The New York Giants currently sit at 2-8, falling 24-20 to the Chicago Bears following a fourth quarter collapse.
This was the fourth time the Giants have collapsed in the fourth quarter this season, and it all seemed to hinge on a single moment. This time, it was the decision by Brian Daboll to adhere to conventional wisdom and kick a field goal on 4th & Goal from the 1/2 yard line, rather than try for a touchdown.
Immediately after the game, we asked the Big Blue View community what you thought of the decision.
The results were split to say the least. Many fans thought the Giants should have gone for the touchdown:
On the other hand, there are fans that believe taking the points to go up by 10 was the correct decision, and the defense should be able to defend a two possession lead with 10 minutes remaining.
Raptor’s thoughts
I understand the arguments for taking the points, and I don’t necessarily think the decision is “wrong”. However, I believed going for the touchdown would have been the correct choice, and it doesn’t have much to do with analytics.
The fact that teams that go for it in those situations tend to have more favorable outcomes is reassuring. But for me, I’d err on the side of aggressiveness for one simple reason: I’m playing to win the game, not simply to not-lose it. To me, passing up the the (potential) touchdown from the half-yard line and taking the (almost) guaranteed field goal is the same as playing a “prevent defense” when the other team needs a touchdown to tie or win.
It’s the “by the book” decision, but it doesn’t take psychological factors into account.
Being aggressive and going for it tells your whole team — offense and defense — that you trust them to go win the game. And while I understand that losing Jaxson Dart took pages out of your offensive playbook, there were still plenty of ways to pick up 18 inches. And if you fail to score, the defense would have been in the best possible position to get the ball back with good field position for your offense to burn more clock and try to score again.
The flip side of it is that the Bears were only down 10 points. Yes, they scored two touchdowns, but that was with the safety net of knowing they didn’t need to do so. Being down 10 points means that the field was inherently shorter on one of their drives. They only needed to drive for one touchdown and a short drive for a field goal to go to overtime. There was plenty of time to do so, which kept their playbook open and the pressure off of their players to execute perfectly. Having that extra wiggle room also meant that the Giants’ defense had to execute better to compensate.
I understand why Daboll made the decision he did, and like I said, I don’t think it was necessarily wrong, but certainly not the decision I would make. I suppose I would rather go down swinging.
Valentine’s View
I am a little bit like Chris on this one, in that I would have understood either decision. Where I am different is that my immediate reaction to the choice Daboll made to take the three points rather than go for the seven points was that it was fine.
Yes, a 14-point lead is better than a 10-point lead. That’s obvious. With Russell Wilson at quarterback instead of Jaxson Dart and the Giants not exactly run-blocking well, would you honestly have felt good about the Giants’ chance to punch in a touchdown there? I would not have. A 10-point lead is better than a 7-point lead.
My feeling was the field goal still made it a 10-point game with 10 minutes to play. The Giants should have been able to protect that. It was still a 10-point lead with 6:13 to play and the Bears had the ball at their own 9-yard line. It’s inexcusable to give up the game in that circumstance.
I understand Daboll’s decision. I also understand the viewpoint of those of you who disagree. Does anyone, though, disagree with the reality that regardless of that decision the Giants should have been able to hold the lead and win the game?
See More:
