I Guess We Won't Have any "Mularkey played

[BuffaloBob]

by what I am sure people would call "playing to win" and going for that 4th and 1 at the goal, we may have lost the opportunity to take that game into OT.

 

It is always difficult to say how the game would have gone had we taken the three and kicked off (different time line and all) but the safe and higher percentage play would have been to take the three. There was still lot's of time in the game and we certainly had them shut down pretty well after about halfway through the second quarter.

 

I actually am not saying I think the call was wrong as some tried to say last week. I understood the reason for it. Our O needed a jolt of confidence and that sure would have done it. But on the flip side, we were playing in a hostile environment, and if you fail to get it, you give the Raiders a huge lift. Even bigger than what they would have gotten by holding us to three.

 

I also would have liked to see McGahee in their, but Travis saw the endzone many times on short yardage last year, so there was certainly go reason not to go with Travis this year.

 

It is a shame that Travis tripped over a lineman's leg trying to go in, but that stevestojan happens sometimes and that's what's so damn risky about the play.

 

Once again, we were put in that position by a costly false start penalty on Moulds that turned a 2nd and 6 into a 2nd and 11, an obvious passing down which had the Raiders blitzing again.

[joshfitz]

It was the right call. I was screaming it -- everyone in the chat room was screaming it -- given our performance up to that point we all know this was going to be one of THOSE days.

 

I don't know what the hell happened to Travis. He was running like he had bananas for cleats -- I've never seen someone slip so much.

[eSJayDee]

You have ONE YARD TO GO for 7 points. What's your probability of making it? It better be > 50%, but w/ this offense, maybe not. Given the value of a TD relative to only a FG that early in the game AND that your expected return was greater (assume 100% FG success rate = 3 pts, 50% TD = 3.5 pts) it was the right decision.

Further, consider that even if they do fail, they're gaining likely > 25 yards of field position in the exchange relative to scoring & kicking off. Just like punting instead of the FG last week was a correct call, this also is what sways this into being the most prudent decision.

[BuffaloBob]

You have ONE YARD TO GO for 7 points.  What's your probability of making it?  It better be > 50%, but w/ this offense, maybe not.  Given the value of a TD relative to only a FG that early in the game AND that your expected return was greater (assume 100% FG success rate = 3 pts, 50% TD = 3.5 pts) it was the right decision.

Further, consider that even if they do fail, they're gaining likely > 25 yards of field position in the exchange relative to scoring & kicking off.  Just like punting instead of the FG last week was a correct call, this also is what sways this into being the most prudent decision.

37491[/snapback]

I don't get your little equation thre, Frankly, that makes no sense. I also am not sure of the probability you assign. It is highly subjective. Their are many variables in there.

 

In any event, Marv would have taken the three in his day. You can bet on that!

 

Anyway, as I said, I did understand the call, and there were certainly a lot of reasons to support it, but I don't think in this case it was more right than taking the three. Especially in view of the outcome, which demonstrates that taking what should have been the sure points might have had us in overtime.

 

Of course, I believe that was where the refs fugged us out of a safety when their O lineman clearly tackled our guy in the endzone! Raiders got a little help from the zebras on that one.

[Wacka]

It was the right call.  I was screaming it -- everyone in the chat room was screaming it -- given our performance up to that point we all know this was going to be one of THOSE days.

 

I don't know what the hell happened to Travis.  He was running like he had bananas for cleats -- I've never seen someone slip so much. 

37428[/snapback]

 

It rained for the first time since April this morning and poured about 9AM local time. The Raiders had guys going over the field at halftime putting divots back and picking up clods from the cleats.

[Guest kramer's hair]

If the Bills prolific offense scores 10 pts per game every week, how many games will they win?

 

Tell ICE to get on the phone to TD and tell the fans how good this team is!!!

 

17-33 and counting TD!

[2003Contenders]

Am I the only one who thought that MM should have challenged that 1 yd run? From one angle, it looked to me like Henry stretched the ball out to the goal line, when he was still clearly on his feet in the pile-up.

[Matt in KC]

Am I the only one who thought that MM should have challenged that 1 yd run? From one angle, it looked to me like Henry stretched the ball out to the goal line, when he was still clearly on his feet in the pile-up.

37598[/snapback]

I really think he did too, but I think it had been whistled by that point. Still, that seems like a pretty good place to challenge. ...and why would they whistle "forward progress" on a play like that??

[BillnutinHouston]

I didn't like the spot on Henry's dive play.

 

I didn't like the "non-safety" call when the LT supposedly started holding the Bill (TKO?) at the 1/2 yard line. What kind of a joke call was that?

 

Safety = 2 pts.

Henry TD = 7 pts.

 

Bills win 16-13