[CBFF] Bad Decision To Go For the FG???

[Victor Waldron (CBFF)]

I think he was putting confidence in both the offense and the defense, 
just not in the way you are suggesting. Lovie must have believed the D 
would make a stop and that the offense would be able to drive down field 
again. I don't think we're arguing about "ifs," rather about trends. 
More time than not the D makes the stop, and against the Pats the O had 
been able to move the ball.

Besides, I don't buy the OT argument. In the 4th Q you generally play 
for the win on the road and the tie at home . Plus this wasn't a "must 
win" for us. I'm not saying it's an excuse to throw a game away, but it 
allows you to take what I'd call a reasonable risk to win a tough game. 
I applaud Lovie for giving Rex the chance to win the game, too bad it 
didn't work out. Put this in the "learning experience" column and next 
time we win.

V

Steve Behrens wrote:
> I understand what your saying, but playing for OT isn't playing for a tie
> like you kind of make it sound... They're still playing for the win, but in
> this case and in my humble opinion, you're trying to go after it in a less
> chancy way... because I think it was a huge 'if', as in ''if' we can stop
> them, then 'if' we can drive down and make a game winning TD.
>
> It could be splitting hairs, but IMO, the less 'Iffy' proposition was to go
> for the TD that you needed one way or another when your down there.  And
> *then* kick the FG in OT to win it.
>
> Sometimes you have to have confidence in the offence, rather than the
> defense.
>
> -Behr
>
>
>
>
> On 11/28/06, Victor Waldron (CBFF) <victor at chicagobearsfanforum.com> wrote:
>   
>> Well, generally speaking you want to get points when you can. Grabbing 3
>> from that position was a good bet so I can see why we kicked.  Even
>> though we still needed a TD afterwards I think this is what we can
>> expect from Lovie and Co. because he believes in our defense getting the
>> job done. I doubt he was thinking turnover, but definitely one first
>> down at the most and us getting the ball back with some time (which
>> happened, but not exactly according to plan).
>>
>> This game having been on the road, the FG put us in position for a game
>> winning TD........an aggressive move. I guess what you have to consider
>> are the risks/rewards of: 1) not making it on fourth down and having to
>> drive for a game tying TD later, and 2) driving perhaps 80 yards for a
>> TD later, but a TD that would have won the game.
>>
>> That all said, I don't think it was a bad decision considering we were
>> able to move the ball on them for most of the game. The strategy almost
>> backfired because the D didn't hold on the subsequent drive and, of
>> course, the last INT, but I liked that Lovie was playing for the win on
>> the road (instead of OT).
>>
>> V
>>
>>     
>