26CornerBlitz Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 if ever there was a time to use Evans and TO as a decoy this was it. can u imagine the attention evans, owens and then reed would have gotten if they lined up wide on that play? NO would have been in a no-win situation -- double cover TO and Evans, cover Reed, and lose much needed run support; or put 8 in the box and try to stuff the 1/2 yard attempt? play the WRs soft, easy quick out for at least a couple. but if im bills im almost hoping they put 8 in the box and the DBs in tight so i can hit TO or Evans for a quick 6. i bet NO or any other team knowing this doesnt stack the inside and all, plays the DBs soft and all but concedes the 1st. it's why Pats are so effective picking up 4th and 1's even though their run game is poor; Moss and Welker, thats why You got it exactly right...would have been fantastic strategy.....put Greggo in a bind!!
truth on hold Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Spot on! yeap, and TO has been on aggressive winning teams in the past. he knows what they do there. and we wonder why the guy's frustrated?
Ramius Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 The punt was absolutely the right call. GR radio needs to get over it. You don't go for it on fourth down at your own 28. Period. The game had an eternity (eight minutes) left and we were down ten. I can't believe so many otherwise-football-savvy fans and media people (try GR radio for like six hours straight) are getting this one wrong. The Saints were the most prolific offense in the game at the time... giving them the ball at the 28 with eight minutes left and your team down ten is certain defeat. Punt and your defense can set you up. And besides ... What exactly was it about the Bills thirty-three rushing yards at that point (fifty-two minutes into the game) that made all these people think we were going to get that yard? - Consider this ... If you are an NFL coach, and your desire is to lose your job as soon as possible ... there is one sure-fire way to do that. It's easy ... just let the fans call the plays. Jauron knew better, and he made the right call. Let the fans call the plays, and every play would be a long ball to your best WR, followed by going for it on every fourth down. The games would be interesting, I admit, but you'd go 0-16 and get fired. At least by making the PROPER, CORRECT call, Jauron gave his team a statistically higher probability of success. In other words, he did his job. Absolutely dead wrong. If we are only down 1 score, then yes you punt. We were down 2 scores with 7 minutes to go. Punting sent the game away. By punting, the absolute best case scenario is you get the ball back in the same spot with 5 minutes to go and still have to score twice. dickless jauron made the wrong, albeit expected, call. You grow a sack and gain the yard, its the only chance to win. Especially when the defense has been on the field the entire second half.
Simon Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 By punting, the absolute best case scenario is you get the ball back in the same spot with 5 minutes to go Actually if they had just stopped the 3rd/9 they had immediately put the Saints in they would have got the ball back with 6 and a half minutes left. An eternity to score 10 points. Especially when the defense has been on the field the entire second half. The defense wasn't on the field any more in the second half than they were in the first. At that point they had been on the field for easily less than 30 minutes; about 16 minutes in the first half and probably about 12 minutes in the second half. This nonsense about them being exhausted is complete and utter bull ****.
Doc Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 As if converting that 4th down would have made a difference in anything? Had it failed, and given the ineptitude of the offense to that point, it was a strong possibility, everyone would have been saying Jauron was an idiot for going for it with the game still close.
truth on hold Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Actually if they had just stopped the 3rd/9 they had immediately put the Saints in they would have got the ball back with 6 and a half minutes left. An eternity to score 10 points. The defense wasn't on the field any more in the second half than they were in the first. At that point they had been on the field for easily less than 30 minutes; about 16 minutes in the first half and probably about 12 minutes in the second half. This nonsense about them being exhausted is complete and utter bull ****. that defense could not stomach another 3 and out from offense. thats what happened and they gave up a long scoring drive mostly of runs. what more freaking proof do you need??
Simon Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 that defense could not stomach another 3 and out from offense. thats what happened and they gave up a long scoring drive mostly of runs. what more freaking proof do you need?? A team scoring a FG on a drive where the biggest "play" was a 15 yard facemask penalty is "proof" that a defense was exhausted because it had been on the field for about 12 minutes? Oh, you're on fire now. As if converting that 4th down would have made a difference in anything? Had it failed, and given the ineptitude of the offense to that point, it was a strong possibility, everyone would have been saying Jauron was an idiot for going for it with the game still close. No arguments there. I've previously described the decision as 6 of one, half dozen of the other.
NewHampshireBillsFan Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 As if converting that 4th down would have made a difference in anything? Had it failed, and given the ineptitude of the offense to that point, it was a strong possibility, everyone would have been saying Jauron was an idiot for going for it with the game still close. It may be true that converting the 4th down would not have meant anything but we also might have at least moved into FG range to pull to within one score with some decent time left on the clock. Also, I would not have been critical of DJ for trying it and failing because it was what needed to be tried at that point, with the amount of time left. The other thing to remember is that just because the Saints get the ball on our 28 doesn't mean a sure TD. If they get a FG we still only need to scores, just as before.
Doc Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 It may be true that converting the 4th down would not have meant anything but we also might have at least moved into FG range to pull to within one score with some decent time left on the clock. Also, I would not have been critical of DJ for trying it and failing because it was what needed to be tried at that point, with the amount of time left. The other thing to remember is that just because the Saints get the ball on our 28 doesn't mean a sure TD. If they get a FG we still only need to scores, just as before. Moved into FG range? The Bills were at their own 28 yard line and couldn't move the ball all day long.
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 A team scoring a FG on a drive where the biggest "play" was a 15 yard facemask penalty is "proof" that a defense was exhausted because it had been on the field for about 12 minutes?Oh, you're on fire now. The Saints had the ball 9:53 of the 2nd half before they went on their scoring spree in the 4th quarter. The Bills had the ball 9:06. Seems like a huge disparity.
dave mcbride Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 A team scoring a FG on a drive where the biggest "play" was a 15 yard facemask penalty is "proof" that a defense was exhausted because it had been on the field for about 12 minutes?Oh, you're on fire now. No arguments there. I've previously described the decision as 6 of one, half dozen of the other. I respectfully disagree, Simon, but for different reasons than the others here. I actually don't think that whether they could play good D or not at that point was the issue. As far as I'm concerned, at that point of the game the Bills had pretty much proven they couldn't move the ball with only three downs. At a certain point, the coach has to bite the bullet and accept that his only chance of scoring is having four downs to work with instead of three. They were what -- 2 for 13 at that point on third down? They needed to score at least one TD, and doing that with three downs had pretty much been proven to be a nonstarter by that point. You gotta go for it, not simply because of the situation in that particular instance, but because they should have realized they weren't good enough to run a regular three down offense after 52 and a half minutes of failure. Remember, they were the fortunate recipients of a couple of terrible roughing calls against NO. They had done *nothing* up to that point.
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 They had done *nothing* up to that point. Why the qualifier? The offense only got worse.
mary owen Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 i was watching the Bengals game and the Bills game at the bar. I watched Dick completely destroy any bit of confidence our offense might have had left in themselves by his decision to punt on 4th and 1. I watched the Bills lose. I watched Marvin Lewis go for it on 4th down twice in that game.....I watched the Bengals win. I envy Bengals fans......sad, really.
Doc Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 i was watching the Bengals game and the Bills game at the bar. I watched Dick completely destroy any bit of confidence our offense might have had left in themselves by his decision to punt on 4th and 1. I watched the Bills lose. I watched Marvin Lewis go for it on 4th down twice in that game.....I watched the Bengals win. I envy Bengals fans......sad, really. The Bengals were down by 5 on that final drive when they went for it on 4th down twice, and actually were able to score points against the Steelers' vaunted defense.
truth on hold Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 good article calling out jauron's horrible 4th and 1 call: http://www.buffalonews.com/opinion/columns...ory/811049.html excerpt: "It's a 10-point game. We're not going to give them the game. They've got to earn the game. That's not to say we might not have made it. But it's not a good gamble at that point, in my opinion, to give them a short field in a tight football game. We had fought the whole time to get it there, to keep it there." Translation: Jauron wanted to lose respectably.
PromoTheRobot Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Weak call, but hardly a game changer. We were still 71 yards from a TD. We could have failed later in the drive. PTR
truth on hold Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Weak call, but hardly a game changer. We were still 71 yards from a TD. We could have failed later in the drive. PTR true, but our defense could not stomach another 3 and out by the offense at that point. punt essentially ended the game, barring some kind of fluke.
mannc Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 I respectfully disagree, Simon, but for different reasons than the others here. I actually don't think that whether they could play good D or not at that point was the issue. As far as I'm concerned, at that point of the game the Bills had pretty much proven they couldn't move the ball with only three downs. At a certain point, the coach has to bite the bullet and accept that his only chance of scoring is having four downs to work with instead of three. They were what -- 2 for 13 at that point on third down? They needed to score at least one TD, and doing that with three downs had pretty much been proven to be a nonstarter by that point. You gotta go for it, not simply because of the situation in that particular instance, but because they should have realized they weren't good enough to run a regular three down offense after 52 and a half minutes of failure. Remember, they were the fortunate recipients of a couple of terrible roughing calls against NO. They had done *nothing* up to that point. Ding, Ding, Ding! We have a winner! Absolutely correct. As an added bonus, when you know as an offense that you have four downs to work with, it opens up more play calling possibilities. For example, 3rd and 3 is no longer a shotgun formation, gotta pass play; a running play becomes plausible because you don't HAVE to gain all three yards and the pass rushers can't pin their ears back. But all this is of course lost on Dick and Co.
ricojes Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 As if converting that 4th down would have made a difference in anything? Had it failed, and given the ineptitude of the offense to that point, it was a strong possibility, everyone would have been saying Jauron was an idiot for going for it with the game still close. Ding, Ding, Ding, the real winner. The O was brutal and had they converted, it most likely would have resulted in a 4th and longer punt 3 plays later. Maybe DJ thought they had a better chance of getting a turnover than the O moving the ball consistently...
Albany,n.y. Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Absolutely dead wrong. If we are only down 1 score, then yes you punt. We were down 2 scores with 7 minutes to go. Punting sent the game away. By punting, the absolute best case scenario is you get the ball back in the same spot with 5 minutes to go and still have to score twice. dickless jauron made the wrong, albeit expected, call. You grow a sack and gain the yard, its the only chance to win. Especially when the defense has been on the field the entire second half. You're the one who is dead wrong. Name me one time that a coach trailing by 10 points with about half a quarter to play has ever went for it on his own 28. It's moronic. Too much time left. That's a 3-minutes left decision. Just keep being a media lemming and parrot what Sullivan, Simon & the rest of WGR's knuckleheads come up with.
Recommended Posts