Big Blue Huddle

I think the Giants should have let the Jets have the ball first in OT. 
My reasoning is they were not going to score a TD on their first possession to win and the D was playing well enough to get a stop if the Jets got the ball.  Now all the Giants needed was a FG to win.
Why give it to your offense who was unable to move the ball.  Give it to your defense get a stop, get back momentum and hope for a FG. A 3 and out by the Offense just gives the Jets mo and deflates the D.

Quote from: Quick Kick on October 30, 2023, 11:24:14 AMI think the Giants should have let the Jets have the ball first in OT. 
My reasoning is they were not going to score a TD on their first possession to win and the D was playing well enough to get a stop if the Jets got the ball.  Now all the Giants needed was a FG to win.
Why give it to your offense who was unable to move the ball.  Give it to your defense get a stop, get back momentum and hope for a FG. A 3 and out by the Offense just gives the Jets mo and deflates the D.

Quick:  Welcome to this site.

 I agree, but only because it is inconsistent to NOT trust your offense to make a 4th and short that would have ended the game, and three minutes later to trust your offense to not go 3-and-out on the first drive of OT.

That combination of "moves" simply does not make sense.

Bob

Quote from: Quick Kick on October 30, 2023, 11:24:14 AMI think the Giants should have let the Jets have the ball first in OT. 
My reasoning is they were not going to score a TD on their first possession to win and the D was playing well enough to get a stop if the Jets got the ball.  Now all the Giants needed was a FG to win.
Why give it to your offense who was unable to move the ball.  Give it to your defense get a stop, get back momentum and hope for a FG. A 3 and out by the Offense just gives the Jets mo and deflates the D.

Good point!

BTW, welcome to the board

This is exactly right and I said as much in real time.  It's maybe the first and only time in history a team would have been better off letting the defense take the field first, stopping the opponent as they had done the entire game, and then only needing a FG to win it.  Granted their kicker was playing on one leg evidently so there's no guarantee he could make it but we didn't know that at the time. 99% of the time you take the ball.  This was perhaps the 1 time in 100 you don't. 

I still don't know if the Giants end up winning though cause Adoree mauling a WR 50 yards down the field would probably end it regardless.  But I do think they should have put the defense out there first.

Nobody remembers Marty Mornhinweg?

https://www.prideofdetroit.com/2007/6/20/235816/387

Quote from: Bob In PA on October 30, 2023, 11:33:09 AMQuick: I agree only because it is inconsistent to NOT trust your offense to make a 4th and short that would have ended the game, and three minutes later to trust your offense to not go 3-and-out on the first drive of OT. Bob

Bob

This is so patently obvious today isnt it??   THe inconsistent choices of the coaching staff has been one of my biggest concerns all season.

Dumpster Dan

Quote from: Quick Kick on October 30, 2023, 11:24:14 AMI think the Giants should have let the Jets have the ball first in OT. 
My reasoning is they were not going to score a TD on their first possession to win and the D was playing well enough to get a stop if the Jets got the ball.  Now all the Giants needed was a FG to win.
Why give it to your offense who was unable to move the ball.  Give it to your defense get a stop, get back momentum and hope for a FG. A 3 and out by the Offense just gives the Jets mo and deflates the D.

Welcome

Excellent point, in a defensive struggle like we witnessed, kicking off was likely the better option.

I said it a bit tongue in cheek that they should have kicked. Best chance for a score was probably going to be creating a turnover in Jets' territory.

Quote from: Quick Kick on October 30, 2023, 11:24:14 AMI think the Giants should have let the Jets have the ball first in OT. 
My reasoning is they were not going to score a TD on their first possession to win and the D was playing well enough to get a stop if the Jets got the ball.  Now all the Giants needed was a FG to win.
Why give it to your offense who was unable to move the ball.  Give it to your defense get a stop, get back momentum and hope for a FG. A 3 and out by the Offense just gives the Jets mo and deflates the D.

I was screaming the same thing at the TV yesterday. 

Quote from: Quick Kick on October 30, 2023, 11:24:14 AMI think the Giants should have let the Jets have the ball first in OT. 
My reasoning is they were not going to score a TD on their first possession to win and the D was playing well enough to get a stop if the Jets got the ball.  Now all the Giants needed was a FG to win.
Why give it to your offense who was unable to move the ball.  Give it to your defense get a stop, get back momentum and hope for a FG. A 3 and out by the Offense just gives the Jets mo and deflates the D.

I was thinking this too.

The best I could come up with for a reason was to give the defense a rest after the Jets drive but it just doesn't right.  Has Daboll commented on it yet?  Seemed very obvious for them to kick the ball in that situation.