ricojes Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) I've lost faith in Chan, but I am still undecided on the 2 point conversion. It's a call that's only good if you win the game and easy to criticize when you lose. If you go for 2 and make it, all is great. if you miss, you're up 5 with a whole quarter to play. Ten gets a quick FG and the last drive is a game winning FG instead of a TD. I don't blame the outcome of the game on that decision, there were too many other things that contributed to the loss... Edited October 22, 2012 by ricojes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Nope, nobody would have had anything to complain about. If he goes for 2 and doesn't convert, then we lose by 3 instead of 1 point. It may not change your opinion about what decision should have been made, but you might want a do-over on the math. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) What baffles me is how Chan swings from ultra-conservative one minute to riverboat gambler the next. Don't go for 2 or go for it on 4th down, but definitely have your sub-par QB throw a lot when you need to burn the clock at the end of the game. After all they aren't expecting you to do that. (Actually they are.) PTR Edited October 22, 2012 by PromoTheRobot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonramz Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 I forgot about the 4th and 1 play... I actually think going for the FG there, is far worse than not going for 2 at the end of the 4th quarter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 What baffles me is how Chan swings from ultra-conservative one minute to riverboat gambler the next. Don't go for 2 or go for it on 4th down, but definitely have your sub-par QB throw a lot when you need to burn the clock at the end of the game. After all they aren't expecting you to do that. (Actually they are.) PTR the problem is that throwing the ball shouldnt be considered being a riverboat gambler. that says a lot more about fitz than chan, in most cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) I didn't say that Fitz checked into a pass play. I'm sure a pass play was called. I'm saying that he checked into that pass play when he saw the coverage. I say this because I know what his hot reads are out of that formation against that type of coverage look. That and Fitz does that EVERY SINGLE TIME AGAINST THAT LOOK and has since he was named starter. The safety had him fooled BTW. I don't think that would have been complete even if Fitz made a perfect throw. That safety was gonna get there in time from what I saw. GO BILLS!!! Really so because Chan called a pass play and Fitz followed his coaching on the hot read, "He Checked to that play." Chan should have called a run that is the point. I don't agree with your conjecture that Fitz checked to that play either. It was a bad read by Fitz which is something different than play calling or checking to a different play. It was a bad read, at Pre-Snap you can see that TJ Graham would be wide open and then post snap TJ Graham was wide open. What baffles me is how Chan swings from ultra-conservative one minute to riverboat gambler the next. Don't go for 2 or go for it on 4th down, but definitely have your sub-par QB throw a lot when you need to burn the clock at the end of the game. After all they aren't expecting you to do that. (Actually they are.) PTR Don't forget 3 punts this season when inside opppents 40. 3 PUNTS! 3X the team said, Hmm should we try a long field goal and get some points on the board. . . Maybe we should go for it our running game is working . . nah lets give the ball to the other team. 2 times the ball went into the end zone which amounted to an 18 Yard Net Punt. You can through an INT on the 4th down play and would have probably netted better for the Bills than a PUNT! A Punt inside the 40!!!!! 3 Times!!!! :bag: Edited October 23, 2012 by Why So Serious? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 Really so because Chan called a pass play and followed his coaching on the hot read, "He Checked to that play." Chan should have called a run that is the point. I don't agree with your conjecture that Fitz checked to that play either. It was a bad read by Fitz which is something different that play calling or checking to a different play. It was a bad read at Pre-Snap you can see that TJ Graham would be wie open and post snap TJ Graham was wide open. I'm not arguing what play Chan should or shouldn't have called. I don't disagree that it was a bad read. It was. And he missed a wide open Graham as well. And I would have been fine with a run. My point is that when Fitz sees a certain pre-snap coverage out of that formation, he's going to check to a certain receiver EVERY time. I could tell just from watching that he would check to Jones based on how the Titans lined up to defend it. He was banking on that CB coming off Jones because he saw their safety cheating towards Jones' side. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
T master Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 (edited) http://www.grantland...her-week-7-news WOW !! How can you argue with that , I didn't see any of the game but if you do go for it on 4th & 1 it shows your offense that you have faith in them to get the job done when things are tough ... THe guy makes a great point !!! Besides i would rather have a coach that takes a gamble every once in a while ... Hey you win a few & you lose a few but with those odds i think we would win more than we lose !! Edited October 22, 2012 by T master Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 A lot of the "don't go for two before the 4th" stuff is antiquated. Just like the draftpick value chart. Teams that stick by this stuff get lapped by the rest of the pack. The article points this out perfectly. this is the bigger point. the days of anecdotes ("calling a 2 point conversion in the 3rd quarter didn't work last time i did it 3 years ago") doesn't cut it. i'm not sure chan understands fractions, much less statistics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted October 22, 2012 Share Posted October 22, 2012 How many of you who wanted to run the ball at the end were screaming for Gailey to throw it at the end of the Cardinals game? Running it twice then got us nothing. Yes the Cards run defense is much better but if the Bills ahdn't spread them out Tenn would have put 8 or 9 guys in the box. Fitz was playing great until then. The game would likely have been over had Pears not gotten the holding penalty on the previous drive. It really is dumb to talk about going for two. The whole arguement is hindsight. I agree with taking the easy point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 How many of you who wanted to run the ball at the end were screaming for Gailey to throw it at the end of the Cardinals game? Running it twice then got us nothing. Yes the Cards run defense is much better but if the Bills ahdn't spread them out Tenn would have put 8 or 9 guys in the box. Fitz was playing great until then. The game would likely have been over had Pears not gotten the holding penalty on the previous drive. It really is dumb to talk about going for two. The whole arguement is hindsight. I agree with taking the easy point. Gailey called pass plays af the end of the Cards game not run plays. That was the problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumbalaya Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Going for the extra point and not for two was playing not to lose. It wasn't playing to win. When you show your team you don't care about winning they don't care either. And the results speak volumes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I forgot about the 4th and 1 play... I actually think going for the FG there, is far worse than not going for 2 at the end of the 4th quarter They are equally bad decisions. They are decisions made by gutless, timid coaches, playing not to lose and/or playing to avoid criticism. What's more, both were poor decisions from a mathematical/statistical standpoint. They were Jauron/Gailey/Mularkey decisions. They were Buffalo Bills decisions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muffmonster Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 (edited) It may not change your opinion about what decision should have been made, but you might want a do-over on the math. Sorry, yes we lose by 2 instead of 1. What does it mater my point exactly. Edited October 23, 2012 by muffmonster Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 They are equally bad decisions. They are decisions made by gutless, timid coaches, playing not to lose and/or playing to avoid criticism. What's more, both were poor decisions from a mathematical/statistical standpoint. They were Jauron/Gailey/Mularkey decisions. They were Buffalo Bills decisions. Yet a pass, a basic pass, on third down is reckless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Yet a pass, a basic pass, on third down is reckless. When did I say that? I actually agree with the decision to try to pick up the first down there. There was no reason to believe that our defense could prevent them from scoring, no matter where the Titans got the ball, and certainly no reason to believe our punter would pin them deep in any event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 When did I say that? I actually agree with the decision to try to pick up the first down there. There was no reason to believe that our defense could prevent them from scoring, no matter where the Titans got the ball, and certainly no reason to believe our punter would pin them deep in any event. Wasn't meant to you, more the general tone today. No personal harm meant. It was odd to me that we are confident in the 4th down, the going for two, but as a whole the fanbase isn't ok with chan calling a pass to get that late first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1B4IDie Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 I'm not arguing what play Chan should or shouldn't have called. I don't disagree that it was a bad read. It was. And he missed a wide open Graham as well. And I would have been fine with a run. My point is that when Fitz sees a certain pre-snap coverage out of that formation, he's going to check to a certain receiver EVERY time. I could tell just from watching that he would check to Jones based on how the Titans lined up to defend it. He was banking on that CB coming off Jones because he saw their safety cheating towards Jones' side. GO BILLS!!! But everyone else is arguing what play Chan should have called, you're taking those comments then discussing what you think Fitz does in certain coverages. Yes Fitz sucks and throwing to the sideline. Yes he becomes predictable in the 4th QTR. Yes he is not an NFL quality QB. Which is exactly why the coach should be taking the ball out of his hand in the 4th and giving it to your RBs that are averaging over 5 yards a carry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K-9 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 But everyone else is arguing what play Chan should have called, you're taking those comments then discussing what you think Fitz does in certain coverages. Yes Fitz sucks and throwing to the sideline. Yes he becomes predictable in the 4th QTR. Yes he is not an NFL quality QB. Which is exactly why the coach should be taking the ball out of his hand in the 4th and giving it to your RBs that are averaging over 5 yards a carry. All I ever suggested in this thread, with the second post in it, was that Fitz went to a different play and receiver than what was called based on what he read at the LOS. Your response to that was to say that Fitz DIDN'T change the play. In my further response to you, I attempted to explain why I thought he DID change the play. All this other stuff about what Chan should have done have never been a part of my contribution to this thread. If others are discussing it, fine. I'm not. I'm just saying Fitz changed the play on his INT. You don't agree. Fine. Let's move on. GO BILLS!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted October 23, 2012 Share Posted October 23, 2012 Gailey called pass plays af the end of the Cards game not run plays. That was the problem. Pass play - sack, run , run Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts