Pondslider
-
Posts
568 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Pondslider
-
-
dude get over it, do you really want to see them get pasted by the Pasties or do you want to see them beat down our Nemesis?
lol
-
When you've got an offense that is not able to score quickly, you're down two scores at the end of the game, and you've got the ball you should do every thing you can to hang on to it. Marrone has yet to learn that after being burned on it over an over again.
-
Why would New Orleans do this without a backup plan in place?
-
first winning season in 10 years, and still the belly aching, bottom line, Orton may not have won the game, but he sure didn't lose, so pretty or ugly a win is a win, as for Kelly not wanting to come here, that is right on the mark, and the Hall of Fame QB had his share of
criticism all the time he was in a Bill's uniform, QB controversy, Reich or Kelly was a non stop issue, even in the Super Bowl Years
one thing that is 100% spot on, Some Bills fans would still B word, even if they were being Hung with A NEW ROPE.....
It's not a winning season yet.
-
BOY THE REFS SURE HAVE IT OUT FOR THE BILLS WTF NFL CONSPIRACY
-
They should just go wildcat the rest of the game.
-
-
Biggest home game since Vince Young ran all over the JP Losman Bills?
-
He's an average QB who looks better than he is when all your team has had recently are below average QBs. If the Bills ever have a good QB again Orton won't look half as good to most people.
-
You can't be serious with this. Sure the Bills only got the ball back once but they had a chance to get it back twice. Now if they had a chance to get it 3 times your argument would hold merit. They lost by 1 score and had a chance to get the ball back to tie it. It didn't work out but how is that worse than getting the ball once and losing by 2 scores? 6 minutes left and 3 minutes left are 2 totally different things. You can't be serious thinking they are the same idea can you?
They had a minuscule chance of getting the ball back twice. An onside kick with less than a minute technically counts as a chance I guess? They would have had a better chance if they hadn't punted. And that's the point I've been making.
That and in the end it doesn't matter whether they lose by 1 score or 3 scores. I don't give them credit for making it close.
-
Obviously you don't punt there. Look what happened- we ran out of time. Duh!! We needed those time outs and minutes back and we punted them away
Down one score punt down two scores you don't have enough time to Punt. Very very simple
But if they had gone for it on 4th and 2 and not made it then they would have lost slightly sooner and I would have had to accept it and go back to interacting with my horrible family.
-
If there's that little confidence in the offense at that point and you need two scores then the game is basically over anyway and it doesn't really matter what happens if they don't convert the 4th and 2.
In the situation that played out it didn't matter either.
-
I thought it was the right call in all honesty. If we didn't get it they kicked a field goal and the game was done. I thought that punt it away, play defense take your time outs and get the ball back was the right call. The problem was that we then took too long to get down the field. We got the ball back with 4:20 to play and took 3:25 to score. If you score quicker you have some more freedom about the onside kick.... and regardless of whether you onside kick it you are makign the Bronocs run a couple of plays rather than just kneel and you can send your guys in hard after a strip or whatever it might be.
I do, however, accept that I more conservative than most on 4th down tries. I hated the call at 0-0 in game where you know field position is going to be key.
They took too long to get down the field, in part, because the defense had to use all their timeouts when they punted the ball to Denver. Imagine how much better off they would have been if they'd had two extra minutes and two timeouts to score that TD and get the ball back.
-
Yes. What people are missing is that a fg for Den was a formality at that point if the Bills don't convert. That puts them down 17 or 3 scores for those bad at math. The way the Bills played it gave them a chance to get the ball back and win. How can anyone question this?!?!!?
Well they punted and everything worked out for them about as well they could have planned for it and they still lost because the offense only got the ball back once when they needed two scores. So maybe that's why people question it? Being down 2 scores is the same as being down 3 scores if you only score once.
Why didn't they punt the ball on 4th and 16? There were still over 3 minutes left. If they hadn't converted it Denver could have scored a TD and 2 point conversion and then where would they have been!?!
-
The on side kick would only happen if we scored a TD. Down 2 TDs was not the time for that desperation play. We still could get one possession to score the first of 2 required TDs. Based on how the offense played most of the game, did anyone have the required confidence that we would get those yards?
If down 2 TDs with 5 minutes to go in a game you pretty much know you need to win to have any real chance at the playoffs is not the time for a desperation play then when is the time?
-
That is a 37.3% chance of ending the game right then and there. Terrible odds
Better odds than having to make an onside kick (.3% according to this http://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/onside-kickoff-success/2014/) which is what you're counting on when you punt the ball with 5 minutes left down two TDs.
-
I don't see how putting yourself in an all or nothing position, with odds against....automatically = not trying to win.
Also how are the odds against? According to this site http://www.sportsone...rticle/62665328 from 2010-2013 teams had a 62.7% chance of making 4th and short. It's slightly dated I guess, but those odds are hardly against them and I'll take that even with this coaching staff over giving the ball back to the other team, knowing you will have to spend your timeouts and in the best case scenario get the ball back roughly where you just were with less time and no timeouts and lowering your chance to win. Especially when you need two scores in a short amount of time as the Bills did.
-
No. Let's put this in Princess Bride terms. (In my job, I find that when statistics/math/facts/logic/left brain stuff doesn't reach people, going in the completely opposite direction usually works.)
If we punt it, we are mostly dead. "There's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead. Mostly dead is slightly alive." If we go for it and make it, there's a chance we won't be dead, but, if we go for it and don't make it, we're all dead. "With all dead, well, with all dead there's usually only one thing you can do, go through the pockets and look for loose change."
The point, put simply is: no matter what, we didn't want to put ourselves in an "all dead" position.
I guess it's the difference between trying to win and trying not to lose. By trying not to lose they held on a little longer than they might have, but in the end they still lost. I was hoping they'd try to win.
Also, spare me the condescension. You have not proven anything with fact other than, yes, if they hadn't made the 4th and 2 they would have lost. If they hadn't made the 4th and 16 they would have lost too. They scored a TD with 55 seconds left and left themselves with no other option but an onside kick which is a low percent desperation play and they lost.
-
Um, what was the final score, and, how many TDs did we have to obtain to reach that final score?
This is ridiculous, you're assuming everything good, and ignoring the fact that any small thing, like a bad snap, or a open WR dropping/fumbling the ball(um do we remember last year, similar situation? Do the words Stevie Johnson ring a bell?), completely F's us.
I understand the temptation to go for it. But, I also win more than I lose at poker. It's called: managing temptation.
The Bills were down 24-10 and scored one TD to reach the final score. Up to the point in they game we are talking about they had only scored 1 (one) TD the entire rest of the game. They lost because they were clearly not capable of scoring two TDs in the final 4 minutes to tie the game.
A bad snap could have occurred on the punt. The Broncos could have returned it into Buffalo territory. The Broncos could have moved the ball and got enough 1st downs to end the game without the offense touching the ball again. The Bills could have fumbled the punt return (remember Leodis McKelvin?)
I'm not assuming everything good. I'm saying making the 4th and 2 gives them a better chance to win and if they miss it they lose the game, but they lost the the game punting the ball, so what's the difference?
You are assuming that it's wrong to go for it on 4th and 2 from the 22 because of the chance that they don't make it, but they made a 4th and 16 from the 22 a few minutes later which you seemingly have no problem with.
-
Not at that spot on the field. You're giving the game away immediately, and making the time remaining irrelevant, if you don't get it. We had assets: time left to score 2 TDs, and a team full of players who were capable of pulling that off. We don't make that 4th and we are literally taking any chance our D had of stopping them, or our O had of scoring.
A team full of players capable of what? They hadn't scored two TDs the entire game up to that point. Scoring two in 5 minutes was going to be difficult enough without losing two minutes and two time outs by giving the ball away on a makable 4th down.
-
Right. But using that "logic" Marrone doing nothing, pulling the team off the field, getting on the bus, and trying to get home earlier, would also be a good move, because...they lose either way.
Should the Bills have punted on 4th and 16 from their 22 on their last drive?
If not, why? What's different other than they already had to use up all their time outs and 2 minutes on the clock when they punted on 4th and 2?
-
They seemed to be moving with no sense of urgency all quarter. That was a great situational call, absolutely. Would have liked to see more hurry up in the 4th.
Oh for sure. Even on that last drive they seemed to waste a lot of time lining for the next play when the clock was running down.
-
If these coaches embrace the "new metrix" as much as they claim then they would go for almost every fourth down. They wouldn't dress two kickers and we would see many more Brady like fourth down QB sneeks. They talk innovation and coach like the dinosaurs.
The best play they ran all year was the Orton TD dive. Short yardage situation, no hesitation, snap the ball, catch the defense off guard dive forward and get the yard. It was so great and out of character that it makes me think Orton improvised it and the coaches had nothing to do with it.
-
No. The worst thing you can do is give Peyton Manning the ball on our 20 yard line, and have him score another TD, or merely a FG....
...which would have sealed our fate...
...regardles of the time on the clock.
The game would have ended the exact same way as far as the only meaningful statistic. They lose either way.
life.
Clean house from top to bottom.
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
The Bills, in their own words, were supposed to be a playoff team this year. Now all of a sudden "progress" (a likely two game improvement and a worse conference record) is all we could ask for? That's some epic goal post moving.