Should Daniels have gone down?

[99topdawg]

In the game thread, I pointed out that, if Daniels had gone down on his long run at the end of the game after he got the first down, we could have just taken knees to end the game. I didn't really feel it was necessary at the time, but just pointed it out for the sake of discussion. As the end of the game progressed, though, I got to thinking that it may have been a good idea. What say you?

 

[Floridahawkeye1]

Fall Down on the one? Did MN have a t.o. left? Can't recall that, sorry.
Our prevent d. certainly didn't prevent crap.
JJ certainly didn't help the cause by head-slapping the q.b. 15 yds..

 

[kcskip]

In the game thread, I pointed out that, if Daniels had gone down on his long run at the end of the game after he got the first down, we could have just taken knees to end the game. I didn't really feel it was necessary at the time, but just pointed it out for the sake of discussion. As the end of the game progressed, though, I got to thinking that it may have been a good idea. What say you?

I say absolutely he should have gone down. He put 6 on the board but handed the reigns over to MN. Since they had no timeouts there was nothing they could have done had we kept the ball. However, if I'm LD and all the sudden I've got open field ahead of me, I'd probably run it in too.

 

[proudhawkfan21]

Nope you go up 12 with 2 minutes to play

 

[uihawk82]

I say yes you go down at the 20 after you know you have the first down but Daniels is a young player and has probably never been coached to do this.

Minny had no time outs left and as jNW coach Fitz showed yesterday you can run out 2:01 of clock by taking a knee in that situation. But if you think it is possible to fumble away a snap when in the victory formation then you tell your runners to score.

I yelled at him to go down and people around me said no they lliked the TD, But then the same people almost had heart issues after minny scored in 45 seconds and lined up for an onside kick.

 

[deanvogs]

Take points whenever you can get them. I don't want some kid trying to calculate in his head the score, the time remaining, and how many TO the other team has and try to figure out if he should fall down at the one or not. Get the ball, hit the hole, run like hellz for the end zone!

 

[Motigerhawk]

We lose 35-33 if he doesn't score. Why is this even a question?

 

[TychoBrahe]

Take points whenever you can get them. I don't want some kid trying to calculate in his head the score, the time remaining, and how many TO the other team has and try to figure out if he should fall down at the one or not. Get the ball, hit the hole, run like hellz for the end zone!

Unfortunately, no.

You NEVER give the opposing team the ball back again if you can run out the clock, as Iowa could have last night. Don't any of you remember Iowa-NW back in 2006, when we were up about 2 TDs late in the 4th? NW scores a TD, gets an onside kick, scores another TD, and we lost, boom.

All we needed was to get a first down, and we win. It's really on the coaches (and by proxy CJB) to tell his players: get the first down, but don't score, and we win. It's hard to blame the kid for scoring, but obviously he should've gone down and not given the Gophers the ball back again.

 

[HawksMN]

We lose 35-33 if he doesn't score. Why is this even a question?

Bullcrap statement, he picked up 1st down easily, we just kill the clock.

 

[ssckelley]

Just a thought but are style points coming into play here? It sucked Minnesota scored again as that 40-28 score looked sexy at the time.

 

[99topdawg]

We lose 35-33 if he doesn't score. Why is this even a question?

If he doesn't score, but gets the 1st down, we take 3 knees and the clock's out and we win 33-28.

 

[Cyhawk]

There is no chance any kid will give up a touchdown in that situation. Take the points and celebrate!

 

[uihawk82]

We lose 35-33 if he doesn't score. Why is this even a question?

No we dont if we can take a knee 3 times. Three knees takes up well over 2 minutes, Four 40 second play clocks is 40 seconds + 40 + 40 + 40.

To do this you have to coach and play thinking you can take a knee 3 times without almost zero chance of losing a fumble.

 

[Hawkize31]

Can't blame Daniels for scoring, but yes, he absolutely should have gone down at about the 5. We would have been able to take 3 knees and end the game.

 

[Floridahawkeye1]

Well, if you do score don't play shadow defense. If no timeouts, hmm??
Yes you tell kids not to score....example, an interception, game over, fall down run clock out. It happens all the time.
This case, we thought MN was finished.. Wrong.

 

[MikeyLikesIowa]

We lose 35-33 if he doesn't score. Why is this even a question?

No, we would've won 33-28 because we would've run the victory formation to run the clock out. Minny wouldn't get the ball back so they couldn't score. In hindsight, LDJ going down probably would've been the better choice, but I certainly don't consider the TD run a mistake.

In short, LDJ going down effectively seals the win. LDJ scoring the TD gives Minny the ball back along with a chance (albeit a very small one) to score a TD, recover the onside kick, and score another TD.

If Minny had recovered the onside kick and scored the second TD, we most likely lose 35-33 the way our defense was playing. A lot more people would be talking about this if that had happened. But as it stands, we won the game so it is pointless to debate the topic at this point.

We're 10-0 and never have been before. Enjoy the ride folks!

 

[Thawki]

Nope you go up 12 with 2 minutes to play

You are completely wrong.

You don't blame him for not going down. But he really should have. There was a time in an NFL game a couple of years ago where the same thing happened and the back went down.

The situation comes up every so often. We could have run the clock out if he had gone down. They could have won the game the way it played out if they had recovered the onside kick and drove down for a score. They didn't even need an extra point to do that.

Given all of that, yes, he should have gone down. I don't see how you can argue the point.

 

[TychoBrahe]

You are completely wrong.

You don't blame him for not going down. But he really should have. There was a time in an NFL game a couple of years ago where the same thing happened and the back went down.

The situation comes up every so often. We could have run the clock out if he had gone down. They could have won the game the way it played out if they had recovered the onside kick and drove down for a score. They didn't even need an extra point to do that.

Given all of that, yes, he should have gone down. I don't see how you can argue the point.

Didn't a play like this happen in the last Giants-Patriotis Super Bowl? Giants scored really late, with the Pats basically letting the Giants' RB into the end zone, so the Pats could get the ball back with a slim chance, but the chance was there, of them scoring and the Giants never getting the ball back again. I also saw Maryland come THIS CLOSE to losing to Miami a few years back when a DB scored a TD on a pick when he should've gone down. Instead, Miami scores, get the onside kick, and almost won.

 

[hawkinn3]

Nope you go up 12 with 2 minutes to play

If you can't hold that lead you don't deserve to win. Plus, they couldn't quite run out the clock. Who would be shocked to see us miss a FG and give minny a shot to win?

 

[Floridahawkeye1]

Against Indiana and MN, same story.
Bend and break. Not playing to win.
Stand around defense. Come on!