouldn’t have been opposed to seeing them go for the win, but if I was going purely “by the numbers” I think kicking it was the right choice.
Playing by the numbers means we give the ball back to San Diego’s offense last year instead of ending the game by converting on 4th down. We played to win, not like we were scared of it. Sellout blitzes that hang our corners out to dry isn’t playing by the numbers either, it’s aggressively playing to win. That’s why this team was in the AFC Championship in the first place.
You gotta use the talent you have to make plays, and take the game from your opponent. Not let them hang around and decide whether they want to take it from you. Great way to give a lesser opponent a puncher’s chance is to let them hang around and keep punching.
I can’t believe how many people are on board with this playing scared mentality. How many games have the Jets lost over the years because of that crap? And you’re the same ones killing Schotty for not letting Sanchez air it out! Just like you’d all want him tortured for calling the game too conservative if he played for the FG and Folk missed it.
by nationalist88 on Nov 9, 2010 3:19 PM EST up reply actions
You are trying to wrap what the right move was in 1 game in with a history lesson. Same situation another week going for a TD might of been the right move, can’t just throw a blanket over it like you are trying to do imo.
In an Ideal world I would have all ten fingers on my left hand so my right hand could just be a fist for punching./ Free Free
If there is a reasonable amount of time on the clock, playing for a TD is always the right move. And at the very least, you’re moving the ball closer for your kicker if the team can’t find the endzone. Your thinking is that the FG is a gimme. It isn’t. And even if you make it, why play for another quarter of football when you could be in the lockerroom celebrating?
I’m not saying you have to score a TD or go home with a loss. I’m saying wasting precious seconds of gametime because you’re afraid to play to win is going to get you beat by good teams most of the time.
by nationalist88 on Nov 9, 2010 8:10 PM EST up reply actions
I guess we will just disagree, unless it was a special teams blunder I didn’t see the Lions beating us even if they got the coin toss and the ball in OT.
Yeah normally going for it is the side I would usually come out on but in this case I thought kicking a FG in a dome with no wind gave us the best chance to win.
In an Ideal world I would have all ten fingers on my left hand so my right hand could just be a fist for punching./ Free Free
No not against a bum kicker and a 3rd string QB
In an Ideal world I would have all ten fingers on my left hand so my right hand could just be a fist for punching./ Free Free
Yeah, Detriot really needed a miracle to win in OT, without a QB or kicker. Folk just has to make that kick. Remember, they also had no timeouts, so if a play lasts too long and its a deep throw that stays inbounds you risk the clock running out. Kicking the field goal was definitely the right move IMO.
Contributing Writer - GangGreenNation.com
Marty Brodeur - Stealing Rangers' lunch money since 1990
by Ryan Alfieri on Nov 8, 2010 10:16 PM EST up reply actions
makes sense but...
I see your point in saying that the kicker might have missed but thats just part of the game. Saying that he could have missed is the same as saying that Sanchez could have fumbled/thrown an INT if allowed to go for the win. I think the situation also calls for going for it. there way no way the defense was giving up any points if they lost the toss in OT, if they were getting manhandled on defense and they went for the tie then some controversy might ensue.
Okay there was risk to kick the FG but is there no risk to go for a TD? A botched handoff or an INT (against a prevent D that was only rushing 3 men) could of ended the game or like Ryan mentioned they had no timeouts left, any play inbounds down the field could of ended the game. Set up the kick you want and play for OT.
In an Ideal world I would have all ten fingers on my left hand so my right hand could just be a fist for punching./ Free Free
time
Yes they did waste some time but the FG was the right move, so what if you got an extra play your still about 20 yds out and many things can happen. If we were inside the 12 then a couple of shots into the end zone. Would hurt if time ran out and we were on the 3 yd line, after making a good play but couldn’t get in the endzone or out of bounds. We were playing against the clock more than the lions defense.
the problem with time is they took so much time to spike the ball
If there is a false start there is then a ten second run off and the game is over. This team is terrible with time management.
Kicking the FG was the right choice.
With less than a minute left and the Jets with no timeouts and they weren’t even in the red zone yet, I think kicking the FG is absolutely the right choice. There are just too many ways to lose the game by going for the touchdown. A sack could put us out of FG range, a tipped pass for an interception, a fumble. Even completing the pass and getting stopped at the one could have been a disaster. Takes a long time to hustle everyone 20+ yards to line up to spike the ball. Plus like everyone else said with Stafford out of the game, you had to like our defense’s chance of stopping the Lions in OT.
Folk's been too good
To not go for the FG. Plan and Simple. If they had gone for a TD and something went wrong, everyone would have been all over them for not going with Folk who was WELL within his range. And inside a dome.
"...while Larry Brooks continues to be a sloppy disgrace, sigh" Quin8722
Contributor to Lighthouse Hockey not sure if I'm the Sniper or the Enforcer.
Right exactly, they would be getting killed if they lost being reckless like that when there are so many reg flags pointing to playing for OT.
In an Ideal world I would have all ten fingers on my left hand so my right hand could just be a fist for punching./ Free Free
Reckless? Going on 4th and 18 in the 1st qtr is reckless. Trusting your 5th overall draft pick to hit one of his 2 Pro Bowl wide receivers and win you the game, is quite another story.
And since when is criticism handed out for attempting a gamewinning touchdown? It’s called “settling” for a FG for a reason.
by nationalist88 on Nov 9, 2010 3:37 PM EST up reply actions
So in this 1 case the 3rd string QB and a banged up kicker do not factor in to the decision of what to do?
In an Ideal world I would have all ten fingers on my left hand so my right hand could just be a fist for punching./ Free Free
No, and not in any case, because overtime is not the objective! Winning is. If your team can’t make a play and you have to attempt a FG to extend the game, that is the time to evaluate the additional 15 minute period.
by nationalist88 on Nov 9, 2010 7:52 PM EST up reply actions
I can’t explain it I felt that once Rex decided to kick the FG we were going to win the game in OT even if we lost the coin flip Det was spinning down the stretch and the game was slowly slipping away from them.
In an Ideal world I would have all ten fingers on my left hand so my right hand could just be a fist for punching./ Free Free
Could not disagree more
They had a bum QB and a lame kicker, and with our defense, you HAVE to play for the tie. Also, it would be different if we had the ball deep in their territory with three timeouts, but the clock was a huge factor and I just don’t see the point of potentially throwing the game away.
Normally I’m 100% behind aggressive play-calling – going for it on 4th and 1, taking chances when losing, blitzing to create pressure, etc. But in this situation, I don’t feel like the Jets were being passive – I feel like they were being smart.
"(BARF)" - Donovan McNabb, during his game winning drive against Virginia Tech in 1998
WE DID IT RIGHT
No way would i have wanted to risk getting another penalty called on us or have a sack go against us. At that time we had momentum no doubt but we did the right thing not eating off extra clock to MAYBE get into the end zone which it had been rough enough for us to do all day.
by GangGreenMachine on Nov 9, 2010 10:47 AM EST reply actions
Lions fan here. I was at the game and was a little surprised the Jets did not push for the TD in regular time.
However, most of you have it dead on. The Lions defence was absolutely spent. Our # 1 Corner was out of the game, our best pass rushing DE was out, and most importantly, we had Stanton at QB. Our offence was dead in the water, although this is football and there is always a chance for a big play by the most unlikely players.
Stanton threw an 87 yard TD to Calvin against the Giants to make that a close game, so you never know. Just for the record, your defence is better than the Giants IMO.
Taking the tie and going for the win in OT was the high percentage play and in my mind the right call.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Gang Green Nation
Related FanShots on Gang Green Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Shutdown Corner - NFL - Yahoo! Sports
- The Shutdown Corner Podcast: Greg Cosell on the NFC South Draft
- BREAKING: Tim Tebow did not become a great quarterback today
- Jerry Jones says Cowboys championship window is closing; Tony Romo disagrees
- Lawrence Taylor was told his Super Bowl ring was bought by Charlie Sheen
- Chad Ochocinco gets robbed, mourns loss of Starbucks gold card
