Was Mike Smith's decision to punt the right one?

[antipop]

no matter how the Saints got the ball back, all they were going to was run out the clock....the field position didn't matter.....

it was a stupid decision

 

[King Puppy]

Here's why it was a bad call: http://www.advancednflstats.com/2010/12/should-falcons-have-punted.html

The thought process leading to the decision, not the outcome, determines whether or not it was a good or poor decision. In this case, it was a poor decision. Heck, they beat us in the first game primarily because they went for it and converted on 4th downs.

Granted, I'm happy that Smith chose poorly, but still...

I don't know if it was a "poor" decision. I'm of the opinion that either of the calls would be defensible. Your link says, "the conversion attempt would have been the percentage play, by a margin of 0.23 to 0.15." As the linked piece acknowledges, this conclusion is based upon pure statistical evaluations and not "game specific" considerations. I think such game specific considerations tend to narrow the numbers even more.

A 4th and 6 has a 44% conversion rate. At the risk of stating the obvious, a less than 50/50 conversion number isn't exactly the highest percentage play out there. If Atlanta gets a 3 and out, they're still going to have plenty of time (using two time outs and 2:00 warning) and good field position. It ended up not working out for Atlanta, but their strategy wasn't unsound there.

I honestly think the better play would have been to go for it there, but I don't think it was exactly an indefensible call.

 

[ATL Thumper]

I think any coach would punt with 2:44 left and your defense playing fairly well. You go for it there and fail, you're pretty much ****ed.

 

[DadsDream]

W.hat
W.ould
L.es
M.iles
D.o
?

 

[Paul]

I think it was just a sticky situation, simply based on where the ball was. Anywhere on the other side of the 50, and they go for it, because their defense was playing so well. From where they were, a failed attempt puts us a few yards outside of FG range, and they would have needed a TD (assuming we make the game 20-14), not a FG. I give more credit to the Saints defense than anything, for putting them in such an unenviable position.

 

[SoggyBottomBoy]

I think it was just a sticky situation, simply based on where the ball was. Anywhere on the other side of the 50, and they go for it, because their defense was playing so well. From where they were, a failed attempt puts us a few yards outside of FG range, and they would have needed a TD (assuming we make the game 20-14), not a FG. I give more credit to the Saints defense than anything, for putting them in such an unenviable position.

This. I thought it was a good call. Go for it and don't convert and this morning we have a thread "Why didn't Mike Smith punt the ball on fourth down?"

 

[Sophandros]

I don't know if it was a "poor" decision. I'm of the opinion that either of the calls would be defensible. Your link says, "the conversion attempt would have been the percentage play, by a margin of 0.23 to 0.15." As the linked piece acknowledges, this conclusion is based upon pure statistical evaluations and not "game specific" considerations. I think such game specific considerations tend to narrow the numbers even more.

A 4th and 6 has a 44% conversion rate. At the risk of stating the obvious, a less than 50/50 conversion number isn't exactly the highest percentage play out there. If Atlanta gets a 3 and out, they're still going to have plenty of time (using two time outs and 2:00 warning) and good field position. It ended up not working out for Atlanta, but their strategy wasn't unsound there.

I honestly think the better play would have been to go for it there, but I don't think it was exactly an indefensible call.

It was indefensible when you consider your game situation angle, as the Saints had just gone 92 yards on you. Plus, the Falcons lead the league on first downs by penalty, and the flags had been flying in their favor all night. And then there's the concept that regardless, they have to make the Saints go three and out in order to still have a chance. If your qb is supposed to be "the man", then put it in his hands first, and then trust your defense if he fails.

 

[IceHot]

I think Mike Smith has done an amazing job with the Falcons organization. What a sad sack that club was when handed to him. Still they play very well for their talent level.

But that call I just disagree with. Where the ball was on the field was completely irrelevant. The clock was more relevant...even if we go 3-and-out they still have to score.

You were either getting one more shot with little time left or you were getting just this one shot.

I think he bet against the Saints Offense and basically bet that our Defense was better then our Offense.

He was saying the Saints defense has a better chance of stopping us on one play then the Saints Offense has of getting one first down. I love our defense, but I dont take that bet.

 

[statyat]

Go for it. The Falcons are still in the game even if they don't get it.

 

[GeauxTigers1]

I know how the Falcon fans felt.
It was like waiting on Hakim to catch that punt.....just before he didn't.
They knew if Drew got the ball back the game was over.....so did i.

 

[Sarcastic]

W.hat
W.ould
L.es
M.iles
D.o
?

Fake punt. Hook and lateral to an offensive lineman.

 

[TheRealJRad]

W.hat
W.ould
L.es
M.iles
D.o
?

Delay of game followed by fake punt.



Smith should have gone for it.

 

[saints5021]

There D was decent all night and their O could not move the ball....they go for it and don't get it, game over. You always must extend a game.

 

[ROBOT DEATH SQUAD]

I think it was a pretty bad decision. At worst you give them the ball at your own 43 which would be a 60 yard field goal, so the Saints would still be about first down away from field goal territory. And in either scenario if you let the Saints get a first down it's just about a gameover. Might as well give Matty Ice one more chance to stare down Roddy White and Tony Gonzales hoping to get lucky.