Big Blue View
The New York Giants fell 24-20 to the Chicago Bears and fall to 2-8 after yet another fourth-quarter collapse on Sunday.
But did it have to be that way?
The Giants were faced with a decision 10:21 to go in the fourth quarter. They had the ball with fourth-and-goal from the 1-yard line following a third-down run by Russell Wilson. The Giants opted to go for the field goal, though some (notably color commentator Greg Olsen) wanted the Giants to go for the touchdown.
The Bears committed a penalty (too many men on the field), which would have set the Giants up on the half-yard line. It still would have been fourth-and-goal, and the Giants declined the penalty and took the points to go up 20-10. That put the onus on the Giants’ defense to hold the Bears, as well as the offense to sustain a drive and eat up the clock.
Neither unit was able to do their job, and the Bears scored 14 points in the final four minutes.
Going for it on fourth down and being successful would have put the Giants up 24-10, effectively icing the game. Not scoring the touchdown would have left the Giants with a slim 17-10 lead, but also would have forced the Bears to execute from their own end zone.
The analytics strongly suggested going for the touchdown:
Conventional wisdom, however, suggested that the Giants take the points and trust their defense to close out the game.
Daboll decided to be conservative and err on the side of conventional wisdom.
Ultimately, the Giants’ defense once again wilted with the game on the line, giving up a pair of touchdowns in the final four minutes of the game. The Giants’ offense, meanwhile, couldn’t move the ball or sustain a drive with rookie sensation Jaxson Dart ruled out of the game with a concussion.
But the question remains, and now we put it to the Big Blue View community: Was Daboll correct to take the points and trust his defense, or should he have been aggressive and try to score the touchdown — even if it risked turning the ball over on downs?
