Should the Giants have went for it on 4th and 11?

[EliDaMANning]

With around 4 minutes to go in the game I thought they should have gone for it. I understand there was still plenty of time for the Giants to make a stop and come back, but as the game progressed the coaches should've realized we weren't getting the ball back.

In the words of Bart Scott, we couldn't stop a nose bleed. We lost to the cowgirls and Steelers like this I believe. I prefer to put the ball in Manning's hands than let the defense try to make a stop. I was disappointed we didn't go for it on 4th down. It's as if we lost without a figh at the end.

[Jahh]

I thought so. Even if you fail, the Redskins start around the 30. Say they 3 and out and kick the field goal (and make it). Now we are down four with between 1-2 minutes and the potential for a good kick off return. If they miss the field goal, we are right where we would've been anyways. I don't think you have better odds by punting, stopping them, then fielding another punt around the same field position.

[Buddy333]

The offense lost this game. Why would they all of a sudden play better? The defense did not play as bad as some are making it seem. They did makes stops in this game and even forced turnovers.

[Buddy333]

I don't understand how giving them the ball in field goal range is a good strategy. That would mean that instead of them needing a field goal to win they would now need a TD.

[BlueJayC]

I think they should have......but could go either way.....thought it was pretty evident in the 2nd half the D was getting tired and pushed off the ball so the chances of stopping them were slim at that point.

Plus even if you do not convert there is no way the Redskins are passing it in field goal range ensuring them of 3 straight runs instead of the pass the D got beat on......you hold them to an FG or maybe he misses or it gets blocked.....there's also more time on the clock.......I think there was a bigger upside in going for it.......you convert and it's a completely different ball game.....they were also converting 3rd and longs most of the night.

[ImElectric2]

Giants should have gone for it on 3rd and 16 rather than surrendering the possession with a middle screen call that was poorly executed and fooled no one. (And no, even with good execution we wouldn't have converted. At best wed have been in position to get a first on the running into the kicker penalty.....assuming that still would have happened).

[EliDaMANning]

I don't understand how giving them the ball in field goal range is a good strategy. That would mean that instead of them needing a field goal to win they would now need a TD.

Who said anything about giving the ball to them in FG range? I specifically stated that we should've went for it on 4th down. Even punting the ball in that situation is better than just giving them the ball there as you stated.

[EliDaMANning]

The offense lost this game. Why would they all of a sudden play better? The defense did not play as bad as some are making it seem. They did makes stops in this game and even forced turnovers.

The passing game was fine. Offense was fine in general except for the second half running. The defense played terrible. Surrending over 200 yards running is very bad and you cannot disguise it.

[Buddy333]

The defense allowed a whopping 17 on the road to a high scoring team. The defense did a good job. The offense had five trips into scoring position and ended up with 16 points.

[EliDaMANning]

The defense allowed a whopping 17 on the road to a high scoring team. The defense did a good job. The offense had five trips into scoring position and ended up with 16 points.

200 yards rushing allowed is not a good job,