About not trying to score: Wanny / Players Back Decision | Page 6 | FinHeaven - Miami Dolphins Forums

About not trying to score: Wanny / Players Back Decision

Originally posted by DeDolfan


What you fail to realize is that yes it would be some what of a hurry up and no it's not do or die at that point. You take some solid shots and hope to catch them making a mistake. That's what it's all about anyway, you catch them making mistakes, other wise they would be perfect and you gain zero yds. You run the 3 kick safe plays hoping to catch them off guard in something and if not, no biggie. THEN take your chances in OT.

* "Somewhat of a hurry up"? I don't see how it could have been anything else.

* Unfortunately, the QB and O-line play to that point, as well as having a defense playing the pass exclusively greatly reduced the chance of any shots being solid.
 
Originally posted by DeDolfan

Paraphrased

...with 51 secs left. In that situation, you don't do desperate or stupid things.

You simply do what you can and if it doesn't work, fine, then go to OT.

First things first! Even though I want DW fired NOW, I still agreed with the call.

To use your own words - we did what we could, it did not work. Our strength is running - NOT PASSING! As I stated earlier in this thread, we are a ball control offense.

If we had the Colts or Titans Offense and Weapons, sure go for it. Hell, if Marino was back there with :51 you had better go for it too.
 
As i said b4, it ain't like we only had a couple of secs. We had a chance/s and didn't take it. A real winners' attitude!!
'Nuff said!
 
For you to say that anyone that disagrees thinks they are playing a football video game is an ignorant comment. You feel the way you do and that is fine. I feel completely different. The realities of the game of football I lived for many years all the way through college football. I would bet I know just as much if not much more than you do about the games "realities". The decision IMO was gutless and is just another decision that tells this team that they aren't good enough and to just play careful and HOPE the intangibles fall their way to win. It is my belief that winning coaches and teams choose to MAKE their own "intangibles" and "momentum plays" happen and not to hope the other team screws up so they may win.

Another thing. If Wanny's "strategy" was to rely on the Defense and play field position he would have kicked off to start OT.
If in fact they lost all faith in the offense moving the ball, receiving the kick played directly against that strategy. If the offense suffered a turnover or stalled and had to punt the Ravens would have been the ones with the field position. Bottom line is that the offense had to come on the field and try to win the game at some point. 52 seconds with 3 TO's is an eternity to gain 45-50 yards.

Trek:

First, I said 'some fans' - not 'anyone' -- where you lump yourself is up to you.

I disagree with your point about kicking off to start OT - in OT the clock was no longer a significant factor -- I think we can both agree that 15 minutes is much longer than 51 seconds, and gives you many more possibilities to work with.
Our offense had not been able to drive the required distance to get into fieldgoal range (say 40-50 yards) all game. We were playing backups on our 0-line that were run blocking ok, but it's reasonable to expect they may struggle in pass blocking scenarios, particularly against the blitz. We have a QB who has at times dropped the ball when blind-sided. The entire situation was set up in the defenses favor, due to the fact play calls were limited due to time pressure, particularly against a great defense.

You see a gutless decision by a coach afraid to win, and I see the correct descision by a coach who is aware of the game situation. What I don't see is anyone (players, coaches, columnists, etc) agreeing that DW made the wrong call and just got lucky. Instead, at the time and afterwards they seemed to stand with the coach in that decision. It's only the fans who seem to think this was a bad idea.

I'm sorry if you took that as a personal attack, I don't know you nor your level of football knowledge. But I think the majority of fans get caught up in the moment and want the 'fun play' (such as going for it on fourth down regardless of the situation) rather than the smart play.
And I'm sure DW (and any other pro coach) knows a lot more about football than I do, at any rate.
 
This debate is ridiculous. It is obvious that had Miami tried to score at the end of regulation their odds of success were small (they had a long way to go, ag. a D that was playing great, the D knows whats coming, you have a limited playbook, you're going ag. the wind, you're attacking with the weakest part of your O, etc.)When I say small odds I mean probably less than 10% IMO. There is also a larger probability that you give the game away (interception, or just leave enough time for the Ravens to go the short field and win.) Going to overtime, the odds are 50% (two teams playing equally). Trying to score at the end of regulation, under those conditions is simply a bad bet. It's like blowing your paycheck on the lottery every week, it's aggressive but it not very likely to be a successful strategy.
 
Originally posted by rafael
Trying to score at the end of regulation, under those conditions is simply a bad bet. It's like blowing your paycheck on the lottery every week, it's aggressive but it not very likely to be a successful strategy.

Very nicely put!
 
A lot of this people in this thread seem to want to be all or nothing on this subject. Either Wannstedt has no balls and every other coach in the NFL worth his salt would have tried to get close enough for a field goal, or its the other way...Wannstedt did the complete right thing and it would have been stupid to attempt to get close enough for a Field Goal with that little time left.

At the risk of sounding like one of those annoying people who take two arguments and dissect them straight down the middle in order to make them seem soooo wise, I just have to say that in this case it was like a 50/50 type decision.

Yes, a lot of coaches would view 52 seconds as plenty of time to drive from their own 20 yard line, 50 yards to a team's 30 yard line to give us a legitimate chance at a game winning field goal. In fact, think back no further than last year in Week 6 against the Denver Broncos when we started at our own 26 yard line with 40 seconds left in the game. Up to that point the Miami offense only scored 14 points against the Denver defense, and one of those TD drives started with a short field due to a Sam Madison interception (and of course Patrick Surtain had taken one interception to the house for a TD to give us 21 total points). JAY FIEDLER completed two passes to get us in range for an Olindo Mare field goal that won the game. I know the dynamics were different, taking a knee was not a choice since we were down by 1 point, however it shows that going 50 yards in 52 seconds against a defense that you have not been having success against...is not at all impossible...not impossible enough that you could say something like most coaches would just run out the clock.

On the other hand you have to look at what Dave was seeing and that was a QB situation that is not at all ideal. Funny that I brought up the Denver game last year since it was Griese in that game that threw two picks that ended with 2 TDs and helped us win the game. Anyway...one drive earlier than when we started the ball with 52 seconds left, we started at midfield and went for a 48 yard field goal that Mare missed. And one drive earlier than that, Griese threw a dumb interception right into Ed Reed's hands, giving Baltimore the ball deep in our territory, ready to kick the field goal that would have put them on top 9-6 probably for the rest of the game.

What I'm tryin to say is we didn't have a quarterback we can trust to be safe with the ball, not to turn it over in such a crucial situation. He had already turned the ball over in a critical situation. He could have done it again.

52 seconds may be an eternity for a guy like Peyton Manning, or any other premier type QB in this league. But with a Brian Griese in his first year in this offense with a mediocre set of weapons and a less than mediocre offensive line...you MIGHT be risking more than you should to start slingin the ball downfield against Ed Reed and Ray Lewis, Chris McCallister, etc.

On the other hand if we had made an attempt at getting downfield, you don't really question that too much either, because 52 seconds is plenty of time...unless Griese tosses a pick and the Ravens win and everyone's like "WHY DIDNT YOU JUST RUN THE CLOCK OUT!!!!! GRIESE WAS SUCKING YOU NEEDED TIME TO GET A SCORING DRIVE TOGETHER!!!!!!"
 
that's a good argument, CK, and i agree that it isn't black and white. there are a lot of issues with this team that get people polarized on one end or the other when in actuality there are a lot more sides to every story than just 2. way to not be emotional. (and thoroughly modern). i fell into that trap earlier in the thread. i still support taking the knee and would have if it were up to me.
 
The onlly thing about that denver game is that we were very very lucky to have won. On that last pass that got us into fg range, it very well should have been picked off. I guess he was dropping back into a zone, and luckily he had horible LB hands, and it bounced right off his hands and into mcknights was it?
 
Originally posted by ckparrothead
A lot of this people in this thread seem to want to be all or nothing on this subject. Either Wannstedt has no balls and every other coach in the NFL worth his salt would have tried to get close enough for a field goal, or its the other way...Wannstedt did the complete right thing and it would have been stupid to attempt to get close enough for a Field Goal with that little time left.

At the risk of sounding like one of those annoying people who take two arguments and dissect them straight down the middle in order to make them seem soooo wise, I just have to say that in this case it was like a 50/50 type decision.

Yes, a lot of coaches would view 52 seconds as plenty of time to drive from their own 20 yard line, 50 yards to a team's 30 yard line to give us a legitimate chance at a game winning field goal. In fact, think back no further than last year in Week 6 against the Denver Broncos when we started at our own 26 yard line with 40 seconds left in the game. Up to that point the Miami offense only scored 14 points against the Denver defense, and one of those TD drives started with a short field due to a Sam Madison interception (and of course Patrick Surtain had taken one interception to the house for a TD to give us 21 total points). JAY FIEDLER completed two passes to get us in range for an Olindo Mare field goal that won the game. I know the dynamics were different, taking a knee was not a choice since we were down by 1 point, however it shows that going 50 yards in 52 seconds against a defense that you have not been having success against...is not at all impossible...not impossible enough that you could say something like most coaches would just run out the clock.

On the other hand you have to look at what Dave was seeing and that was a QB situation that is not at all ideal. Funny that I brought up the Denver game last year since it was Griese in that game that threw two picks that ended with 2 TDs and helped us win the game. Anyway...one drive earlier than when we started the ball with 52 seconds left, we started at midfield and went for a 48 yard field goal that Mare missed. And one drive earlier than that, Griese threw a dumb interception right into Ed Reed's hands, giving Baltimore the ball deep in our territory, ready to kick the field goal that would have put them on top 9-6 probably for the rest of the game.

What I'm tryin to say is we didn't have a quarterback we can trust to be safe with the ball, not to turn it over in such a crucial situation. He had already turned the ball over in a critical situation. He could have done it again.

52 seconds may be an eternity for a guy like Peyton Manning, or any other premier type QB in this league. But with a Brian Griese in his first year in this offense with a mediocre set of weapons and a less than mediocre offensive line...you MIGHT be risking more than you should to start slingin the ball downfield against Ed Reed and Ray Lewis, Chris McCallister, etc.

On the other hand if we had made an attempt at getting downfield, you don't really question that too much either, because 52 seconds is plenty of time...unless Griese tosses a pick and the Ravens win and everyone's like "WHY DIDNT YOU JUST RUN THE CLOCK OUT!!!!! GRIESE WAS SUCKING YOU NEEDED TIME TO GET A SCORING DRIVE TOGETHER!!!!!!"

CK, I disagree. Nobody is arguing that Miami should always play for OT with 51 sec. left from your 20. The argument is that in this situation it was the right thing to do. In this game Miami had done nothing on O but kick two long field goals and miss a third. Miami is facing a superior unit. (Unless someone is claiming that Miami's offensive personnel is better than Balt. defensive personnel) Miami is going ag. the wind, which shortens Mare's range. Miami's chance of success is clearly less than 50/50. (IMO worse than 90/10 ag.) Once OT starts Miami's chances are at least 50/50. So if you have an option btw. betting when the odds are 50/50 or better vs. betting when the odds are considerably less than 50/50 for the same payoff, what are you going to do?
 
Originally posted by DeDolfan

Muck, you're looking in hindsight. Like you said, at the time he should've gone for it. But since we won, hit was right????????
But yes, he quit. We had a chance to win it, but instead, he played it "not to lose" !! Wannsted had better be counting his lucky stars after Lewis fumbled. Otherwise..............

I know I'm looking in hindsight.....that's exactly what I said. :)

As I said, yes, I wanted to go for it at the time. But looking back, Dave made the right call. It has nothing to do with the fact that we won. It has to do with the fact that I am a fan who got caught up in the moment. It has to do with the fact that I am not paid to coach that team. So I don't always think before I speak in these kinds of situations.

I reserve the right to change my mind. Especially when proven wrong. And in this case, I was wrong at the time.

If we go for it......we take all kinds of risks. We'd be attempting to go almost TWICE as far as our longest drive of the day (which was a whopping 38 yards). And if we were forced to punt.....and were fortunate enough not to have turned the ball over....we'd be risking having Ed Reed block a punt. Remember, he blocked one that was whistled dead and nearly blocked two others.

Meanwhile, our defense was dominating them. The odds of them driving the length of the field against us in OT were slim and none.

With all that in mind, you're damn right I'm glad we took a knee. You may call that playing not to lose. But I'd call going for it Russian Roulette.
 
Originally posted by Muck


I know I'm looking in hindsight.....that's exactly what I said. :)

As I said, yes, I wanted to go for it at the time. But looking back, Dave made the right call. It has nothing to do with the fact that we won. It has to do with the fact that I am a fan who got caught up in the moment. It has to do with the fact that I am not paid to coach that team. So I don't always think before I speak in these kinds of situations.

I reserve the right to change my mind. Especially when proven wrong. And in this case, I was wrong at the time.

If we go for it......we take all kinds of risks. We'd be attempting to go almost TWICE as far as our longest drive of the day (which was a whopping 38 yards). And if we were forced to punt.....and were fortunate enough not to have turned the ball over....we'd be risking having Ed Reed block a punt. Remember, he blocked one that was whistled dead and nearly blocked two others.

Meanwhile, our defense was dominating them. The odds of them driving the length of the field against us in OT were slim and none.

With all that in mind, you're damn right I'm glad we took a knee. You may call that playing not to lose. But I'd call going for it Russian Roulette.

Didn't meant to imply that you can't change your mind. I realize that our longest drive to that moment was only 38 yds. My point has been that sooner or later, something has to give, one way or the other. Ricky was running a little better late and he was 9and still is) due to break off a big one. it could've have been then as well as it could've been turned over. i'm not saying the odds were in our favor at that point but what I am saying is that becuae we were not moving the ball, we may as well take a shot there and "not move it" as to think that we could "move it" in OT. Our situation was not that dire to simply just say F it and go to OT. If we got the ball in that situation with only 6 sec, fine, but I must maintain that we had somewhat of a reasonable chance to try something at least. It just does not make any sense to take the knee because we haven't been able to move the ball all game and go to OT. Why would one think that we could move it then? But these are the kind of decisions that Wannstedt makes that "rubs" off on the players. Ppl complain that this team has no heart/desire or killer instinct, etc. This is perhaps only one of the reasons, because Wannstedt has none. As I said earlier, last week, everybody wanted wannstedt fired and this week he's a saint. I guess that is what disturbs me most in this thread. Not meaning you personally, but alot of folks simply ride the high tide, so to speak! ;)
 
Originally posted by Muck


I know I'm looking in hindsight.....that's exactly what I said. :)

As I said, yes, I wanted to go for it at the time. But looking back, Dave made the right call. It has nothing to do with the fact that we won. It has to do with the fact that I am a fan who got caught up in the moment. It has to do with the fact that I am not paid to coach that team. So I don't always think before I speak in these kinds of situations.

I reserve the right to change my mind. Especially when proven wrong. And in this case, I was wrong at the time.

If we go for it......we take all kinds of risks. We'd be attempting to go almost TWICE as far as our longest drive of the day (which was a whopping 38 yards). And if we were forced to punt.....and were fortunate enough not to have turned the ball over....we'd be risking having Ed Reed block a punt. Remember, he blocked one that was whistled dead and nearly blocked two others.

Meanwhile, our defense was dominating them. The odds of them driving the length of the field against us in OT were slim and none.

With all that in mind, you're damn right I'm glad we took a knee. You may call that playing not to lose. But I'd call going for it Russian Roulette.
 
Back
Top Bottom