RuntheDamnBall Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 When a coach does that, there better be tryouts for new kickers on Tuesday. 27671[/snapback] Lindell had better be a goner. Is Morten Andersen still available? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 No, Anderson went to minny...Conway is available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted September 12, 2004 Share 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 punt itself sucked. Morrman surely won't be confused with Ray Guy. Both could and can boom them, but where's the pooch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvermike Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Up four with a defense that hasn't allowed a single touchdown, you have to put the game in their hands. The other option, I think, was to go for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Up four with a defense that hasn't allowed a single touchdown, you have to put the game in their hands. The other option, I think, was to go for it. 27796[/snapback] Even though I dislike gadget plays, I was kind of hoping for a fake.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted September 12, 2004 Author Share Posted September 12, 2004 Up four with a defense that hasn't allowed a single touchdown, you have to put the game in their hands. That's fine by me but if you're really that confident in your D you don't eschew a hugely important 3pts just to give them a few extra yrds of field postion they shouldn't even need if they're that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eventualchamps Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 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 27742[/snapback] Stop kidding yourself. Mularkey makde the right call. Here's why: Our D was playing great Our coverage on punts was good Moorman was punting awesome and Mularkey had every reason to believe he could have trapped them deep in their zone with a great punt Lindell has a HISTORY of not making long field goals To debunk your myth about the wind.......yes it helps with distance but unfortunately for Lindell, it doesnt help with accruacy and he does indeed $UCK in this area. Hindsight is great but when it's all said and done, he made the right call to punt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt in KC Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 My take is they should have gone for it. I know it was 4th and 10, but I would have passed, and tried to force it in somewhere if no one was open. I think many DBs would catch the interception with the hope of making a return, and this would have gained as many yards as a punt. Their offense starting at the 33 is not so bad (tho not great obviously). I thought maybe Morrman might just try passing until they took the delay of game penalty. ...or kick the feild goal. He had plenty of leg on that 42 yard miss (that was very close btw). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c-biscut Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 I can't blame him. he put the game in the hands of our strongest unit. They probably aren't as strong as they think they are however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted September 12, 2004 Author Share Posted September 12, 2004 Stop kidding yourself. Mularkey makde the right call. Here's why:Our D was playing great Then why the hell did Mularkey feel giving them an extra couple yrds of field position was more important than those 3 huge points? Our coverage on punts was good What the hell does coverage have to do with anything? It was going to be a faircatch or a touchback which made the coverage unit irrelevant. Moorman was punting awesome and Mularkey had every reason to believe he could have trapped them deep in their zone with a great punt Hitting 80yrd bombs is great but I hadn't seen him doing anything today that made me think he could finesse one to the 10. And even if he had that's still only a freakin 20yrdpunt: and with a great defense those yrds are not even remotely close to being as important as those 3 pts. Lindell has a HISTORY of not making long field goals Really? So what is his career% on 49yrdrs in warm dry weather with the wind at his back? To debunk your myth about the wind.......yes it helps with distance but unfortunately for Lindell, it doesnt help with accruacy. Yes it does help with accuracy because your kicker doesn't need to take as big of a stroke as he would into the wind. And like a golf swing, you're much more accurate when you're under control instead of trying to kill it. Hindsight is great but when it's all said and done, he made the right call to punt. Hindsight is irrelevant and no matter what was said and done, punting was the least sensible and most gutless of the 3 calls he call he could have made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nyghtewynd Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 A rookie kicker playing in his first game for the worst team in professional football hit from 48 today (N. Kaeding, SD). And Lindell couldn't do it. There's some guy somewhere teaching elementary school who could have hit this kick. The organization should have known that before the season started, and because of their blindness the organization is 0-1 after one of the easiest games they'll have all year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Simon's right. The real question is this. Are you trying to win or to "not lose"? If you're trying to win, you kick. If you're trying to "not lose" you punt. Then why the hell did Mularkey feel giving them an extra couple yrds of field position was more important than those 3 huge points?What the hell does coverage have to do with anything? It was going to be a faircatch or a touchback which made the coverage unit irrelevant. Hitting 80yrd bombs is great but I hadn't seen him doing anything today that made me think he could finesse one to the 10. And even if he had that's still only a freakin 20yrdpunt: and with a great defense those yrds are not even remotely close to being as important as those 3 pts. Really? So what is his career% on 49yrdrs in warm dry weather with the wind at his back? Yes it does help with accuracy because your kicker doesn't need to take as big of a stroke as he would into the wind. And like a golf swing, you're much more accurate when you're under control instead of trying to kill it. Hindsight is irrelevant and no matter what was said and done, punting was the least sensible and most gutless of the 3 calls he call he could have made. 27845[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 That's fine by me but if you're really that confident in your D you don't eschew a hugely important 3pts just to give them a few extra yrds of field postion they shouldn't even need if they're that good. 27811[/snapback] The problem with this position is that it takes advantage of hindsight. Had Moorman done even a decent job, the Jags should have pinned back close to the 10 yardline. Had he made a good kick, inside the 10. That is far more advantageous than taking a 50-50 shot that a guy who can't make a 41 yarder will make one from 50. The problem was that the field position trade=off should have been 30-plus yards, not 15 as it turned out. And to those few posters who said that the real confounding play was the holding penalty on Villarial, they were right. That was the critical play of the game. Like it or not, those run the football even if it doesn't succeed advocates have their men in a HC and OC this year, and that philosohy is part of a broader offensive conservatism that we are going to have to live with. As for whether Mularkey blew this decision, I think maybe only in hindsight. If Lindell misses and the result ends up the same, people would have been screaming for his head for having made the dumb decision to let the guy kicj when the defense had stopped them all game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Simon's right. The real question is this. Are you trying to win or to "not lose"? If you're trying to win, you kick. If you're trying to "not lose" you punt. 27866[/snapback] Ummm, sometimes when trying to win actually may reduce your chances of winning over trying to not lose, then perhaps trying to win is really trying to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted September 12, 2004 Author Share Posted September 12, 2004 The real question is this. Are you trying to win or to "not lose"? If you're trying to win, you kick. If you're trying to "not lose" you punt. Exactly. Playing not to lose is often the quickest way to accomplish what you're most trying to avoid. Mularkey's a young, agressive coach and I can only hope this call was an aberration that was a result of inexperience or maybe even firstgame jitters. It was an expensive lesson though, and I hope he learned it well. Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted September 12, 2004 Author Share Posted September 12, 2004 The problem with this position is that it takes advantage of hindsight. Had Moorman done even a decent job, the Jags should have pinned back close to the 10 yardline No hindsight whatsoever. I held this position before we punted, while we were punting and after we punted. And even if Moorman does hit a good punt the best-case scenario is still only a measly 20yrdpunt. Those inconsequential 20yrds were in no way a better option "than taking a 50-50 shot" at a 7pt lead. If Lindell misses and the result ends up the same, people would have been screaming for his head for having made the dumb decision to let the guy kicj when the defense had stopped them all game The difference between those people and me is that they would have been wrong;-) Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiderweb Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Ummm, sometimes when trying to win actually may reduce your chances of winning over trying to not lose, then perhaps trying to win is really trying to lose. 27876[/snapback] Oh great , a philosopher to settle my aching stomach..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBob Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 No hindsight whatsoever. I held this position before we punted, while we were punting and after we punted.And even if Moorman does hit a good punt the best-case scenario is still only a measly 20yrdpunt. Those inconsequential 20yrds were in no way a better option "than taking a 50-50 shot" at a 7pt lead. The difference between those people and me is that they would have been wrong;-) Cya 27885[/snapback] You may have held the position prior to the play, but your justification of it based on the yardage traded and the ultimate result is in hindsight. The problem here is that while you may be convinced that you are right, there is no way to prove that, and thus no way to support your claim that Mularkey was wrong in his decision. And your claim that you would have been right even had he followed your opinion and the same result had occurred only helps to demonstrate that! CYA Thus, it is not an error on Mularkey's part Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Agreed. In this particular example, that does not apply. Kicking a field goal which is well within Lindell's range (desppite his earlier miss) is a chance you have to take, irrespective of hindsight. I don't necessarily blame the game on this call since the Bills squandered 2 redzone chances, but in that case, I feel strongly that we should have made the kick. What would Parcells have done? What would Herm Edwards have done? I think both those guys would have gone for the kick. But that's just me perhaps... Ummm, sometimes when trying to win actually may reduce your chances of winning over trying to not lose, then perhaps trying to win is really trying to lose. 27876[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted September 12, 2004 Share Posted September 12, 2004 Irrespective of hindsight, it's a general philosophical question. I am a firm believer you play to win. If Lindell doesn't make it, then find someone who does. But playing scared is just not the way to play in the NFL. You may have held the position prior to the play, but your justification of it based on the yardage traded and the ultimate result is in hindsight. The problem here is that while you may be convinced that you are right, there is no way to prove that, and thus no way to support your claim that Mularkey was wrong in his decision. And your claim that you would have been right even had he followed your opinion and the same result had occurred only helps to demonstrate that! CYA Thus, it is not an error on Mularkey's part 27903[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts