But, hey, if that's your reasoning, kick the FG and take the four score lead, don't try for a riskier pass. If you were up by 7 inside two minutes and had 4th and 3 at their 20, would you go for the endzone, or kick? How 'bout if you were up by 14? And if the answer to either of the preceding is "kick" why does it change when you're up by 21 in the same scenario? How many TDs do you have to be up before it's better to go for one more (much harder) TD instead of a FG, when the outcome is the same: They need one more score to win. You know the stats on kicks inside the 20 as well as I do; >80% of them are good (or were in 1987. ) You think Favre can complete that pass 4 times in 5? 'Cos I don't. Oh, and btw, if they just go for it until they turn over on downs 3 TDs, 2 PATs and a 2 point conversion win the game, but if they make the kick even 3 TDs and 3 two pointers can't do better than OT.

Bottom line is what's the best way to a four score lead, because whether it's 27-3 or 31-3 that's where we are. The difference is that the pass carries a lot more risks (you and I both know interceptions are several times more common than muffed snaps/holds or even fumbles, even if others choose to ignore that fact ) That means one of two things:

1) The coach is an idiot who wants to take unnecessary risks that could cost him the game and/or starting player, or

2) He thinks the opposition is so pathetic not even The Comeback could save them.

I guess I'd prefer a condescending coach to a stupid one, but what I'd really prefer is a third option.

Also, stop bringing up The Comeback. I haven't forgotten, honest. *replays the '95 NFC Championship and SB XXXII in his head*