TAKE THE POINTS

Sorry, had to get that off my chest.

I deal with it way too much on Saturdays. I need Pete to trot Hausch Money out there and take the 3 when it's there. Im stoked we won, and not nearly as negative as some others on here. But Please Pete. Just take the points. Go up 6 when its that early in the game.

thanks

If we are going to run an obvious pass play (that was crappy in addition) then I agree

We are a running team. Picking up inches around the 30 yard line with a power run straight up should be a no-brainer and we just need to do it. If RW doesn't have the ability due to his leg to get leverage then you put in Boynkin and run a quarterback sneak.

I get the "get the points" perspective but in a 6-3 game you still loose if you score 3 and the opponent scores 7. If we were up by 4 I say kick the field-goal. When up by 3 go get the first down like you should

It's been more than once that not taking the points has really bitten us in critical games. With that said...I wanted them to go for it....but with a running play not a pass play that wasn't even thrown to the 1st down marker!!!

mikeak":3dnngr95 said:

If we are going to run an obvious pass play (that was crappy in addition) then I agree

We are a running team. Picking up inches around the 30 yard line with a power run straight up should be a no-brainer and we just need to do it. If RW doesn't have the ability due to his leg to get leverage then you put in Boynkin and run a quarterback sneak.

I get the "get the points" perspective but in a 6-3 game you still loose if you score 3 and the opponent scores 7. If we were up by 4 I say kick the field-goal. When up by 3 go get the first down like you should

Click to expand...

At that point in the game, if they score 7, then you only need a FG to win it. It was still way too early.

I remember a San Francisco game when it was 4th down and we were about to kick a long field goal and changed minds. We threw a bomb TD. Sometimes it works. It is also about what the defense gives you. If the defense is geared up for run and you have man coverage it is not a dumb play to pass. Maybe possible bad execution or maybe good defense might ruins things.

slight tangent, both ESPN and NFL .com stink. I tried to find the "drive by drive" view to find exactly how much time was on the clock when they went for it. But came up empty on both sites.

gowazzu02":snm3wvq1 said:

slight tangent, both ESPN and NFL .com stink. I tried to find the "drive by drive" view to find exactly how much time was on the clock when they went for it. But came up empty on both sites.

Click to expand...

It was with 5:02 left in the 3rd quarter....I found the play by play on nfl.com is up as normal for me.

[urltargetblank]http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2016091109/2016/REG1/dolphins@seahawks#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000700748&tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay[/urltargetblank]

The "Bevell" pass was horrid.

Petes not going to change, he will trust Bevell even when he shouldn't.

The only excuse I will give him is that our offensive line doesn't get alot of favorable matchups i.e. being better than the defensive line they are facing, which makes getting that one yard on fourth harder. That's really the only reason for a pass and then still Bevell likes to call these "before-the-yard-to-gain" pass plays which are super obnoxious because it makes everything close.

I couldn't handle Bevell if I was coach he would have been gone after the superb owl.

I thought they should put in Boykin in an obvious sneak alignment then have him option pitch it to Rawls/Michael

Year of The Hawk":2inx31y7 said:

I remember a San Francisco game when it was 4th down and we were about to kick a long field goal and changed minds. We threw a bomb TD. Sometimes it works. It is also about what the defense gives you. If the defense is geared up for run and you have man coverage it is not a dumb play to pass. Maybe possible bad execution or maybe good defense might ruins things.

Click to expand...

Haush said he couldn't hit it.Russell even called him out.I agree with op.Too many times 3 would have changed the situational football at the later part of games.we are a grind team .we cause accumulated damage in a game of attrition.take the points.

kidhawk":2fhi6qsc said:

gowazzu02":2fhi6qsc said:

slight tangent, both ESPN and NFL .com stink. I tried to find the "drive by drive" view to find exactly how much time was on the clock when they went for it. But came up empty on both sites.

Click to expand...

It was with 5:02 left in the 3rd quarter....I found the play by play on nfl.com is up as normal for me.

[urltargetblank]http://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2016091109/2016/REG1/dolphins@seahawks#menu=gameinfo%7CcontentId%3A0ap3000000700748&tab=analyze&analyze=playbyplay[/urltargetblank]

Click to expand...

Many thanks.

5 Minutes left in the third. You take the points. You have a minimum of 3 maybe 4 possessions left. Don't worry about being up less then a td at that point.

Yeah, the way the D was playing, going up 6 would have been huge. We were limiting Miami to field goals, and even if they do score a touchdown, being down 10-9 rather than 10-6 means you only need a FG to win, rather than needing the endzone.

I'm always amazed by teams that pass up easy field goals when they should take the points. WSU had the same situation over the weekend where Leach passed up a close field goal and then they failed to convert on 4th down. That came back to bite them hard at the end of the game. cause they lost by 3.

I don't agree completely. It seemed to me that halfway into the 3rd it was worth the risk to burn more clock out. It was obviously going to be a low scoring affair. A first down there, followed by a score would have shortened the game significantly. We can complain about the playcalls, and moan about execution and all, but I don't see the strategy as being worthy of fault. As it was, it didn't cost us a lot.

I remember not having a large issue with it at the time. :229031_shrug:

I think it was the right decision and the wrong playcall. We should be able to trust our interior and Christine Michael to pick up 2 inches on 4th down.

It's also worth considering that Hauschka missed an extra point later in the game due to a protection breakdown by Sowell. Not to mention that 48 yard field goals aren't automatic, especially with our current long snapper.

sutz":292w3io6 said:

I don't agree completely. It seemed to me that halfway into the 3rd it was worth the risk to burn more clock out. It was obviously going to be a low scoring affair. A first down there, followed by a score would have shortened the game significantly. We can complain about the playcalls, and moan about execution and all, but I don't see the strategy as being worthy of fault. As it was, it didn't cost us a lot.

I remember not having a large issue with it at the time. :229031_shrug:

Click to expand...

Well there you go. the other side of the coin is IF you convert, go down and get a TD. you have potentially stepped on their throat. I don't hate being aggressive. I just think PC needs to think big picture. We are a grind it out team. I prefer to take the points to help with the grind.....

gowazzu02":tux7wxlg said:

sutz":tux7wxlg said:

I don't agree completely. It seemed to me that halfway into the 3rd it was worth the risk to burn more clock out. It was obviously going to be a low scoring affair. A first down there, followed by a score would have shortened the game significantly. We can complain about the playcalls, and moan about execution and all, but I don't see the strategy as being worthy of fault. As it was, it didn't cost us a lot.

I remember not having a large issue with it at the time. :229031_shrug:

Click to expand...

Well there you go. the other side of the coin is IF you convert, go down and get a TD. you have potentially stepped on their throat. I don't hate being aggressive. I just think PC needs to think big picture. We are a grind it out team. I prefer to take the points to help with the grind.....

Click to expand...

And.....if we take the FG and they get the ball back and score a TD, they win the exchange by 4 points in a close game.

We could go back and forth with this all day.

Happens all the time. When it works it's brilliant, when it doesn't work it sucks. :laugh:

sutz":1w9nbtqv said:

[We could go back and forth with this all day.

Happens all the time. When it works it's brilliant, when it doesn't work it sucks. :laugh:

Click to expand...

Exactly, sutz.

If we'd gained the 1st down and either a subsequent TD or FG, PC would have been applauded for his aggressiveness by many posters on here, for putting his foot on the pedal and not letting up.

Even in a win, the coaching staff can't really win. Give the ball to Russ and let him call his own plays and audibles (that he and Bevell have already worked out, BTW).

It's a tough job; I'm glad I don't do it.

Mike McCarthy took the points twice in the 2014 NFC Championship Game.

On his way to choking away the game.

Conservative calls ensure nothing. With gutsier calls, the Packers are probably in the Super Bowl.

DavidSeven":1r6vatbu said:

Mike McCarthy took the points twice in the 2014 NFC Championship Game.

On his way to choking away the game.

Conservative calls ensure nothing. With gutsier calls, the Packers are probably in the Super Bowl.

Click to expand...

the Packers haven't fielded the league's top scoring defense four consecutive seasons.

against a team that hasn't been able to do anything all day long minus one 50 year play on broken coverage that has only put up 3 points, nullify their only score with another 3 points.

methinks pete was thinking too much about losing 10-9 and starting the season off with another blown 4th quarter lead. Which was almost the case. But even though our guys came through with a TD either way, It woulda been a lot less stressful to know we only needed a field goal.

Especially with Russel hurting and our Def playing lights out - a no brainer.

Seriously didn't get it - won't get into Bevell's play call.