Jump to content

Anyone Else Think Shanny Should have Gone for It On 4th and 1 at SF 30 with 2:34 Left? Brilliant but still poor at Game Management


HolyMoses
 Share

Recommended Posts

1) Seahawks had scored TD’s on past two drives (So had ‘Niners).  Defenses were gassed.  
 

2) ‘Niner’s  has a GREAT chance of converting, which effectively ends the game. 
 

3) Seahawks had two timeouts and 2:30 left.  That’s PLENTY of time for a TD.  But unlikely to leave clock for a subsequent Niner field goal drive.

4) Failing to convert gives Seahawks the ball at 30.  It is very difficult for an offense run out the clock but still score a TD from that short of a field.   AND the Niners had two timeouts and the 2 minute warning   

5) especially late in games, it gets progressively harder to stop an offense after it gets a few plays run.  The defense gets fatigued.  So the field position is not as big a factor in preventing a TD.  

Basically, It seems like the chances of converting were higher than the chances of the Niners stopping a 70 yard TD drive at that moment.  AND, the chances of the Niners having a shot at a subsequent late FG would be much greater if the Seahawks started at the niner 30.   So even failure on conversion gives a better chance of Victory than punting.  
 

Sure, the Niners ultimately stopped what would have been a game winning drive.  But only by an INCH!!!!   It was was first and goal at the one yard line with 23 seconds left.  That’s enough time for FOUR shots at the end zone. (Yes, FOUR!  Well prepared teams don’t spike the ball.  Well prepared teams know exactly what they want to do in that situation and run a play while the defense is gasping. )

Fortunately, Pete Carrol was trying harder than Shannahan to give the game away.  REALLY brutal game management by both coaches on those final two drives.


 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Odds say he should always go for it in that situation but coaches rarely do it. 
 

You made a lot of great points but another one to think about is how easy teams can move the ball between the 20’s. In today’s NFL, it is not that hard to move the ball between the 20’s. If you don’t get it, they still have to score in the red zone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Jpg428gggg said:

Odds say he should always go for it in that situation but coaches rarely do it. 
 

You made a lot of great points but another one to think about is how easy teams can move the ball between the 20’s. In today’s NFL, it is not that hard to move the ball between the 20’s. If you don’t get it, they still have to score in the red zone.

Right!  Coaches want to play it “safe” even when the safe thing is to “risk” going for it.  
 

I agree with your second point too.   But I think that reality makes it MORE favorable to risk the field position.  If they are good enough  to beat you in the red zone, at least you have time left for a FG drive.  
Sorry if that’s the point you were making.  Edit.  I just reread your post and realized that was exactly the point you were making. 
 

BTW, the Falcons have been more likely to give up TD’s when teams start from “bad” field position than with a “short field”. (I ran the data) Our red zone defense sucked. You can’t “run and hit” if you are too gassed to run, Dan.  
 

Also btw, the reason the Falcons has guys WIDE open on the last two series today was that the Bucs defense was on the field for EIGHTY-SEVEN freakin play in 80 degree heat.  It’s a miracle they held us to field goals!)

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...