Simon Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 And I thought he failed the test:-( Opting for a measly 15yrds of field position instead of giving Lindell a shot to make it a 7pt lead: especially when the kick was inside 50 on a dry sunny day with the wind at the kicker's back. You gotta play to win, and Mularkey was playing not to lose today. Cya
GG Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 When a coach does that, there better be tryouts for new kickers on Tuesday.
JimBob2232 Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 Dont kid yourself. That was the right call there. If we had a kicker that might POSSIBLY make that FG, I say you are right... About the only thing Lindell is capable of kicking is his way out of Buffalo.
sm@ub Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 I don't know...I get the feeling Lindell couldn't hit the broad side of a barn if he had to (with a kick).
KD in CA Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 And I thought he failed the test:-( Opting for a measly 15yrds of field position instead of giving Lindell a shot to make it a 7pt lead: especially when the kick was inside 50 on a dry sunny day with the wind at the kicker's back. You gotta play to win, and Mularkey was playing not to lose today. Cya 27665[/snapback] I agree. Missing the 42 yarder doesn't mean it's hopeless from 50.
Jukester Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 Opting for a measly 15yrds of field position instead of giving Lindell a shot to make it a 7pt lead: especially when the kick was inside 50 on a dry sunny day with the wind at the kicker's back. You gotta play to win, and Mularkey was playing not to lose today. 27665[/snapback] I totally agree. If you've chosen a kicker for your team, you have to be able to have him kick a 49-50 yarder when it counts. Punting there says you have absolutely no faith in himl. If that's the case, he shouldn't be on the team.
YOOOOOO Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 I agree. Missing the 42 yarder doesn't mean it's hopeless from 50. 27679[/snapback] Except the fact if he missed that 49-50 yarder and we lose you guys still complain and reverse and say we shoulda punted.......
JimBob2232 Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 I agree. Missing the 42 yarder doesn't mean it's hopeless from 50. Hopeless, no. But by the same token, because I lost the lottery last week, doesnt mean its hopeless for me to win the next week. The longest FG Lindell has hit in his bills career is 44 yards. He was 17/24 last season, and only made 3 field goals longer than 39 yards. The decision was 1) Take a longshot chance at the FG and if you miss give them the ball around the 50 yard line 2) Punt the ball and make them drive 90 yards in 2 minutes. The 2nd choice IS THE CORRECT CHOICE. Too bad our defense let us down, and its also too bad we couldnt have attempted that kick. But with lindell, we had no other choice. Would you be saying the same thing if lindell missed that kick?
KRT88 Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 Hopeless, no. But by the same token, because I lost the lottery last week, doesnt mean its hopeless for me to win the next week. The longest FG Lindell has hit in his bills career is 44 yards. He was 17/24 last season, and only made 3 field goals longer than 39 yards. The decision was 1) Take a longshot chance at the FG and if you miss give them the ball around the 50 yard line 2) Punt the ball and make them drive 90 yards in 2 minutes. The 2nd choice IS THE CORRECT CHOICE. Too bad our defense let us down, and its also too bad we couldnt have attempted that kick. But with lindell, we had no other choice. Would you be saying the same thing if lindell missed that kick? 27687[/snapback] The ball would have been around the 40 yard line not the 50 but you are right, you punt the ball and let your defense stop them. Unfortunately, the punt was poor and defense didn't stop them. What the hell was Villarial holding for anyhow? That's what set up this entire mess.
Simon Posted September 12, 2004 Author Posted September 12, 2004 Except the fact if he missed that 49-50 yarder and we lose you guys still complain and reverse and say we shoulda punted....... Or not. I would have given Mularkey the nod for taking a shot whether Lindell hits or not. The difference between a 60+yrd drive and an 80yrd drive isn't so great that it's worth denying yourself the chance to take a touchdown lead late in the game. He got caught overcoaching for at least the 2ndtime on the day and both times it stung us. Hell, he'd have been better off going for it at that point, than just surrendering the ball in exchange for 0 freaking points. It was a mistake in foresight and in hindsight. Cya
KD in CA Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 Hopeless, no. But by the same token, because I lost the lottery last week, doesnt mean its hopeless for me to win the next week. The longest FG Lindell has hit in his bills career is 44 yards. He was 17/24 last season, and only made 3 field goals longer than 39 yards. The decision was 1) Take a longshot chance at the FG and if you miss give them the ball around the 50 yard line 2) Punt the ball and make them drive 90 yards in 2 minutes. The 2nd choice IS THE CORRECT CHOICE. Too bad our defense let us down, and its also too bad we couldnt have attempted that kick. But with lindell, we had no other choice. Would you be saying the same thing if lindell missed that kick? 27687[/snapback] If that is the case, than the fact that Lindell is still on the team show a GLARING incompetence by both the GM and HC. How the f#*k could you have a guy on the team that has NO chance of making a 50 yard FG? And yes, I would be saying the same thing if he had missed. The ball wouldn't have been at the 50 and we only made them drive 80 yards as it happened. The net field position difference was 15-20 yards, making it worth the FG attempt..
JimBob2232 Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 If that is the case, than the fact that Lindell is still on the team show a GLARING incompetence by both the GM and HC. How the f#*k could you have a guy on the team that has NO chance of making a 50 yard FG? DING DING DING...we have a winner.
jarthur31 Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 And I thought he failed the test:-( Opting for a measly 15yrds of field position instead of giving Lindell a shot to make it a 7pt lead: especially when the kick was inside 50 on a dry sunny day with the wind at the kicker's back. You gotta play to win, and Mularkey was playing not to lose today. Cya 27665[/snapback] Put down the crap pipe! If he can't nail a 42 chip shot how is he supposed to make a 50 yarder? Ok, you may now pass me the crack pipe, I need some of that stevestojan!
jarthur31 Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 I agree. Missing the 42 yarder doesn't mean it's hopeless from 50. 27679[/snapback] I hope you're being sarcastic here man.
Fake-Fat Sunny Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 Put down the crap pipe! If he can't nail a 42 chip shot how is he supposed to make a 50 yarder? Ok, you may now pass me the crack pipe, I need some of that stevestojan! 27714[/snapback] My sense of the game was that there was that the wind had something to do with Lindell missing from 42 (though it shouldn't have because I expect my kicker on synthetic turf at home to make it within 45). Even ifthis were the case that makes the decision to punt all the more wimpy since he had the wind at his back for that one. Hindsight is 20/20 but the hindsight pretty clearly says he should have gone for the FG.
Captain America Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 They need a new kicker, Lindell blows.If they dont the coaches decision to kick field goals or punt will be seriously affected
BillnutinHouston Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 Yes, Mularkey made the right decision and yes, the Bills need a new kicker.
JimBob2232 Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 Hindsight is 20/20 but the hindsight pretty clearly says he should have gone for the FG. Just because the outcome doesnt produce the desired results does not mean that the choice was not the proper one.
Simon Posted September 12, 2004 Author Posted September 12, 2004 The decision was1) Take a longshot chance at the FG and if you miss give them the ball around the 50 yard line 2) Punt the ball and make them drive 90 yards in 2 minutes. Nonsense. 1)It wasn't a longshot in any way, shape or form. It was a 49yrdr on a beautiful day with any wind at Lindelll's back that he probably had a 50/50 chance to give us 7pt lead(thats a realllly important number in football ya know). 2)The spot if he did miss would have been the 39, hardly the 50. 3)It's easy to say just punt the ball and make them drive 90, but it usually doesn't work like that, instead it'll likely end up out around the 20 by faircatch or touchback. In fact Lindell had a far better chance of making that fieldgoal than Moorman had of landing it on the 10. If those decisions you presented were the actual options then #2 is preferable. However they were not the actual options. Those were: 1)Try a 49yrd FG on a beautiful day with the wind at your back to take a 7pt lead with a couple minutes left. If you miss it they still have to drive over 60yrds. 2)Go for it and if you don't get it they still have to drive almost 70 yrds. 3)Sacrifice any opportunity for hugely important points or a monster firstdown and voluntarily give up the ball just so you can move it from the 30 to around the 20. 10-15 yrds of field position is nowhere near important enough to sacrifice points or possession for it. Cya
Milo Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 We're already up 4, so they needed a TD anyway. Might as well make it as hard as possible for them to get it. Blame the D for that last drive. Reminded me of SB 25 when our great D just couldn't close the deal.
Recommended Posts