That fourth down play

[Dr. Fong]

I'm solidly in the go for it camp. If you can't get enough push to get 6 inches then you don't deserve to win the game. Even if they didn't make it the Eagles would have still had to go 50 yards. I understand that's not as far as say 80 yards, but I think it still gives the defense plenty of cushion to make some plays and win the game.

[cage]

Regarding that fourth down play by the Bills at the end of the game, where they drew the defensive lineman off-sides. I'm glad it worked, but I think that happening was unlikely and the Bills were lucky. Here's my question:

 

Assuming the Bills did not try that ruse, then what should they have done? I was watching the game with friends, and some of them were adamant that the Bills should punt it and put the game on the shoulders of the defense.

 

I thought that, given the Bills had not stopped the Eagles other than by turnover (the Bills made them punt only once in the second half, Gailey should have had them go for the first down, try to make the few inches they needed, which would effectively end the game. It would be a risk, since if the Bills didn't make it they would give up the ball at midfield, but I thought it was a better option than putting the game on the shoulders of an exhausted defense. Make six inches and win the game, not make it and take your chances.

 

What did you think?

 

I would have been going for it... that was the best shot to finish the game

[silvermike]

Obviously, I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass, but to put it out there, I'd say you've got a 90% chance of converting on that play, and then I'll give Vick a 80% chance of a touchdown drive to follow. I'd say that's too generous to Vick and too narrow for Fitz, but it's a starting point. That Vick TD only ties the game, so we'll say OT is 50-50. That all gives you a 96% chance of winning the game by going for it. If you punt, I think Vick still has about a 20% chance of a game-tying drive, and then a coin flip for OT. That's only 90% overall. You go for it.

 

Again these numbers are very, very rough, so I'd be happy to hear if someone thinks they're different.

[JCBoston]

Fitz must have some sort of mysterious, hypnotic power - it's the only possible explanation for what happened.

 

It's the Fitz Magic!

[BuffOrange]

Obviously, I'm pulling these numbers out of my ass, but to put it out there, I'd say you've got a 90% chance of converting on that play, and then I'll give Vick a 80% chance of a touchdown drive to follow. I'd say that's too generous to Vick and too narrow for Fitz, but it's a starting point. That Vick TD only ties the game, so we'll say OT is 50-50. That all gives you a 96% chance of winning the game by going for it. If you punt, I think Vick still has about a 20% chance of a game-tying drive, and then a coin flip for OT. That's only 90% overall. You go for it.

 

Again these numbers are very, very rough, so I'd be happy to hear if someone thinks they're different.

 

I think it's more like 65% and 10% instead of 80% and 20% - if we're giving up 80 yards in a minute and no time outs 1 in 5 times then our defense needs even more help than I think it does.

 

But I am quibbling a bit. Either way the math usually does favor going for it. Coaches are conservative there because nobody blames them when they punt and lose; where as everybody calls for their heads and gives the players a free pass when they don't make it on 4th down.

[OCinBuffalo]

We had already scored a 1950's, wedge formation, wildcat TD on them.

 

F yeah I wanted them to go for it. There was no reason to believe that they could have stopped us for anyone....but most importantly, for the Eagles D themselves.

 

The only way that guy jumps is if he thought they were going to run it, and most likely make it. So, he tries to make a big play. If he wasn't worried about us actually going for it, why else would he jump?

[Doc]

I don't recall ever before seeing a team putting a man in motion on a "jump" play. Having C-Mac go in motion was genius.

[SouthGeorgiaBillsFan]

Regarding that fourth down play by the Bills at the end of the game, where they drew the defensive lineman off-sides. I'm glad it worked, but I think that happening was unlikely and the Bills were lucky. Here's my question:

 

Assuming the Bills did not try that ruse, then what should they have done? I was watching the game with friends, and some of them were adamant that the Bills should punt it and put the game on the shoulders of the defense.

 

I thought that, given the Bills had not stopped the Eagles other than by turnover (the Bills made them punt only once in the second half, Gailey should have had them go for the first down, try to make the few inches they needed, which would effectively end the game. It would be a risk, since if the Bills didn't make it they would give up the ball at midfield, but I thought it was a better option than putting the game on the shoulders of an exhausted defense. Make six inches and win the game, not make it and take your chances.

 

What did you think?

 

I think that if you have a choice between gain several inches in one play to win the game now, or punt and try to hold them from driving the length of the field to preserve the win, you go for it. Personally, I'd rather control my own destiny. If you cannot gain < 1 yard to win the game, you simply don't deserve to win anyway.

 

Also, I think way too much criticism is being heaped on that tackle for jumping offside. He knows that we need about 4 inches to win the game - he has to respect that we might go for it in my opinion. To assume automatically that there was no play just seems like total erroneous folly to me. And it is NOT easy to stop someone for less than a yard - you have to be off the ball like a flash. He should have stayed onside, but geez, the guy is trying to give his team a chance to win and knows that one play can end it right now. I think he should get a little slack on that basis.

[Mickey]

I don't think the decision either way was very clear. Giving them no time outs and 80 yards or more to score a TD is a pretty good move. If we go and don't get it, the Eagles would have plenty of time since they would have a short field. Chan was on the field watching the line play all game and so I gotta go with his assessment of what the odds were that we would get the yardage we needed. Then again, we don't really know if he was going to snap the ball or not, as he said, "I'll never tell."

Edited October 10, 2011 by Mickey

[The Big Cat]

Regarding that fourth down play by the Bills at the end of the game, where they drew the defensive lineman off-sides. I'm glad it worked, but I think that happening was unlikely and the Bills were lucky. Here's my question:

 

Assuming the Bills did not try that ruse, then what should they have done? I was watching the game with friends, and some of them were adamant that the Bills should punt it and put the game on the shoulders of the defense.

 

I thought that, given the Bills had not stopped the Eagles other than by turnover (the Bills made them punt only once in the second half, Gailey should have had them go for the first down, try to make the few inches they needed, which would effectively end the game. It would be a risk, since if the Bills didn't make it they would give up the ball at midfield, but I thought it was a better option than putting the game on the shoulders of an exhausted defense. Make six inches and win the game, not make it and take your chances.

 

What did you think?

 

I thought they should have punted.

 

I'm just curious as to when turnovers ceased to be "stops."

[BobChalmers]

I very much thought and still think they should have gone for it.

 

How do they not get 6 inches on that defense with a QB sneak or dive? Make it you win.

 

Even if you fail, how much were the 30 yards really worth if you punt? Maybe you do better than that, but a touchback is a real possibility.

 

If they were up by 3 maybe I'm more worried about field position, but the way the Eagles were getting all their offense on big plays, it seems like that 30 yards could have evaporated on one Vick run or a single broken tackle run after catch by Desean Jackson.

 

I'm relieved the Eagles screwed up. The Bills should have gone for it if they didn't.

[OCinBuffalo]

I thought they should have punted.

 

I'm just curious as to when turnovers ceased to be "stops."

 

Yes, there are some very odd rationales around here.

 

It seems the Ralph Cheap, Nix Asleep crowd is getting desperate. All the psych majors here? This is real world cognitive dissonance. You should do your thesis on it!

[erynthered]

Not sure if this has been posted in this thread.

 

Article and video of the 4th down play.

 

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Video-Eagles-take-the-bait-jump-offsides-on-ha?urn=nfl-wp9064

[Dorkington]

An argument can be made for either decision really. With it being that short, *I* would have gone for it. But, I wouldn't have thrown a tantrum if we punted. No time outs, a minute on the clock, with a long field? At most they could have tied the game, so it wouldn't be a bad call either.

 

Really though, we should have been able to get a first down, but our offense sputtered big time in the 4th.

[Dr. K]

I thought they should have punted.

 

I'm just curious as to when turnovers ceased to be "stops."

 

Sure turnovers are stops. I didn't mean to minimize the accomplishment of the D in getting them. Especially since so many of them were not gifts but forced errors--the result of putting major heat on Vick or of ripping the ball out of the receiver's hands.

 

Still, would you want to count on the Bills forcing another turnover in that situation? That was the only way they stopped the Eagles in the second half.

[Bruce]

I thought the same thing.

 

"What if it, like in MOST NFL games didn't fool the defense, what would I do?"

 

Well, with it being 4th and short with the game on the line, our defense was turnover happy and aggressive (we finally were getting to the QB on a regular basis), we gave huge chunks of yards on QB draws, quick screens, etc. So much so, that I did not want to see our defense try to win it.

 

Since we had been running up the gut the whole day, and since it was less than a yard, I think something playaction with a heavy set may have been in order. Something with Fred jumping over the pile empty-handed, and Fitz throwing a 5-yard out to Chandler, or a quick 3-5 yard slant to Johnson.

Edited October 10, 2011 by Bruce

[The Big Cat]

Sure turnovers are stops. I didn't mean to minimize the accomplishment of the D in getting them. Especially since so many of them were not gifts but forced errors--the result of putting major heat on Vick or of ripping the ball out of the receiver's hands.

 

Still, would you want to count on the Bills forcing another turnover in that situation? That was the only way they stopped the Eagles in the second half.

 

No, but I also wouldn't count on the Eagles driving 80 yards for a TD in less than 90 seconds...

 

EDIT: with no timeouts.

Edited October 10, 2011 by The Big Cat

[Dr. K]

No, but I also wouldn't count on the Eagles driving 80 yards for a TD in less than 90 seconds...

 

EDIT: with no timeouts.

 

I'm glad it didn't come to us having to find out, and this can just be an academic conversation.

[5 Wide]

Fitz gets right in behind Wood and falls forward for a yard. No way does Fitz not get that 1st down following Wood.

[Buftex]

I say they should have gone for it...make it, you win the game...don't make it, worse case scenario, the Eagles tie the game...risk was worth the reward in that situation, IMO.