Did Josh like the call at the goal line?

[Einstein]

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Nah. It's not "no way." They'd had a three and out a drive or two before.

 

But the odds weren't great we'd do it again there. And they'd likely have tried three run plays there as well to keep the clock running and force us to burn those TOs.

 

Several fans keep making the same faulty argument that you were replying to. They think there is no way we stop them if we kickoff. 
 

Two big things they are missing:

 

1) With three timeouts, we could have done BOTH. Best of both worlds. We could have done an onside kick, AND, if failed, then try to stop them from getting a first down using our three timeouts. Doing both massively increases your odds of accomplishing one of them.

 

2) Teams tend to play conservative offense when they have a lead and need the other team to spend their timeouts. In fact, that same Rams team - with McVay - just a month or so ago, in the same situation (couple minute left, with the ball and a one score lead), played it super conservative with short runs and short throws, and then punted the ball away!!!

 

Anyone arguing that wasting that timeout does not matter is simply someone not worth debating with.

[GoBills808]

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, he could have changed the call.

 

My guess is that he had tremendous confidence that he could get it done.

😂😂dying to know how many checks you think there are w that personnel

[BananaB]

1 hour ago, Billsatlastin2018 said:

For sure. Part of my calculation is to give this game’s hopelessly outclassed D… only ONE stop play- not two.

 

I am one that wants to put the pressure on the opposing team to make a quick decision. I suspect McVay was going to go for it, based on any positive 3rd Down play. I would simply rather, a) he had to think about it; b) he had ONE shot to get it right! 

Listening to McDs presser and him saying both options aren’t good really ***** gets to me. One is better and that’s what you should be doing. Same was said after the Houston game. 

[SCBills]

46 minutes ago, Einstein said:

 

Several fans keep making the same faulty argument that you were replying to. They think there is no way we stop them if we kickoff. 
 

Two big things they are missing:

 

1) With three timeouts, we could have done BOTH. Best of both worlds. We could have done an onside kick, AND, if failed, then try to stop them from getting a first down using our three timeouts. Doing both massively increases your odds of accomplishing one of them.

 

2) Teams tend to play conservative offense when they have a lead and need the other team to spend their timeouts. In fact, that same Rams team - with McVay - just a month or so ago, in the same situation (couple minute left, with the ball and a one score lead), played it super conservative with short runs and short throws, and then punted the ball away!!!

 

Anyone arguing that wasting that timeout does not matter is simply someone not worth debating with.

McVay absolutely knew the deal.  
 

If we weren’t coached by people who spaz in big moments, we’d be down 2, kicking off with 50-60 seconds lefts, with 3 TO’s. 
 

Rams get the ball at the 30 and probably run twice, maybe one of them is some type of misdirection with Puka or a variation off that.  And then if it’s 3rd down and 3, he’s letting Stafford throw for the win.   100% this is how it plays out. 
 

If we stop them, we get the ball back with about 40 seconds and 1 timeout left and it’s up to Bass to win the game because Allen and our Offense are absolutely getting into FG range. 

[Sweats]

1 hour ago, DapperCam said:

It's not really nonsense. We could have won the game if we had all 3 TOs left. It wasn't likely, but it was still a possibility. The most likely outcome is the Bills allow the Rams to get a first down and the game is over. But maybe there is a bad snap, or maybe there is a holding penalty that backs them way up. The KC Chiefs win on stuff like that seemingly every week. McDermott ended the game by calling that timeout. It was an unforced error, which is why people are annoyed. It eliminated the 5% chance we had to come back. It was small, but it was there.

 

 

 

 

Understood, however, the game ended the way it ended and no matter of *****ing and moaning from the fans, the outcome is real.......it can't be changed, so might as well accept it and move on.

[BillsShredder83]

12 hours ago, Billl said:

The clock was stopped before the play due to the penalty.  You can’t spike the ball when the clock was stopped prior to the snap.

Really?  I believe you but my first time hearing that.  Likely because it isnt a thing that happens or makes sense to do, but didnt know itd be a penalty.  Intentional grounding?

[RyanC883]

14 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

We should've called some variation of the pass/run option. That timeout absolutely cannot get burned.  And our tush pushes lately are starting to get stopped. The Rams snuffed one earlier in the game.  Brady/McD have to be smarter.

 

agreed.  how we don't have a plan for a situation where we need a quick touchdown is rediculous.  Either run/pass, or run and quickly get another play off.  

23 minutes ago, SCBills said:

McVay absolutely knew the deal.  
 

If we weren’t coached by people who spaz in big moments, we’d be down 2, kicking off with 50-60 seconds lefts, with 3 TO’s. 
 

Rams get the ball at the 30 and probably run twice, maybe one of them is some type of misdirection with Puka or a variation off that.  And then if it’s 3rd down and 3, he’s letting Stafford throw for the win.   100% this is how it plays out. 
 

If we stop them, we get the ball back with about 40 seconds and 1 timeout left and it’s up to Bass to win the game because Allen and our Offense are absolutely getting into FG range. 

 

this is the difference between the Bills, and teams that have won the SB.  You need to win games like the Rams games.  We don't.  Other teams do.  

[LABILLBACKER]

1 hour ago, BananaB said:

Listening to McDs presser and him saying both options aren’t good really ***** gets to me. One is better and that’s what you should be doing. Same was said after the Houston game. 

McDermott wouldn't know the difference between the options if it bit him in the ass.

[CincyBillsFan]

10 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I’m wondering if Josh liked the play.  Many say he didn’t.  If so then I wonder why he didn’t change the play.  

It would strike me as out of character for Allen to a change the call in that situation.  This wasn't in the middle of the field where he has the freedom and personnel to change the play in response to what he's seeing from the D.  They were on the goal line in a jumbo package about to execute the tush push. I don't see an option to change the call in the huddle at that point without his having to call a time out to make his case.  In the 1st half you could do this but not at the end of the game.

 

 

[oldmanfan]

3 hours ago, Einstein said:

 

Several fans keep making the same faulty argument that you were replying to. They think there is no way we stop them if we kickoff. 
 

Two big things they are missing:

 

1) With three timeouts, we could have done BOTH. Best of both worlds. We could have done an onside kick, AND, if failed, then try to stop them from getting a first down using our three timeouts. Doing both massively increases your odds of accomplishing one of them.

 

2) Teams tend to play conservative offense when they have a lead and need the other team to spend their timeouts. In fact, that same Rams team - with McVay - just a month or so ago, in the same situation (couple minute left, with the ball and a one score lead), played it super conservative with short runs and short throws, and then punted the ball away!!!

 

Anyone arguing that wasting that timeout does not matter is simply someone not worth debating with.

I think everyone agrees that calling the timeout was wrong.  I also think you should look up the definition of massively.

27 minutes ago, CincyBillsFan said:

It would strike me as out of character for Allen to a change the call in that situation.  This wasn't in the middle of the field where he has the freedom and personnel to change the play in response to what he's seeing from the D.  They were on the goal line in a jumbo package about to execute the tush push. I don't see an option to change the call in the huddle at that point without his having to call a time out to make his case.  In the 1st half you could do this but not at the end of the game.

 

 

I would love to talk to Josh about it.  When he saw that he only had Davidson behind him to push, could he have simply thrown the ball away at that point or maybe just took off around end on his own.

[oldmanfan]

2 hours ago, SCBills said:

McVay absolutely knew the deal.  
 

If we weren’t coached by people who spaz in big moments, we’d be down 2, kicking off with 50-60 seconds lefts, with 3 TO’s. 
 

Rams get the ball at the 30 and probably run twice, maybe one of them is some type of misdirection with Puka or a variation off that.  And then if it’s 3rd down and 3, he’s letting Stafford throw for the win.   100% this is how it plays out. 
 

If we stop them, we get the ball back with about 40 seconds and 1 timeout left and it’s up to Bass to win the game because Allen and our Offense are absolutely getting into FG range. 

If ifs and buts were candies and nuts, we'd all have a Merry Christmas.

[Einstein]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

I think everyone agrees that calling the timeout was wrong.  I also think you should look up the definition of massively.

 

massive

adjective

large in comparison

 

3% onside kick probability vs 11.73% chance (0,03 and 0,087 of either onside kick probability OR stopping them 

 

So… yeah. I would say a 4x increase in probability is “large in comparison” and therefore “massive”

[Never NEVER Give-up]

19 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

 

You name one stop on a sneak but say lately there have been others.  When? The stats I can find say we were successful on 13/14 going into yesterday’s game.

 

 

Per Fox Sports:  The Bills quarterback is 20 of 27 (74%) on sneaks from the 1 during his seven-year career and four of six this season.  (Admittedly - I find this hard to believe.)

19 hours ago, Billz4ever said:

It didn't help that that was not their typical tush push formation and Josh didn't have the push behind the tush he usually does from 2 guys behind him, which I'm sure played a factor.

 

Wasn't really a fan of the call either way though.  Would've rather seen play action bootleg and give Josh the option to pass it or run it in.

Liked the call - not the formation (1 tush pusher).  Disagree on the bootleg . . . running east-west with a fast, penetrating defense is not a good idea.

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, Einstein said:

 

massive

adjective

large in comparison

 

3% onside kick probability vs 11.73% chance (0,03 and 0,087 of either onside kick probability OR stopping them 

 

So… yeah. I would say a 4x increase in probability is “large in comparison” and therefore “massive”

Couple comments.  One is that you assume they would have done an inside kick even if they had scored on the first sneak.  More likely they kick and try to stop them farther in the Rams area of the field, thus giving us a shorter distance to get to FG range.  So take out the 0.03 in your second scenario.  Next your 0.087 I presume is based on us stopping them on one first down in the game, but that was because McVay was playing conservative and milking the clock.  Knowing he’d have to make one first down much more likely he uses his entire playbook especially the short stuff or jets to Nakia that killed us all day.  So lower your 0.087 to maybe 0.05.  So really not much difference at all.

[oldmanfan]

41 minutes ago, Never NEVER Give-up said:

Per Fox Sports:  The Bills quarterback is 20 of 27 (74%) on sneaks from the 1 during his seven-year career and four of six this season.  (Admittedly - I find this hard to believe.)

Liked the call - not the formation (1 tush pusher).  Disagree on the bootleg . . . running east-west with a fast, penetrating defense is not a good idea.

I got the 13/14 from Buffalo bills.com.  Just throwing bootleg out as an idea given they were ganged up in the middle.  I’d love to ask Josh if he really liked the call

[Buffalo716]

6 hours ago, SCBills said:

McVay absolutely knew the deal.  
 

If we weren’t coached by people who spaz in big moments, we’d be down 2, kicking off with 50-60 seconds lefts, with 3 TO’s. 
 

Rams get the ball at the 30 and probably run twice, maybe one of them is some type of misdirection with Puka or a variation off that.  And then if it’s 3rd down and 3, he’s letting Stafford throw for the win.   100% this is how it plays out. 
 

If we stop them, we get the ball back with about 40 seconds and 1 timeout left and it’s up to Bass to win the game because Allen and our Offense are absolutely getting into FG range. 

They could have also ran three straight times.. burned three timeouts 

 

Punted it to the 5 yard line.. and we have to go 60 yards in 35 seconds with no timeouts 

 

Was it great clock management.. no.. but after the quarterback sneak it was the only option 

 

Josh has complete control of the offense he could have changed the play.. him running the quarterback sneak and not scoring also doomed it 

 

He clearly was okay with the sneak because he can change the play

Edited December 10 by Buffalo716

[Einstein]

45 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

They could have also ran three straight times.. burned three timeouts 

 

Punted it to the 5 yard line.. and we have to go 60 yards in 35 seconds with no timeouts 

Very good chance that this is what McVay does. Its what a lot of teams would have done. 

Even if he passes once, refs tend to swallow their whistle on big-time game ending plays so Bills could have played it agressively.

[Buffalo716]

5 minutes ago, Einstein said:

Very good chance that this is what McVay does. Its what a lot of teams would have done. 

Even if he passes once, refs tend to swallow their whistle on big-time game ending plays so Bills could have played it agressively.

It doesn't even matter 

 

This game does not have anything to do with the rest of the season or the postseason 

 

The NFL is hard to win in.. I don't care if that's a cliche it's freaking true 

 

We have the AFC East locked up by week 11 

 

And we are absolutely super bowl contenders... The entire team didn't wake up for the game for the first half... That's a player problem not a coaching problem 

 

But I don't think the players are a problem I think they didn't care for the first half and thought they could sleep walk through the game which they couldn't 

 

And I can go back 20 years and find plenty of games Bill belichick , harbaugh, Tomlin... Every single coach I can go back and find blunders 

 

You know what the bills actually did? Almost make a great comeback when they were asleep for half the game 

 

The only people cry are armchair GMS 

 

I was over the game 5 minutes after it ended because it is not a reflection of the bills or how the season will end

 

Bills fans are Kings of overreaction... We have five straight AFC East titles I remember finishing last place five straight years in the AFC East 

 

Sean McDermott is better than a lot of super bowl winning coaches I don't care that we didn't win that game 

 

Because Josh Allen could have not ran a QB sneak because he's in complete control of the offense.. after we didn't score the timeout was the only option because it would have bled 15 20 seconds off

Edited December 10 by Buffalo716

[jcamm1966]

Maybe if the Defense showed up for a NanoSecond , it would never come down to that

[Einstein]

4 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

The NFL is hard to win in.. 

Which is exactly why you cant be making decisions that make it even harder.