berndogg Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Bears got to about the 30 of the saints last night with just over 1 minute left, down by 3, 1 time out remaining, at home on a cold windy day, primetime game, shaky qb who had thrown some costly INTs already that game, what do the bears do? Throw some short passes to the flat and the middle of the field and get all the way down to the 10 and kick the FG with 7 seconds left then win in OT. I'm just saying, its not that hard, its really not, god I hate Jauron.
Tortured Soul Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 Don't take this as my agreeing with Jauron, but a couple differences in the situations: A Bills' field goal wins it. A Bears' field goal only ties it. Bills were averaging over 5 ypc rushing. Bears were averaging only 3. It's familiar, not the same.
berndogg Posted December 12, 2008 Author Posted December 12, 2008 Don't take this as my agreeing with Jauron, but a couple differences in the situations: A Bills' field goal wins it. A Bears' field goal only ties it. Bills were averaging over 5 ypc rushing. Bears were averaging only 3. It's familiar, not the same. How does the win vs. tie scenario change the strategy? Either way you need to score at least a FG or you lose.
Tortured Soul Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 How does the win vs. tie scenario change the strategy? Either way you need to score at least a FG or you lose. The Bears were not continuing to move downfield just to kick a shorter field goal. They were also trying to score a game-winning touchdown. The Bills had no need to score a touchdown, because a field goal would suffice. So, the only incentive for the Bills to move downfield was to kick a shorter field goal. Different incentives, different strategies.
berndogg Posted December 12, 2008 Author Posted December 12, 2008 The Bears were not continuing to move downfield just to kick a shorter field goal. They were also trying to score a game-winning touchdown. The Bills had no need to score a touchdown, because a field goal would suffice. So, the only incentive for the Bills to move downfield was to kick a shorter field goal. Different incentives, different strategies. That's wrong, because there was still a minute left and the browns had 3 time outs. If you're losing by 3, 2, or 1 in that situation you've gotta try for the td or at least to get a first down so you can kick the FG with under :15 left. Even if you make the FG you don't want to give the other team too much time to come back. Lovie had it right, Dick had it wrong by any type of logic or conventional wisdom.
Rubes Posted December 12, 2008 Posted December 12, 2008 To me, the key difference is that the Browns called timeout after our first down play. That should have made it clear to everyone on the Bills staff that Cleveland was going to use all of their timeouts to save enough ticks on the clock to get the ball back for one last shot. In that case, the right thing to do, without question, is to try everything you can to get (at least) the first down. You do that, then you can run down the clock all the way and set yourself up for the game-winning field goal with no hope of a comeback. But instead of actually trying to get a first down, the Bills were content to say "fine, we'll just kick the field goal from here, even though it's a really long field goal into the wind, and if we make it, we're happy to give you plenty of time to come back and try one of your own." That was the moment this team lost me for the year.
Recommended Posts