Should the Riders have gone for it on 3rd and 1?

With a couple minutes left in the Western Semi-final the Riders had the ball 3rd and 1 near midfield and they decided to punt. Anybody else think they should have gone for it? They are generally strong in short yardage and if they make a first down they can basically run out the clock. That decision nearly ended up costing them the game. Seems like there's something wrong with our prevent defense.

The prevent defense didn't do its job again. Just like the BC game, there were a couple of defensive breakdowns

If players don’t execute, it doesn’t matter what decision the coaches make.
In the Montreal/Winnipeg game, Popp does go for it on 3rd and short, Montreal is stuffed and they do lose.
So I’ll take “nearly costing” us the game ahead of actually costing us the game anyday.
Anyway, that decision is easily second guessed no matter which way they decide.
But the safer, more conservative approach is to punt the ball.
The guy beside me nearly had a stroke complaining about punting, but that was one of those, “I can live with either decision” type things. It wasn’t wrong either way, but if you win, it was definately right.
I might have gone for it myself, but that is why I sit in the stands and Kent prowls the sidelines…
One factor in the decision may have been how beat up our backfield is at the moment…

Yes, but I doubt they will sit Scott Gordon for his blunder...looked eerily familiar though, did it not....

How bout should Austin have challenged Fantuz's catch from the replay it sure looked like he caught it

Yeah.....

I thought it was a good call, it's better than potentially giving Calgary a short field to work with. Make them work for every yard

They were all out of challenges at that point I'm pretty sure.

Yeah they were out…

did you see how far they had to go? It was a very long 1yd!

every coach knows that unless it is the difference between potentially winning the game or losing it, then you go for it. If that's not the case.. and you can pin them deep in their end. YOU PUNT! this really is a no brainer if you really think about it.

I thought is was only about half a yard?
Doesn’t matter.
I would not have argued against the decision to go for it, but the safe play was punt!!

In the replay it looked like Gordon was moving to pick up a guy on the sideline that was wide open. I think two guys blew the coverage and whether he went to the sideline or to the middle, one of the receivers would have been wide open.

I absolutely hate that stupid three man rush prevent defense. All it does is prevent us from stopping the other team.

In my opinion, you don't rush 3 and play a zone. Play man, and leave your safeties to cover anything deep. In any zone, there will be seems, and with no rush it gives the reciever more time to find that seem, and make the big play. I personally would've rushed 6 on that play.

I just watched the replay.
Gordon bites on the pump fake, and moves up to Copes (in the middle) who was already covered and just lets Rambo run by him.
Copeland was likely open eonough to make a play, but for 10 yards.
Gordon's job, just like Clovis', was to not let anyone get behind him.
Someone else should have been covering Rambo as well--likely Lucas
I doubt they will bench anyone for a play-off game though.

And we only had a two man rush....

And I checked the 3rd down play as well.
It was a long yard, so anyone who said go for it was crazy!
I think the reason I thought it was a half yard was because the spot was actually pretty lousy.
It should have been half a yard, but it was over a yard.

Yeah I don’t understand the 3 man rush either. Perhaps if we had the personnel to stick 9 solid cover guys on the field, but as it is the QB just gets all day to wait for a guy to get open which they eventually always do.

I’m going to revive this thread because there were two “questionable” third down gambles by the 'Riders against Winnipeg yesterday. After seeing Winnipeg stuff Montreal twice a couple of weeks ago I’m not sure I would have gone for it in either case. Totally different than going for it against a Calgary defense IMHO. Both gambles worked and I’ll grant that one at the end of the game was only half a yard but still in a game that was a defensive struggle…

They made didn't they?

Therefore the only answer can be yes.

The one at the end of the game wasnt questionable. Do you want the ring or not? Exactly.... You gotta go for it.