Lions vs. Packers GDT (Week 14)

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

I made this thread to ask this question: why don't teams kick FGs earlier?

After that great Agnew return, we were down by 10 with two timeouts and 3:21 left in the game. Why not just kick the 45ish yard FG on first down and save time on the clock?

[Sllim Pickens]

13 hours ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I made this thread to ask this question: why don't teams kick FGs earlier?

After that great Agnew return, we were down by 10 with two timeouts and 3:21 left in the game. Why not just kick the 45ish yard FG on first down and save time on the clock?

Agreed.  Maybe take a shot or two at the end zone but then kick it. Especially with 2 TOs, I would have been trying my best to score before the 2 Min warning so we could stop the clock and get it back with about 1:45 left.  

[Karnage84]

Any thoughts on the two close calls between the Marvin catch and the onside kick?

[Ripline]

I thought the refs got the calls correct. Nothing definitive to overturn the call on either play.

[Karnage84]

29 minutes ago, Ripline said:

I thought the refs got the calls correct. Nothing definitive to overturn the call on either play.

What about the initial call in the first place, especially on Marvin? Do you think it was the right call that it wasn't a catch?

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 hour ago, Karnage84 said:

What about the initial call in the first place, especially on Marvin? Do you think it was the right call that it wasn't a catch?

I thought the initial call on Marvin was a really tough call to make. I have no problem with the initial call being incomplete. (Based on the replay standard, keeping it incomplete after review was also the correct call. I do think it was a catch, and, if initially ruled a catch, would've stood after review.) Tough call. Very close.

My bigger officiating gripe was the holding call on the Daniels' scramble and the lack of a holding call on the Rodgers' scramble. It's the exact same play, and the edge player on both plays was held. One call removed a TD and the other no-call granted a TD. I hate that stuff.

(From a coaching perspective, letting the two minute warning happen before kicking a FG was 100% inexcusable.)

[diehardlionfan]

18 hours ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

I made this thread to ask this question: why don't teams kick FGs earlier?

After that great Agnew return, we were down by 10 with two timeouts and 3:21 left in the game. Why not just kick the 45ish yard FG on first down and save time on the clock?

I wouldn’t do that.

You have to score two TD’s to win the game. Settling for a FG with 3:21 left is playing for a tie.

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

23 minutes ago, diehardlionfan said:

I wouldn’t do that.

You have to score two TD’s to win the game. Settling for a FG with 3:21 left is playing for a tie.

So, I have to ask: if you're down 24-21 with 3 seconds left and the ball on the opponents 10 yard line, are you throwing into the end zone or kicking a field goal?

[LionArkie]

4 hours ago, Karnage84 said:

Any thoughts on the two close calls between the Marvin catch and the onside kick?

I thought they were both good calls.  I didn't think Marvin had both feet down, and at the very least, I didn't think it was enough to over turn it.  It was so close though. The onside I saw really quick and didn't watch the replay, but I thought he was out. I'd have to look closer at that one.

[LionArkie]

9 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

So, I have to ask: if you're down 24-21 with 3 seconds left and the ball on the opponents 10 yard line, are you throwing into the end zone or kicking a field goal?

If the argument is just to demonstrate teams play for ties then ok, I guess I get it, but I don't think this is a fair comparison otherwise.

You need the TD and you have the momentum swing after a good return. I think a TD could swing the game in your favor.

If you go for the FG, you have to give the ball back to GB and get their offense of the field quickly. I don't think that happens the way our D was playing. If it does happen, you have to drive the length of the field to get the TD.  The other way, you have to get to about the 40 for a chance. With all this in mind, I don't like going for the fg for the sake of going for it. Either way, your battling the clock and the scoring deficit.

[Ripline]

53 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

I thought they were both good calls.  I didn't think Marvin had both feet down, and at the very least, I didn't think it was enough to over turn it.  It was so close though. The onside I saw really quick and didn't watch the replay, but I thought he was out. I'd have to look closer at that one.

This is my thought exactly

The onside kick was really poor camera work. Nothing to overturn that one. I thought he was out of bounds when he got control of the ball as well. Both good calls.

[Sllim Pickens]

42 minutes ago, LionArkie said:

If the argument is just to demonstrate teams play for ties then ok, I guess I get it, but I don't think this is a fair comparison otherwise.

You need the TD and you have the momentum swing after a good return. I think a TD could swing the game in your favor.

If you go for the FG, you have to give the ball back to GB and get their offense of the field quickly. I don't think that happens the way our D was playing. If it does happen, you have to drive the length of the field to get the TD.  The other way, you have to get to about the 40 for a chance. With all this in mind, I don't like going for the fg for the sake of going for it. Either way, your battling the clock and the scoring deficit.

The point is that there are three minutes left and its a two possession game.  Either way you need an onside kick (very low success rate) or give their offense a chance.  In the long run, we ran out of time because we wasted over 2 mins moving closer for a FG.  I would rather play for the chance to tie with 3 mins to go than to lose or depend on an onsides kick.  If time isn't a factor, sure you go for the TD, or if you have three timeouts left and the two minute warning, than sure.  

I can agree I would not instantly kick it, but I would take some shots at the end zone, or longer shots down the field and make sure that you are giving them the ball back with us having two time outs and the 2 min warning left to stop the clock. 

[TL-TwoWinsAway]

1 hour ago, Sllim Pickens said:

The point is that there are three minutes left and its a two possession game.  Either way you need an onside kick (very low success rate) or give their offense a chance.  In the long run, we ran out of time because we wasted over 2 mins moving closer for a FG.  I would rather play for the chance to tie with 3 mins to go than to lose or depend on an onsides kick.  If time isn't a factor, sure you go for the TD, or if you have three timeouts left and the two minute warning, than sure.  

I can agree I would not instantly kick it, but I would take some shots at the end zone, or longer shots down the field and make sure that you are giving them the ball back with us having two time outs and the 2 min warning left to stop the clock. 

This, completely.

My view on things: you're down by 10 points with 3:30 left. You are in field goal range. You NEED to leave that drive with either a TD or a FG.

You need two possessions. Regardless of whether you kick a FG or score a TD, you need a defensive stop. If you turn the ball over, the game is lost.

At that point in the game, the clock is crucial. I'm starting to develop the mindset that kicking the FG and saving one minute of clock is far more valuable than attempting to move the ball. Now, safe "put only where my guy can get it" end zone shots? Absolutely. Put one up. You, again, run the risk of getting sacked and knocked out of FG range, but, yeah, try one.

But you NEED at least a FG and you NEED time. Wasting time to try for a TD is, to me, the wrong approach.

[LionArkie]

3 minutes ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

This, completely.

My view on things: you're down by 10 points with 3:30 left. You are in field goal range. You NEED to leave that drive with either a TD or a FG.

You need two possessions. Regardless of whether you kick a FG or score a TD, you need a defensive stop. If you turn the ball over, the game is lost.

At that point in the game, the clock is crucial. I'm starting to develop the mindset that kicking the FG and saving one minute of clock is far more valuable than attempting to move the ball. Now, safe "put only where my guy can get it" end zone shots? Absolutely. Put one up. You, again, run the risk of getting sacked and knocked out of FG range, but, yeah, try one.

But you NEED at least a FG and you NEED time. Wasting time to try for a TD is, to me, the wrong approach.

I respect this, I just disagree.

My view is this, you have to drive the length of the field to get a chance of the td and anything can happen. To get the TD, you need two things:

1) Field position

2) Number of downs (to increase the chance of a fresh set of downs and get into the end zone).

If you have multiple downs and are on the right side of the 50, you've won half the battle to getting to a TD.  You need a TD and a fg. There is no arguing this. It is a lot easier to come by getting in proximity for a game winning fg, than it is to give yourself that chance twice in terms of field position. As much as time doesn't need to be wasted, neither do early downs with field position. If anything, with 3 minutes left you better be using sideline passes to conserve the clock.

With two possessions, I'm going to take what is given to me and not try to force my hand into a hail mary at the end because I need the td. If I throw 3 downs and get out of bounds or incomplete, I have not wasted much clock and allowed myself to naturally come by the fg. If I get the td first, I can work towards the fg or td improving my play calling.

Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I would think the statistics would pose there is a higher probability to get a gw fg then a td. But as I said, I could be wrong.

[diehardlionfan]

4 hours ago, TL-TwoWinsAway said:

So, I have to ask: if you're down 24-21 with 3 seconds left and the ball on the opponents 10 yard line, are you throwing into the end zone or kicking a field goal?

All things being equal I’m kicking the field goal. The reason......because I’m not getting the ball back.

In your scenario plenty of time and two scores to win. With that much time you don’t play for a tie. One of which they got with 2:03 remaining but it got called back because of a penalty on Nelson.

Edited December 14, 2020 by diehardlionfan