Gutless Call to Punt

[Beast]

18 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:

The odds makers will agree with me. Spread will be over 10 points

 

Good for you? 

 

The oddsmakers will also agree with me that the Bills have been a tough out for the Patriots in Foxboro.

Edited December 11, 2017 by Binghamton Beast

[ExiledInIllinois]

9 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

What if you were in a game and you had the football with 16 seconds left and no timeouts.  It's 3rd down on the opponents 1 yard line down by 3.  What do you do?  Kick a FG to take it to OT or try a QB sneak?  If you don't get the sneak, you lose.  What do you do?  What do stats tell us to do?

 

The guy that went for the QB sneak now has the Super Bowl trophy named after him.  Considered to be one of the greatest calls in NFL history.  

 

Coaching decisions work like this: If it works, you're a coaching genius.  If not, you're a dumbass.

Gotta remember goalposts were on the goal line.  Not a chip shot, even know it was a chip shot. 

[oldmanfan]

6 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Okay... then he wasn't gutless, he was just clueless wasting that timeout and then acknowledging today that he was practically playing for the tie.

 

So the thread title should be changed from "Gutless call to punt" to "Clueless call to punt... especially after wasting that timeout"

 

 

But I guess that thread title would be too long

 

I agree about the timeout.

[MAJBobby]

Joe Webb led offense to get 1 yard in a blizzard is >>>>> Joe Web led offense going 50ish and a FG attempt in the blizzard 

[BillsFan130]

6 minutes ago, Binghamton Beast said:

 

Good for you? 

 

The oddsmakers will also agree with me that the Bills have been a tough out for the Patriots in Foxboro.

Ok lol. Odds are the Bills are going to lose by two touchdowns or More, and if not by that much, then they will still lose the game.

 

If you think otherwise then place your bet on the bills that game. But I won't be, that's for sure

[ExiledInIllinois]

7 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:

Joe Webb led offense to get 1 yard in a blizzard is >>>>> Joe Web led offense going 50ish and a FG attempt in the blizzard 

Not true statement.^^^ Joe Webb went +50 for game winning TD.

[Shaw66]

36 minutes ago, artmalibu said:

This topic is old already.  Most say go for it, I would.

 

But what gets me mad is the waste of the timeout.  If you going to try and pin them and get the ball back, fine but to waste a timeout to talk about it is awful

I'm not exactly sure what this means - the "wasted time out."   What was "wasted" about it?  The clock was running.  The timeout stopped the clock.    In some ways it doesn't matter when you stop the clock, because you save the same amount of time.   Or were they way into the play clock when they took the TO?  I don't remember.  

 

Edit - just checked.  They DID let the play clock run down with the clock running.  Then it WAS a wasted timeout. 

Edited December 12, 2017 by Shaw66

[ExiledInIllinois]

I hope McD is reading this pulling a Trump-A-Thon-All-Night-Media-Read.

 

Please McD, don't listen to these zero-sum chuckleheads... They will get you canned.  You handled "Snow Risk Assessment" the right way... After of course learning how the failure of the game's first drive shot your field position all to hell, but the Colts missed a FG attempt!

 

 

[Shaw66]

35 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

What if you were in a game and you had the football with 16 seconds left and no timeouts.  It's 3rd down on the opponents 1 yard line down by 3.  What do you do?  Kick a FG to take it to OT or try a QB sneak?  If you don't get the sneak, you lose.  What do you do?  What do stats tell us to do?

 

The guy that went for the QB sneak now has the Super Bowl trophy named after him.  Considered to be one of the greatest calls in NFL history.  

 

Coaching decisions work like this: If it works, you're a coaching genius.  If not, you're a dumbass.

This doesn't necessarily prove the point you think it does.  You think you're winning an argument because Lombardi didn't go conservative, and that therefore going conservative is a bad thing.   That isn't correct.

 

As I've been saying throughout this thread, it's about probabilities.   The outcome Lombardi was looking for was a win.  He made a judgment about which choice gave him the best chance to win.   

 

So you have to work through the options.   What's the probability of scoring on the sneak?   I don't know, call it 60%.   Lombardi liked the sneak because his interior linemen were good, could get their footing set before the snap and probably could get a good push.  After all, they'd just driven to the one. 

 

He didn't like the footing for his kicker - the kicker had to approach the ball and could slip.   What's the probability that he makes the kick?   Well, in good weather, maybe 95%.  In this weather, maybe 80%.   

 

Okay, so his chances of tying are better than his chances of winning on the sneak.  But the game isn't over if he ties.   Then he has a coin toss, and he has only a 50-50 chance there.   So if he loses the toss and the Cowboys score, he's lost the game.  What are the chances that either team scores on the first possession?   Not great, it's a low scoring game.   So the overtime is probably going to go at least a few possessions.   That means you have to figure your chances of winning are only 50-50.   

 

When you do all the math, what that tells you is that if you go for the field goal, you have an 80% chance of making the field goal and a 50% chance of winning in overtime, which means kicking the field goal gives you a 40% chance of winning the game.   If you think you have a 60% chance of scoring on the sneak, the sneak is the better choice.  

 

It's not about taking risk; it's about evaluating risk.  

 

[reddogblitz]

10 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

This doesn't necessarily prove the point you think it does.  You think you're winning an argument because Lombardi didn't go conservative, and that therefore going conservative is a bad thing.   That isn't correct.

 

As I've been saying throughout this thread, it's about probabilities.   The outcome Lombardi was looking for was a win.  He made a judgment about which choice gave him the best chance to win.   

 

So you have to work through the options.   What's the probability of scoring on the sneak?   I don't know, call it 60%.   Lombardi liked the sneak because his interior linemen were good, could get their footing set before the snap and probably could get a good push.  After all, they'd just driven to the one. 

 

He didn't like the footing for his kicker - the kicker had to approach the ball and could slip.   What's the probability that he makes the kick?   Well, in good weather, maybe 95%.  In this weather, maybe 80%.   

 

Okay, so his chances of tying are better than his chances of winning on the sneak.  But the game isn't over if he ties.   Then he has a coin toss, and he has only a 50-50 chance there.   So if he loses the toss and the Cowboys score, he's lost the game.  What are the chances that either team scores on the first possession?   Not great, it's a low scoring game.   So the overtime is probably going to go at least a few possessions.   That means you have to figure your chances of winning are only 50-50.   

 

When you do all the math, what that tells you is that if you go for the field goal, you have an 80% chance of making the field goal and a 50% chance of winning in overtime, which means kicking the field goal gives you a 40% chance of winning the game.   If you think you have a 60% chance of scoring on the sneak, the sneak is the better choice.  

 

It's not about taking risk; it's about evaluating risk.  

 

  

Here's an article about the play.  There are many quotes from coaches and and players saying it was a dumb call.  BUT IT WORKED.  The play is immortalized and Lombardi is considered a genius.   Hsd it been stopped he'd be known as the dumb ass who could have gone to SB II but instead went for a QB sneak?  who does that?

 

http://profootballdaly.com/the-ice-bowl-bart-starrs-sneak/

 

This quote sums it up perfectly i think:

 

Quote

Packers fullback Chuck Mercein looks at it this way: “Bad is only bad if it doesn’t work. To me, success justifies a lot of questionable calls.”[/quite]

 

Edited December 12, 2017 by reddogblitz

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

  

He did it because everybody was cold and didn't' want to have to play OT.  Either win it or lose it and it'd be over.  That's what he said.

I know what he said.  Do you really believe that one of the greatest, most detail oriented coaches of all time decided that way?   I don't.

 

It was very simple.  If he goes for the field goal, his chances of winning are under 50-50 because he might miss the field goal.   If  he goes for the win, his chances of winning are whatever he thinks they are.  If he thinks it's 60% or 70%, going for it is the smart call.  

[reddogblitz]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

I know what he said.  Do you really believe that one of the greatest, most detail oriented coaches of all time decided that way?   I don't.

 

It was very simple.  If he goes for the field goal, his chances of winning are under 50-50 because he might miss the field goal.   If  he goes for the win, his chances of winning are whatever he thinks they are.  If he thinks it's 60% or 70%, going for it is the smart call.  

 

No, it was Bart Starr's idea and Vince went along with it because they were cold and wanted to go home and he trusted his QB I guess.

[NoSaint]

So, for those that think the odds of being the next to score went up when we punted... where is the tipping point for you? The 35? Do you punt from closer than that?

[Shaw66]

2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

No, it was Bart Starr's idea and Vince went along with it because they were cold and wanted to go home and he trusted his QB I guess.

Like I said, you actually believe that?

Do you actually believe that he didn't know that if he went for the field goal, his chance of winning was less than 50%?    You think he didn't know that?   And you think he didn't compare that piece of knowledge with whether he thought the chances of scoring on the sneak were better than 50%?   You think he was just standing on the sideline empty headed?   Or he was thinking about what he'd have for dinner that night?  

 

What do you think he was thinking about?

 

I think he was thinking about how to win the game.   You think he was just standing there picking his nose and Starr said "let's go for it" and he said "why not?"  

 

Okay.  

2 hours ago, NoSaint said:

So, for those that think the odds of being the next to score went up when we punted... where is the tipping point for you? The 35? Do you punt from closer than that?

I don't think the chances of scoring went up they punted.  The chances of scoring went down.   But the chances of the Colts scoring also went down, and that is the important point.   The chances of getting a tie went way up.  

Edited December 12, 2017 by Shaw66

[NoSaint]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Like I said, you actually believe that?

Do you actually believe that he didn't know that if he went for the field goal, his chance of winning was less than 50%?    You think he didn't know that?   And you think he didn't compare that piece of knowledge with whether he thought the chances of scoring on the sneak were better than 50%?   You think he was just standing on the sideline empty headed?   Or he was thinking about what he'd have for dinner that night?  

 

What do you think he was thinking about?

 

I think he was thinking about how to win the game.   You think he was just standing there picking his nose and Starr said "let's go for it" and he said "why not?"  

 

Okay.  

I don't think the chances of scoring went up they punted.  The chances of scoring went down.   But the chances of the Colts scoring also went down, and that is the important point.   The chances of getting a tie went way up.  

 

The only metric that mattered was our odds of scoring. A tie is as good as a loss. That’s exactly the issue here- you have to play yesterday to win. Not losing isn’t good enough. 

 

If you think it was the right call to punt you are arguing, essentially, that punting made us more likely to score. If true I’m curious how far we have to get for that to tip. We weren’t kicking a fg at the 35, so do you still punt there, for instance? Anything across the 50 seems a no brainer to go for it to me.

[ExiledInIllinois]

20 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

No, it was Bart Starr's idea and Vince went along with it because they were cold and wanted to go home and he trusted his QB I guess.

Ever try making a 5 yard FG.

 

Goal posts were on the goal line.

I know how the Packers spun the narrative.  Ball on the one ain't no chip in those days.  Gotta get it up an over.  Or move back.

[Rochesterfan]

4 hours ago, mannc said:

No, going for it there is low risk, high reward.

 

 

This I do not understand at all.  

 

Percentage wise - the Bills for the season have a 16% (1 in 6) chance of converting a 4th down - they are 2/12 on the season.  They have been very bad at 3 and short on the season.

 

Additionally on the day the Bills had 50% of their rushing attempts for the entire day end with yardage that may not have yielded a first down (2 yards and less).  

 

With all of that adding up I do not see going for it as a low risk/high reward move.  I see it as a high risk/potential reward move because even if they get it there is no guarantee they get enough yards to score and if they do manage a field goal - Indy still gets the ball with a shot to win.  If they do not get it - Indy is 30 yards closer - still have 4 minutes - so they can run more and if they score the game is over.

 

The punt on the other hand was low risk/low reward - you basically gave them a shot with the ball in a game where there was no offense, but it might mean you have to go further if you stop them.  The upside is if Indy wants to win - they probably need to pass - which in that weather gave chances for turn-overs and clock stoppages.

 

I would prefer my coach want to maintain the pressure and go for the jugular, but the other side is acceptable also.  In this situation there are multiple outcomes and multiple ways to play it.  Defense was winning for the day - so I can accept the decision.

 

If the score had been 30 to 30 like Rex's decision and the offense could not be stopped and the defenses were bad - then you look at the decision and you have to factor all of that in, but this game was unique and I do not consider his decision to be conservative even if I disagree.  Coaches need to look at all outcomes and the situation and sometimes do things that we as fans disagree with - in the end - he has to defend his choices and if he felt punting was right and that was his conviction then it was his choice.

 

My biggest issue was the timeout because that hurt and that kind of thing needs to get corrected this offseason.

[Domdab99]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

I'm not exactly sure what this means - the "wasted time out."   What was "wasted" about it?  The clock was running.  The timeout stopped the clock.    In some ways it doesn't matter when you stop the clock, because you save the same amount of time.   Or were they way into the play clock when they took the TO?  I don't remember.  

 

Edit - just checked.  They DID let the play clock run down with the clock running.  Then it WAS a wasted timeout. 

 

OMG this can't be real...

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, NoSaint said:

 

The only metric that mattered was our odds of scoring. A tie is as good as a loss. That’s exactly the issue here- you have to play yesterday to win. Not losing isn’t good enough. 

 

If you think it was the right call to punt you are arguing, essentially, that punting made us more likely to score. If true I’m curious how far we have to get for that to tip. We weren’t kicking a fg at the 35, so do you still punt there, for instance? Anything across the 50 seems a no brainer to go for it to me.

Just in case you didn't see my earlier posts:

 

Going into the game, the Bills needed to finish the season 4-0 or 3-0-1.  If they finish the season 3-1,  they'd finish 9-7 and there's practically no chance they will win the tie breakers.   In other words, if they lose a game, they're out.  So a tie is not as good as a loss - a loss is fatal and a tie isn't. 

 

McDermott's objective is to keep playing meaningful games.  A loss makes the rest of the games this season.  A tie means next week is meaningful.  

 

Others have posted these numbers:  With a win, the Bills had a 14% chance of making the playoffs, with a tie 3% and with a loss 0%.   

 

So there was real value in playing not to lose.  A tie means the Bills have a chance. 

[PolishDave]

Some of you guys really, really, really miss Dick Jauron apparently.