Could have been a tie

[Rich]

If Sparano kicks a field goal instead of going for it on Fourth and Goal from the 2... the game probably goes into overtime.

Since we had the ball on the 18 at the end of the game, we could probably have kicked a second field goal then, and tied the Jets.
****
Sparano's call was the right one to make, however, sometimes gutsy calls lose games.

 

[SpaceMountain16]

Perhaps....but hindsight is 20/20, you dont know if you are going to ever get that close to a TD again (just two yards away) you pretty much have to go for it down that much late in the game.

I'm more more critical of the play SELECTION at the goal line when you have RB's the caliber of Brown and Williams.

 

[PerfectFinz72]

Ehh, hindsight. Sure thats how it looks now...but who would have thought we would have had 3 trips to the redzone in the 4th quarter?

 

[PhinsPhan122]

Not one coach would take the FG there down by 13 points. You would still be down two scores and when you are only a couple yards from the TD, you have to go for it.

 

[MiamiDolfan85]

If Sparano kicks a field goal instead of going for it on Fourth and Goal from the 2... the game probably goes into overtime.

Since we had the ball on the 18 at the end of the game, we could probably have kicked a second field goal then, and tied the Jets.
****
Sparano's call was the right one to make, however, sometimes gutsy calls lose games.

you guys are unbelievable...the game is over...we lost....get over it...we have 15 more weeks to go...stop complaining and hangng on to the past,and look foward to the future....

 

[MiggeMadness]

Perhaps....but hindsight is 20/20, you dont know if you are going to ever get that close to a TD again (just two yards away) you pretty much have to go for it down that much late in the game.

I'm more more critical of the play SELECTION at the goal line when you have RB's the caliber of Brown and Williams.

Yea, I was pissed.

3rd and goal from the 2 yard line. It's the 4th quarter in 95 degree weather. And we pass twice? No Ricky? No Ronnie?

I know they didn't do much yesterday. The run game never really got started. But how long did we have the Jets D out there later in the game?

 

[RoninFin4]

Hindsight is 20/20, but I still find it amazing that having a hurt kicker actually, somehow, benefitted a team the way the Jets did - Brett Favre certainly still has some magic in that right arm. I'd guarantee if Nugent was not hurt, Mangini would've gone for a FG on 4th and 13 rather than go for it.

 

[Lester]

Unfortunatley, it doesn't all add up. Change one thing and everything would be different. "The Butterfly Effect" For instance: if we kick a field goal, we would have then kicked off which could have led to a Leon Washington return for a touchdown which could have paved the way for us getting blown out.

On the other hand who could have predicted that because their kicker got hurt, they had a freak hail mary pass that gave them more points and made them a more dangerous team.

 

[dolfan94]

What I didnt like on that drive is that on 3rd and 4th down, we were at the 2, and threw the ball. If we would've run it, we would've probably scored.

But oh well.

We played great so I cant argue. Bring on zona

 

[WVDolphan]

Not one coach would take the FG there down by 13 points. You would still be down two scores and when you are only a couple yards from the TD, you have to go for it.

Exactly. I dont know why some many people even bring this stuff up. This is like the third thread started trying to suggest this.

1) Like you said....you would still be down 2 scores with little time left. And thats even if you make the FG.

2) You cant assume you are getting 2 more possessions at that point.

3) Even if you make the FG, you would have to KO and give them much better field position

And finally, if we make a FG there, everything that happened afterwards, wouldve been completely different. The situation wouldve been changed, therefore different plays wouldve been called with different outcomes.

Instead of us missing the TD and the Jets getting the ball up 13 with whatever time left at their own 2 yard line, the Jets wouldve been up 10 with the ball where ever they wouldve ran the KO back to.

So when you change the situation, you cant guarentee things from that point wouldve happened the same and that we wouldve had a shot to tie it with a FG.....................Basically, its a really stupid thing to even bring up.....but, leave it to certain people...

EDIT: Come to think of it, there are ALOT of situations where I wouldnt consider a FG from the 2 yard line, irrespective of the time left in the game. If Im down two possessions and a FG dosent get me to being down one possession(like being down 13 would be), Im going for the TD most of the time. If Im up 4, I want to go up 11, not 7. If Im tied, up by 1, I almost always kick the FG. If I trail by 3 or less, I almost always kick the FG. But if Im up between 2-4 points, I would consider the TD try depending on alot of other variables...time left in game, opponent, etc etc. When I see an opportunity to take a 2 score lead, I really want it. Its a big difference in the game being up 2 possessions as opposed to 1. Lot's of variables come into it, but in the phins situation in the circumstance they were in, its a no brainer to pass on the FG try.

 

[Lester]

EDIT: Come to think of it, there are ALOT of situations where I wouldnt consider a FG from the 2 yard line, irrespective of the time left in the game. If Im down two possessions and a FG dosent get me to being down one possession(like being down 13 would be), Im going for the TD most of the time. If Im up 4, I want to go up 11, not 7. If Im tied, up by 1, I almost always kick the FG. If I trail by 3 or less, I almost always kick the FG. But if Im up between 2-4 points, I would consider the TD try depending on alot of other variables...time left in game, opponent, etc etc. When I see an opportunity to take a 2 score lead, I really want it. Its a big difference in the game being up 2 possessions as opposed to 1. Lot's of variables come into it, but in the phins situation in the circumstance they were in, its a no brainer to pass on the FG try.[/quote]

I think that makes sense. In fact, I think many teams would score a lot more points if they didn't kick field goals so readilly. Coaches will never do that though unless they are down and have go for broke cause they don't have the balls, and the fans and management would be all over them the first time it didn't work out. I was actually pretty scared on a lot of their drives cause I was pretty sure Farve/Jones could get them 10 yards on 4 tries easy. Fortunately we made just enough big play on defense.

 

[WVDolphan]

I think that makes sense. In fact, I think many teams would score a lot more points if they didn't kick field goals so readilly. Coaches will never do that though unless they are down and have go for broke cause they don't have the balls, and the fans and management would be all over them the first time it didn't work out. I was actually pretty scared on a lot of their drives cause I was pretty sure Farve/Jones could get them 10 yards on 4 tries easy. Fortunately we made just enough big play on defense.

Exactly. The last year we had Saban and everyone was hating on Mare, I started referring to FG's as "Sabans".

It just seemed to me that dude was always so eager to get a FG try. He put Mare in alot of bad spots kicking long FGs that didnt even change the amount of possessions either team lead by. I thought he killed us ALOT by attempting long FG's on 4th and shorts when we really needed a TD anyway.

And you know what....the longer tries...those arent automatic. Plus if you miss them, you give up great field position. I would almost never kick a FG on 4th and short from around the 30 if it didnt change the amount of possessions either team lead the game by. For one thing, I feel like the chances of converting a 4th and short and converting a long FG are fairly even. And while there is no guarentee if you convert the first down that you eventually score a TD, you still have a decent shot. Again, many variables go into this decision(how your offense is playing, your kicker, your D, is the game a high scoring affair or has a high scoring feel, etc etc).

The goal line situations, for example, the FG is almost a certainty to be converted(unless of course its the playoffs and Romo is your holder...). However you have to consider if you go for the TD and dont get in, you at least leave your opponent in extremely poor field position. Where as if you take the 3, you have to KO. Thats why I really like going for the TD.

You have to remember.....TWO FG's are LESS than a TD and an extra point. If I feel the chances of getting a TD on a given 4th down and goal are 50/50, I would be inclined to take that risk. The field position being the tiebreaker.

FGs will get you beat in this game. I really only like them in the last seconds of the half or late in the game to give you the lead or with no time left to tie or win the game. Piss on FGs.

Point is though, coaches attempt way too many FGs. Im not saying they should play like they are playing madden. But, you just cant underestimate in the NFL, the signifigance of leading by two possessions as opposed to leading by one possession.

BTW, I have a couple of my friends when we watch games now referring to FGs strictly as "Sabans" I started a few other terms that we all commonly use to describe the action in games. I think I will make a thread about it in the depths and you guys can share some of your stuff too. :up: