sharp
Scout Team
- Joined
- Apr 6, 2005
- Messages
- 3,350
- Reaction score
- 107
It may have had a higher probability of being successful against that particular defensive front, but it also brought with it the risk of the kind of event that could turn the tide in the game, which is what happened. By contrast, a run might've been less successful against the defensive front, but it would've been far less risky in terms of producing a result that could change the game.
This is why teams have no problem running their running back into an impenetrable wall of defenders when they're trying to run out the clock. They're willing to exchange "failure" in terms of gaining any yardage for the minimization of risk and the depletion of the clock. This is all pretty simple. We've seen it a million times.
Now, you could argue that the team wasn't yet trying to kill the clock, and I would say that was a mistake on its part at the time. They sure should have been trying to kill the clock IMO, with a 72% chance of winning the game.
The only reason I wanted to run in that situation is because we had a positive gain on 1st and had been running well all day for the first time all season.
But i do not normally agree with play it safe run run run, punt lose game. How many times have we seen playing it safe fail for the dolphins?
And to people complaining about ball security, I agree tannehill overall needs to not fumble as much. But in this specific instance, he was hit within a second, no one sees that rusher or holds onto that ball. Clabo's fault plain and simple, no one elses. Can't whiff on a guy 1 yard in front of you.