zoostation

Different scenario, but what I remember is poor clock management costing the Pats 7 points (post above). First and goal on the 9 (or so), 3 timeouts, 36 seconds left, and Brady gets cute and doesn't use the timeout until 18 (BB had to run down the sideline and call it). That situation was a complete cluster that should have been a TD. But again, no comparison to yesterday's situation.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

The_Riddler

Any idea why we rushed up to the line after it was 1st and Goal at the 1-yard line and got off a **** play that resulted in a 3 yard loss because of it?

In the NFL, when you're up by 3pts and there's 2 minutes and 30 seconds on the clock and you have just run for a first down to the oppponents goal line common sense tells you to let the clock run down to the 2-minute warning because yes, time is in fact on your side, go to the sideline and talk about the next 3-4 plays that you'll run to put this game away.

So rushing the play actually caused the right-side of our OLine to be out of synch to allow Ridley to get blown up. The chances of NFL teams scoring from the 1-yard line on 4 probably plays has to be around 93%. There was no frigin need to rush up to the line to try and catch the Bills quickly or anything, not sure if that was Josh or not, but the idea is to kill the clock and score the TD, that was beyond foolish.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


Hey Rex have you met our new Tightends? Say Hi to Aaron and Gronk !

PatsFaninAZ

While I think it was the right decision, I don't think OP is crazy. It's a risk reward calculation, pure and simple. But I think it is close.

The difference between 3 and 6 points is not that high in that situation. If the Bills were out of time outs or there was only a minute left, it is different. What is the difference between 3 and 6. Well, if you stop them outside the 35, you win either way. If you give up the TD you lose either way. So, the only downside is this scenario: (1) you don't get the TD or a defensive penalty that gives you 4 more downs, (2) they get 45 but not 80 yards, (3) they make the FG. And even then, all that has happened is you reduced your chance of winning to 50/50 in OT.

There are two added benefits: you give them at least 10 extra yards to have to go even if you don't make it, and you take away their no-risk fourth down inside the 35 yard line.

On this last point, I would love to see the stats. How do teams do in the fourth quarter in drives where they know they have four downs per series? Usually, there is a disincentive not to go on fourth. Either you give up a fg try or give your opponent the ball back. When you are in the Bill's situation, there is no risk in the risk reward equation.

I think back to the 2007 super bowl. If Moss drops the TD and we only tie the game with an FG, the Giants punt on fourth down and Brady gets the ball last and OT is the worst outcome. Instead, they convert on fourth down. You want the TD of course, but putting your opponent in a no-risk 4th down situation matters.

One other thing you have to add to the math by the way: you might miss the FG. On the other side, one very small benefit of having 6 is you still get OT if they miss the extra point.

zoostation

I agree with everything you're saying, but I don't think they had the option to run the clock down to the 2 min warning. Could be wrong, but I think it was more like 2:50 left at that time. But either way. When it was live, I was thinking best to pull a Fitzpatrick from last year in Buffalo. Kneel twice, try to punch it in from the 1 on third, and kick the FG with 40 seconds left (and/or Buffalo burning their TO's) if you fail.

Anyway, a win is a win and although the play calling prior to the kick was horrendous, the FG was the right call in that situation.

__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

goheels22002

Granted, a different situation, but I was just trying to remind the OP that you take the points. In one case, it wound up costing the Patriots the game. Yesterday, it might have as well if the Bills played for overtime.

Gumby

The worst part (if i remember correctly) was that on 1st down from the 1-2; they ran an empty backfield.

If you REALLY WANT TO PASS, in a situation that 95% of the NFL does a running play on; You arent even going to TRY PLAY ACTION ????

seemed silly to me.

PatsWickedPissah

I was at the game and wicked pissed at the hurry up call then. That idiotic decision was the root of the problem leading to the Bills having lots of time for a final winning drive attempt. It seemed clear that we out clevered ourselves with the hurry up there. This season our once vaunted clock mangement skills have approached Herm Edwards territory. BB has to look in the mirror and then take Josh and TFB to the woodshed on these kinds of decisions.

It was perfection on these small things that led to the rash of SB wins, starting in 2001 with a less talented but perfectly managed team. It is screw-ups on these small things that loses ballgames by 1-3 points, the story of this season.

__________________
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man. Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded — here and there, now and then — are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty.
This is known as "bad luck." RAH

dizi24

You realize we probably won last nights game because we did kick the field goal, right? If we don't get it on fourth down, we're up 3. The only reason we won last nights game is because Fitzpatrick and the Bills couldn't settle for a field goal and they forced an attempted TD pass.

The difference between having to drive down the field for 3 points vs. 7 points is HUGE. I'm usually a big fan of attempted 4th down attempts, but going up 6 points is a huge move. Even with this D, I have no problem giving the other team one drive to put up 7 with the game on the line.

aluminum seats

I was waiting for a reasonable response to the OP's reasonable suggestion. Considering everyone knew the Bills were going to march down the field, and the extra FG didn't change the threat of losing if the Bills scored a TD, I would have strongly considered going for it there. In fact, when the Pats went up six, the idea of OT seemed pretty appealing.

Ultimately, I think kick the FG, so as not to hurt the lame defense's feelings, etc. But it's certainly a fair question.

__________________
"So I'm going to throw myself against the wall...
'Cause I'd rather feel bad than not feel anything at all."

RodThePat

It's not about hurting anyone's feelings, it's about what you think our chances of converting a 4th and 9 in that situation were. And they weren't very good. If it was 4th and goal from the 2, I think Bill would've strongly considered it, but we had two straight incompletions at that point, and turning it over on downs there meant the Bills would get the ball with more than 2 minutes on the clock, 2 timeouts, needing a FG to tie it. That's an incredibly big risk to take.