The biggest blunder of the game IMO

[SectionC3]

1 hour ago, BuffaloBaumer said:

I still can't believe nobody has brought up not going for 2 pt conversion when it would have forced Giants to make the PAT if needed. There was no difference of going up 5 or 4 points after that last TD. THe whole thing made absolutely zero sense. 

 

I think the calculus on our side considered the additional point together with the field goal that we later missed. 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

12 hours ago, ChronicAndKnuckles said:

The decision to kick a 53 FG when already up 4+ points knowing your kicker has been shaky and shanked another 53 yarder earlier in the game.

Missing the kick would put the Giants in good field position w/ a time out to work with and ample time to dink & dunk their way down to the red zone.

 

If McDermott would’ve punted, it would’ve placed the Giants around the 10 (who haven’t scored a TD in multiple games) and made them drive 90 yards! This decision would’ve eliminated all those Trent Edwards check downs and forced Tyrod to make multiple big plays. I’m sure the analytics would back this up all day. 
 

I know it’s irrelevant now, but the Bills are darn lucky to have escaped this game w/ a win. 

 

 

It was 53 not 63.  He was 11/16 from 50 before this game, and 3/3 this season.  

 

8 points and a kickoff to them means you cannot lose the game on the next possession.  You get to try and stop them from getting in the end zone, and you get to stop them on the conversion.  Either way you win.  

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

1 hour ago, MJS said:

You can't win if you are McDermott. Trust the kicker or don't, go for it or don't, even when you win a hard fought game. Even when the defense you coordinate only allows 9 points.

 

Nothing he can do will appease the mindless mob that wants him gone.

 

People are upset that we didn't punt from the 36 yard line.  Why do you get your kicker a contract extension if he can't make a 53 yard FG?  Or that we didn't run on 3rd and 9.  We have one of the best QBs in the league and we shouldn't run a play action pass on 3rd and 9?  

 

These are the decisions that Doug Marrone would make.  

[ChronicAndKnuckles]

19 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

 

People are upset that we didn't punt from the 36 yard line.  Why do you get your kicker a contract extension if he can't make a 53 yard FG?  Or that we didn't run on 3rd and 9.  We have one of the best QBs in the league and we shouldn't run a play action pass on 3rd and 9?  

 

These are the decisions that Doug Marrone would make.  

Because he just missed the previous 53 yarder. McDermott should’ve ran the ball, forced the Giants to use their last TO, and let Tyrod Taylor engineer a 90 yard game winning TD drive against a top defense. Good luck ! 

1 hour ago, Hebert19 said:

I punt there all day every day.  No way giants can go length of field.  

 

Run the ball again.  Make them use a time out then punt. Only way to play that.  Love the guts on both calls but they were dumb. 

Would have been an easier call if they had to use their time out.   If you run the ball on 3rd and they burn timeout then I'm for field goal.  But by doing both throw and FG they literally handed them the game.  Good field possession and a time out to boot.  Pin them inside the 10 with no timeouts and there is no stress at all 

I really don’t know why this is so hard to comprehend for some people here. 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

7 minutes ago, ChronicAndKnuckles said:

Because he just missed the previous 53 yarder. McDermott should’ve ran the ball, forced the Giants to use their last TO, and let Tyrod Taylor engineer a 90 yard game winning TD drive against a top defense. Good luck ! 

I really don’t know why this is so hard to comprehend for some people here. 

 

Since when does missing a FG mean you can't make another though?  

 

Also our best player is the QB - i probably trust him to win it (he almost did). 

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

6 hours ago, Alpo Chino said:

Sometimes simple is good. It's about 50/50 that Bass makes that fg. Not really high %. If he misses that Giants get the ball at the 43 yard line, not the 36. So even if they punt for a touchback, it's 23 yards of field position at the very least, not 16. So Tyrod led offense driving 85+ yards for a TD with 90 seconds with no timeouts, I'd have to give that about a 5-8% chance of happening. But only having to go 57 yards with a timeout? I would give that about a 25-30% of happening. Big increase. I feel like analytics would heavily favor running the ball, make the gmen use up their timeouts and go almost the length of the field. jmho. 

I def flubbed the yard lines for sure haha but I think the advanced metrics probably said go for it which is why we did it. Even if that pass to Knox and fg are both 50/50 it’s a 75% chance of hitting on one of those things 

 

then you gotta factor in the odds you actually pin them deep rather than a touchback…it was probably pretty close either way 

[JohnNord]

17 hours ago, Simon said:

 

I said on 2nd down that I hoped he'd trust his defense and let Bass try it to go up 8.

I stand by that and think it was the right call.

This was the right call because on 4th and 10 from the 35 you really have no other choice.  
 

This decision was always going to based on the end-result.   Bass misses the kick and people say “why would you not punt the ball?”
 

Had they punted the ball and the Giants scored the GW TD the narrative then becomes “How can you not trust your kicker who missed 1 FG all season long”

[ChronicAndKnuckles]

34 minutes ago, JohnNord said:

This was the right call because on 4th and 10 from the 35 you really have no other choice.  
 

This decision was always going to based on the end-result.   Bass misses the kick and people say “why would you not punt the ball?”
 

Had they punted the ball and the Giants scored the GW TD the narrative then becomes “How can you not trust your kicker who missed 1 FG all season long”

I texted my brother before they even made the decision that they better punt the ball. This is one of the few moments where being conservative is a good thing. The Giants haven’t scored an offensive TD in 3 games and that was WITH their starting QB healthy. All of the sudden they were gonna drive 70-80 yards for the GW TD w/ a backup QB and decimated O-line ? Against the best pass rushing team in the league? Trust your defense that you’ve dumped multiple resources into and let Oliver/Rousseau/Floyd do their thing. 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

19 hours ago, ToGoGo said:

You trust your great kicker. 

 

I've learned the opposite actually. 

 

In hindsight you run the ball three times and punt and the Giants likely never cross midfield. But that is hindsight. 

19 hours ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

I don’t think I’ve ever seen two 50/50 pis called in a row leading to untimed downs in my life and I don’t think mahomes gets both those calls either 

 

I think that’s just as controversial if not more so than what actually ended up happening 

 

I recall it happening probably 5-6 years ago. Think it was a prime-time game but can't recall the game. But yes, it is very rare. Yesterday was certainly a game it could have happened and I'm not sure folks would be irate if it did. 

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

28 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

I've learned the opposite actually. 

 

In hindsight you run the ball three times and punt and the Giants likely never cross midfield. But that is hindsight. 

 

I recall it happening probably 5-6 years ago. Think it was a prime-time game but can't recall the game. But yes, it is very rare. Yesterday was certainly a game it could have happened and I'm not sure folks would be irate if it did. 

The pi they actually called was way too ticky tacky to call a second in a row at the end of a game unless someone got straight up tackled with the ball in the air.  I don’t have a problem with people complaining the second one was missed but the first one never should’ve been called imo…not the way that game was officiated.  I was seeing a lot of grabbed jerseys 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Generic_Bills_Fan

[DabillsDaBillsDaBills]

38 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:

 

I've learned the opposite actually. 

 

In hindsight you run the ball three times and punt and the Giants likely never cross midfield. But that is hindsight. 

 

I recall it happening probably 5-6 years ago. Think it was a prime-time game but can't recall the game. But yes, it is very rare. Yesterday was certainly a game it could have happened and I'm not sure folks would be irate if it did. 

 

What's that based on? Our DEF was giving up chunks of yards the entire 2nd half. 

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

13 minutes ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

The pi they actually called was way too ticky tacky to call a second in a row at the end of a game unless someone got straight up tackled with the ball in the air.  I don’t have a problem with people complaining the second one was missed but the first one never should’ve been called imo…not the way that game was officiated.  I was seeing a lot of grabbed jerseys 

maybe i need to rewatch. I thought the first was far more blatant with multiple grabs, a hook and never playing the ball. 
 

thought it was an easier call than the second. 

[pennstate10]

20 hours ago, ChronicAndKnuckles said:

The decision to kick a 53 FG when already up 4+ points knowing your kicker has been shaky and shanked another 53 yarder earlier in the game.

Missing the kick would put the Giants in good field position w/ a time out to work with and ample time to dink & dunk their way down to the red zone.

 

If McDermott would’ve punted, it would’ve placed the Giants around the 10 (who haven’t scored a TD in multiple games) and made them drive 90 yards! This decision would’ve eliminated all those Trent Edwards check downs and forced Tyrod to make multiple big plays. I’m sure the analytics would back this up all day. 
 

I know it’s irrelevant now, but the Bills are darn lucky to have escaped this game w/ a win. 

 

 

Uh....

Call me crazy, but I thinking running the ball at the opponents 1 yd line with 14 sec and no TO left qualifies as a pretty big blunder.

[Bookie Man]

5 hours ago, Generic_Bills_Fan said:

I def flubbed the yard lines for sure haha but I think the advanced metrics probably said go for it which is why we did it. Even if that pass to Knox and fg are both 50/50 it’s a 75% chance of hitting on one of those things 

 

then you gotta factor in the odds you actually pin them deep rather than a touchback…it was probably pretty close either way 

You can't go into a 2 play scenario thinking it's 75% that one of these will work.  For example.. your odds of picking up a yard if you run 2 QB sneaks in a row is probably like 90%. But say.. you're deep in your own territory and you don't get it on the first try, it doesn't mean you should go for it again because it's 90% that it should work this time. You need to adjust to in-game scenarios... A 53 yard field goal is still 50/50 and if you miss, you give them a HUGE advantage at winning.. From roughly about 5% to 25% chance at winning.  A 5X probability increase. THAT'S FREAKIN HUGE! There's no way analytics would favor a FG right there. This is all just my napkin math, but how much better would you have felt with Tyrod having to go 90 yards in 90 seconds as opposed to 57 yards with a timeout? I was so uneasy with them starting at midfield. But I wouldn't have had a worry in the world if they started from their own 10. 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Alpo Chino

[HappyDays]

17 hours ago, gobills1212 said:

You either want your team to be aggressive or you dont.

 

Why is aggressive inherently good? What ever happened to context? We're facing the worst offense in football. They've scored 1 offensive TD in the previous 11 quarters of game time. They have a backup QB, a gimpy RB, and missing several OL including their stud LT. We can pin them back inside the 20 with zero timeouts and 1 minute to drive for a TD, or we can risk giving them the ball at midfield with 1 timeout. Why in that scenario is aggressive the right mindset?

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by HappyDays

[Old Coot]

23 hours ago, ToGoGo said:

You trust your great kicker.

This and presumably you rely on how Bass was doing in pre-game practice kicks.

[HappyDays]

14 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

“Are coaches not willing to go against the slight statistical benefit that WPA (win probability added) provides?”

 

I hate these newfangled "win probability" calculators. I'm not inherently anti-analytics by any means, but I feel like this tool is fundamentally flawed in a way that no one talks about. The issue is that it doesn't account for a wild swing in momentum depending on the outcome of the play. Like in that example with the Eagles, throwing it on 3rd and 9 has a lot of potentially negative outcomes that wildly swing the win probability in the Jets direction. There is one outstanding outcome that guarantees a win, but also several negative outcomes that make your chances much worse. Whereas playing it safe with a run and then punting, you know with 99% certainty you are just mildly shifting win probability towards the Jets. There isn't much variance in that decision. The win probability calculator can't truly know how likely any given outcome is if you play aggressive or play conservative, so it is just guessing on certain variables and pops out a number that a ton of analytics people treat like gospel. But it isn't, there is still a ton of context that the calculator can't possibly capture. So personally I will almost always take the lower variance option (which is usually the conservative option) unless I am facing an offense or a QB that I expect to move the ball on my defense.

 

I don't know if I explained that too well, but it's bothered me ever since I first saw these win probability calculators pop out of the blue several years ago and everybody immediately bought into them without any hint of skepticism.

 

Our decision at the end of the Giants game is a good example of why I feel this way. We ran the only possible series of plays (pass followed by a FG attempt) that would have given the Giants a decent chance at a win. McDermott would rightfully be getting blasted today if the coin flip ending had gone in the other direction. Honestly he SHOULD be getting blasted but the media forgets those mistakes in a win.

 

Edited October 17, 2023 by HappyDays

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

11 hours ago, Alpo Chino said:

You can't go into a 2 play scenario thinking it's 75% that one of these will work.  For example.. your odds of picking up a yard if you run 2 QB sneaks in a row is probably like 90%. But say.. you're deep in your own territory and you don't get it on the first try, it doesn't mean you should go for it again because it's 90% that it should work this time. You need to adjust to in-game scenarios... A 53 yard field goal is still 50/50 and if you miss, you give them a HUGE advantage at winning.. From roughly about 5% to 25% chance at winning.  A 5X probability increase. THAT'S FREAKIN HUGE! There's no way analytics would favor a FG right there. This is all just my napkin math, but how much better would you have felt with Tyrod having to go 90 yards in 90 seconds as opposed to 57 yards with a timeout? I was so uneasy with them starting at midfield. But I wouldn't have had a worry in the world if they started from their own 10. 

This is gonna be a big time agree to disagree I think 😂 obviously I’m not an nfl coach so you absolutely could be right but I’d imagine coaches plan for two play scenarios all the time…like a running play on third and medium because they have a passing play they like for fourth and short if they don’t pick it up.  I think they absolutely crunch numbers on two play scenarios and likely had the thought that the fg is 50/50 when they called that play to Knox so factoring in the probability of both plays is exactly what they’re doing.  If they didn’t have a passing play they liked on third down or didn’t like the odds of the fg they more than likely would’ve ran it and punted so the Knox catch probability is directly related to the fg probability. Again all speculation though because I am some dummy that watches the game from my couch lol 

 

I think they probably had a third and long passing play in mind before they even got the ball because that was the scenario they were most likely to end up in.  
 

I have trouble hating on the call because he was wide freakin open haha to each their own but when we’re evaluating the decision making of the coaches at the time I feel like I’d give a little bit more weight to the play design worked perfectly than the actual result.  That’s certainly a personal taste thing though. If josh threw up a 50/50 ball to knox because nobody got any separation I’d be with the run and punt crew.

 

 I do get your point that they’re kind of separate events because you can technically punt after the throw to Knox but I think when the numbers get crunched they look several plays ahead.  It was probably the odds of it being impossible to lose in regulation vs punting and playing defense when the Knox call was made and it’s personal taste whether that’s the right way to look at it.  If the throw to Knox goes incomplete the giants have time and a timeout so the odds shift a good amount.    

Edited October 17, 2023 by Generic_Bills_Fan

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

11 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

I hate these newfangled "win probability" calculators. I'm not inherently anti-analytics by any means, but I feel like this tool is fundamentally flawed in a way that no one talks about. The issue is that it doesn't account for a wild swing in momentum depending on the outcome of the play. Like in that example with the Eagles, throwing it on 3rd and 9 has a lot of potentially negative outcomes that wildly swing the win probability in the Jets direction. There is one outstanding outcome that guarantees a win, but also several negative outcomes that make your chances much worse. Whereas playing it safe with a run and then punting, you know with 99% certainty you are just mildly shifting win probability towards the Jets. There isn't much variance in that decision. The win probability calculator can't truly know how likely any given outcome is if you play aggressive or play conservative, so it is just guessing on certain variables and pops out a number that a ton of analytics people treat like gospel. But it isn't, there is still a ton of context that the calculator can't possibly capture. So personally I will almost always take the lower variance option (which is usually the conservative option) unless I am facing an offense or a QB that I expect to move the ball on my defense.

 

I don't know if I explained that too well, but it's bothered me ever since I first saw these win probability calculators pop out of the blue several years ago and everybody immediately bought into them without any hint of skepticism.

 

Our decision at the end of the Giants game is a good example of why I feel this way. We ran the only possible series of plays (pass followed by a FG attempt) that would have given the Giants a decent chance at a win. McDermott would rightfully be getting blasted today if the coin flip ending had gone in the other direction. Honestly he SHOULD be getting blasted but the media forgets those mistakes in a win.

 

From talkin about this for awhile I think this is all a really interesting debate that can vary wildly based on how you assign probabilities to things.  It’s true without a doubt that it would be questioned more if they lost.  
 

For me personally the coaches had a strong feeling that the throw to knox was a high percentage play based on what the giants defense had been doing to defend the run up to that point and it’s game over right there.

 

it’s hard for me to personally say that part of it was a bad decision because it worked like an absolute charm…I think they hit that play probably 9 out of 10 times and much like they’re getting criticized now for it not working they’d look smart if it did. Can absolutely see the other side of it though

As far as where the coaches were coming from I think they saw the odds of that play succeeding as much higher than a coin flip.  Whether they should’ve or not is certainly up for debate lol 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Generic_Bills_Fan

[Generic_Bills_Fan]

11 hours ago, HappyDays said:

 

Why is aggressive inherently good? What ever happened to context? We're facing the worst offense in football. They've scored 1 offensive TD in the previous 11 quarters of game time. They have a backup QB, a gimpy RB, and missing several OL including their stud LT. We can pin them back inside the 20 with zero timeouts and 1 minute to drive for a TD, or we can risk giving them the ball at midfield with 1 timeout. Why in that scenario is aggressive the right mindset?

 

I do think the odds change a bit down the stretch where defenses start to get fatigued and they’re in four down territory…it’s not like they weren’t moving the ball all night.   My thought is if elam wasn’t on the field we probably run once and punt but with a pretty moderate liability out there on defense they didn’t feel as comfy as they otherwise would have. There’s always a decent chance of a deep pi call these days completely neutralizing the field position advantage.

 

your last sentence is what I really don’t understand but that could be a me thing I don’t think anyone is inherently wrong here lol the criticism side is factoring in the third and fourth down decisions as a lump single decision so why would the pro side not be allowed to factor in the odds of the Knox pass OR the fg succeeding. Those odds of winning the game were likely just as high or higher than the run on third down and punt.  It wouldn’t have made sense to throw and then punt so the decision to kick the fg was more than likely made when that throw to Knox was called 

 

the alternative is to weigh the 3rd down play and 4th down play success rate separately…the criticism side doesn’t get to have it both ways imo.  
 

I explained my point way better here than my previous rambling nonsense post so hopefully nobody reads the old one 😂. 

Edited October 17, 2023 by Generic_Bills_Fan