Jump to content

Should Coach Smith Have Gone For It, 4th & 1 @ the 5?


Supes™
 Share

Should Coach Smith Have Gone For It, 4th & 1 @ the 5?  

122 members have voted

  1. 1. Should Coach Smith Have Gone For It, 4th & 1 @ the 5?

    • Yes, he should have gone for it.
    • No, he made the right decision with the FG and the points.
    • I just can't decide!


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 76
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

No offense to anyone, but anybody that thinks that you don't kick the FG in that situation to TIE the game is out of his mind. Had Smith decided to go for that and not gotten it, these boards would have been crashed for 6 days because of the people complaining about what a bad decision that was. Remember, as stated several times before, hindsight is 20/20. I would take a tie game with three minutes left with them backed up off a kickoff all day everyday and twice on Sundays....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't understand stand the tentative choice that Coach Smith made. It was an away game against an out of conference foe that has one of the best def. in the league. Coach Smith's tough talk is wearing me thin when we don't play to win a game that was more about attitude and confidence than play-off positioning. see New England away last season.

We can blame Ryan, Turner, MM all we want, in the end the buck stops with Coach Smith. How could anyone assume that they were going to have a better opportunity to take-over the game against that def. in their house. Coach Smith undermined the overall tough and gritty play the team showed. If you would have told me that Atlanta would have 3 penalties total, 2 sacks and 1 t/o before the game I would take it against that def. Coach Smith made a tentative decision in an attitude game and the players know it. Walk it like you talk it Coach Smith.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't understand stand the tentative choice that Coach Smith made. It was an away game against an out of conference foe that has one of the best def. in the league. Coach Smith's tough talk is wearing me thin when we don't play to win a game that was more about attitude and confidence than play-off positioning. see New England away last season.

We can blame Ryan, Turner, MM all we want, in the end the buck stops with Coach Smith. How could anyone assume that they were going to have a better opportunity to take-over the game against that def. in their house. Coach Smith undermined the overall tough and gritty play the team showed. If you would have told me that Atlanta would have 3 penalties total, 2 sacks and 1 t/o before the game I would take it against that def. Coach Smith made a tentative decision in an attitude game and the players know it. Walk it like you talk it Coach Smith.

You are smokin the good stuff toker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are smokin the good stuff toker.

Yes I am, but I still think Coach Smith should have went for it. Who would blame Coach Smith for going for the win with Pitt backed up @ the 5 with Turner, Gonzalez, White, and Ryan... let them earn the big bucks. If ATL gets stopped, tip your hat to Pitt and show faith in a def. that played well overall. Tired of the hoping to win attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I posted this in another thread. It absolutely was the wrong call. We should not have gone for it either.

We should've gone to the line acting like we were going for it. Then Ryan would do a hard count and try to draw them offsides. If they jump offsides, we have first and goal from the 3. If they don't jump offsides, we take the delay of game penalty and kick a FG from the 11 yard line.

Judging from how aggressive Pittsburgh was on defense jumping our snap count, I think there was a pretty good chance we could've got one of their guys to jump.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I voted yes was because I felt that in order to win the game, we needed to score a touchdown, on the assumption (and we have to assume some things other the outcomes are endless) that the Steelers would be able to score a field goal in Overtime. I know there was always the option of trying to out-defend (i.e. stop them getting in FG range) them in overtime, but given that their defence was pretty formidable, that was always going to be a tough task.

So, it was either try and score a touchdown in normal time, which involved:

- Making the 4th down, which was 1 yard away.

- Getting to the endzone, which would have then only been 5 yards away.

OR score a touchdown in overtime, which involved:

- First, hoping that Steelers didn't win the toss and score a TD themselves.

- March down the entire field and score a TD ourselves, something which we struggled with all afternoon.

To me the first option actually relies on a fewer variables going in our favour.

Edited by mrfahaji
Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of debate going on about this. Y'all vote and state your case!

Good poll. No, he should not have gone. It was more than 1 yard (though possibly rounded to a yard). At one point, the TV said 4th and 2. And neither team was having much luck running the ball. We were not getting good results from our short running game.

What he should have done was try to pull them offsides, then kicked. But overall he made the right call.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The reason I voted yes was because I felt that in order to win the game, we needed to score a touchdown, on the assumption (and we have to assume some things other the outcomes are endless) that the Steelers would be able to score a field goal in Overtime. I know there was always the option of trying to out-defend (i.e. stop them getting in FG range) them in overtime, but given that their defence was pretty formidable, that was always going to be a tough task.

So, it was either try and score a touchdown in normal time, which involved:

- Making the 4th down, which was 1 yard away.

- Getting to the endzone, which would have then only been 5 yards away.

OR score a touchdown in overtime, which involved:

- First, hoping that Steelers didn't win the toss and score a TD themselves.

- March down the entire field and score a TD ourselves, something which we struggled with all afternoon.

To me the first option actually relies on a fewer variables going in our favour.

A voice of honest reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because that's not correct. There was 3:24 still on the clock. If we don't get the first down then they get the ball at the 5. Pinned that deep, they would play very conservative where we probably would have stopped them on a 3 and out or maybe even get a turnover. Add in that we had 2 timeouts to use as well. Given that we almost would have certainly gotten great field position to get a second crack at the end zone or worse case scenario, kick the field goal to tie at the end of regulation when you really don't have a choice.

When you're on the road you play to win, at home you play for the tie...

^^^^^^^^^^

Exactly. Why is that so hard for you conservatards to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes I am, but I still think Coach Smith should have went for it. Who would blame Coach Smith for going for the win with Pitt backed up @ the 5 with Turner, Gonzalez, White, and Ryan... let them earn the big bucks. If ATL gets stopped, tip your hat to Pitt and show faith in a def. that played well overall. Tired of the hoping to win attitude.

What we saw is not the real Smitty. When he first got

here he wasn't second guessing himself. Players feed

off that coaching that says "go for it!"

I understand the argument that says he made a smart

choice but as you said earlier the attitude it projected

wasn't good. Smitty tried not to loose and threw away a

win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he made the correct call, playing to win is doing what gives you the best chance to win. Everything was going according to plan until the pick. We tied the game, the defense held and we got the ball back with time left to get into field goal range. I keep seeing people say they would be backed up and couldn't march down the field, but they didn't need to,they just needed to generate a couple of first downs. They didn't need to score again if we failed to convert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Because that's not correct. There was 3:24 still on the clock. If we don't get the first down then they get the ball at the 5. Pinned that deep, they would play very conservative where we probably would have stopped them on a 3 and out or maybe even get a turnover. Add in that we had 2 timeouts to use as well. Given that we almost would have certainly gotten great field position to get a second crack at the end zone or worse case scenario, kick the field goal to tie at the end of regulation when you really don't have a choice.

When you're on the road you play to win, at home you play for the tie...

This is the most logical post I've read in a long time.

You show no faith in your team by saying you're going to go for it, then you don't go for it. Up to that point, our defense was holding Pittsburgh to nothing but field goals. If we didnt make it we still would've had hope.

My only gripe would have been if we tried to run Turner up the middle to get the yards. Roddy was having a stellar game, HD was on fire, Norwood was getting us yards every time he ran the ball. We have plenty of options to give defenses fits but we just dont use them consistently or properly.

We would have got that first down though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the most logical post I've read in a long time.

You show no faith in your team by saying you're going to go for it, then you don't go for it. Up to that point, our defense was holding Pittsburgh to nothing but field goals. If we didnt make it we still would've had hope.

My only gripe would have been if we tried to run Turner up the middle to get the yards. Roddy was having a stellar game, HD was on fire, Norwood was getting us yards every time he ran the ball. We have plenty of options to give defenses fits but we just dont use them consistently or properly.

We would have got that first down though.

Haha, perhaps you've hit the nail on the head - in an ideal world we would have gone for it, but knowing that Mularkey would have called a play involving Turner running it through the middle, maybe it's best we took the Field Goal...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the most logical post I've read in a long time.

You show no faith in your team by saying you're going to go for it, then you don't go for it. Up to that point, our defense was holding Pittsburgh to nothing but field goals. If we didnt make it we still would've had hope.

My only gripe would have been if we tried to run Turner up the middle to get the yards. Roddy was having a stellar game, HD was on fire, Norwood was getting us yards every time he ran the ball. We have plenty of options to give defenses fits but we just dont use them consistently or properly.

We would have got that first down though.

Amen to the men of courage! I'll take you in a fox hole!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...