Why didn't we kick the fieldgoal?

[Ranucci's Big Butt BBQ]

I don't understand when you are down by ten and need 2 scores why you don't take the 3 points then go for the on-sides kick. They should have done this when they were in range and not waste time, but not to do it on 4th down was plain stupid. God I hope we keep Jon Fox for at least another 10 years.

[rico6]

It was foolish in hindsight, but would you really want to face New Orleans Offense in a One-Score Overtime?

[Captroop]

No it's not stupid. They drove the length of the field already. You're right there, you try to punch it in.

If they kicked the FG, then they would have to recover an on-side kick and drive the entire length of the field again! There's no way they can do that in 40 seconds.

Conversely, if they get the touchdown, and recover the onside kick, all they have to do is get to the Saints 30 yard line to get in position to make a reasonable game-tying field goal attempt. Considering you kick the onside kick 10 yards, that means you got it at your 40 to start with. So that's a 30-yard drive, as opposed to a 60 yard drive. 30 yards is a lot easier to get in 40 seconds than 60.

And if you don't understand the difference between a 30 and a 60-yard-drive, then you probably don't understand why I still blame John Kasay for Super Bowl XXXVIII.

[Ranucci's Big Butt BBQ]

So you go for it on 4th down instead of taking the 3 points you still need to try and at least tie it?

[Guild]

Captroop is 100% correct don't even try to argue or you are an effing idiot.

Edit: No offense to the OP. Legitimate question if you don't already know the answer.

[RockyTopVol]

Nah. I think it was the right move to try and go for it when they did. They had to make a decision that would put the team in the best position to win the game. Even if we had gotten an onside kick back, it would have been highly unlikely that we could have gotten back into a position like we were in so close to the goalline.

[Ranucci's Big Butt BBQ]

Guess I'm an effing idiot since 3 points puts you on your way to tying the game. Going for it on 4th and not making it does what? Anyone, Bueller? Ohhh yeah, doesn't even give you a chance. Let me repeat that in case you read to fast. Doesn't even give you a shot in hell, game over.

[RockyTopVol]

Guess I'm an effing idiot since 3 points puts you on your way to tying the game. Going for it on 4th and not making it does what? Anyone, Bueller? Ohhh yeah, doesn't even give you a chance. Let me repeat that in case you read to fast. Doesn't even give you a shot in hell, game over.

At least you can accept it.

[Guild]

Guess I'm an effing idiot since 3 points puts you on your way to tying the game. Going for it on 4th and not making it does what? Anyone, Bueller? Ohhh yeah, doesn't even give you a chance. Let me repeat that in case you read to fast. Doesn't even give you a shot in hell, game over.

LOL.

Seriously though they had to go for it because if they had gotten it AND recovered an onside kick then they would only have to drive 30 yards to get in likely field goal range to tie instead of 60 Yards to the end zone which is incredibly unlikely to do in 40 seconds especially considering we can't hit a long pass to save our lives.

Also if they had succeeded when they went for it then the chance of actually winning and not going to overtime would have increased from 0% to at least some small number.

I hope this shows you why settling for a field goal there instead of going for it was a losing proposition.

[Ranucci's Big Butt BBQ]

I must have missed the end of the game, how did that work out for them, did they even get to do an on-sides kick?

[Guild]

I must have missed the end of the game, how did that work out for them, did they even get to do an on-sides kick?

Well you are right in that going for it on fourth also made us lose but in a lose-lose I'll pick the choice that offers even a slight chance to win or bring the game to overtime versus the choice that offers no chance (which is the field goal that you think we should have kicked).

I've said all that I can about this, if you don't see my point (and Captroop's point) by now then we are just too fundamentally different mentally to understand each others opinion on this.

[RockyTopVol]

Dude, the opposite of open-minded is defensive. So chill. You aren't even trying to consider how you may be wrong. Wait...is this my wife?

If they couldn't score a TD from inside the ten yard line, how would they have scored one from the 50 with no time left on the clock, when the Saints are back in the Prevent?

The coaches went for the best option to realistically put us in place to win the game. Obviously they meant to score on 4th down, but didn't.

[Kevin Greene]

I don't understand when you are down by ten and need 2 scores why you don't take the 3 points then go for the on-sides kick. They should have done this when they were in range and not waste time, but not to do it on 4th down was plain stupid. God I hope we keep Jon Fox for at least another 10 years.

I think it would have been legit to kick a field goal with 53 seconds left and the ball on the 20. Then go for an onside kick. But by the time 4th down came around only 22 seconds were left, much of the time used because the coaches inexplicably called a running play, then had to spike the ball. With a filed goal attempt and a kickoff there would only have been time for one Hail Mary left.

I see your point, you need 2 scores, doesn't matter what order they come in. The coaching decisions made it a mute point however.

[Ranucci's Big Butt BBQ]

Rockytop, you are correct, I'm totally wrong in that getting 3 points on that drive still gives them a chance to extend the game and possibly win or tie. Is that chill enough? Thanks for being open minded as well and looking at it from the other side.

Believe me, I see your points but it didn't make much sense on 4th down, 2 scores is 2 scores and not getting one leaves you with a certain loss.