Clock Management

[jjamie12]

To kick, or not to kick… that is the question. I have long felt that NFL coaches err in their clock management when down by 10 (or 11) points late in a football game. This afternoon, we Bills fans saw a potential example of this late in the fourth quarter of their loss to the New York Jets. What do we think of the Bills clock management in this situation?

 

With 1:21 remaining in the game, the Bills have the ball on the Jets 25 down by 10 points, needing BOTH a TD and a FG to tie the game. I believe that the right move here is to ‘quick’ kick the field goal (rather than the traditional decision to get the TD first, and then worry about the FG later). I think this is the right move because teams ‘waste’ so much time moving from the 25 yard line to the end zone that the TD in this scenario is a Pyrrhic victory in a sense, leaving little time to move the ball into position for the game-tying field goal.

 

As teams move ever closer to the goal line, the defense has to cover less and less field. As such, ‘working the sideline’ becomes harder and harder, and, likewise, the middle of the field continues to get smaller and smaller as the same amount of players are packed into ever shrinking space. So… if it is harder to get the ball to the sideline, and offensive players are tackled quicker in the middle of the field, it stands to reason that those last 25 yards take up the most time on the clock, relative to any other chunk of 25. Therefore, kick the field goal first and have more time on the clock in order to score the touchdown.

 

The arguments against this type of decision are many, but the most compelling are these:

1- You may NOT get this close to the end zone again, so you should do your best to score the TD. I don’t find this particularly compelling because, at the 25 yard line, you are only about 10 yards closer to the end zone than the ‘far range’ of most kickers. In other words, if you can’t move the ball to the 25 on your NEXT drive (with more time to work with) then you probably weren’t going to get to the 35 with (in theory) much less time to work with.

2- If you miss the FG, you lose and the game is over; give your team the chance to use as much time as possible in order to keep the game alive. I find this argument more persuasive than the last, but it doesn’t quite sway me. You’ve got to make the field goal either way, whether it is first or second in order should be of no consequence.

 

Getting back to today… Should the Bills have kicked the field goal with 1:21 showing on the clock? In hindsight, the Trent Edwards interception would seem to make this a no-brainer. Clearly, today, the Bills could have done no worse had they attempted the field goal rather than that fateful 1st down play.

 

On closer inspection though, I must conclude that, owing more to Jets stupidity than Bills intelligence, the Bills *should* have been better off with going for the TD (in this particular situation) than kicking the field goal. Inexplicably, the Jets were single covering our outside receiver on the pass play in question, and James Hardy clearly had a step on his defender with no safety help in sight. A better thrown ball would surely have resulted in a TD, rendering this argument moot, as scoring a TD with 1:15 remaining is surely more desirable than scoring a FG with the same time remaining.

 

As a general rule, I still like the idea of kicking the FG first, thus saving time for TD drive. However, in today’s game, I can’t say that this clock management decision was a factor in the loss. It was ALL execution, as the Bills had an open receiver in the end zone, but were unable to connect with him.

 

What say you, TSW?

[murra]

Take the TD go for the win. It's all super hypothetical anyways since it's all dependent on a non-surprise onside kick which is near impossible today.

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

To kick, or not to kick… that is the question. I have long felt that NFL coaches err in their clock management when down by 10 (or 11) points late in a football game. This afternoon, we Bills fans saw a potential example of this late in the fourth quarter of their loss to the New York Jets. What do we think of the Bills clock management in this situation?

 

With 1:21 remaining in the game, the Bills have the ball on the Jets 25 down by 10 points, needing BOTH a TD and a FG to tie the game. I believe that the right move here is to ‘quick’ kick the field goal (rather than the traditional decision to get the TD first, and then worry about the FG later). I think this is the right move because teams ‘waste’ so much time moving from the 25 yard line to the end zone that the TD in this scenario is a Pyrrhic victory in a sense, leaving little time to move the ball into position for the game-tying field goal.

 

As teams move ever closer to the goal line, the defense has to cover less and less field. As such, ‘working the sideline’ becomes harder and harder, and, likewise, the middle of the field continues to get smaller and smaller as the same amount of players are packed into ever shrinking space. So… if it is harder to get the ball to the sideline, and offensive players are tackled quicker in the middle of the field, it stands to reason that those last 25 yards take up the most time on the clock, relative to any other chunk of 25. Therefore, kick the field goal first and have more time on the clock in order to score the touchdown.

 

The arguments against this type of decision are many, but the most compelling are these:

1- You may NOT get this close to the end zone again, so you should do your best to score the TD. I don’t find this particularly compelling because, at the 25 yard line, you are only about 10 yards closer to the end zone than the ‘far range’ of most kickers. In other words, if you can’t move the ball to the 25 on your NEXT drive (with more time to work with) then you probably weren’t going to get to the 35 with (in theory) much less time to work with.

2- If you miss the FG, you lose and the game is over; give your team the chance to use as much time as possible in order to keep the game alive. I find this argument more persuasive than the last, but it doesn’t quite sway me. You’ve got to make the field goal either way, whether it is first or second in order should be of no consequence.

 

Getting back to today… Should the Bills have kicked the field goal with 1:21 showing on the clock? In hindsight, the Trent Edwards interception would seem to make this a no-brainer. Clearly, today, the Bills could have done no worse had they attempted the field goal rather than that fateful 1st down play.

 

On closer inspection though, I must conclude that, owing more to Jets stupidity than Bills intelligence, the Bills *should* have been better off with going for the TD (in this particular situation) than kicking the field goal. Inexplicably, the Jets were single covering our outside receiver on the pass play in question, and James Hardy clearly had a step on his defender with no safety help in sight. A better thrown ball would surely have resulted in a TD, rendering this argument moot, as scoring a TD with 1:15 remaining is surely more desirable than scoring a FG with the same time remaining.

 

As a general rule, I still like the idea of kicking the FG first, thus saving time for TD drive. However, in today’s game, I can’t say that this clock management decision was a factor in the loss. It was ALL execution, as the Bills had an open receiver in the end zone, but were unable to connect with him.

 

What say you, TSW?

 

I agree 100%. I was arguing this point to my friends while watching the game, but everybody was just calling me a dumbass. Here's my logic to kick, and it's pretty simple.

 

Let's say it takes a minute to score the touchdown, especially considering you have 0 timeouts left. Would you rather have 1:18 left to score a touchdown, or 15 seconds left to score a field goal?

 

You need a TD and a FG (probably a pretty long FG either way), so hurry up and get the first score out of the way. That's my take.

[Cynical]

I agree 100%. I was arguing this point to my friends while watching the game, but everybody was just calling me a dumbass. Here's my logic to kick, and it's pretty simple.

 

Let's say it takes a minute to score the touchdown, especially considering you have 0 timeouts left. Would you rather have 1:18 left to score a touchdown, or 15 seconds left to score a field goal?

 

You need a TD and a FG (probably a pretty long FG either way), so hurry up and get the first score out of the way. That's my take.

 

Your logic is flawed.

 

Why does scoring a TD take one minute from the 25, and still take only one minute from the 50+?

[ofiba]

Take the TD go for the win. It's all super hypothetical anyways since it's all dependent on a non-surprise onside kick which is near impossible today.

 

Missed the Dallas game last year?

[murra]

Missed the Dallas game last year?

 

No, I caught it. Missed the 1,000 other times my scenerio has worked?

[TheChimp]

Missed the Dallas game last year?

Only difference is, the Jets don't have gerbils for coaches.

[ofiba]

No, I caught it. Missed the 1,000 other times my scenerio has worked?

 

Wasn't wallbashing your comment, just remembering that painful game. Sorry dude.

[murra]

Wasn't wallbashing your comment, just remembering that painful game. Sorry dude.

 

The Dallas game was a different scenario anyways. In ours today we needed too much to happen, and kicking a field goal just meant that we needed a TD after the onside kick. It's almost a 100% consensus in the football world to go for the TD first.

[reddogblitz]

We did the right thing in that we got down to the 25 very quickly with a lot of time left. If the pick had instead been a

TD and we got the onsides, then we had plenty of time. I think if the pass had just been incomplete we would have kept passing to the end zone or long anyway to score quickly. If Trent had thrown incompletions instead, we would have taken a FG with about 1:00 to go. I don't have any problems with the decision, only the execution.

[bowery4]

I have a lot more trouble with the play call on the fourth down early in the game, I think it could have worked much more to our advantage to score those 3 points and giving it to Freddy, well..... at this point if Marshawn is sick, I don't really understand wtf we have a fullback for. Last weeks game was remembered by the coaches and they wanted to put it behind them, bad move, the damage is compounded now. Then they went and kicked the one later when it would have been better IMO to go for it (Marshawn was better and running it a little better at that point, or fake it. I love to see Moormen running it and really who would expect it twice in one game). Those 3 and 7 win the game! I also hate the lack of killer instinct by not doing anything right before the half, you got to try something, sideline passes or a bomb...... it is a bit of a risk but it is worth it IMO.

 

In the instance you talked about the TD is the no brainer. They are at the 25 already and just moved well down the field to get there. You got to try to score the bigger points and get back in the game. 3 doesn't do it from a psycological view point and the game is pretty much lost by then anyway even if we get the ball, they need the TD so it tightens up the defensive secondary more in the longer field and gives you way less chances. I hate desperation football.