On 2nd-and-goal interception vs. Commanders, Marcus Mariota and Drake London

Tim West from Lexington, Tenn.

I know you will get a ton of emails about the 2nd and goal interception, but I have to ask why you would throw in that spot? You have run effectively and best case you score leaving Washington a minute to score a field goal and worse case the pass is incomplete which stops the clock or what actually happened which is an interception. I just can’t understand the thought process.

Bair: You’re right, Tim. I got dozens of questions on this 2nd-and-goal play. It’s mostly about run vs. pass. I don’t love those debates. I agree, though, that it seemed like the Falcons probably could’ve gained four yards over three downs, with the way the offensive line was playing and with how varied and confusing the Falcons rushing attack can be.

The Commanders knew a run was an option, and pass there was a change-up. The play design was good, with a high percentage pass to a reliable target.

The important part here is to listen to what Arthur Smith said postgame for insight.

“I’m not gonna give the scheme,” Smith said. “We had a wide-open look. They made a play. Ball tipped and it bounced up there and the guy got up under it. You can like it all you want, it was open. But they had a say and they made a play.”

The look told Mariota where to go with the ball. After watching the play several times, the latter seems to be the case. And Cordarrelle Patterson was open. Would’ve been an easy pitch and catch without the tipped ball. Chris Lindstrom blocked Daron Payne well. The guy just got a hand up. Maybe, if we’re being nit-picky, maybe a little loftier and a bit more of a leading throw may have helped but, in Mariota’s defense, Payne’s hand went up really late. After he had thrown the ball. There was a clear window. Until there wasn’t.

If the play works Smith and Mariota are heroes. It didn’t, so they’re taking heat. Such is life for a head coach and quarterback, who are judged on results over individual performance.