Heh, ok. I was very impressed with the Texans contingent, but let's not go full r****d and act like the Texans weren't at a disadvantage. This argument goes both ways so pretty meaningless statement. Since we're bringing up hindsight now (c whut i did thar?), wanna tell me how that FG try turned out? Pardon me for not popping bottles at the moral victory of beating the spread.
Donny, I'm with you. Cowboys D was reeling. Felt going for it with all considered (esp w game thur and beat up roster) gave us the best opportunity to win.
When you have national articles with the Cowboys whining about the crowd noise of their "home" game... I'm going to go ahead and say it was at "worst" a neutral field. Not really... one play with your offense vs. their defense... vs. basically playing an additional quarter of controlled football (i.e. - non hurry-up), with all your "weapons" at your disposal, including your all-world DE that has a habit of making game-changing plays for you? I'm not marginalizing him just yet. Want to look up Baily's FG stats over the last 3 years, including his makes from 50+? If you're hanging your hat on him consistently missing that FG as your saving grace, THAT is as big of a gamble as any. As it is, he makes a 48 yard FG for the win. I've already said the Texans were lucky to get into OT. You're the one that brought up them being "underdogs" as a reason to "go for it." I just don't think that's a suitable reason at all, especially when you consider why underdogs and point spreads really exist (and how the Texans played above their "expectation" based on simply that). The Cowboys are not some bunch of world-beaters. They still haven't really proven to me that they're going to be significantly better than 8-8 this year (flukey wins against the Rams and Texans not withstanding). The Texans could have won this game in OT... and they also very well could have lost it had they gone for 2 and were successful.
I normally would be oppose to a team going for two in that spot but considering that our offense is a dumpster fire right now, I can't say I would be that oppose to going for it in that spot. Its really telling how sorry our offense is when the thought of going for two in that spot is considered.
Well it almost certainly wasn't considered by the coaching staff, only by Madden players and Monday morning QB's. No team in the NFL would have seriously considered going for it there because, if we're being real, it would have been pants on head r****ded and is the kind of move that gets coaches fired.
If they went for it and didn't get it, people would be BLASTING O'Brian for doing something so unconventional. It's one of those "right calls if it works and wrong if it doesn't" things. He went with the safe play and gave themselves a shot in OT. I can't complain.
Pre-emptively done with this thread... I actually can't believe I helped get it to 3 pages. Didn't realize DM was the OP... hence his interest in furthering the debate.
I agree going for two in that spot is usually not a good play but the offense is so bad right now, I can understand why some people consider going for it in that spot a good thing. The Texans are so sporadic on the offensive end that you never know from series to series what you will get.
Yeah, Major already hit the nail on the head. Losing by convention is usually (always) more palatable. I didn't expect BOB to go for two, but he is a "new" HC, so if anyone was gonna do it, I suppose it'd be a new guy. I find the amount of jimmy rustling this idea has caused curious and funny. It's not as if I'm advocating 2 pointers as a rule of thumb or something. Certain circumstances though. For instance, the last time I ever suggested something of this nature was over 10 years ago in the 2003 Hawaii Bowl when Houston stormed back but ultimately lost in overtime. Cougars were on the road and had a great goalline running back (I think Foster doesn't get enough credit for this too), but opted to kick the XP.
I certainly agree with going for two in certain instances, like when you are down by 2 after a TD late in the game, up 1 late in the game after a TD, or up 5 after a TD late in the game
Just when I thought I was done, I get "sucked back in..." Similar scenario... 4th and goal from the 3 yard line.. down by 3. 20 seconds left. Go for the TD and an even more "for-sure" win than in this go-for-2 scenario? Or kick the chip-shot FG and go into OT? If you're willing to go for 2 now, you'd basically have to use the same logic there to go for the TD.... and again, this all likely never happens.
this is what kills me. 3rd and 2, why not rush the ball twice. no way foster doesn't pick up 2 yards in two attempts against that terrible defense.
Because you'd basically be saying you have no faith in your punter to pin them deep, and your defense to be able to hold them to a 3 and out or possibly force a turnover... both of which has you winning the field position battle in a sudden-death game.
Again, you presume that you A.) get the first down... and B.) an additional 50 yards for a TD to win the game now... or C.)a FG which would still require you to make a stop. If it was 4th and 2 from the 2 yard line... where a TD wins the game, and a FG would still give Dallas the ball back, you may have more of an argument. But at that point, in a sudden death situation with the ball still barely at mid-field, you're basically saying you have no faith in special-teams/defense/and you feel the Cowboys offense will score on you regardless of the field position. And in the end, a successful 4th down play still doesn't "win this game right here and now."
i understand that, but OT on the road the visiting team always has to take chances. i like foster's chance at picking up that 1st down given it was only 2 yards and he had two chances to get it. obviously BOB took the conservative route.... and we all know what happened. i hope he learns from it.
