Happy with the Dallas win... but...

[GA4M]

We just got lucky, that was terrible play calling at it's best. If we had a great defense it would have been alright then. Yeah, you won't be able to do that against a good team too.

[Mr. P]

If we had gone for the first but didn't convert, this thread would still be here, but with everyone complaining about giving dallas the ball with too much time left.

[gmenroc]

The first Dallas game, people bitch because we threw the ball to try and get first downs to wrap up the game. Of course, they fell incomplete and we gave Dallas the ball with too much time remaining. This game, people bitch because we ran the ball to run off the clock and force Dallas to use their timeouts. Which do people want?

 

Maybe we have to invent a new offensive play that is neither a pass nor a run...

[GA4M]

If we had gone for the first but didn't convert, this thread would still be here, but with everyone complaining about giving dallas the ball with too much time left.

But we still left too much time even after the 3 and out.

[gmenroc]

Even if Dallas does not muff the punt, they still would have had to drive the field with about 1:30 and no timeouts. Given our offense, I don't know that there is any play that is high-percentage enough to rely upon on that final possession to get the first down. I really don't.

 

I mean, there would be something cool about a double move in that situation. Something like a 2 WR, 2 TE, 1 RB set...send all guys on short routes right around the first down line, but let one of them do a double move and go deep. Launch the ball to the double move guy. It'd be widely expected that we'd be just looking at the first down in that situation, not the long ball. Further, it'd take some time off the clock for the longer developing play even if it wasn't successful.

 

But, I think that the highest percentage, best chance to win scenario was the one we went with.

[GA4M]

I guess the main thing is we got through it with a win. I'd just like one game where I could relax the last 5 mins of it

[Treehugger]

The first Dallas game, people bitch because we threw the ball to try and get first downs to wrap up the game. Of course, they fell incomplete and we gave Dallas the ball with too much time remaining. This game, people bitch because we ran the ball to run off the clock and force Dallas to use their timeouts. Which do people want?

 

Maybe we have to invent a new offensive play that is neither a pass nor a run...

 

I want to see an offense that can stay on the field for more than 12 fucking seconds when the game is on the line. Is that too much to ask?

[gmenroc]

I get it. The options were pretty simple:

 

1. Run the ball 3 times, use up all the Cowboys timeouts, try for a first down, but punt if you need to.

 

2. Run the ball 2 times, use up two Cowboys timeouts, try to pass on 3rd down. Here, you risk a sack, an interception, while at the very least, stop the clock on an incompletion AND save the Cowboys a timeout. The only benefit is the potential completion and extension of the drive (ending the game on kneel-downs thereafter). The reward is great, but the risk is certainly there.

 

3. Continue the offense as normal, pass/run as the defense dictates. Risk is the same as in #2, only higher.

 

This discussion takes me back to the day when Kerry Collins had the relationship with Toomer I think it was, where they were throwing back shoulder passes on the sidelines with their eyes closed. They knew the pattern/timing so well they could pull it off. It was essentially an indefensible play for the most part and one that would come in handy now. When the game is in the bag, having that go-to play to get the first down would be ideal. We don't have that yet.

[Treehugger]

I don't have an issue with running the ball, I have an issue with not trying for the 1st down. They were ultra-conservitive runs who's only purpose was to milk Dallas' time-outs; tight run formation that allowed Dallas to stack defenders. Might as well just take three knees and punt. Earlier in the game we were having great success (>6 yards/carry) with pass-option plays, where there is also the threat of a short play-action pass, which Dallas had to respect.

[GA4M]

I bet had Romo been the QB they would have done it different. they saw how Cassel sucked and took the chance.

[fringe]

Favre once said "there's always enough time@ referring to getting the ball back with no timeouts. There was plenty of time for that offense to score with no Timeouts.

[Herc]

That dallas team is one of the few times I'm ok with how it went down. There was no way cassel was getting them down the field. There's a reason they ran the ball every play

[Herc]

But I do agree with being a little less scared with the selection of run plays. First down should be a priority, not a bonus

[Storm]

Even if Dallas does not muff the punt, they still would have had to drive the field with about 1:30 and no timeouts. Given our offense, I don't know that there is any play that is high-percentage enough to rely upon on that final possession to get the first down. I really don't.

 

I mean, there would be something cool about a double move in that situation. Something like a 2 WR, 2 TE, 1 RB set...send all guys on short routes right around the first down line, but let one of them do a double move and go deep. Launch the ball to the double move guy. It'd be widely expected that we'd be just looking at the first down in that situation, not the long ball. Further, it'd take some time off the clock for the longer developing play even if it wasn't successful.

 

But, I think that the highest percentage, best chance to win scenario was the one we went with.

 

They were also up 7 and the Cowboys needed a near perfect drive from Cassel, who hadn't proved that he could lead a perfect drive, let alone one to win the game.

[fringe]

 

They were also up 7 and the Cowboys needed a near perfect drive from Cassel, who hadn't proved that he could lead a perfect drive, let alone one to win the game.

Cowboys had 2 long, efficient TD drives in that game. Who led those? Plenty of talent for another one. Especially with no pressure on QB.

[Storm]

Cowboys had 2 long, efficient TD drives in that game. Who led those? Plenty of talent for another one. Especially with no pressure on QB.

 

The running game led those. They weren't going to run the ball all the way to the end zone in 1:30 with no timeouts. If you recall, aside from two great plays by two of his receivers, Cassel was doing his best to throw the ball to the Giants all game.

[fringe]

I don't think I need to remind anyone of all of the weird ways we have lost to the Cowboys. I was not happy giving them the ball with an eternity left on the clock.

[Storm]

The best course of action there is to make the Cowboys call 3 timeouts, you hope you get the first down on the ground but if you don't, you can't afford to pass on 3rd down. That's why you have a punter to pin them back. They got lucky the punt was fumbled, but I take the Giants D with 1:30, no timeouts, and a backup QB every time.

[Iceman_NYG]

The point is as someone said, the running plays called were also called with no intention to get a first down. Stack it up and ram into the pile and just fall down. If you are going to run the ball at least run a nice designed running play where there is a possibility of getting a first down. Hell why not call the FAMED 3rd and Long DRAW cowdung that they keep calling every motherfucking time in crucial situations??? This was an ideal fucking time to call that shit aint it?

[Storm]

I think this is a time to blame a lack of execution and blocking rather than blaming lack of creativity in the run game during the last two minutes of the game.

 

As in, the Giants coaches called exactly what any other teams coaches would call in that situation. No one calls a toss or a draw when they are running clock. They call off tackle and dives. The teams that get first downs can block and have running backs that are worth a damn.