The problem is - whether or not he makes the kick - the defense is going to be forced to stop the Falcons on offense.
I would have preferred punting in that situation and pinning them inside the 20, maybe even inside the 10. The crowd would have been loud in that end zone, and we get a stop and get the ball back in great field position. I think our chances of holding them in that situation were better than the odds of making that field goal.
But hey, its all water under the bridge now.
That logic is a bit contradictory. You don't think the defense can stop the Falcons offense from moving 50 yards into FG range if they make the FG, but you think they get a stop when all they need is 2 first downs to run out the clock? If you think the defense can make the stop, then you definitely go for the FG.
I disagree completely - because the two situations are completely different. Atlanta would approach both situations differently. The defense is definitely at a greater advantage when an offense is trying to protect a lead, pinned back in its own territory. We have a great run defense, and Atlanta would presumably have pounded the ball a couple of times to work the clock. You are likely asking the Bucs' defense to make a single 3rd down stop deep in Falcon territory.
On the other hand, if you make the field goal (which a 56 yard FG was still only at best a 50/50 proposition - and based on how short the kick was probably less than that) - Atlanta is going to come at you with a wide open attack playing with 4 downs (since they obviously would go for it on 4th if trailing). They would have a much higher chance against this defense to move into Matt Bryant field goal range.
