The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I didn't get a chance to see the game yet, I'm hoping that the NFL channell will show it on replay, but looking over the play by play according to it the Dolphins kicked the FG at the end of the game on 2nd down. Is that correct? Why would they decide to kick a FG on 2nd down rather than take a shot into the endzone right there? Did they worry about a sack taking them out of FG range possibly? Just curious as I haven't seen any mention of it.

They needed 10 points and had no time out. It wasn't a bad choice. Get the easy 3 that you need no matter what and then try an onside kick, as opposed to using more time first trying to get into the end zone. -EK

They needed 10,  FG + TD.  Kick the FG then do the onside kick.  It is actually possible to score a TD on an onside kick.   

I thought it was lunacy at first, but in hindsight it seemed OK.  I would have rather they took a shot or two at the end zone, but it would have just made the score closer.  Either way you have to get a TD and a FG.  I guess they thought it was better to get the FG when you can line it up with the clock stopped than having to rush with the clock ticking and the game on the line.

In the end, it all comes down to the onside kick, either way.

I'm not saying it was a bad choice, I'm just curious why it was on 2nd down? Seems like they could have taken a couple more shots into the endzone, not lost much time and still kicked the FG if they don't get it. Again, I didn't see the game so not sure what happened on 1st down, I knew they threw an incomplete pass, but was it a risky pass or something possibly? I'm not looking to challenge the play calling, more trying to explain the thought process behind it.

True, but typically when you are that close you want to try to get the TD first and then hope for a long FG to tie rather than vice versa.

Kicking the FG is absolutely the right call.  You can still have an opportunity for a TD from midfield.  You can't kick a FG from there.  The Dolphins best chance to win the game was to kick the FG, recover the kick, and then use every available second trying to get a TD from anywhere on the field.

Yes, that is typical.  Don't think either appoach is superior or inferior.  E.g. I don't think the Dolphin's coach was either briliant or a moron for his approach.  It was and 6 of one, half a dozen of the other.  Just cause he choose the path less traveled doesn't make it good or bad.  But it does say he is willing to think outside the box.  

I'm not so sure about that. Yes, you CAN get a TD from anywhere on the field, but you can't tell me that a 24 yard pass doesn't have a better chance at scoring than a 50 yard pass does. Hail Mary's don't have a great success rate. Now neither do 55 yard FG's, but they have a better success rate than Hail Mary's. And if you throw an incomplete pass on 2nd down you can still kick the FG on 3rd or 4th down. I'm just curious why it was 2nd down. Did something happen on 1st down that might make you reconsider trying another pass? Was it nearly intercepted on 1st down? Was Tannehill nearly sacked which would then threaten the FG attempt? Did Philbin say anything? I'm looking for an answer from a game situation type stance, not simply that you need 10 points and need to kick a FG. I get that, but it doesn't have to be on 2nd down.

Again, I'm NOT questioning the call. I'm just curious if Philbin said something or perhaps something happened on 1st down that would lead him to make the decision he did on 2nd down. I mean why 2nd down? Why not 1st down if you are gonna go that route? He decided to take 1 shot. Why not 2? Why not 3? I'm not criticizing the call in any way, I'm just trying to understand Philbin's thought process.

Right, but you can still attempt to go down the field first, before the hail mary.  You have more options if you kick first.

Option 1:
Kick the FG now.  Assuming you make the onside kick, you have 4 downs and reasonable time to go 50 yards.

Option 2:
Go for the TD.  Since it will likely use up your time, assuming you make the onside kick, you don't have the time to go the 25 yards you need and still have time to make the kick.

Anything can happen, but statistically, option 1 gives you the best odds to win.

I think it has something to do with the clock being stopped and no need for TO to kick it.  

10 points is 10 points either way.

You can throw into the endzone twice and only take off maybe 10 seconds and if you manage to score, then you only need to get to around the 40 yard line to try a long FG to tie, you don't need to go 60 yards for a TD.

I would agree if there were like 10 seconds left instead of 30, but you think you can get 60 yards and TD in 30 seconds but you CAN'T get 25 and a FG in 20?

Maybe he wanted to help the Fin fans that had money on the game, FG covered the spread.  If he went for a TD there might have been and int. 

Well that's more along the lines of what I was thinking. Didn't like the odds of possibly throwing a pick or taking a sack and coming up with zero points there and wanted to take the 3, get to within a score and see what happens. That I can see, was just curious if that was the thinking or something else.

There, fixed it Hoodie.

I was being faciscous. (sp?) I really doubt betting had anything to do with it. 

No, I know betting had nothing to do with the decision, but it does seem like he was concerned about not getting any points right there. To me that's the only thing you are risking at that point by trying to get it into the endzone is the FG try. Maybe Philbin just thinks you take the 3 easy points and save as much time as possible, but then why the 1 shot into the endzone on 1st down? It's not a big deal, I was just curious and wondering if anybody knew rather than us all just guessing.

I think he went the road less traveled and kicked when he did mostly because we didn't have any timeouts. 

I don't. The Dolphins as a home dog was the money play. Backdoor cover anyone ?

That's if you go directly to the endzone twice.  What happens if you check down or get sacked?  It essentially ends the game.  Also, dumps offs to the sideline don't even help you because even if you get out of bounds, you're still kicking a FG.  Also, someone else said, with a stopped clock, you don't have to move up/set the ball and spike.

Well you don't check it down, if the receiver isn't open in the endzone you throw it out the back of the endzone. Basically the same thing on a sack, if the QB feels pressure he throws it away. Yes, of course things can and do go wrong, but basically you're asking your QB to be smart with the football there and if he is there's not a lot of risk really. I was just curious and I'm kinda shocked that no one has the answer. I figured that would have been one of the first questions that was put to Philbin and somebody would have heard his response, but it doesn't sound like it.

It was a pretty terrible decision.  You can take two shots at the endzone instead of kicking.  10 points only gets them a tie.  I can see the decision being less terrible if they were only down 9 points.

A sack on 2nd down ends the game.  I imagine that's why he kicked it.

lots of things end the game.  one of the downsides of being down multiple scores with under 1 minute left in the game.

I don't know about that, you would still have time to spike the ball and kick the FG on 4th down. It sure hurts your chances of winning I will agree, but your chances of winning were already pretty small.

I forget...was Miami out of timeouts at this point?

I agreed with taking the FG at this point.  As Badger said earlier, 10 points is 10 points.  Might as well get the 3 now.  I just can't remember if we had any TO left.

Yes

I don't disagree, I'm just curious why they took 1 shot, but not 2. Miami did try to score on 1st down but the ball was incomplete. I was just curious why they decided to take only 1 shot and then kick the FG when it would seem you still have at least 1 more down to take a shot at it. I was in no way opposed to kicking the FG there, heck if they kicked the FG on first down I wouldn't have been opposed, I was just curious as to why they took the 1 shot on 1st down and then decided to take the FG on 2nd down.

I believe the logic is trying to save as much time as possible for the second score.  You gave it a shot, but instead of throwing good money after bad, so to speak, just get quick points.  Another 10 or more seconds could easily have ticked down, and Philbin must have thought the sure thing was the most efficient use of his time left.

Yes they were.  They used them all and the 2 minute warning during the Patriots' 8 minute drive.

I liked the decision myself and thought it was pretty smart. They needed two scores and didn't waste any time getting the first score. This maximized the opportunity to get a second if they successfully pulled off the onside kick .. IMO.

You kick the FG to extend the game. A coaches job when he is losing is to extend the game at all costs to give his team a shot to win.