bmur66 Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 Can someone explain why the Bills gave up 2 free points? I don't understand.
disco Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 Sure. They were in a horrendous situation. They were on their own inch line with the wind blowing in their face. You punt the ball, and there's a great chance Miami is going to start their possession on your side of the field. In fact, they could even start within field goal range. ADD on the fact that you are going to run time off the clock: - Punting the ball - During the return - During a field goal attempt. By taking the safety instead and choosing the free kick, you get these advantages: - Save valuable seconds on the clock (which actually worked given we got the ball back with 30 seconds to go) - Opportunity for a bobble on the free kick attempt (though they should have kicked it away from Marshall - good call by Dolphins to see where Moorman was going on the timeout call) - Start the Dolphins deeper in their own end so it would force a punt (and give Roscoe a chance who probably had a better chance to move the ball than the offense) The Dolphins kicking the ball to the inch line was a killer. 4th and 10 at your own goal line is pretty much a lose lose situation. If the decision is NOT to go for it on 4th and 10, taking the safety wasn't a bad option. It was a severe desperation move when he was forced to make one.
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 Can someone explain why the Bills gave up 2 free points? I don't understand. So they could free kick. Someone did that years ago[i think it was Shula] and got God like strategy praise. But of course they won. Big difference.
vegas55 Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 Wrong - taking a safety would have been the right call only if you were trailing by 4 or 5 points. You never, and I mean never, take a safety in that situation if you are trailing by 3 or less. Its is so much easier to score a field goal than a TD, so you never intentionally put yourself in a situation where you go from just needing a field goal to tie to the case where you have to score a TD. You did not have the time to score a TD. The defense plays prevent, which does not allow for a quick TD, but does allow an offense a decent chance to move into FG range Just a horrible strategic decision there. Very troubling
bowery4 Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 (edited) It was a smart move in a desperation time, did you hear Tasker? he was like why are they punting? you have to go for it then when the ball when out of the EZ it dawned on him slowly. It was so out of the box he didn't even consider it. I have a bit more respect even though it didn't work. I wish they would have tried the wildcat back there or a 3 back with a TE. The only time they did well yesterday was when they were gadgety. Wrong - taking a safety would have been the right call only if you were trailing by 4 or 5 points. You never, and I mean never, take a safety in that situation if you are trailing by 3 or less. Its is so much easier to score a field goal than a TD, so you never intentionally put yourself in a situation where you go from just needing a field goal to tie to the case where you have to score a TD. You did not have the time to score a TD. The defense plays prevent, which does not allow for a quick TD, but does allow an offense a decent chance to move into FG range Just a horrible strategic decision there. Very troubling I see what you are saying but how do you get a punt past the 50, they would basically, be in field goal range almost as soon as they get the ball. so they automatically go up by 6 so you have to score 7 to win anyway. It was a desperate move but not a "horrible strategic decision". If it worked that we got the ball on the punt we could win! we would not be in that field position on a KO (with time on the clock) if we did it your way. This was worth the risk. IMO Edited September 13, 2010 by bowery4
headcase Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 So they could free kick. Someone did that years ago[i think it was Shula] and got God like strategy praise. But of course they won. Big difference. Patriots did it in '03 at Denver. SSDD
Ramius Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 (edited) There's no question about the play call. You go for it. The wise move would have been to run a QB sneak on 1st down to pick up 2-3 yards, give yourself a bit of breathing room, and still have 3 chances to get the other 7. Edited September 13, 2010 by Ramius
Jim in Anchorage Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 Patriots did it in '03 at Denver. SSDD Good find, that was it. I was close with Shula though, I knew it was a coach I hated, just the wrong one
Cookiemonster Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 What I didn't understand, on the punt to the one inch line, it looked like a Dolphin touched the ball around the three yard line, then they let it roll down to the one inch line, why wasn't it considered down at the three yard line, did I miss something. Probably would not have mattered.
LabattBlue Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 Wrong - taking a safety would have been the right call only if you were trailing by 4 or 5 points. You never, and I mean never, take a safety in that situation if you are trailing by 3 or less. Its is so much easier to score a field goal than a TD, so you never intentionally put yourself in a situation where you go from just needing a field goal to tie to the case where you have to score a TD. You did not have the time to score a TD. The defense plays prevent, which does not allow for a quick TD, but does allow an offense a decent chance to move into FG range Just a horrible strategic decision there. Very troubling I agree. With the amount of time left on the clock and the number of timeouts the Bills had remaining, the correct decision was to go for it on 4th down despite being on the 1 yard line and the wind in your face. Very Jauron-esqe to me.
Doc Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 If the team didn't get ANY yards on the first 3 attempts, what makes anyone think that they would have gotten 10+ yards on the 4th attempt? And if that fails, Miami gets the ball at the 1 inch line. Game over. And punting at the 1 inch line means your punter is lined-up about 2/3 of his usual depth, meaning he won't get a good punt off and similarly put the Dols' offense in a great position.
LabattBlue Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 If the team didn't get ANY yards on the first 3 attempts, what makes anyone think that they would have gotten 10+ yards on the 4th attempt? And if that fails, Miami gets the ball at the 1 inch line. Game over. And punting at the 1 inch line means your punter is lined-up about 2/3 of his usual depth, meaning he won't get a good punt off and similarly put the Dols' offense in a great position. So going for it on 4th and 10 from your own 1 yard line with 1:30 to go, two timeouts and down by 3, was a lesser option than getting the ball on the 20 with 30 seconds to go, no timeouts and down by 7? :blink:
Conch Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 It was a smart move in a desperation time, did you hear Tasker? he was like why are they punting? you have to go for it then when the ball when out of the EZ it dawned on him slowly. It was so out of the box he didn't even consider it. I have a bit more respect even though it didn't work. I wish they would have tried the wildcat back there or a 3 back with a TE. The only time they did well yesterday was when they were gadgety. I see what you are saying but how do you get a punt past the 50, they would basically, be in field goal range almost as soon as they get the ball. so they automatically go up by 6 so you have to score 7 to win anyway. It was a desperate move but not a "horrible strategic decision". If it worked that we got the ball on the punt we could win! we would not be in that field position on a KO (with time on the clock) if we did it your way. This was worth the risk. IMO amazing that he had to put the punt team in to take the safety. he did not have faith that Trent could either take a snap and get out of the back of the ned zone or let the snap fly by him without screwing up. The smart play would to have gone for it on 4th and ten. It was only 4th and ten not 4th and forty. A lot easier to drive 65 yards with 90 secs left for the tying field goal than to hope for a fumble or to get the ball back with 20 seconds left and have to go 80+ for a TD with seconds left. If you don't make the 4th and ten let Miami score immediately. Get the ball back with 90 secs left in decent field position down by ten, drive for score in 60 secs and then try an offside kick. It would have been much easier than the plan they came up with. You have control in your hands.
Maddog69 Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 Maybe Chan had money on the Dolphins. The spread was 3 and a half. We were only losing by three. Ol' Chan gave them 2 points so he could win his bet.
Doc Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 So going for it on 4th and 10 from your own 1 yard line with 1:30 to go, two timeouts and down by 3, was a lesser option than getting the ball on the 20 with 30 seconds to go, no timeouts and down by 7? :blink: Yes. Because turning it over on downs or punting would have at-worst led to a FG to make it a 6 point game with maybe 8 seconds after the return.
Ghost of Rob Johnson Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 There's no question about the play call. You go for it. The wise move would have been to run a QB sneak on 1st down to pick up 2-3 yards, give yourself a bit of breathing room, and still have 3 chances to get the other 7. Weren't they out of timeouts? A sneak would have have taken a ton of time off the clock for what, 2 yards?
Ramius Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 If the team didn't get ANY yards on the first 3 attempts, what makes anyone think that they would have gotten 10+ yards on the 4th attempt? And if that fails, Miami gets the ball at the 1 inch line. Game over. And punting at the 1 inch line means your punter is lined-up about 2/3 of his usual depth, meaning he won't get a good punt off and similarly put the Dols' offense in a great position. no way. A 4th and 10 from your own 1 inch line has better chances of success than a hail mary. (that is, if you have a QBN willing to throw something more than a checkdown)
Rico Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 I agree. With the amount of time left on the clock and the number of timeouts the Bills had remaining, the correct decision was to go for it on 4th down despite being on the 1 yard line and the wind in your face. Very Jauron-esqe to me. Very, very tough call. I probably would've gone for it too, but that was just a brutal situation, especially with the garbage O. I can't blame Chan for that one.
yall Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 Bad call IMHO. I understand what they were trying to do, but why not go for it, and if the throw isn't there - take the safety. As bad as TE is, I'm fairly certain he is capable of getting sacked in the end zone.
shrader Posted September 13, 2010 Posted September 13, 2010 Bad call IMHO. I understand what they were trying to do, but why not go for it, and if the throw isn't there - take the safety. As bad as TE is, I'm fairly certain he is capable of getting sacked in the end zone. If they follow your suggestion, they lose the time it takes to run that entire play. By snapping it out of bounds, they lost maybe 1 second.
Recommended Posts