hawk45":1wq5pldg said:
Having a hard time with the idea that the D reeling is a good time to risk handing Atlanta a short field instead of pinning them down at the 2.
There is no guarantee that a punt gets downed at the two-yard-line. Worst case scenario for a punt (other than blocks, dropped snap etc) is a touchback, in which case it is only a 25-yard net punt. Would you trade 25 yards of field position for a chance for the Seahawks offense to keep the ball? That answer should easily be yes. The average result of a punt is probably on the 10 yard line or so, not the two.
The defense reeling is an argument for going for it, not punting. Atlanta was averaging over 5 yards per play, and over 9 yards per play on their first two drives of the half, and you want to give them the ball back to face a tired defense?
You need to stop being results-oriented. Judge the decision-making, not the results. Extreme example: If Seattle has a fourth and 30 from their own five yard line, goes for it, and somehow gets the first down, the decision to go for it is still incredibly awful regardless of the fact that it worked. It is the same thing here, just not as extreme of a case. You have to look at the possible outcomes at the time of the punt and assess how likely each was to happen, and how each scenario affects the Seahawks chance of winning.
The bottom line is that having a huge percentage chance of keeping the ball and a small chance of turning the ball over at the ATL 45 is way better than giving the ball back to ATL with the average punt. It isn't even close.