2 free points?

[jimmy10]

Think man, think

 

Yeah, no. Go for it on 4th and 10 from your own end zone, you put all your eggs in one basket. Convert or go home.

 

Give up the safety, you get a free kick, and there are still several scenarios that can play out, long as the odds may be. Neither is a good choice, but Chan made the least bad one.

[CodeMonkey]

I agree with the call and frankly took it as a fresh of breath air that our head coach knows what the hell he is doing. Jauron would have punted, Fins would have scored, Game would have been over.

Wow. i really can't believe some people just can't see the error of intentionally going from 3 points down to 5. The game was over for as soon as that snap went out of bounds.

 

Let me try one last time here then I give up.

 

If you are trailing by 4 or even 5 points then the intentional safety makes sense. Because you already need a TD to have any hope. So the change from 4 to 6 down or 5 to 7 down is irrelevant.

 

However going from 3 down to 5 down is a world of difference. You go from needing a FG (with a VERY good kicker on your sideline by the way) to needing a touchdown with little time left, no timeouts and a long field in front of you. Nearly impossible really for even a good offense.

 

Even if we went for it and didn't make it and the fish score, so what. We lose by 10 instead of 5. It still is a loss. But if you make the first down, you have over a minute and 2 time outs to go about 60 yards and give your kicker a shot at sending it to OT.

 

Chan had to make a quick decision and unfortunately he made the wrong one this time.

Hopefully he will do better in the future.

[DonInBuffalo]

if you don't believe you can get 10 yards on one play, you might as well kneel or punt becuase you aren't going to win. even trying to win is predicated on being able to get 10 yards in one play.

 

so i agree that they should have just gone for it. odds of making 10 yards on one play are better than any of the other options, and kicking a field goal is way more likely for these guys than getting a TD drive with 30 seconds left.

The point that you're missing is that the important odds here are not the generic odds of making 10 yards on one play. It's the specific odds of making 10 yards in that specific situation. After watching the entire game, and in particular the previous 3 plays, Gailey determined that the odds of making that 1st down were just too remote to take that chance.

[dave mcbride]

Another factor was the chance of a Parrish return on the ensuing punt. It didn't happen, but if he did get it, there's always a chance he could take it to the house.

 

In any event, the Bills were in a bad situation, and the choice was really six of one, half dozen of the other. Gailey certainly can't be faulted for the choice. The path he chose was equally likely -- indeed probably more likely (fumble by the Dolphins on the kick, fumble during their possession, good return by Parrish, hail mary) -- to produce points than the other path (70 yard drive beginning at the one foot line in a 4th and 10 situation).

Edited September 13, 2010 by dave mcbride

[eball]

I really hope some of you never have to make any strategic decisions where I'm involved.

 

The decision to give up the safety in that situation is supported by numerous factors. A decision to go for it or punt are both far "riskier" plays. It's really not that difficult to figure out.

 

Let's example possible outcomes:

 

Go for it and make it -- highly unlikely, since you need ten yards from your one-inch line. Maybe 10% chance?

Go for it and miss -- game over.

 

Punt -- not a free kick, and therefore not a live ball. Punting into the wind -- even a net of 40 yards (a GREAT kick) puts the Fish within 10 yards of FG range.

 

So, for all of you saying "go for it" or "punt" -- you do all of this for the 10% chance your offense (that has played miserably) will get 10 yards from their own goal line, or that "maybe" Moorman will blast one into the wind? All poor decisions. The punt after the safety had the added benefit of being a live ball as well.

 

To the guy who keeps clamoring about the difference between being down 3 or 5 points -- in this situation it simply didn't matter. The point was trying to figure out a way to get the ball back at all, with ANY chance to score.

 

It was a logically sound call by Gailey, and not "conservative" or Jauron-like at all.

[dave mcbride]

I really hope some of you never have to make any strategic decisions where I'm involved.

 

The decision to give up the safety in that situation is supported by numerous factors. A decision to go for it or punt are both far "riskier" plays. It's really not that difficult to figure out.

 

Let's example possible outcomes:

 

Go for it and make it -- highly unlikely, since you need ten yards from your one-inch line. Maybe 10% chance?

Go for it and miss -- game over.

 

Punt -- not a free kick, and therefore not a live ball. Punting into the wind -- even a net of 40 yards (a GREAT kick) puts the Fish within 10 yards of FG range.

 

So, for all of you saying "go for it" or "punt" -- you do all of this for the 10% chance your offense (that has played miserably) will get 10 yards from their own goal line, or that "maybe" Moorman will blast one into the wind? All poor decisions. The punt after the safety had the added benefit of being a live ball as well.

 

To the guy who keeps clamoring about the difference between being down 3 or 5 points -- in this situation it simply didn't matter. The point was trying to figure out a way to get the ball back at all, with ANY chance to score.

 

It was a logically sound call by Gailey, and not "conservative" or Jauron-like at all.

 

good post.

[timba]

Yeah, no.

 

The Bills got the ball back at the 20 with 30 seconds left and ZERO timeouts. All of the bolded things did happen, which was a minor miracle, and EVEN THEN, with all that going according to plan, were the Bills left with an impossible situation.

 

Convert 4th and 10, have the ball on say the 15 yard line with 2 timeouts and 1:40 left, needing a FIELD GOAL to tie. Compare that with the series of events that needed to happen to get the Bills the ball at the 20 with 30 seconds left and no timeouts needing a TOUCHDOWN.

 

Certainly completing one 10 yard pass can't be harder than all that other junk PLUS the extra difficulty of going 80 yards in 30 seconds with no timeouts.

 

Think man, think

 

Edit: Also, if the Bills were able to go down that field and score that miraculous touchdown that'd make Chan a genius, how could you think that they WOULDN'T have been able to convert one 10 yard pass, and move into field goal range with 1:40 and 2 timeouts? Certainly if Chan thought they were explosive enough to go 80 yards in 30 seconds with no timeouts, it'd be a piece of cake to complete a single 10 yard pass, and methodically move into field goal range with 1:40 and 2 timeouts.

 

No problem. We miss on 4th and 10 and we have approximately zero chance of stopping them from going several inches and making it a two score game. There was nothing that happened in the three plays previous to that fourth down that says they would get that first. Getting the offense back on the sideline and trying to regroup for one more shot was the best thing they could have done. To me the choice was between giving two points or seven points.

[Glory Bound]

I agree with the call and frankly took it as a fresh of breath air that our head coach knows what the hell he is doing. Jauron would have punted, Fins would have scored, Game would have been over.

With three options available, I seriously doubt whether Jauron would have even thought of taking a safety. Too far out of the box for a pop warner offense. He would have gone for it or punted. My guess is he would have punted.

[The Dean]

I'm normally against giving up the safety. This was a no-brainer, though. It was the ONLY rational decision, IMO. I was surprised, and happy, to see Chan just went and did it. Didn't waste a TO. Didn't take a delay penalty (not that it would have hurt). Just made the, correct, decision.

[MRM33064]

FWIW, one of the well-respected analyzers of this stuff (Brian Burke, www.advancednflstats.com) just tweeted the following:

 

"Re: BUF intent. Sfty-The numbers say all 3 options-punt, go4it, and sfty all about 0.03 WP. Data is very thin there."

 

Basically, as was so ingeniously pointed out earlier, with Trent Edwards at the helm it was indeed the Kobayashi Maru.

[Wayne Cubed]

what i couldn't understand is why Morman, gave such a high lofty free kick, for someone to run under and fair catch... there is nothing, to my knowledge, that says you can't kick more of a line drive type of kick... let it hit the ground and make someone bumble around for it. Once a player calls fair catch, thats it you've lost your chance... Line drive it at some one, more like a purposeful shank, and let your guys run down there. Just a thought.

[Chandler#81]

Wow. i really can't believe some people just can't see the error of intentionally going from 3 points down to 5. The game was over for as soon as that snap went out of bounds.

 

Let me try one last time here then I give up.

 

 

Game was far from over BECAUSE we took the safety. No one's trying to force you to understand that which you don't. Calm down.

[Offside Number 76]

Yeah, no.

 

The Bills got the ball back at the 20 with 30 seconds left and ZERO timeouts. All of the bolded things did happen, which was a minor miracle, and EVEN THEN, with all that going according to plan, were the Bills left with an impossible situation.

 

Convert 4th and 10, have the ball on say the 15 yard line with 2 timeouts and 1:40 left, needing a FIELD GOAL to tie. Compare that with the series of events that needed to happen to get the Bills the ball at the 20 with 30 seconds left and no timeouts needing a TOUCHDOWN.

 

Certainly completing one 10 yard pass can't be harder than all that other junk PLUS the extra difficulty of going 80 yards in 30 seconds with no timeouts.

 

Think man, think

 

Edit: Also, if the Bills were able to go down that field and score that miraculous touchdown that'd make Chan a genius, how could you think that they WOULDN'T have been able to convert one 10 yard pass, and move into field goal range with 1:40 and 2 timeouts? Certainly if Chan thought they were explosive enough to go 80 yards in 30 seconds with no timeouts, it'd be a piece of cake to complete a single 10 yard pass, and methodically move into field goal range with 1:40 and 2 timeouts.

 

The Bills didn't complete long passes the entire freaking day. Fourth and ten from the one? No, it was the right call, and it did work. Gailey put trust in his D, which, if a certain coach had done in 1999 (by kicking out of bounds in a game where Buffalo's D ruled), the Bills may have won a playoff game.

 

Did it work out? No, because the next O possession sucked. Was it the right call? Well, the Bills' D proved that it was.

 

No safety only meant that the Fish would go up by six (at a MINIMUM), rather than five.

[Doc]

If you ask most people, they'd have said to either go for it or punt. Safety was probably on no one's mind. Hence Gailey put some thought into making that decision. Now if Moorman had the full distance to punt, or it was 4th and short, it would be a different story.

[vincec]

Option A: Go for it. 4th and 10. Pick up 10 yards and keep going, down by 3 with 2 time outs and 1:30 or so remaining. If you miss it assume the game is over as the Dolphins will almost certainly score the clinching TD.

 

Option B: Safety. Try to recover onside kick and then score a TD with the 2 TOs and about 1:30 remaining. If you don't recover the kick, the game is essentially over (see the actual game film) as even without a first down the Dolphins run the clock down to 30 seconds and probably punt it down inside your 20 leaving you no timeouts and probably 4 plays to cover 80+ yards needing a TD.

 

So which is more likely: pick up 10 yds and then drive 50 yds or so for a FG or recover an onside kick and then drive 70 yards or so for a TD? Seems pretty clear to me.

 

Edit:

Option C: Punt. Dolphins run the clock down to 30 seconds even without a first down and then punt you inside the 20 almost certainly meaning that the game is over. Makes the least sense, IMO.

Edited September 14, 2010 by vincec

[PromoTheRobot]

I love arguing where the deck chairs should go on the Titanic.

 

PTR

[vincec]

I love arguing where the deck chairs should go on the Titanic.

 

PTR

Maybe, but this kind of game day coaching was a major Jauron weakness and I had hoped that it would be improved with Gailey in charge. So far not so good.

[The Dean]

So which is more likely: pick up 10 yds and then drive 50 yds or so for a FG or recover an onside kick and then drive 70 yards or so for a TD? Seems pretty clear to me.

 

 

First of all "pick up 10 yards" when you are pinned at your goal line is a bit more complex than picking up 10 or 15 or maybe even 20 at midfield.

 

Also, you missed all the other things that can happen, if you opt for the safety and free kick. You can recover the kick, as you mentioned. The other team can fumble the return. They can fumble the subsequent snaps or handoffs, throw an INT, etc. They can fumble their punt snap, or shank the punt putting you in better field position. You can return their punt for an INT, or into great field position.

 

It's no wonder it seems clear to you when you leave out so many of the possibilities.

 

I should have added: You can block their subsequent punt.

Edited September 14, 2010 by The Dean

[PromoTheRobot]

Vince, my point was this is not a major game decision. We had about a 1% chance of tying the game, and really it worked because we got the ball back.

 

PTR

[CodeMonkey]

I love arguing where the deck chairs should go on the Titanic.

 

PTR