PTS Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Early in the game against a team you should beat, you take the points and by points I mean seven of them and not three. I agree with the poster, it sent the wrong signals to the team and I made a point of this in the GDT when it happened. I just didn't like the play when it happened. Worst case scenario, Miami starts on their 1/2 yard line.
mravenger Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 They did go to Hardy once in (or near) the red zone on that drive. I had a bigger problem with them using Jackson on every down instead of Lynch. i had a big problem with not having Lynch in, he knows how to get in the end zone period. Give him the ball with the end zone in front of him and so far it has been a sure thing
DaGimp Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 It's obvious that in this situation you should have Travis Henry throw for a Touchdown
Dan Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Jauron says in his press conference today that Lynch was "dinged up" at the time. So he was not an option, at the time. That's why Jackson was in the game, nothing more nothing less. The question I have is why not try one fade to Evans or Hardy? Evans did a great job pulling in the pass last week. Hardy is the tall guy. Why not give one of them at least one shot out of those 3 plays? I don't have a problem with the FG. At the time, 1st quarter, there's all the time in the world. Take the easy points and regroup. Most coaches will take the 3pts at that point in the game, IMO.
MRW Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 It's been asked before but I'll ask it again - where is the play action? Miami had just scorched us with it on their opening drive. Why was that not considered on second or third down instead of plowing into the line again?
mannc Posted October 27, 2008 Author Posted October 27, 2008 I don't have a problem with the FG. At the time, 1st quarter, there's all the time in the world. Take the easy points and regroup. Most coaches will take the 3pts at that point in the game, IMO. I agree that most NFL coaches would take the 3 points in that situation, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Two of the most successful coaches in the business (Belichick and Parcells) have made it their trademark to go for 7 in that situation (as well refusing to punt on fourth and less than 3 from inside the opponents' territory) And, from a statistical standpoint, it makes no sense to settle for 3 because the odds are far better than 3 out of 7 that the offense will score a TD from there. (Gregg Easterbrook writes about this a lot in his Tuesday Morning QB column.) Also, what the hell is wrong with playing with a little swagger for once?
Tonawanda Troy Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 We have the most conservative HC in the game. I say bang Lynch off tackle and let him leap for it!! You can't go far in the post season with out showing a little Sac!
Dan Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 I agree that most NFL coaches would take the 3 points in that situation, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. Two of the most successful coaches in the business (Belichick and Parcells) have made it their trademark to go for 7 in that situation (as well refusing to punt on fourth and less than 3 from inside the opponents' territory) And, from a statistical standpoint, it makes no sense to settle for 3 because the odds are far better than 3 out of 7 that the offense will score a TD from there. (Gregg Easterbrook writes about this a lot in his Tuesday Morning QB column.) Also, what the hell is wrong with playing with a little swagger for once? If we had the Dallas or the Pats* Offensive line, I would agree and think it a good shot of success. But, we had 3 shots, we gained 0 yards. If it were a little later in the game - say 3rd quarter; absolutely get the tie. But, with the entire game left to play, there were still plenty of scoring chances.
MRW Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 If we had the Dallas or the Pats* Offensive line, I would agree and think it a good shot of success. But, we had 3 shots, we gained 0 yards. If it were a little later in the game - say 3rd quarter; absolutely get the tie. But, with the entire game left to play, there were still plenty of scoring chances. Well, technically, we gained 4 yards, didn't we? I would've liked to have seen them mix it up on 3rd down, play action or roll out, with the expectation we'd go for it on 4th.
Dan Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Well, technically, we gained 4 yards, didn't we? I would've liked to have seen them mix it up on 3rd down, play action or roll out, with the expectation we'd go for it on 4th. Yeah 4 yards, 0 yards - just details that disprove my argument. Can we forget them? I can live with that idea. Given the play call on the previous 3 plays however, we had little options that could surprise them. I agree, though, I was really hoping the 3rd down play was a PA fade to Hardy. If they had tried something like that on 2nd and or 3rd downs then a 4th down play seems a little less predictable.
todd Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 No problem at all. I like points. People point to lack of confidence, but to me confidence is knowing that you will get there again and score. Anyone else have a problem with DJ kicking a field goal on 4th and goal at the 1 yard line on the first drive of the game? I have a major problem with it. First, if you can't score from there, you really don't deserve to win anyway. This was not exactly the Steel Curtain we were facing. Second, the failure to go for it there (especially on the road, and especially after the Dolphins marched the length of the field for a TD on their first possession) sends a negative message to your team: "We don't have much confidence in you. We're just trying not to lose here." That seems to be a typical Bills mind-set these past 15 years or so. One thing that I have always admired about Belichick's and Parcells's teams is that they almost always go for it one fourth and short in the other team's end of the field (especially on fourth and goal from inside the 3 yard line), and they almost always succeed. By contrast, the Bills (and most other losing franchises that are more worried about being second-guessed) seldom do. Finally, even if you go for it and don't make it, the other team has to go 99 yards; there is a very good chance you will get the ball back inside mid-field. Oh yeah, and didn't we draft a wide receiver in the second round with the expressed purpose of having him haul in short passes in the red zone in situations like that (not to mention on second or third down)?
todd Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 why was lynch on the bench when we were first and goal on the 5? that is poor coaching No. He was being checked out for a concussion. That is GOOD coaching. Anyone who think DJ is a bad coach .... well, I'll just leave it at that.
bills_fan_in_raleigh Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 why was lynch on the bench when we were first and goal on the 5? that is poor coaching because he tweaked his freaking knee earlier and was having it looked at on the sideline. Get a grip folks
MRW Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 Yeah 4 yards, 0 yards - just details that disprove my argument. Can we forget them? I can live with that idea. Given the play call on the previous 3 plays however, we had little options that could surprise them. I agree, though, I was really hoping the 3rd down play was a PA fade to Hardy. If they had tried something like that on 2nd and or 3rd downs then a 4th down play seems a little less predictable. Agreed. 3 straight runs is really not setting yourself up for a successful 4th down play.
PromoTheRobot Posted October 27, 2008 Posted October 27, 2008 why was lynch on the bench when we were first and goal on the 5? that is poor coaching Marshawn was dinged up. It wasn't a coaching decision. Even so, with our O-line 1 yard is no gimme. PTR
BuffOrange Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Anyone else have a problem with DJ kicking a field goal on 4th and goal at the 1 yard line on the first drive of the game? I have a major problem with it. First, if you can't score from there, you really don't deserve to win anyway. This was not exactly the Steel Curtain we were facing. Second, the failure to go for it there (especially on the road, and especially after the Dolphins marched the length of the field for a TD on their first possession) sends a negative message to your team: "We don't have much confidence in you. We're just trying not to lose here." That seems to be a typical Bills mind-set these past 15 years or so. One thing that I have always admired about Belichick's and Parcells's teams is that they almost always go for it one fourth and short in the other team's end of the field (especially on fourth and goal from inside the 3 yard line), and they almost always succeed. By contrast, the Bills (and most other losing franchises that are more worried about being second-guessed) seldom do. Finally, even if you go for it and don't make it, the other team has to go 99 yards; there is a very good chance you will get the ball back inside mid-field. Oh yeah, and didn't we draft a wide receiver in the second round with the expressed purpose of having him haul in short passes in the red zone in situations like that (not to mention on second or third down)? I don't buy the "get a yard or you deserve to lose" logic, but I definitely would've went for it because of the bolded part. And you're right - when you kick the FG a relatively few % of fans/media blame the coach. When you go for it and miss, it's always the coach's fault - see opening day game @NE a couple years ago.
BuffOrange Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 My point is, kicking the field goal is not taking the odds. You have (or should have) a better than 3 in 7 chance of scoring a TD from the 1. And if you don't make it, the other team starts on their own half yard line. Timid is not necessarily smart. Best post of the thread. It's not "safe" to double down on 11 vs. 10, but that doesn't mean you're correctly "playing the odds" if you don't.
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Best post of the thread. It's not "safe" to double down on 11 vs. 10, but that doesn't mean you're correctly "playing the odds" if you don't. i gotta disagree here. statistics are a funny thing. 3 out of 7 is hardly easy money, and when you factor in we had three shots just prior to the 4th and goal, i suppose you could figure the next one was the gimme? or, you'd have to re-calculate the odds of not converting on 3 out of 3 successive plays. factor in what we now know--those of us wondering where marshawn was, well, it turns out the coaching staff might have liked him in there too, but he was unable to answer the bell. if you factor in the odds of attempting to convert your 4th opportunity at 4th and 1 with your feature short yardage back on the bench with a potential concussion, the odds must be---well, i have no idea. 2 out of 7, if no one's going to check. that said---we still possessed a 9 point lead well into the third, and handled the ball like it was dipped in ebola the entire 4th quarter.
Special K Posted October 28, 2008 Posted October 28, 2008 Marshawn was dinged up. It wasn't a coaching decision. Even so, with our O-line 1 yard is no gimme. PTR I know that Lynch was unable to be in there at the time, but doesn't that make it all the more puzzling that they would run the ball three straght times? This is the point that bothers me the most.
San-O Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 Anyone else have a problem with DJ kicking a field goal on 4th and goal at the 1 yard line on the first drive of the game? I have a major problem with it. First, if you can't score from there, you really don't deserve to win anyway. This was not exactly the Steel Curtain we were facing. Second, the failure to go for it there (especially on the road, and especially after the Dolphins marched the length of the field for a TD on their first possession) sends a negative message to your team: "We don't have much confidence in you. We're just trying not to lose here." That seems to be a typical Bills mind-set these past 15 years or so. One thing that I have always admired about Belichick's and Parcells's teams is that they almost always go for it one fourth and short in the other team's end of the field (especially on fourth and goal from inside the 3 yard line), and they almost always succeed. By contrast, the Bills (and most other losing franchises that are more worried about being second-guessed) seldom do. Finally, even if you go for it and don't make it, the other team has to go 99 yards; there is a very good chance you will get the ball back inside mid-field. Oh yeah, and didn't we draft a wide receiver in the second round with the expressed purpose of having him haul in short passes in the red zone in situations like that (not to mention on second or third down)? I also felt that was a bad move, but that's what DJ is going to do. Buffalo can't run the ball, and apparenty the coaching staff is aware of this. If you can't get 1 yard, with the biggest O-line in the league, you need some other horses. Period.
Recommended Posts