SWVABillsFan Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Didn't they get stuffed on an run just before that for -2 andf then got a penalty to get that back? If so no way was I running it.
BuffaloWings Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I can't believe what I'm seeing here....are you guys just trying to make up garbage to complain about Jauron??? Kicking the FG was the right call. It's a chip shot. If Lindell makes it, the Bills are up by two TOUCHDOWNS, not just two scores. TB would need to get into the end zone twice, instead of once. Yes, it's 13 points and two TDs with extra points would beat you, but if your defense can't prevent them from getting into the end zone twice with that amount of time left, you don't deserve to win. No mathematician is needed - only someone with first grade math level. The Bills win and we still find a way to bash the coach.
MRM33064 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I can't believe what I'm seeing here....are you guys just trying to make up garbage to complain about Jauron??? Kicking the FG was the right call. It's a chip shot. If Lindell makes it, the Bills are up by two TOUCHDOWNS, not just two scores. TB would need to get into the end zone twice, instead of once. Yes, it's 13 points and two TDs with extra points would beat you, but if your defense can't prevent them from getting into the end zone twice with that amount of time left, you don't deserve to win. No mathematician is needed - only someone with first grade math level. The Bills win and we still find a way to bash the coach. Wings - I edited my prior post in this thread to insert a link to a graph, which summarizes the results of a comprehensive statistical analysis on this. Take a look and see if it changes your opinion. BTW, the analysis doesn't even figure in the time of the game, etc., and the other situational factors - including the dramatic incremental benefit of going up by 3 scores versus going from up by 10 to up by 13 (i.e. going up by a margin that would lose the game to 2 TDs).
timba Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 With the time left in the game and the Buc's inability to effectively move the ball I support the FG decision. It puts us up by two touchdowns, and makes the Bucs not only have to travel the entire length of the field twice, but punch it in both times as well. Statistics are nice and all but still don't tell the whole story. Last week is a great example of that. Trent had a statistically better game then Brady, but Brady played well when it counted.
BuffaloWings Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Wings - I edited my prior post in this thread to insert a link to a graph, which summarizes the results of a comprehensive statistical analysis on this. Take a look and see if it changes your opinion. BTW, the analysis doesn't even figure in the time of the game, etc., and the other situational factors that would work substantially in favor of the go-for-it decision. I appreciate the effort put into this, but I think it's over-analyzing it a bit. The defense had been playing well enough and by getting points, you stymie a little momentum. If you go for it and miss, it gives the Bucs a little bit of momentum. If I was a coach, I'd be thinking more about the flow of the game instead of statistical analysis about what happens if you go for it. I know there's 2:00 left and they'd have to go the entire field, but they'd only need a TD and FG to tie if you don't convert. Kicking a FG is much less risk and would force the Bucs to have to drive the field twice with no timeouts. I realize a TD there officially puts the game away, but there's much more risk involved. I know we want Jauron to have some guts now & then, but that wasn't the time. FG was the right call.
oddoublee 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? You are not missing anything. It was the right call.
billsfreak Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 No, I wouldn't go for it, and I think they made the right call. Reason being is, kicking a field goal forced the Bucs to have to score two touchdowns vice a touchdown and a field goal. A call can't get much easier than that, 100 times out of 100 opportunities you kick the field goal. The Bills made several mistakes yesterday that can be discussed, but this wasn't one, in fact the idea of going for it is quite hilarious and uneducated in a football sense. Maybe on the playground you go for it but not is a real game.
DrDawkinstein Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Field Goal was the right call. You take the easy points and go up by 2 Touchdowns, instead of a TD and FG.
MRM33064 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 No, I wouldn't go for it, and I think they made the right call. Reason being is, kicking a field goal forced the Bucs to have to score two touchdowns vice a touchdown and a field goal. A call can't get much easier than that, 100 times out of 100 opportunities you kick the field goal. The Bills made several mistakes yesterday that can be discussed, but this wasn't one, in fact the idea of going for it is quite hilarious and uneducated in a football sense. Maybe on the playground you go for it but not is a real game. I really think a full reading of the data on this is in order. Without intending any disrespect at all, I'm not sure we need to resort to "football sense" for a decision like this any more than one would use "blackjack sense" at a blackjack table in deciding whether to hit 16 to a dealer's face card. There are objective answers in the data. (A recent example is at: http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/lab...x-results=100.) The benefit of possibly going up by 13 instead of 10 (and then kicking off to them) yields the benefit of forcing their 2 scores to be TDs instead of one TD and one FG. If they do score those 2 TDs though, we lose - i.e. we indirectly force them to go for the win, and in the course of scoring the FG we concede them field position on a kickoff. The alternative is to: (a) score, going up by 3 scores, effectively ending the game; (b) get a first down, effectively ending the game; or © fail to get one yard, turning the ball over to them at their own 2, down by 2 scores with 2 mins to go. (Fumbles/disasters could happen during either a FG attempt or going for it.). Probability-wise, at the time the decision is made, any of those outcomes give us a bigger EV of winning the game than attempting a FG. If there is some kind of objective analysis (i.e. one that doesn't rely solely on feel, momentum, etc.) that shows differently, I really do think it would be interesting to see it. Notice I've mercifully refrained from invoking the WWHD standard. (What would Hoodie do?)
Realist Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 No question the FG was the safe and correct call in that situation. You always want it to be TD's that beat you not FGs. Two TD's to win is a lot less likely than a TD and a FG. The correct call was made there.
billsfreak Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I really think a full reading of the data on this is in order. Without intending any disrespect at all, I'm not sure we need to resort to "football sense" for a decision like this any more than one would use "blackjack sense" at a blackjack table in deciding whether to hit 16 to a dealer's face card. There are objective answers in the data. (A recent example is at: http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/lab...x-results=100.) The benefit of possibly going up by 13 instead of 10 (and then kicking off to them) yields the benefit of forcing their 2 scores to be TDs instead of one TD and one FG. If they do score those 2 TDs though, we lose - i.e. we indirectly force them to go for the win, and in the course of scoring the FG we concede them field position on a kickoff. The alternative is to: (a) score, going up by 3 scores, effectively ending the game; (b) get a first down, effectively ending the game; or © fail to get one yard, turning the ball over to them at their own 2, down by 2 scores with 2 mins to go. (Fumbles/disasters could happen during either a FG attempt or going for it.). Probability-wise, at the time the decision is made, any of those outcomes give us a bigger EV of winning the game than attempting a FG. If there is some kind of objective analysis (i.e. one that doesn't rely solely on feel, momentum, etc.) that shows differently, I really do think it would be interesting to see it. Notice I've mercifully refrained from invoking the WWHD standard. (What would Hoodie do?) You repeated what I said just using different words? Sounds like Football Sense to me?
cåblelady Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I agree with Special K....for all of his above reasons. We were screaming "Go for it!!" FG was nice though. 3 points is 3 points.
Webster Guy Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 My family and I were all split on the decision. I felt taking the three was the right thing for two reasons: 1. Lindell was crushing the kickoffs, almost out of the endzone. (whats up with that? musta been the cool mountain air) And our kick coverage was solid, plus they don't have a Devin Hester type returner anyway so I wasn't worried about the kickoff return vs. giving them the ball on their own 2 yard line. 2. Our defense was playing soft in the 4th quarter up to that point and if you don't kick the field goal, Tampa only needs a FG and a touchdown and it puts you in a situation where an onsides kick could break you if they score a TD on the first drive. 3. Going for it would've been a more in-your-face type of statement, but after last week's loss, I liked that they played it safe. It was a fun game to watch for everyone, you've got the win in your hands, keep it there. 4. Old Ralph was sitting there about to doze off and/or shat himself and he wanted to see one more kick before his bobblehead lookin' turkey neck gave out and he went to sleep for good.
cåblelady Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 1. Lindell was crushing the kickoffs, almost out of the endzone. (whats up with that? musta been the cool mountain air) That was sweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeet!
NobesBLO13 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 This is a lot about nothing, take the points and make leftwich put it in the end zone twice.
prissythecat Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 The chances that something can go wrong on a 4th and short are higher than for a chip shot FG that puts you up by 13. Easy coaching decision.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Sorry, but most of you are wrong. FG is the right call (for a change). Up by 13 is WAY more secure than up by 10.
first_and_ten Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I can't believe what I'm seeing here....are you guys just trying to make up garbage to complain about Jauron??? Kicking the FG was the right call. It's a chip shot. If Lindell makes it, the Bills are up by two TOUCHDOWNS, not just two scores. TB would need to get into the end zone twice, instead of once. Yes, it's 13 points and two TDs with extra points would beat you, but if your defense can't prevent them from getting into the end zone twice with that amount of time left, you don't deserve to win. No mathematician is needed - only someone with first grade math level. The Bills win and we still find a way to bash the coach. I Concur
MRM33064 Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 Thanks to everyone for participating in this thread - I think it's a good one, and I think it's highly relevant because similar situations, requiring similar analysis, will most certainly happen again during the season. I do have a few inquiries out to some probability/statistics/actuarial experts, and if I get responses from them I'll post them for everyone's review/comment, FWIW. I don't have any "football strategy expert" contacts, though I tend to believe this is a question with an actual right answer (one way or the other), and not one that requires reference to a feeling, a sense, etc. In other words, "right answer" in the sense that it's almost always the "right answer" to hit that 16 to a dealer's face card on the blackjack table.
mannc Posted September 21, 2009 Posted September 21, 2009 I really think a full reading of the data on this is in order. Without intending any disrespect at all, I'm not sure we need to resort to "football sense" for a decision like this any more than one would use "blackjack sense" at a blackjack table in deciding whether to hit 16 to a dealer's face card. There are objective answers in the data. (A recent example is at: http://www.advancednflstats.com/search/lab...x-results=100.) The benefit of possibly going up by 13 instead of 10 (and then kicking off to them) yields the benefit of forcing their 2 scores to be TDs instead of one TD and one FG. If they do score those 2 TDs though, we lose - i.e. we indirectly force them to go for the win, and in the course of scoring the FG we concede them field position on a kickoff. The alternative is to: (a) score, going up by 3 scores, effectively ending the game; (b) get a first down, effectively ending the game; or © fail to get one yard, turning the ball over to them at their own 2, down by 2 scores with 2 mins to go. (Fumbles/disasters could happen during either a FG attempt or going for it.). Probability-wise, at the time the decision is made, any of those outcomes give us a bigger EV of winning the game than attempting a FG. If there is some kind of objective analysis (i.e. one that doesn't rely solely on feel, momentum, etc.) that shows differently, I really do think it would be interesting to see it. Notice I've mercifully refrained from invoking the WWHD standard. (What would Hoodie do?) Please don't inject logic and clear thinking into this argument. We are only interested in our "gut feelings" and vindicating the conventional football wisdom. And by the way, I have no doubt that the Hoodie would have gone for it, just as I had no doubt Jauron would kick it.
Recommended Posts