We should have elected to kick off in OT

[Einstein]

In no way do I think that it cost us the game, but I do believe that it was the wrong coaching decision.

 

Against a poor offense like the Jets, I believe the proper decision is to give them the ball first, force a punt, and then play for the game winning field goal. If you’re playing a strong offense like the Chiefs, I feel the opposite would be wise.

 

Thoughts?

[RiotAct]

In hindsight… yeah probably 😂

 

But I think it was the right call.  Your offense had a good drive to close out regulation, try and build on that.  (By running a draw play on 2nd and 15, of course!)

[Wizard]

Sure...

 

Doesn't matter tonight. Zach Wilson was the better QB tonight. He did not cost his team a loss.

[die hard bills fan]

 I agree with you.

[FireChans]

3 minutes ago, Einstein said:

In no way do I think that it cost us the game, but I do believe that it was the wrong coaching decision.

 

Against a poor offense like the Jets, I believe the proper decision is to give them the ball first, force a punt, and then play for the game winning field goal. If you’re playing a strong offense like the Chiefs, I feel the opposite would be wise.

 

Thoughts?

Never.

 

Teams that receive have a huge advantage in the W/L column.

 

Teams that call a draw on 2nd and 15, less so.

[Einstein]

1 minute ago, RiotAct said:

In hindsight… yeah probably 😂

 

But I think it was the right call.  Your offense had a good drive to close out regulation, try and build on that.  (By running a draw play on 2nd and 15, of course!)

 

Personally, I don’t think one even needs hindsight.

 

When you have a poor offensive opponent that you have held to 13 points, the chance is high that you stall their offense on any given drive. Which would result in you getting the ball back, only needing a field goal.

 

[K D]

Uhh no. They break a big play and we never get the ball.

[Mikie2times]

In college they always defer because you get the extra down if the other team scores. The only disadvantage is you could be working on a short clock but I have to think NFL coaches will be deferring as we see more of this. The extra down is just too much of an advantage. I don’t know if the Bills were prepared for that situation TBH. I guess we will see as more teams weigh in. 

[Johnnycage46]

Team should have stayed in Buffalo.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

7 minutes ago, Einstein said:

In no way do I think that it cost us the game, but I do believe that it was the wrong coaching decision.

 

Against a poor offense like the Jets, I believe the proper decision is to give them the ball first, force a punt, and then play for the game winning field goal. If you’re playing a strong offense like the Chiefs, I feel the opposite would be wise.

 

Thoughts?

I said it immediately in the GDT. Was no one watching this game? It was all defense.

[RiotAct]

2 minutes ago, Mikie2times said:

In college they always defer because you get the extra down if the other team scores. 

wait what?  That’s a thing? 😂

[Mikie2times]

Just now, RiotAct said:

wait what?  That’s a thing? 😂

😂😂

 

Say we deferred and the Jets scored a TD or a FG, we would know it’s 4 downs anywhere on the field until we get in range. Further, if you get a stop right away you’re in position for the Win. I think deferring is the correct play with the new rules. 

[Nephilim17]

Josh should have elected to take what the D gave him all game.

[Einstein]

3 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

I said it immediately in the GDT. Was no one watching this game? It was all defense.

 

That’s exactly right. The most likely occurrence in overtime would be an offense stalling on any given drive. It’s not the only possibility, but it’s the most likely. Therefore, given the most likely scenario, kicking off, would likely result in the Jets putting back to us.

 

Even if we had driven the field and kicked a field goal (how many of us realistically thought our offense was getting into the end zone?), we would still need to kick off to the Jets and give them an opportunity to match or beat us. 

 

The logic, in my opinion, it’s easily favoring kicking off.

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

1 minute ago, Einstein said:

 

That’s exactly right. The most likely occurrence in overtime would be an offense stalling on any given drive. It’s not the only possibility, but it’s the most likely. Therefore, given the most likely scenario, kicking off, would likely result in the Jets putting back to us.

 

Even if we had driven the field and kicked a field goal (how many of us realistically thought our offense was getting into the end zone?), we would still need to kick off to the Jets and give them an opportunity to match or beat us. 

 

The logic, in my opinion, it’s easily favoring kicking off.

Agree completely. Consider too all the turnovers. Odds were better that one of the defenses would get a turnover than score a TD. 

[Einstein]

11 minutes ago, Miyagi-Do Karate said:

Agree completely. Consider too all the turnovers. Odds were better that one of the defenses would get a turnover than score a TD. 

 

Great point. Zach was due a turnover. He already had his one good drive of the game.