Gutless Call to Punt

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

So get the ball back with Webb at the helm with even more yards to gain?   It worked out this time, but it was a very poor decision. 

 

I think the goal was to try and get a turnover.  They may have thought Indy was going to go more through the air at that point...? Who knows.  

 

I don't agree with the call, just throwing some ideas as to what may have gone into it.  I think calling timeout and NOT going for it was more unforgivable IMO.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, Kelly the Dog said:

No, she'd be a tranny. Are you ever right?

 

And he'd still be your uncle. See: Manning, Bradley.

 

[MAJBobby]

See at no point can you say anything about Webb because the decision to punt put the ball in his hands with a longer field So him being in the game had NOTHING to do with the punt because you are giving him the ball back with less time, no timeouts and longer field.

[26CornerBlitz]

3 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

I think the goal was to try and get a turnover.  They may have thought Indy was going to go more through the air at that point...? Who knows.  

 

I don't agree with the call, just throwing some ideas as to what may have gone into it.  I think calling timeout and NOT going for it was more unforgivable IMO.

 

Good of you to throw McDermott a rescue line,  but he'll probably not take it after he calls a Time Out to think about it.   He'd rather drown in ignorance and do it all over again.  

Edited December 11, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz

[BillsFan130]

3 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

I think the goal was to try and get a turnover.  They may have thought Indy was going to go more through the air at that point...? Who knows.  

 

I don't agree with the call, just throwing some ideas as to what may have gone into it.  I think calling timeout and NOT going for it was more unforgivable IMO.

I think out of all the conservative coaches we've had in the drought, this was one of the worst sequences. Not only does he punt there, but he burns a timeout beforehand, where timeouts in that situation are extremely valuable.

 

Even dick jauron would have been disgusted with that sequence

[teef]

8 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:

I know I mis understood it which Is why I deleted my post

oh.  didn't see that.

[BillsFan130]

2 minutes ago, teef said:

oh.  didn't see that.

Its all good. I deleted it seconds before you responded so nothing you could have done

[BillsfanAZ]

2 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

There it is notice the WIN % drop after the punt

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/game?gameId=400951560

Is that the math you keep talking about? The win percentage went down a whopping 2%. This a crap version of win %. Did you notice there was no change in % when Peterman left the game? 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, MAJBobby said:

In all likelihood the big picture a TIE ends your season just like it did in MIA If you tied this game you are 6-6-1.

say two wins against MIA 8-6-1

 

And yeah NE in NE

 

So you played essentially into the stacked deck a loss and a tie ENDS your season.  I want my coach to understand that big picture

 

AND HE WOULD DO IT AGAIN he just said it.

The problem with your analysis is that you're assuming a loss to New England.   Now, I agree, a loss to New England is likely, but if you assume a loss to New England the season is already over.   Why?  Because a loss to NE means the BEST the Bills can do is 9-7.

 

Now, over the past 10 years 9-7 has gotten some team a wildcard spot six times, so 9-7 might do it.  However, the tiebreakers are lined up fairly badly against the Bills, so 9-7 probably has less than a 5% chance of getting the Bills in.  

 

10-6 is the only sure way to get in, but you're already assuming a loss to the Pats, so there's not much hope for you even if the Bills beat the Colts.  By your assumption, the season was done before the kickoff. 

 

So the only way for the Bills to have any kind of reasonable chance of getting the last wildcard is for the Bills to beat the Pats in New England.  If you make that assumption and the Bills sweep the other games, great, Bills are 10-6 and they're almost certainly in.  But if the Bills beat the Pats in New England and go 2-1 in the other three games, the Bills are almost certainly OUT, since they finish 9-7 and lose the tie-breaker.   

 

BUT - and here's the point - if the Bills beat the Pats in NE and go 2-0-1 in the other three games, they're in unless some other team gets to 10-6.   Why?  9-6-1 is a better record than 9-7, so the tie-breakers are irrelevant.  

 

To put it more simply, at 6-6, the Bills had to go 4-0 or 3-0-1 to make the playoffs.  3-1-0 almost certainly doesn't make it.  One loss and the Bills were out.   So playing not lose made a lot of sense yesterday. 

Edited December 11, 2017 by Shaw66

[Bob in STL]

31 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

You have to be totally aware of the situation as an NFL HC.

 

 

What we know today is that a win is better than a tie,  and a tie is better than a loss.  A tie is undesirable but until all the games are played you cannot say that a tie in this game will hurt you.   Seems like it would force you to win out the next three, which may be the case anyway.

 

Another thing, the two questions were asked separately (i.e later) and context is not provided.   The only playoff scenario he needs to worry about is his team winning every game and they won the Colts game. 

[BillsFan130]

1 minute ago, Bob in STL said:

 

 

What we know today is that a win is better than a tie,  and a tie is better than a loss.  A tie is undesirable but until all the games are played you cannot say that a tie in this game will hurt you.   Seems like it would force you to win out the next three, which may be the case anyway.

 

Another thing, the two questions were asked separately (i.e later) and context is not provided.   The only playoff scenario he needs to worry about is his team winning every game and they won the Colts game. 

A tie would have crushed them. You honestly think the bills are going to go to New England and win? Tie that game yesterday and lose to the Pats and your season is done

[26CornerBlitz]

2 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:

 

 

What we know today is that a win is better than a tie,  and a tie is better than a loss.  A tie is undesirable but until all the games are played you cannot say that a tie in this game will hurt you.   Seems like it would force you to win out the next three, which may be the case anyway.

 

Another thing, the two questions were asked separately (i.e later) and context is not provided.   The only playoff scenario he needs to worry about is his team winning every game and they won the Colts game. 

 

It could be said easily yesterday. A tie would have been very bad for their chances.

[Shaw66]

22 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

It could be said easily yesterday. A tie would have been very bad for their chances.

That's just wrong.  A loss would have more or less eliminated the Bills.   A tie gives them a shot.  Have to win out, but that's a shot.   A loss yesterday and even winning out wouldn't save them. 

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

That's just wrong.  A loss would have more or less eliminated the Bills.   A tie gives them a shot.  Have to win out, but that's a shot.   A loss yesterday and even winning out wouldn't save them. 

 

A tie was bad for their chances with a loss obviously being even worse.  Recalculate as you're the one who's wrong here.

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

A tie was bad for their chances with a loss obviously being even worse.  Recalculate as you're the one who's wrong here.

Sure, a tie is worse than a win.  But a loss and the season is over. 

 

You're always better off playing with a chance than no chance.  Playing for the tie meant the Bills stay in the playoff hunt with three games left.  

 

Going into the game Bills needed to finish 4-0 or 3-0-1.   3-0-1 is certainly worse than 4-0, but 3-0-1 keeps you in the hunt.  3-1 kills you.   So, faced with an opportunity to pretty much guarantee he wouldn't lose yesterday, McD took it.  Yes, now they have to beat the Pats, but they were going to have beat or tie the Pats anyway.   

 

Losing kills them, so going for it on fourth down was a big risk without a big reward. 

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

Sure, a tie is worse than a win.  But a loss and the season is over. 

 

You're always better off playing with a chance than no chance.  Playing for the tie meant the Bills stay in the playoff hunt with three games left.  

 

Going into the game Bills needed to finish 4-0 or 3-0-1.   3-0-1 is certainly worse than 4-0, but 3-0-1 keeps you in the hunt.  3-1 kills you.   So, faced with an opportunity to pretty much guarantee he wouldn't lose yesterday, McD took it.  Yes, now they have to beat the Pats, but they were going to have beat or tie the Pats anyway.   

 

Losing kills them, so going for it on fourth down was a big risk without a big reward. 

 

Old time outdated thinking that too many NFL coaches cling to.  

[Shaw66]

2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Old time outdated thinking that too many NFL coaches cling to.  

Outdated thinking beats no thinking every time.  

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

Outdated thinking beats no thinking every time.  

 

Whatever Bub!

[sven233]

The outcome of the game has nothing to do with whether the call to punt was correct or not.  Forget the outcome for a minute and let's just break the call down at the time it was made.  Put yourself in that situation, not knowing what the outcome of the game will be.

 

In this situation, you have 2 options:

 

1. PUNT

 

People supporting the punt are basically saying this: You were more confident in the defense forcing a punt, a WR playing QB leading us 60-70 yards down the field in a blizzard, & scoring (all in under 4 minutes) than you were in making 3 feet in 1 play.  DOWNSIDE - You can't make it back into scoring position and lose or tie the game, ending your season.  RISK:  Ends your season if you run out of time

 

2.  GO FOR IT

 

People supporting the decision to go for it a saying this:  I like my chances of getting 3 feet in 1 play more than the odds of the defense forcing a punt, a WR playing QB leading us 60-70 yards down the field in a blizzard, & scoring (all in under 4 minutes)  DOWNSIDE - You don't make it, but the Colts are still only at their 40 yard line and you can still hope for the defense to get a stop and do the exact thing that the punt supporters are hoping for.  Only difference is maybe 20 yards in field position.  RISK:  20 yards of field position

 

That's basically it.  If you are more confident in all of those things happening than making 3 feet in 1 play, then that's fine. 

 

Me, I like my odds of getting 3 feet better.

 

 

PS.  Not only do you have to weigh these factors in this decision, but you also have to take into an account that a tie basically ends your season.  So, if all of these things don't happen in those 4 minutes, and you tie.....your season is over.  You have to keep in mind, even with the win, we are 25% to make the Playoffs.  With a tie, we would have been around 3% or so.  So, a tie was not an option.  So, of the options above, you have to choose the one that you believe gives you the best chance to win, not tie.

Edited December 11, 2017 by sven233

[Kelly the Dog]

52 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:

A tie would have crushed them. You honestly think the bills are going to go to New England and win? Tie that game yesterday and lose to the Pats and your season is done

It’s not even that. It’s assuming a NE and a sweep of Miami. That is not an easy thing to imagine. They could screw up either Miami game. Beating all three in a row with the last two on the road has to be less than 10% chance.