Bob in STL Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 Ummm... Momentum was clearly on our side at that point. There was no doubt in my mind (or, it seemed, in the doubt of all the other Bill's fans at Busby's) that you go for it. Hell, you're not even Monday morning quarterbacking...you're Sunday evening quarterbacking. Besides, a lot of the chicken little's on this board talk about how conservative Jauran is, and now you complain when we don't convert? Give me a break. 768844[/snapback] Well, I never said anything about Jauron being conservative did I? I think he is doing a good job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 It is oversimplifed ok, maybe even foolish. But it is not juvenile, ill-informed and unrealistic in historic proportions. 768845[/snapback] Sure it is. It's juvenile because it's what a 12 year-old might say. It's ill-informed because every single play would have been different had we lined up for that FG instead of going for it. And it's unrealistic because we don't know if we would have had 17 points, 20 points or more had we kicked it and gone up by 13, and we surely don't think that the Pats would have gotten that safety unless the Bills were stuck back at the 8 yard line, which likely wouldn't have happened had everything else been different. And it is "juvenile, ill-informed and unrealistic in historic proportions" because the retard rodeo is in full swing and I still would have bet anyone anything that no one would be dumb enough to just add three points to the final and say we would have won 20-19. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 this is a crock of shiiit. going for it for 4th down is going for the jugular. thats putting the dagger into the heart of the patriots. down by 17? thats hard to come back from. Thats what jauron was trying to do. We had momentum, we had everything going our way. we wanted to finish them off. 768838[/snapback] Your point is exactly why I hate this call. What juggler? What dagger? Why follow these cliches? Why is 17 any more of a dagger than 13? There was a lot of football left to play. We don't know if we win even if we got those 3 points any more than if you got 7. This call was a momentum killer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Your point is exactly why I hate this call. What juggler? What dagger? Why follow these cliches? Why is 17 any more of a dagger than 13? There was a lot of football left to play. We don't know if we win even if we got those 3 points any more than if you got 7. This call was a momentum killer. 768858[/snapback] Ummm... because it's a helluva lot harder to scored 17 points (three scores including two touchdowns) to tie in 18 minutes and just scored on than it is to score 13 points to tie or 14 to win in 18 minutes after holding the other team to a FG in the red zone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Ummm... because it's a helluva lot harder to scored 17 points (three scores including two touchdowns) to tie in 18 minutes and just scored on than it is to score 13 points to tie or 14 to win in 18 minutes after holding the other team to a FG in the red zone. 768864[/snapback] I was against the call, but I didn't think they'd march over 90 yards considering how our defense was playing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift Sylvan Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Considering we lost.....I think it's understandable to be worried about a lead not being good enough. Oh and as I mentioned before the Pastries kneeled down on our 20. Yes the game would have different, but even in the game that happened they would have beat us 22-20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 I expect to get a lot of grief but I believe that this is yet another game that we let get away. I am not just talking about the failed 4th and 1 attempt, there were lots of "non plays" in the second half. As for the 4th and 1 call --- DJ took a big gamble when just taking the points would have been enough. I am talking about precious points on the road. The Pats were reeling. There was no reason to "go for the jugular". I think you show confidence by taking those hard earned points and sending an inspired defense out there to get you the ball back. Even the old high octane Bills of the 90's would have taken 3. This was a call that resonated this message ... "we better get all the points we can, before we blow it". Guess what? They blew it anyway. Clements penalty on the Whitner interception is typical of the mistakes that plague this team. I don't know if the call was fair or not but I expect more from Clements. The worse part of the game was the second half collapse of both the OL and the DL. Especially the OL. There is no moral victory. The only way to turn this around is to win. 768751[/snapback] This is the stupidest reasoning posted so far for not taking the points. Congrats! I am not sure I am typical of Bills fans. I do know that we win 20-19 with those points. I would take a 13 point lead and the momentum. 768806[/snapback] No you don't. Rather, you're pulling sh-- out of your ass. Again, congrats on the stupidest thread about the call on all of TSW so far! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 Sure it is. It's juvenile because it's what a 12 year-old might say. It's ill-informed because every single play would have been different had we lined up for that FG instead of going for it. And it's unrealistic because we don't know if we would have had 17 points, 20 points or more had we kicked it and gone up by 13, and we surely don't think that the Pats would have gotten that safety unless the Bills were stuck back at the 8 yard line, which likely wouldn't have happened had everything else been different. And it is "juvenile, ill-informed and unrealistic in historic proportions" because the retard rodeo is in full swing and I still would have bet anyone anything that no one would be dumb enough to just add three points to the final and say we would have won 20-19. 768853[/snapback] The point I tried to make by adding the 3 points to get 20 was to show that this "go for the juggler and get 7" approach is total nonsense. It was a gamble we did not need to make given the situation. It turns out they only scored 19 on us, yes they might have had more if they needed it. I get your point and it is not fair or balanced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swift Sylvan Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 The point I tried to make by adding the 3 points to get 20 was to show that this "go for the juggler and get 7" approach is total nonsense. It was a gambled we did not need to make gieven the situation. It turns out they only scored 19 on us, yes they might have had more if they needed it. I get your point and it is not fair or balanced. 768876[/snapback] Please read my post, the Patriots ended on our 20, they could have easily ended the game 22-20 them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BEAST MODE BABY! Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 All aboard the Retard Rodeo!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bob in STL Posted September 11, 2006 Author Share Posted September 11, 2006 This is the stupidest reasoning posted so far for not taking the points. Congrats!No you don't. Rather, you're pulling sh-- out of your ass. Again, congrats on the stupidest thread about the call on all of TSW so far! 768875[/snapback] Taking the 3 points is the stupidest post? It was the only other real option? I think you just surpassed me with your insult. Thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MDH Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Ummm... because it's a helluva lot harder to scored 17 points (three scores including two touchdowns) to tie in 18 minutes and just scored on than it is to score 13 points to tie or 14 to win in 18 minutes after holding the other team to a FG in the red zone. 768864[/snapback] One flaw in your argument is that you're automatically assuming that the Bills score a TD if they convert. There's a pretty good chance that they don't get in from the 7 if they pick up the 1st down. If it was 4th and goal from the 1 I would be inclined to go for it but 4th and 1 from the 8 doesn't put points on the board if you convert. The Bills might have ended up with a FG attempt anyway. And yes, I realize that a FG attempt doesn't guarantee points there either but the odds of missing a FG that short are miniscule. I'm not going to blast the staff for going for it as I was only slightly leaning towards the FG at the time but in retrospect it was obviously the wrong call as the entire game turned on that one play. Of course hindsight is 20/20. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodnarb Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 This discussion is just plain stupid. If willis had done his job and hit that seam hard instead of dancing a step first, NOBODY would be talking about that call. Except to say how great a call it was. Can we all STFU about the 4th and 1 now? It's not why we lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 This discussion is just plain stupid. If willis had done his job and hit that seam hard instead of dancing a step first, NOBODY would be talking about that call. Except to say how great a call it was. Can we all STFU about the 4th and 1 now? It's not why we lost. 768888[/snapback] I like that avatar! Thats back from when video games were fun, instead of too realistic! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 One flaw in your argument is that you're automatically assuming that the Bills score a TD if they convert. There's a pretty good chance that they don't get in from the 7 if they pick up the 1st down. If it was 4th and goal from the 1 I would be inclined to go for it but 4th and 1 from the 8 doesn't put points on the board if you convert. The Bills might have ended up with a FG attempt anyway. And yes, I realize that a FG attempt doesn't guarantee points there either but the odds of missing a FG that short are miniscule. I'm not going to blast the staff for going for it as I was only slightly leaning towards the FG at the time but in retrospect it was obviously the wrong call as the entire game turned on that one play. Of course hindsight is 20/20. 768885[/snapback] You're right. I wasn't just assuming we would score but that was the theory of going for it. It also would have taken probably 2-3 minutes off the clock even if we didn't score a TD though. Overall, though, that's correct. there was no guarantee at all we would score from the 7. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 You're right. I wasn't just assuming we would score but that was the theory of going for it. It also would have taken probably 2-3 minutes off the clock even if we didn't score a TD though. Overall, though, that's correct. there was no guarantee at all we would score from the 7. 768895[/snapback] and there is no guarantee the long snap for the FG doesnt end up bad, or Lindell doesnt hit it wrong, or any number of things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2003Contenders Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 That is true. However, at the least (assuming no turnover) it would have kept the ball in our hands for another 3 plays (and 2-3 minutes), even if the ultimate outcome would have been the same 3 points. It was a risk, no doubt -- and one that backfired. But I think DJ was just trying to show the team he had confidence in them. The reality also is that if we had come away with the TD or took the extra 2-3 minutes to go up by 13, then it would have forced the Pats to be more one-dimensional in their offense. It was clear in the first half that Brady was having trouble passing against our defense. However, the Pats were almost able to run at will. The net result -- especially given the 93-yard TD drive -- is that they were able to keep running the ball... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB2004 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 I expect to get a lot of grief but I believe that this is yet another game that we let get away. I am not just talking about the failed 4th and 1 attempt, there were lots of "non plays" in the second half. As for the 4th and 1 call --- DJ took a big gamble when just taking the points would have been enough. I am talking about precious points on the road. The Pats were reeling. There was no reason to "go for the jugular". I think you show confidence by taking those hard earned points and sending an inspired defense out there to get you the ball back. Even the old high octane Bills of the 90's would have taken 3. This was a call that resonated this message ... "we better get all the points we can, before we blow it". Guess what? They blew it anyway. Clements penalty on the Whitner interception is typical of the mistakes that plague this team. I don't know if the call was fair or not but I expect more from Clements. The worse part of the game was the second half collapse of both the OL and the DL. Especially the OL. There is no moral victory. The only way to turn this around is to win. 768751[/snapback] If the 4th and 1 play was successful, I am sure that a lot of people would be pleased with the gamble that Jauron took. I agree that the OL play in the second half was not as good as the first and our run defense was average to below average. That first half was solid and at the time there was a lot to be optimistic about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffOrange Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 One flaw in your argument is that you're automatically assuming that the Bills score a TD if they convert. There's a pretty good chance that they don't get in from the 7 if they pick up the 1st down. If it was 4th and goal from the 1 I would be inclined to go for it but 4th and 1 from the 8 doesn't put points on the board if you convert. The Bills might have ended up with a FG attempt anyway. 768885[/snapback] Great point MDH - that's one of the reasons I would've kicked which gets overlooked; but it's really a marginal decision either way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billzfan23 Posted September 11, 2006 Share Posted September 11, 2006 Holding a 10 point lead against the Patriots is not going to guarantee you a win, even a 13 point lead is still not a guarantee. They took a chance (and if they would have made it, everyone would be talking about how it was great) and it didn't work out. They still kept up with a very good team, and only lost by 2 points. Yet typical of Buffalo fans, they have to find a problem with something that should be positive 768798[/snapback] You have to go for it every time in that situation - for a lot of reasons... First, the offense wants to go for it and feels confident. Second, mathematically - you are going to score more points over the course of a season being aggressive than being passive (Greg Williams punt on the Pats 32 yard line bring back any memories?) Third - one has to consider how the defense is playing. Turning it over on downs at the 7 yard line GENERALLY does not lead to a 93 yard touchdown drive for the opposition (very rare)... I love the call... I only hope Jauron makes the same one again in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts