And that is why you take the freaking points

[Dback Jon]

And the majority of you cheered that decision at the time - including the idiot Wolfley

 

[AZCB34]

And the majority of you cheered that decision at the time - including the idiot Wolfley

Wolfley is a raging moron. Homer to the nth degree.

 

[MaoTosiFanClub]

Don't disagree on going for it there. Playcall eh.

If Kyler refuses to pull it you can't keep calling zone reads.

 

[GoldGloveschmidt]

We did take the points. 6 of them. The refs blew it.

 

[Jetstream Green]

Why are you guys so sure, our kicker sucks and was yelling to go for it on fourth too before the game winning botched kick on cue

 

[Minski]

Plus we went for it later and got a TD so maybe if we just kick FGs in both those situations we come away with 6... not the 7 we did

 

[jmt]

Zane G sucks in the clutch, punto final.

 

[Evil Ash]

And the majority of you cheered that decision at the time - including the idiot Wolfley

Taking the points involves Zane making it. I don't trust him to make an extra point right now

Kirk should've had that TD on 2nd down and this wouldn't have mattered anyways

 

[PJ1]

The Kirk drop screwed the drive. Have to catch that pass.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

The way we have been playing - I wanted the points. Zane can make that kick.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

The way we have been playing - I wanted the points. Zane can make that kick.

You have to trust that your team can get the 6 inches for the TD. If the roles were reversed I would bet anything that BB would have gone for it and probably would have gotten it.

 

[Brian in Mesa]

You have to trust that your team can get the 6 inches for the TD. If the roles were reversed I would bet anything that BB would have gone for it and probably would have gotten it.

Do you trust this team THAT much to risk a guaranteed 3 points? BB did go for it on 4th and ran it in for a TD in THIS game. Much more creative play call than ours. That's on the coaching.

 

[Timm Rosenbach]

I disagree with going for it on 4th down so consistently. It worked very well for the first half of the season but opponents figured it out. I was shaking my head when they didn’t kick the field goal. That being said, Zane Gonzales has cost this team two games and a likely playoff berth and you have to think that the lack of confidence in him contributes to the decisions to “go for it” on 4th.

 

[CardsSunsDbacks]

Do you trust this team THAT much to risk a guaranteed 3 points? BB did go for it on 4th and ran it in for a TD in THIS game. Much more creative play call than ours. That's on the coaching.

I honestly do trust this team to get half a yard. IMO they did get it into the EZ there as well, but the call went against us. If there was simply a good angle of the goal line there we are probably talking about us scoring a TD on that play.

That being said I likely would have gone with a QB sneak as KM should have been able to fall through a crack in the line for the TD. Didn't love the play-call, but the decision to go for it was the right call IMO.

 

[AZ Native]

If you can't move the ball 6 inches in that situation, you don't deserve to win.

 

[Buckybird]

And the majority of you cheered that decision at the time - including the idiot Wolfley

Agreed. Kliff is rolling snake eyes now!

Bottom line is the more you keep gambling on analytical analysis in the NFL, the odds are going to eventually bite you in the rear. Throw that data in the trash imo. Especially when you really aren’t all that as a HC.

Bad coaching decisions in situational NFL football keeps inferior teams in games & often keeps your own from winning

 

[Buckybird]

Almost never give an inferior NFL opponent life. Especially a team that struggles weekly scoring, a team who’s QB plays poor weekly & has trouble moving the ball.

Take the points

If you can't move the ball 6 inches in that situation, you don't deserve to win.

 

[BritCard]

Going for it on 4th and inches was the right call. We score there it's game over and the odds are high to score the TD. Absolutely the right thing to do.

However, it was just a trash play call. The Pats knew exactly what was coming. Let's not forget, we lined up in Jumbo with only Nuk out wide, then the Pats called a time out after having a good look at it, we just milled around, obviously not changing the play, then we lined up the exact same way.

Why wouldn't you change the play during the timeout knowing you need to get the score and having just shown one of the greatest defensive minds what you intend to do? It was just poor from Kliff. And if you are going to do it why do it from shotgun and a standing start? Let's Drake get up some steam first.

Kyler could have ran that in easily. If you watch the replay Nuk could have sealed off Gilmore easily. Hump had Winovich under control. Murray could have run it in to the left no problem.

 

[swagron]

Going for it on 4th and inches was the right call. We score there it's game over and the odds are high to score the TD. Absolutely the right thing to do.

However, it was just a trash play call. The Pats knew exactly what was coming. Let's not forget, we lined up in Jumbo with only Nuk out wide, then the Pats called a time out after having a good look at it, we just milled around, obviously not changing the play, then we lined up the exact same way.

Why wouldn't you change the play during the timeout knowing you need to get the score and having just shown one of the greatest defensive minds what you intend to do? It was just poor from Kliff. And if you are going to do it why do it from shotgun and a standing start? Let's Drake get up some steam first.

Kyler could have ran that in easily. If you watch the reply Nuk could have sealed off Gilmore easily. Hump had Winovich under control. Murray could have run it in to the left no problem.

That’s an awful lot of Monday morning quarterbacking there. You act as though all those were known outcomes prior to the play. The players on this team fail to execute consistently, incur dumb penalties, etc. None of those things were known quantities.

 

[az jam]

I am starting to have serious problems with KK's play calling. He is being out-coached by defense coordinators that surely know the pro game better than him.

 

[BritCard]

That’s an awful lot of Monday morning quarterbacking there. You act as though all those were known outcomes prior to the play. The players on this team fail to execute consistently, incur dumb penalties, etc. None of those things were known quantities.

I'm not saying the players don't have any responsibility.

But it's the coaches job to increase the players odds of success through his decision making, play design and play calling. And Kliff simply doesn't.

There were several things Kliff could have done in that crucial situation to increase the odds of success. Instead he went with the most basic option available.

 

[dylanbw]

Going for it on 4th and inches was the right call. We score there it's game over and the odds are high to score the TD. Absolutely the right thing to do.

However, it was just a trash play call. The Pats knew exactly what was coming. Let's not forget, we lined up in Jumbo with only Nuk out wide, then the Pats called a time out after having a good look at it, we just milled around, obviously not changing the play, then we lined up the exact same way.

Why wouldn't you change the play during the timeout knowing you need to get the score and having just shown one of the greatest defensive minds what you intend to do? It was just poor from Kliff. And if you are going to do it why do it from shotgun and a standing start? Let's Drake get up some steam first.

Kyler could have ran that in easily. If you watch the reply Nuk could have sealed off Gilmore easily. Hump had Winovich under control. Murray could have run it in to the left no problem.

Agreed on all these points. Also, why is Streveler the Leveler on the roster if not for a play were you need 6 inches?? Have him under center, with Drake giving him the Bush Push. Why snap the ball back 15 feet when you need 6 inches? But yes if you are going to snap it to Kyler he needs to use our best asset, pull that ball and run wide.

 

[BritCard]

Agreed on all these points. Also, why is Streveler the Leveler on the roster if not for a play were you need 6 inches?? Have him under center, with Drake giving him the Bush Push. Why snap the ball back 15 feet when you need 6 inches? But yes if you are going to snap it to Kyler he needs to use our best asset, pull that ball and run wide.

At the very least you can put Streveler under center and make the Pats think you are going QB sneak. Maybe that draws the backer over to reinforce the center giving Drake the room to run it in.

This is what I'm saying about it being the coaches job to lay the foundations for the players to succeed. A basic power run in the B gap isn't the coach doing everything they can to help.

Hell, the line backer can't see the ball through the LOS. Even if Kyler hands it off and fakes the outside run maybe it draws the backer over enough that he can't get a full hit on Drake.

There are many things we could have done. It was a bad goal line play design and a bad call.

 

[Proximo]

I don't have a big problem going for it on 4th from a foot away. Any good team should be able to do that 80% of the time.

I think Drake actually did get in, but if the line blocked better it would not be in the hands of the officials.

 

[GimmedaBall]

Which is more likely to succeed? A running play at the 1-yard line or a field goal from the 1-yard line? Neither play is automatic and you can’t assume three points with the field goal try just as you can’t assume punching the ball across the goal from the one. You don’t automatically get to ‘take the points’ even on a 1 yard FG. Both plays have a statistical risk of success/failure.

https://zonecoverage.com/2020/minne...mbers-behind-mike-zimmers-4th-and-1-decision/

https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2013/closer-look-touchdowns-red-zone

Another aspect of the decision is the point in the game where you make the call one way or the other. In the Pats game, Cards were looking to go into the half ahead by 3 points—even if they didn’t succeed with either play. They were getting the ball to start the 2nd half. That becomes part of the chess match decision. If the Cards get the TD at the goal line and then turn around and start the 2nd half with points on their first drive, the Cards would have been up by three scoring possessions (17 points) or two scoring possessions (13 points). The Pats would have been forced into passing to make up the 17 point difference—which would have taken away their offensive strength which is running the ball.

If the Cards don’t score on their first possession of the 2nd half, they would have been up by either 10 points or 6 points. The 10 points is still requires two-possession scoring drives by the Pats. Up by 6 has them behind by either two FGS or puts them ahead with a TD and extra point.

If the Cards go for the FG and make it, they would have been up by 6 at the half. If they open the 2nd half with points, they are up by two scoring possessions either 13 point or 9 points. The Pats would have been able to use their running game to go down the field.

The pay-off on the gamble to go for the TD is to put the Pats behind by 17 points before they get the ball in the second half (assuming the Cards get that TD to start the second half). That would have been a tough challenge to overcome and our D would be able to get after Cam and the passing game.

Now, you can certainly question the play that was called. That’s a different debate over whether to run the ball and try to score the 7.

At some point, the O has to own one-yard past the line-of-scrimmage and be able to take it whenever they need it. If the Cards can’t do that, they really have no chance should they advance into the playoffs. Even if the Cards call out the play and the D knows exactly what is coming, our OL needs to take that one-yard . . . just because. That is snot-knocker time when the OL bullies the DL. That’s the real problem with the failure. We couldn’t take one-yard.