truth on hold Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Go for it was right call. Odds of picking up first down are much greater than recovering onside kick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Make a 4th and 2 OR stop Denver 3 and out, which we did AND recover an onsides kick. No brainer to me. It's almost like he flips a coin on 4th down decisions nowadays. I'm glad that he has shown some balls and has gone for it a few times on 4th the last couple games, but the 4th and 6 vs manning in the 1st quarter didn't make much sense to me. 6 yards, with Kyle orton throwing to chandler..... Eh. At least they didn't throw a screen to Fred 3 yards behind the line of scrimmage. Love Fred to death, but we throw too many balls to our RBs behind the line of scrimmage imo. Overall, I didn't hate our play calling last game. We had a couple nice drives, sucks that orton had to throw those picks. Excuses, excuses, but the refs cost us another game. When our season is over, I won't be watching any nfl football til next year. It's blatantly obvious that we get screwed by the refs game in, game out vs good team. It's really out of control and the league will never do anything about it. I wonder if they're in on it to. Something needs to change regarding the officiating Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 And that's my problem with the decision -- it went about as well as anyone could reasonably hope, and still resulted in us needing to recover an onsides kick with under a minute to go, then need to drive about 55 yards in about 50 seconds with no time outs. And that's after the 3 and out AND a 3.5 minute TD drive that included a 4th and 16 conversion. I don't think our offense can really do any better than that. I think we probably would've lost either way, but IMO, the better chance would've been to go for it the first time. Worst case, the game is over, which is what ultimately happened anyway. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Angel Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Hell no losing is losing whether by 2 or 20. They went for it earlier when they shouldn't and punted when they should. A complete marrone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Hell no losing is losing whether by 2 or 20. They went for it earlier when they shouldn't and punted when they should. A complete marrone to the first -- its like a 50-50 conversion rate (napkin math) the difference in expected outcome for a drive starting at the 10 vs the 39 (ie punt vs turnover) is about a 5-6% increase in chance of td and 5-6% increase in chance of fg. so an expected outcome increase of less than a point. ill take the chance at a first down near the 30 in exchange for giving up that small increase. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BUFFALOKIE Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 Go for it was right call. Odds of picking up first down are much greater than recovering onside kick There you have it, in the simplest terms possible. Onside kick is a losers bet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tintonfallsbillsfan Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 you punt on 4th and 2 for the 16. You extend the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 In a word-NO! He should have gone for it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 (edited) There you have it, in the simplest terms possible. Onside kick is a losers bet. He's not a natural risk taker. Just as not going for it then was the wrong call, going for it on 4th and 6 from 44 in q1 was wrong call too. We aren't built for the gimme 6 yards when we want like a pats or Denver, for that matter. The D had just held off manning on a short field after the Sammy fumble, it was wrong to risk putting them in that same position on the very next Denver possession. Marrone is not a natural risk taker. But that's fixable when examining the odds. I thought this team said it was going to be more data and analytics driven, but their decision making isn't showing it. Edited December 8, 2014 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBillsForever Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 (edited) you punt on 4th and 2 for the 16. You extend the game You can't extend the game, you can only delay the inevitable. Edited December 8, 2014 by BuffaloBillsForever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koufax Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 No you don't punt in that situation, like you don't punt a minute later even in 4th and 16. We ran out of time to rally and win the game on Sunday, and one big reason is that we punted on that play and didn't go for it, preserving time on the clock and time outs (even though our D got us the ball back pretty quickly). Horrible choice at the time, and the same in retrospect. Even trusting your D to stop Peyton, there just isn't enough time to play with, and if you can't get two yards when you need to, you probably aren't going to get 21 points to tie the game. So if you want to win the game, you go for it there. Different situation, but similar to the Pats going against Peyton's Indy and coming up short. I still completely agreed with that call. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CardinalScotts Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 AT YOUR OWN 14??? YA KICK IT THEY DID SCORED TO GET WITHIN A TOUCH DIDNT GET THE ONSIDE WHICH WE WOULD HAVE NEEDED IN A BEST CASE OF SCORING IF WE CONVERT THE 4 AND 2 AND GO ALL THE WAY DOWN THE FIELD. Why are we not able to understand football logic? It's a bit alarming how old are you ? or do you listen to wgr ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoSaint Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 AT YOUR OWN 14??? YA KICK IT THEY DID SCORED TO GET WITHIN A TOUCH DIDNT GET THE ONSIDE WHICH WE WOULD HAVE NEEDED IN A BEST CASE OF SCORING IF WE CONVERT THE 4 AND 2 AND GO ALL THE WAY DOWN THE FIELD. Why are we not able to understand football logic? It's a bit alarming how old are you ? or do you listen to wgr ? I think anyone referring to either option as colossally dumb is overstating the position. Frankly that it was at the 14 means little beyond the old school "your not allowed to do that" perceptions. It's the clock that was the issue not the field position and that we had no timeouts and wouldve had to score 2 touchdowns in 4 minutes as the best case scenario if we punt that made it hard to swallow but neither choice was likely to win the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koufax Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 No you don't punt in that situation, like you don't punt a minute later even in 4th and 16. We ran out of time to rally and win the game on Sunday, and one big reason is that we punted on that play and didn't go for it, preserving time on the clock and time outs (even though our D got us the ball back pretty quickly). Horrible choice at the time, and the same in retrospect. Even trusting your D to stop Peyton, there just isn't enough time to play with, and if you can't get two yards when you need to, you probably aren't going to get 21 points to tie the game. So if you want to win the game, you go for it there. Different situation, but similar to the Pats going against Peyton's Indy and coming up short. I still completely agreed with that call much as I disagree with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pirate Angel Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 to the first -- its like a 50-50 conversion rate (napkin math) the difference in expected outcome for a drive starting at the 10 vs the 39 (ie punt vs turnover) is about a 5-6% increase in chance of td and 5-6% increase in chance of fg. so an expected outcome increase of less than a point. ill take the chance at a first down near the 30 in exchange for giving up that small increase. At that point in the game, down by 2 scores it doesn't really matter what the percentage rate is. It would have been a meaningless touchdown for Denver had they not made the first down. the chances that there would be enough time on the clock to score twice after a Denver possession was slim to none especially given the success that the offense has.The first down we did go for it was far to early in the game to go for it and it wasn't even 4th and short. there is no way he could have had confidence in this offense to convert that and if it was confidence in the defense to stop them then why not punt it and keep the field position? Makes far more sense to me to make Manning drive 80 or more yards to score than give him the Ball at midfield. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truth on hold Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 (edited) No you don't punt in that situation, like you don't punt a minute later even in 4th and 16. We ran out of time to rally and win the game on Sunday, and one big reason is that we punted on that play and didn't go for it, preserving time on the clock and time outs (even though our D got us the ball back pretty quickly). Horrible choice at the time, and the same in retrospect. Even trusting your D to stop Peyton, there just isn't enough time to play with, and if you can't get two yards when you need to, you probably aren't going to get 21 points to tie the game. So if you want to win the game, you go for it there. Different situation, but similar to the Pats going against Peyton's Indy and coming up short. I still completely agreed with that call much as I disagree with this one. Yeap, it's true, in this case we have the rare peek into what happened when their strategy worked out. We stopped Denver 3 and out, got the ball back, scored a TD, and due to less than a minute left and no timeouts, we were forced into the super low probability onside kick. Yeah carpenter botched it, but many do and most don't work out. on 4th and 2 I would have audibled Goodwin out wide, and if the coverage looked attractive I would have gone deep to him ... go for a quick 7 to really shake things up and leave plenty of time to kick to denver. that's what winning teams do, that's a Steelers type maneuver. if I didnt like the coverage I would have gone with the called short yardage play, which has something like a 2/3rds chance of success (i dont have 4th and 2 stats, but 4th and 1 is 66%, I cant imagine 4th and 2 is that far off http://eaglesrewind....t-on-4th-and-1/) Edited December 9, 2014 by JTSP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted December 8, 2014 Share Posted December 8, 2014 4th and 1 is 66%, I cant imagine 4th and 2 is that far off http://eaglesrewind....t-on-4th-and-1/) Then deduct 50% because our Quarterback sucks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dragonborn10 Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 It's not about the defense. Put it this way. What is easier to convert a 4th and 2 or recover an onside kick? I will take my chances with the 4th and 2 - even with this offense. AT YOUR OWN 14??? YA KICK IT THEY DID SCORED TO GET WITHIN A TOUCH DIDNT GET THE ONSIDE WHICH WE WOULD HAVE NEEDED IN A BEST CASE OF SCORING IF WE CONVERT THE 4 AND 2 AND GO ALL THE WAY DOWN THE FIELD. Why are we not able to understand football logic? It's a bit alarming how old are you ? or do you listen to wgr ? Who says they need to go onside if they score a TD. In fact most teams kick deep. If it is through the nedzone no time is run off the clock. Then play defense and force Denver to kick from deep. Despite the CAPITAL letters you are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 that would be a tough one for me to call without looking at the numbers -- but i suspect the numbers say go for it. im curious to see the NYT write up on this weeks game decisions. The numbers I think you are referring to are based on league averages. How often would an average offensive team against an average defensive team pick up the needed yardage in average weather conditions with an average OC calling plays against an average DC, etc., etc? In the case of an actual, real live football game you have a coach who knows his team's capabilities and has studied his opponents capabilities and is aware of the impact of any relative variables extant at the time such as wind, rain, home, away, injuries, one on one match ups etc. It is not such an easy analysis to just say that 25% of the time this or that happens on this or that down given this or that yardage. I don't think we have an average offense and since the OL is heavily relied on in 4th and short situations, the quality of that line is critical. Is there anyone out there who thinks we have even an average offensive line? We have, at best, two average starters in Wood and Glenn. Henderson is a rookie and neither guard would likely start for any other team in the league save the few lines that are worse than ours. So whatever the average numbers are, they aren't relevant if your players are below average. As for going for it on 4th and 2 on our own 16 yard line, recall that we had all three timeouts and the 2 minute warning so any decision you make has to be with the idea of having 4 time stoppages at your disposal. We punted with 5:33 left and the Defense held them to three and out and we used our timeouts to stop the clock. We got the ball back at 4:20 so at most, not going for it lost us 1:10 seconds whereas, had we gone for it and missed, the game was over of course. The ensuing drive resulted in a TD and took 3:25 off the clock leaving 55 seconds for the onside and, if we had recovered, a few shots at the end zone. Under those circumstances, in all cases less than ideal, I don't see how it was moronic or an act of cowardice or sheer idiocy for Marrone to think we had a better shot punting than going for it. Regardless of whether we are kicking off with 2 minutes left or 55 seconds or maybe even 2:30 left in the game, we would still have had to do an onside kick. Even without a first down and one time stoppage at 2 minutes, all Denver had to do was run a few running plays and punt leaving us with an 80 yard field and maybe 10 seconds or so left on the clock. You can certainly make a legit argument that all things considered, go for it but I can't agree that it was a slam dunk decision that only a cowardly, crappy, clueless coach would fail to make. We got beat. And it wasn't because of coaching or play calling or a conspiracy by the officials. Turning the ball over three times on the road including one in the red zone were far bigger factors. Stupid penalties didn't help either. We all know we have a subpar offense and they played that way yesterday. That is why we lost. If you want to complain about the coaches, focus on their inability to put together an offense that can compete with playoff caliber teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted December 9, 2014 Share Posted December 9, 2014 Bad news: Marrone will be the coach in 2015. Your campaign is futile. What does that little midget, overrated, phony, never did a damn thing in the NFL QB have to do with this?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts