I'm talking terms of risk/reward. Sure a turnover is a reward you WANT, but you can't afford to RISK losing something to get it. In that case, Taggart had nothing at risk. FTR I totally agree that if he slipped and couldn't do pick it up (which did seem to be the case), then falling on it was the right thing to do.

My point is that from a risk/reward analysis the turnover isn't as valuable as it might seem right there. That player needs to try to pick it up and score it in that game situation (we were up by 14, right?) , even at the risk of not getting the turnover. Because chances are, we are getting the ball back anyway after a sack like that. Preserving the turnover ended up being worth 3 points, we'll take it, but if you had to choose going for seven or not getting three, missing out on the three is not a big deal right there.

This is the same thinking Kalani had with going for it on 4th and 4 on the first drive. They score, chances of winning the game are now over 80%. They miss it, bummer, but he trusts the defense--and as it turned out rightfully so.

I'm trying to point out that anyone here trying to say "the coaches had better not be telling him to try for a scoop and score in that situation because the best move was lay down on it," simply isn't up to speed with how the current coaching staff is seeing the game.