Jump to content

Why didnt Magini kick a FG when we were down by 17?


SouthernJet

Recommended Posts

I have seen John Madden say a million times, that the only smart play in this circumstance is to kick a FG..if you need the points anyways, you get the sure points to survive another play,,i.e. usually a onsides kick,,

MAYBE if it wa son 1 foot line , but 4 yds out, FG was the only clal when down 17

Agreed, and I mentioned it in the game thread.

It didn't mean the difference in the game, but you EXTEND the game for as long as you can. Whether we scored an FG or a TD, we needed 2 onsiders to continue the game.. However, scoring nothing meant ending the game right there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said I wasn't listening to his "XsOs"? I don't listen to him when he goes on rambling diatribes, something he does all the time as a commentator. He was a great coach and I admitted that, did you miss something? The vast majority of what he says as commentator is pure BS--the best of his coaching strategies can be found by listening to him during his coaching era, something I said above but in less detail.

who are you?

a little dramatic,,calm down Skippy :rl:

go back to your gameboy :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who said I wasn't listening to his "XsOs"? I don't listen to him when he goes on rambling diatribes, something he does all the time as a commentator. He was a great coach and I admitted that, did you miss something? The vast majority of what he says as commentator is pure BS--the best of his coaching strategies can be found by listening to him during his coaching era, something I said above but in less detail.

how would you know if he was a good coach?

you are 14 right???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because he's an incompetent assclown.

Any other questions?

+1

"Wait, where's the field goal?" was my question on the 4th down play.

Just like,

"Wait, why aren't they running it?" on the 3rd & 1 and 4th & 1 plays

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you are wrong,,unless u go by what only herm and mangini decioded

u take the points and move on,,if 4th and 1 'maybe..but 4th and 4 , no way,,u need a FG anyways,,

It's not only Herm and Mangini...Jack Del Rio made a very similar decision last night on MNF.

Listen, there is no right or wrong here...there are good arguments to be made on both sides. Personally, I think you need to show some balls in this situation. You just had a 13 play drive that took up a decent chunk of time in the 4th quarter. There are under 3 minutes left and you need a minimum of 2 TD's to get back in the game. Yes, you need to score a FG in a potential comeback, but you also need to evaluate and pick your best chances to score a TD. It doesn't get much easier than from the 4 yard line.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I admit i didn't read all 5 pages, I'm sure everything was covered, but I must say my piece because it's my biggest topic right now.( I know, who gives crap? lol)

SERIOUSLY:

Mangini is another Herm edwards when it comes to being a game coach, but even that's not fair. There are many differences but they are equally bad.

IMHO

Mangini pro's and con's go:

PROS

  • To what degree his input makes up Tangini, I don't know, is he Garfunkle or Paul McCartney? But the tangini era has been brilliant as far as building a team.
  • He does bring a tiny little bit of that superbowl attitude with him, has a ring,and a certain amount of discipline.

CONS

  • How serious can you take his discipline when it HAD to be toned down in order to stop an all out revolt, after a 4-12 season, players were calling for his head. Why?
  • because he's the same age as the players, difference being he NEVER played on a level close to theirs.
  • No emotion, no fire, no respect from refs, "deer in headlights" moments all game.
  • terrible decisions( like the threadstarter) and offensive gameplans that have been questioned ALL year.(twice from shotgun 3rd and 1 and 4th and 1 with the leading rusher and a marshmellow run defense, for one of MANY)
  • a .500 record

OK, what's my solution. tough one. Right now we stay put, it's Mangini's job to f%$k up, and, honestly, there's nothing we can do.

Too bad we don't have Tangini in their respective offices and a real CS around Favre and Westoff. As soon as we signed Favre, we shoulda brought in some old GB guys to run the Offense. I can't say Sutton doing bad with this personnel, look at the numbers, but he can be upgraded too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You needed 3 scores at that point, we were down 17. Even getting the TD there, you're still down two scores. That's why you just kick the FG when you get in range. You get in decent range, say around the 30-25 yard line, then start taking shots in the endzone or near it. If you get it, great, you get the TD. If you don't, since they're going to be incomplete passes, you don't run much time off the clock, and just kick the FG.

We were going to lose anyway, but strategically that makes much more sense.

EXACTLY RIGHT! Well said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not only Herm and Mangini...Jack Del Rio made a very similar decision last night on MNF.

Listen, there is no right or wrong here...there are good arguments to be made on both sides. Personally, I think you need to show some balls in this situation. You just had a 13 play drive that took up a decent chunk of time in the 4th quarter. There are under 3 minutes left and you need a minimum of 2 TD's to get back in the game. Yes, you need to score a FG in a potential comeback, but you also need to evaluate and pick your best chances to score a TD. It doesn't get much easier than from the 4 yard line.

uh yes it does when its 4th and 4 :rl:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's basically a 2 point conversion attempt. Much better chances than getting two onside kicks and driving down the field twice all inside of 3 minutes.

haha

no way..

hard to throw on 4th and 4 in closed endzone coverage..

fg allowed them to continue fighting..

its amiracle any way u put it,,but in teh end u have to survive to keep miracle alive..

when 3rd down play could only leave team tat 4 then its fg time,,if they had gotten to 1 , then maybe u go for it since arun or fg would keep def off balance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is better then a 2 point chance because there is more field. What bothers me is Mangini's thinking. I really think he gave up there

I thought the decision to punt earlier in the 4th quarter was much worse. That was a classic give up moment.

In this case, I believe you go for a TD from the 4 yard line when you need at least 2 TD's to come back with less than 3 minutes to go. I can see the arguments for the other side, but I think you give your team a more realistic chance (both are undeniably very slim) by getting one of the two necessary TD's when it's staring you right in the face.

Forgetting about game strategies, you also get more of a momentum boost by scoring the TD and thus theoretically give your team a better chance to mount a comeback. Settling for a FG after a 13 play, time consuming drive when the game is basically out of reach is pretty unsatisfying and demoralizing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the decision to punt earlier in the 4th quarter was much worse. That was a classic give up moment.

In this case, I believe you go for a TD from the 4 yard line when you need at least 2 TD's to come back with less than 3 minutes to go. I can see the arguments for the other side, but I think you give your team a more realistic chance (both are undeniably very slim) by getting one of the two necessary TD's when it's staring you right in the face.

Forgetting about game strategies, you also get more of a momentum boost by scoring the TD and thus theoretically give your team a better chance to mount a comeback. Settling for a FG after a 13 play, time consuming drive when the game is basically out of reach is pretty unsatisfying and demoralizing.

nope, not the smart play in this case,,its called survive til lnext play

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the decision to punt earlier in the 4th quarter was much worse. That was a classic give up moment.

In this case, I believe you go for a TD from the 4 yard line when you need at least 2 TD's to come back with less than 3 minutes to go. I can see the arguments for the other side, but I think you give your team a more realistic chance (both are undeniably very slim) by getting one of the two necessary TD's when it's staring you right in the face.

Forgetting about game strategies, you also get more of a momentum boost by scoring the TD and thus theoretically give your team a better chance to mount a comeback. Settling for a FG after a 13 play, time consuming drive when the game is basically out of reach is pretty unsatisfying and demoralizing.

I agree with you the way it seems like it was handled was lets just finish off the game on the right note and we will get them next week.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree to disagree. It's called common sense...go for the TD when you need two of them, have very limited time remaining, and know you won't get any better opportunities.

nope, absolutely wrong move..u survive,

99% of coaches kick the FG there,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That call doesn't bother me nearly as much as the calls on the 3rd and 1 and 4th and 1. That was just terrible decision making by Mangini. I don't know why you wouldn't run the ball there. However, considering our offense was not having a great game AND our D couldn't stop freaking Peyton Hillis and there wasn't much time left, going for the TD makes sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, maybe I'm offbase on the following criticism, but it just made no sense to me in light of what Mangini did next possession:

Jets were down 17 at midfield with 4th and short and Mangini punts with about 5 to 6 minutes left in the game. Am I the only one who thought that was dumb? He then compounds it by, as mentioned, not going for the FG on the next possession.

At that time in the game, time (with only 2 TOs) is as big an enemy as the score. In order to have a comeback, you need at least 3 possessions in 6 minutes. Punting the ball there essentially eliminates 1 possession and leaves the Jets with 2 possessions to get 17 points.

Isn't the smart move there to go for it on 4th at midfield and then get close to the endzone and either get the TD or FG? If the Jets converted at midfield and get the FG there it would have been about 4 minutes and possibly 2 possessions left to get 14 points.

Am I wrong?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, two of them didn't just this past week, so it's 93% at best. :biggrin:

LOL.

The thing is, the Jets weren't just down 3 scores, they were down 2 TDs & a FG. Thus, a FG would have cut them down a score and give them more options.

If they had been down 3 TDs rather than 3 scores, going for the TD made sense because a FG wouldn't help.

PLUS, to compound this even more, wasn't there a game last year where the Jets were down 3 TDs and Mangini kicked the FG and then tried the onside?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, maybe I'm offbase on the following criticism, but it just made no sense to me in light of what Mangini did next possession:

Jets were down 17 at midfield with 4th and short and Mangini punts with about 5 to 6 minutes left in the game. Am I the only one who thought that was dumb? He then compounds it by, as mentioned, not going for the FG on the next possession.

At that time in the game, time (with only 2 TOs) is as big an enemy as the score. In order to have a comeback, you need at least 3 possessions in 6 minutes. Punting the ball there essentially eliminates 1 possession and leaves the Jets with 2 possessions to get 17 points.

Isn't the smart move there to go for it on 4th at midfield and then get close to the endzone and either get the TD or FG? If the Jets converted at midfield and get the FG there it would have been about 4 minutes and possibly 2 possessions left to get 14 points.

Am I wrong?

nope, u r right

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, maybe I'm offbase on the following criticism, but it just made no sense to me in light of what Mangini did next possession:

Jets were down 17 at midfield with 4th and short and Mangini punts with about 5 to 6 minutes left in the game. Am I the only one who thought that was dumb? He then compounds it by, as mentioned, not going for the FG on the next possession.

At that time in the game, time (with only 2 TOs) is as big an enemy as the score. In order to have a comeback, you need at least 3 possessions in 6 minutes. Punting the ball there essentially eliminates 1 possession and leaves the Jets with 2 possessions to get 17 points.

Isn't the smart move there to go for it on 4th at midfield and then get close to the endzone and either get the TD or FG? If the Jets converted at midfield and get the FG there it would have been about 4 minutes and possibly 2 possessions left to get 14 points.

Am I wrong?

No this is the point of the game where we put up our arms and put up the white flag. I can't tell you how disgusted I was with this thinking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

nope..bad move..

u survive,,no other choice unless u r in Herm Edwards IQ range :confused:

* note to self *

Don't disagree with SouthernJet, he has a tough time taking it.

* end note *

Either way, it's two different strategies. I would have preferred serphnx's approach with taking three shots at the 30 then settling for the field goal. Whether you prefer what I'm saying or SouthernJet's saying, it wouldn't have mattered because Mangini had already given up on the game. That punt earlier sealed our fate, so in essence this arguing is futile.

But if you're going to waste so much time to get that first TD, you can't end up settling for something less. It's demoralizing, as said earlier, and the only real chance we have of a comeback is by firing on all cylinders. Getting two more TD's within 2 minutes would be incredibly hard compared to a TD and a field goal. But, whatever.

By the way, I don't show drama. I leave that for others. I'm simply disagreeing with you in what is my opinion the team's best interests. No need to resort to the name calling. I don't understand the drama part, so okay with that.

Afosomf, how do you know Adolf Hitler was a terrible person, or that Isaac Newton was a great scientist? By their lasting influences on their sphere of interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...