GunnerBill Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 The numbers I think you are referring to are based on league averages. How often would an average offensive team against an average defensive team pick up the needed yardage in average weather conditions with an average OC calling plays against an average DC, etc., etc? In the case of an actual, real live football game you have a coach who knows his team's capabilities and has studied his opponents capabilities and is aware of the impact of any relative variables extant at the time such as wind, rain, home, away, injuries, one on one match ups etc. It is not such an easy analysis to just say that 25% of the time this or that happens on this or that down given this or that yardage. I don't think we have an average offense and since the OL is heavily relied on in 4th and short situations, the quality of that line is critical. Is there anyone out there who thinks we have even an average offensive line? We have, at best, two average starters in Wood and Glenn. Henderson is a rookie and neither guard would likely start for any other team in the league save the few lines that are worse than ours. So whatever the average numbers are, they aren't relevant if your players are below average. As for going for it on 4th and 2 on our own 16 yard line, recall that we had all three timeouts and the 2 minute warning so any decision you make has to be with the idea of having 4 time stoppages at your disposal. We punted with 5:33 left and the Defense held them to three and out and we used our timeouts to stop the clock. We got the ball back at 4:20 so at most, not going for it lost us 1:10 seconds whereas, had we gone for it and missed, the game was over of course. The ensuing drive resulted in a TD and took 3:25 off the clock leaving 55 seconds for the onside and, if we had recovered, a few shots at the end zone. Under those circumstances, in all cases less than ideal, I don't see how it was moronic or an act of cowardice or sheer idiocy for Marrone to think we had a better shot punting than going for it. Regardless of whether we are kicking off with 2 minutes left or 55 seconds or maybe even 2:30 left in the game, we would still have had to do an onside kick. Even without a first down and one time stoppage at 2 minutes, all Denver had to do was run a few running plays and punt leaving us with an 80 yard field and maybe 10 seconds or so left on the clock. You can certainly make a legit argument that all things considered, go for it but I can't agree that it was a slam dunk decision that only a cowardly, crappy, clueless coach would fail to make. We got beat. And it wasn't because of coaching or play calling or a conspiracy by the officials. Turning the ball over three times on the road including one in the red zone were far bigger factors. Stupid penalties didn't help either. We all know we have a subpar offense and they played that way yesterday. That is why we lost. If you want to complain about the coaches, focus on their inability to put together an offense that can compete with playoff caliber teams. Very well put. People get so wrapped up in looking at percentages in a vacuum that they miss the reality of the situation. Is it arguable either way? Sure it is, I said that at the start, but I agreed with Marrone's decision I thought on balance it gave us the best punchers shot to win.
Beerball Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Very well put. People get so wrapped up in looking at percentages in a vacuum that they miss the reality of the situation. Is it arguable either way? Sure it is, I said that at the start, but I agreed with Marrone's decision I thought on balance it gave us the best punchers shot to win. To continue your boxing analogy...to me it was the 15th round and we needed a KO to win the fight. Instead we used the rope-a-dope and were still standing at the end. We lost, but we were still standing.
Cash Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 To continue your boxing analogy...to me it was the 15th round and we needed a KO to win the fight. Instead we used the rope-a-dope and were still standing at the end. We lost, but we were still standing. I like that analogy! I'd have rather gone for the KO and risked getting knocked out, but some people seem to think that losing a decision is better than losing by KO. I respectfully disagree.
GunnerBill Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 To continue your boxing analogy...to me it was the 15th round and we needed a KO to win the fight. Instead we used the rope-a-dope and were still standing at the end. We lost, but we were still standing. My strategy was to keep covering up until the end of the final round and then when the Champion is strutting around thinking he has won throw everything you have at him for the last 30 seconds. Your strategy was go for the haymaker at the start of the final round in the knowledge that there is a chance you miss and leave yourself wide open to the finisher. Let me be clear my strategy was not "try to make the score closer" I honestly believe that with this Bills team the strategy I favoured gave us the best chance to win.
Beerball Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 My strategy was to keep covering up until the end of the final round and then when the Champion is strutting around thinking he has won throw everything you have at him for the last 30 seconds. Your strategy was go for the haymaker at the start of the final round in the knowledge that there is a chance you miss and leave yourself wide open to the finisher. Let me be clear my strategy was not "try to make the score closer" I honestly believe that with this Bills team the strategy I favoured gave us the best chance to win. I wouldn't catagorize down by 14 after 55 minutes the start of the 15th (especially with our offensive & point output in that game). We needed 2 scores and we were running out of time. To me it was a "no brainer" to go for it. We didn't need a haymaker, we needed two of them. Also, and off topic...we should have gone for the on sides kick after our prior TD, not the last one.
GunnerBill Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Also, and off topic...we should have gone for the on sides kick after our prior TD, not the last one. I think that would have been a clever call because it was less expected. I wondered about starting the 2nd half with an onside kick? I genuinely thought at half time "if they have a surprise onside kick play that they like now is the time to call it".
mannc Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Also, and off topic...we should have gone for the on sides kick after our prior TD, not the last one. You know, that's a great point. The numbers show that something like 50% (or more) of onside kicks attempted in non-desperation situations are recovered by the kicking team. The percentage plummets when the other team is expecting it.
NoSaint Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) I wouldn't catagorize down by 14 after 55 minutes the start of the 15th (especially with our offensive & point output in that game). We needed 2 scores and we were running out of time. To me it was a "no brainer" to go for it. We didn't need a haymaker, we needed two of them. Also, and off topic...we should have gone for the on sides kick after our prior TD, not the last one. i think this is the longest post that we both agree pretty much 100% on. As a best case scenario, getting the ball back with 4 minutes to go, no timeouts and needing two TDs to tie is about as close to death as a team can be. instead of letting them slowly bleed out, it wouldve been my preference to see the coach give them atleast a chance (even if they mightve messed it up). the only reason im not more frustrated by it is that even if they converted there it was a huge long shot to win, but in exchange for a 50-50 or better play ill take more time, timeouts, and having to only either A) stop manning once or B) get an onside kick over both of those things. Edited December 9, 2014 by NoSaint
Beerball Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) i think this is the longest post that we both agree pretty much 100% on. As a best case scenario, getting the ball back with 4 minutes to go, no timeouts and needing two TDs to tie is about as close to death as a team can be. instead of letting them slowly bleed out, it wouldve been my preference to see the coach give them atleast a chance (even if they mightve messed it up). the only reason im not more frustrated by it is that even if they converted there it was a huge long shot to win, but in exchange for a 50-50 or better play ill take more time, timeouts, and having to only either A) stop manning once or B) get an onside kick over both of those things. there's hope for us yet! I should say that there is hope for you yet! Edited December 9, 2014 by Beerball
seq004 Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 With this offense it may have been the right move. If you don't get it there it's game over with 4.5 to play.
NoSaint Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 (edited) With this offense it may have been the right move. If you don't get it there it's game over with 4.5 to play. if the offense is that bad do you think they had a chance to score 2 tds in 4 minutes with no timeouts? if you truly think they are awful, i want my coach trying to steal the chance there, not letting them bleed out so they can say "hey, we didnt make any controversial calls that ended it early" Edited December 9, 2014 by NoSaint
Dante Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 Orton sliding was preceded by Jackson running out of bounds without contact rather than squaring up and getting the first down on 2nd down. As for Marrone - I don't understand why so man NFL coaches have trouble with these decisions. Yes you see it all the time. I really feel that coaches are selfish in that the are more worried about how they are perceived than being logical. They don't want to be the coach that goes for it deep in their end and fails. Even though logically it's their only chance at winning it just looks catastrophic if it doesn't work. Then, in the press conference after the game when questioned about it they don't answer they blow it off. ****ty coaching.
MikeSpeed Posted December 9, 2014 Posted December 9, 2014 I had no problem punting there. I did have a problem of not starting the 2 minute offense sooner. The drive before we finally started the hurry up we wasted a huge amount of time. Letting the play clock get down to less than 5 seconds on almost every snap.
Recommended Posts