Special K Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I know its moot because the game was won anyway, but I believe the Bills should have gone for it on that 4th and 1 play at the end of the game. Best case scenario: Touchdown....game over Second best case scenario: First down.....run out the clock.....game over. Worst case scenario: Turnover on downs....Bucs take over inside the 5 down 2 scores, with no timeouts. To me it was a no-brainer to go for it there.......imagine if the Bucs returned the ensuing kickoff after the FG for a TD, or scored real quickly.....the Bills would have been staring down an onside kick in a 1 score game. I know it doesn't matter now, but what do you guys think?
Numark Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 My opinion was both decisions are fine by me. Kick the FG or go for it. Either way, if you blow that lead, the blame is one the defense, not that call by the coach.
Tcali Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I know its moot because the game was won anyway, but I believe the Bills should have gone for it on that 4th and 1 play at the end of the game. Best case scenario: Touchdown....game over Second best case scenario: First down.....run out the clock.....game over. Worst case scenario: Turnover on downs....Bucs take over inside the 5 down 2 scores, with no timeouts. To me it was a no-brainer to go for it there.......imagine if the Bucs returned the ensuing kickoff after the FG for a TD, or scored real quickly.....the Bills would have been staring down an onside kick in a 1 score game. I know it doesn't matter now, but what do you guys think? I don't think it was an obvious call...but I woulda gone for it. You make one yard and all the drama is gone. Worst case they have the ball on their own 2. Kick the FG and you give them hope. If they execute on the first drive and score a TD after the FG--then as you say they are an onside kick and one of those excruciating Hail Marys away...and with this team.......
Max997 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 The correct call was to go for it in that situation...too many bad things can happen on a FG attempt or a kickoff and there is no reason to chance it at that point...if you go for it there and at worst Tampa gets the ball at their own 2 down 10...assuming they make the FG it only puts the Bills up 13, not 14 or even 17 which if it would have it would be the right call to kick it but to only go up 13 when you risk the chance of a freak play that could cut the lead to 6 with plenty of time left, you go for it on 4th down there i thought for sure with the penalty DJ would have brought the offense back out but for some reason he loves kicking FGs...someone pointed out in the gameday thread that maybe he has Lindell on his fantasy team
Tcali Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 the correct call was to go for it in that situation...too many bad things can happen on a FG attempt or a kickoff and there is no reason to chance it at that point...if you go for it there at worst Tampa gets the ball at their own 2 down 10...assuming they make the FG it only puts the Bills up 13, not 14 or even 17 which if it would have it would be the right call to kick it but to only go up 13 when you risk the chance of a freak play that could cut the lead to 6 with plenty of time left, you go for it on 4th down there and we are the kings of the freak play:)
slyng1 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 This call baffled me and I'm glad you brought it up. With your team up by 10, it's a 2 score game with or without the field goal. If you kick a field goal, you're up 13 and it's still 2 scores. Sure, in the UNLIKELY event your opponent misses the extra point on his 2nd TD, you have a tie whereas you might not have had you gone for it. If you go for it and either a) get a first down and run more clock, or b) get a TD and make it a 3-score game . ANd if you don't get the 1st, you have a decent shot of getting a safety. It made zero sense to kick the field goal in my opinion.
BobDVA Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I agree, they should have gone for it at that point. If they did not make it, marching 98 yards eats a whole lot of clock. then the onside kick thing and need at least 30-35 yards for a field goal to tie, Unlikely! the game could have been put away right then and there.
BuffOrange Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 This call baffled me and I'm glad you brought it up. With your team up by 10, it's a 2 score game with or without the field goal. If you kick a field goal, you're up 13 and it's still 2 scores. Sure, in the UNLIKELY event your opponent misses the extra point on his 2nd TD, you have a tie whereas you might not have had you gone for it. If you go for it and either a) get a first down and run more clock, or b) get a TD and make it a 3-score game . ANd if you don't get the 1st, you have a decent shot of getting a safety. It made zero sense to kick the field goal in my opinion. The difference between 10 and 13 in general, is much greater than you and a lot of people think for much the same reason a 4pt lead is a lot better than 3. The problem with kicking there is that you're giving up ~25 yards of field position merely by kicking off after the FG (as opposed to potentially not converting the 4th down deep in their territory) which basically negates the difference between the opponent needing a FG and a TD to begin with. So yah, the FG was really really stupid. Not that I'd expect anything else from our clown of a coach.
Tcali Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 The difference between 10 and 13 in general, is much greater than you and a lot of people think for much the same reason a 4pt lead is a lot better than 3. The problem with kicking there is that you're giving up ~25 yards of field position merely by kicking off after the FG (as opposed to getting stuffed on 4th down) which basically negates the difference between the opponent needing a FG and a TD to begin with. So yah, the FG was really really stupid. Not that I'd expect anything else from our clown of a coach. well...lol....--if there was a stupider decision to make he would have made it. Look at the track record.
Booster4324 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Umm the difference is they need two TDs to win as opposed to a TD and a FG to tie. What am I missing?
Tcali Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Umm the difference is they need two TDs to win as opposed to a TD and a FG to tie. What am I missing? that is the one redeeming aspect of the decision they made. But there were many many reasons to go for it ---outlined in the above posts. and many reasons why the FG decision gave the Bucs life.
Special K Posted September 21, 2009 Author Posted September 21, 2009 well...lol....--if there was a stupider decision to make he would have made it. Look at the track record. What's funny is, that someone (not a player) was in his ear urging him to go for it, and I could read DJ's lips, he said: "3 points is 3 points!" At least there was someone on the staff with enough sense to bring up the idea of going for it.
Tcali Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 What's funny is, that someone (not a player) was in his ear urging him to go for it, and I could read DJ's lips, he said: "3 points is 3 points!" At least there was someone on the staff with enough sense to bring up the idea of going for it. thats encouraging...Jauron is the bossman though...sigh...
billsrcursed Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 What's funny is, that someone (not a player) was in his ear urging him to go for it, and I could read DJ's lips, he said: "3 points is 3 points!" At least there was someone on the staff with enough sense to bring up the idea of going for it. With the way our D was playing, I was actually a little shocked we didn't go for it in that situation. No way they march down the field on us from there. Meh, we won, so it shouldn't be that big of a deal, but it's worth noting that, once again, our Coach did make a "questionable" decision. My brother pointed out, though; Jauron has never really been in that kind of situation with our Offense before, all circumstances considered. Shocked he didn't burn the rest of our Time outs to "ponder" his options...
Booster4324 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 that is the one redeeming aspect of the decision they made. But there were many many reasons to go for it ---outlined in the above posts. and many reasons why the FG decision gave the Bucs life. I read the posts, I just disagree. I would rather be up 13 over up 10 late in the game. JMO though.
MarkAF43 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 everyone seems to forget the fact that you run the possibility of a fumble or an INT if you go for it, and if it ends up being taken back to the house, then you have another situation on your hands... I was and am in favor of the FG. No point in playing it too risky and having a horrible turnover that could change the outcome of the game.
iinii Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Umm the difference is they need two TDs to win as opposed to a TD and a FG to tie. What am I missing? Field goal was the correct call.
ganesh Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 everyone seems to forget the fact that you run the possibility of a fumble or an INT if you go for it, and if it ends up being taken back to the house, then you have another situation on your hands... I was and am in favor of the FG. No point in playing it too risky and having a horrible turnover that could change the outcome of the game. I think the Fumble theory does not fly, since a FG also could be botched and returned for a TD. Jauron took the safer approach and got the 3 points. As someone pointed out, either call could have gone wrong, if the Bills turned over the ball or the defense could not stop them like they did against the Patriots.
MarkAF43 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I think the Fumble theory does not fly, since a FG also could be botched and returned for a TD. Jauron took the safer approach and got the 3 points. As someone pointed out, either call could have gone wrong, if the Bills turned over the ball or the defense could not stop them like they did against the Patriots. The fumble theory filies just fine, it happened earlier in the game when we were moving the ball well and it was almost taken back for a TD. There is worry regardless of what was chosen, they took the safe play and i am glad in this case that they did.
MRM33064 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I think we need a mathematics expert here, but my sense is that the correct decision is to go for it and that it's not even close - even without regard to several of the actual circumstances around the decision. Given the offensive field position, the expected value (EV) of kicking the FG was somewhere close to 3. However, going for it there has an EV of close to 6/7 - it's the EV of gaining 1 yard (yielding 4 more downs, each of which would then in turn have a high EV given the field position) + the EV of scoring a TD on the 4th down play itself, also high. Factoring in the time in the game, the defensive field position in the case of failure, the deficiency of TB timeouts, and the existing 10 point (2 score) lead, I'm not sure attempting a FG is even remotely justifiable. A successful FG still leaves the score differential at 2, and likely concedes 20+ yards of field position on the subsequent kickoff. I'd like someone better at this than I am to give a definitive answer, because even though we did win the game, this is the precise kind of decision that a head coach needs to get right every time. EDIT: There is a very good discussion on this at www.advancednflstats.com, under the "4th Down Study" tab. Link to graph, "Point Values of 4th Down Decisions", below.
Recommended Posts