Jump to content

Did Vrabel address his decision to kick the 53 yarder on 4th and 4?


YoloinOhio

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

The theory is that vrabel did it so he could blame the loss on the kicker 

 

I was actually thinking that also. 

 

Even if he makes it they still need a TD. Makes no sense. 

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

i haven’t seen where he was asked about it. It’s one of the worst calls I’ve ever seen. Does anyone have a valid reason as to why he made that decision? 

 

Btw Santos missed 3 FGs before that. 1 was blocked. 

 

Yeah, that was a very very puzzling call.

I thought, in the weather conditions, the initial 50 yd or whatever it was was also a questionable call.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about this during the game, and while I do not believe that he thought this deeply, there is a level of logic in letting this guy kick the field goal.  They were down by 7, knowing that they needed a TD and an Extra Point to tie, the kicker had the potential of being on the field to tie the score at the end of the game to send it to OT.  Even if he missed the field goal, there was a chance that they could still score a TD and you would need the kicker to tie it up.  Maybe he wanted to let him "get right" on a FG, instead of on the necessary extra point.  I dunno.  Just a thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Cheektowaga Chad said:

I took it as vrabel conceding the game but gave santos an opportunity to save his job. Like make it you keep your job miss you're gonna be cut

 

Very strange not to go for it

I can’t even imagine conceding the game at that point, down 7 with what, over 3 min to go. I am sure he didn’t trust his offense to get the 1st down but you have Derrick Henry for a reason and only need 4 yards and sure as hell cant trust the kicker at that point eith the length of the FG, wind, field conditions. Baffling. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Chandemonium said:

I think it was a bad choice, but I suppose you could justify it because you still need a touchdown either way, but without the 3 points you need a TD to tie and with the 3 points you need a TD to win. 

If it was just a regular FG, like where your kicker hadn’t already missed 3 (one blocked) and it wasn’t 50+  I could see that but 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep. Even if his kicker hadn't missed 3 it was the wrong call. They needed a touchdown.... in order of likelyhood to get that:

 

1. Go for it and convert 4th down

2. Punt and pin the Bills inside their own 10 giving you field position advantage

3. Kick the FG 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take Santos’ bad day out of it.

 

They needed a TD before they kicked the field goal, and even if Santos made the field goal they would still need, wait for it..... a TD.  

 

Horrible call.  His brain just nutted up there on the sideline.  The Titans were across midfield, time was running out, it was 4th and 4, not 4th and 20.  The only play there was to try to get a 1st down and continue the drive for a TD. Three points did nothing for them there.

 

 

Edited by Inigo Montoya
  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BillsShredder83 said:

My gf is from Canada, first year watching football before and she said the same damn thing to me. 'Whatd he miss from like 35'ish a few times? Why wouldn't they go for it?'

I couldn't believe it either... but I was happy they tried to kick it because I knew there was no chance he makes it. Not that Santos is a bad kicker... but his psyche was f***ed at that point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I have confidence in him,” was Vrabel’s explanation.

“I felt like the way the defense was playing, to be able to win the game, we’d get the ball back and score a touchdown to win it.”

 

My question:

 

"What had your offense done up to that point against our defense that gave you confidence you would score another TD?"

Edited by matter2003
  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

“I have confidence in him,” was Vrabel’s explanation.

“I felt like the way the defense was playing, to be able to win the game, we’d get the ball back and score a touchdown to win it.”

 

My question:

 

"What had your offense done up to that point against our defense that gave you confidence you would score another TD?"

And, if he did, in fact, have that much confidence his offense could score a TD, then why not leave them on the field to, you know, score a TD?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is an easy one.  He had zero confidence in his offense to move the ball down the field.  Against our defense, they were struggling to get 1st downs.  Did he make the right call?  I actually think so.  He knew his chances of getting a 1st down was slim, so he took the chance of just putting points on the board with plenty of time left on the clock.  Titans defense was playing pretty well all game as well.  He trusts his defense more than his offense, so his logic was that his defense would be able to stop us with his offense having enough time for one last drive to either win (if they made the FG) or tie the game and send it to OT.  But of course our offense prevailed and didn't give them that chance.  In a close defensive battle, he would've gotten ridiculed no matter what decision he made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Circlethewagon8404 said:

This is an easy one.  He had zero confidence in his offense to move the ball down the field.  Against our defense, they were struggling to get 1st downs.  Did he make the right call?  I actually think so.  He knew his chances of getting a 1st down was slim, so he took the chance of just putting points on the board with plenty of time left on the clock.  Titans defense was playing pretty well all game as well.  He trusts his defense more than his offense, so his logic was that his defense would be able to stop us with his offense having enough time for one last drive to either win (if they made the FG) or tie the game and send it to OT.  But of course our offense prevailed and didn't give them that chance.  In a close defensive battle, he would've gotten ridiculed no matter what decision he made.

 

Except his defense pulled a 2012 Bills move where they mostly held teams in check all day until the game was on the line and then they allowed 3 straight first down runs to basically let the other team ice the game and never get the ball back.

 

He would have gotten far less ridicule by trying to tie the game late in the 4th quarter instead of:

 

1) Trying to kick a FG which still leaves them needing a TD with not that much time on the clock

2) Letting a kicker who has already missed 3 FG's try a long FG that gives the Bills great field position if he misses again

3) Thinking they are going to drive the entire length of the field against the Bills D and score a TD if they get the ball back -- something they had not done all day long. Their only points came on a short field after the INT when they started at the Bills 38 yard line.

 

Edited by matter2003
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Yeah, that was a very very puzzling call.

I thought, in the weather conditions, the initial 50 yd or whatever it was was also a questionable call.

 

Rain saturated natural grass, raining at the time of the kick... he had the leg for it too, just tough out there.  4th and a long 4 is tough though, especially with how many drops and just poorly located passes they had all game long.

4 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

 

Except his defense pulled a 2012 Bills move where they mostly held teams in check all day until the game was on the line and then they allowed 3 straight first down runs to basically let the other team ice the game and never get the ball back.

 

He would have gotten far less ridicule by trying to tie the game late in the 4th quarter instead of:

 

1) Trying to kick a FG which still leaves them needing a TD with not that much time on the clock

2) Letting a kicker who has already missed 3 FG's try a long FG that gives the Bills great field position if he misses again

3) Thinking they are going to drive the entire length of the field against the Bills D and score a TD if they get the ball back -- something they had not done all day long. Their only points came on a short field after the INT when they started at the Bills 38 yard line.

 

 

Yeah - sometimes that 2 minute defense is a teams Achilles heel though.  They play off, give up tons of free yards and get you in position to have a couple shots inside 25 yards.  

 

You make the FG and kick off... you force the 3 and out and its about 2 minutes left and you have the ball at the 40.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

If it was just a regular FG, like where your kicker hadn’t already missed 3 (one blocked) and it wasn’t 50+  I could see that but 

One was blocked? I thought none of them were blocked. There was that weird one that was short but on the broadcast in slow motion it didn't appear to be blocked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, D. L. Hot-Flamethrower said:

He looks and sounds like a total meathead. And, based on what Yolo has said about him actually being one, I'm completely convinced now.

I know a guy whose kid played in the same soccer league as his kid. He used to constantly berate the refs, coaches and kids. F bombs, etc. an obnoxious a-hole. Youth soccer, folks. 

 

He threw a ceramic coffee cup at the head of an offensive assistant during a meeting at Ohio state 

 

threatened to physically assault urban Meyer because he said he treated his buddy Luke  Fickell like *****

 

bar fights galore in college 

 

 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, MJS said:

One was blocked? I thought none of them were blocked. There was that weird one that was short but on the broadcast in slow motion it didn't appear to be blocked.

 

They call it blocked on NFL.com.  Maybe it can be shown better on all-22 but the Bills are certainly trying to block it and it appears the ball is kicked where Ed Oliver (I think) gets a hand on it.  It's more convincing on the film than in any screen grab I can pull.  You can see the guy's foot hit the ball and follow through right towards Oliver's outstretched fingers.

 

image.thumb.png.112149b40480bbeb282b2d2632d1f5cf.png

 

25 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

Rain saturated natural grass, raining at the time of the kick... he had the leg for it too, just tough out there.  4th and a long 4 is tough though, especially with how many drops and just poorly located passes they had all game long.

 

Yeah - sometimes that 2 minute defense is a teams Achilles heel though.  They play off, give up tons of free yards and get you in position to have a couple shots inside 25 yards.  

 

You make the FG and kick off... you force the 3 and out and its about 2 minutes left and you have the ball at the 40.  

 

So in your POV, they were playing to win by kicking a long field goal after having 3 fail?

A bit strange...I mean, a forced 3 and out and a TD is part of your scenario for them anyway. 

So why go for the low percentage thing that's even lower for you That Given Sunday?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chandemonium said:

I think it was a bad choice, but I suppose you could justify it because you still need a touchdown either way, but without the 3 points you need a TD to tie and with the 3 points you need a TD to win. 

There was 7 mins left in the game....

 

Punt the ball and let you defense make a stop. 53 yard FG there after a bad kicking day was a horrible call. A 40 yard FG sure.

 

That call flopped field position, not in their favor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

They call it blocked on NFL.com.  Maybe it can be shown better on all-22 but the Bills are certainly trying to block it and it appears the ball is kicked where Ed Oliver (I think) gets a hand on it.  It's more convincing on the film than in any screen grab I can pull.  You can see the guy's foot hit the ball and follow through right towards Oliver's outstretched fingers.

 

image.thumb.png.112149b40480bbeb282b2d2632d1f5cf.png

 

 

So in your POV, they were playing to win by kicking a long field goal after having 3 fail?

A bit strange...I mean, a forced 3 and out and a TD is part of your scenario for them anyway. 

So why go for the low percentage thing that's even lower for you That Given Sunday?

 

I'm grasping at straws tbh... just trying to get the thought process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I 100% believe that call was a fireable offense. I guess it's still early enough in the season, but that was inexcusable.

 

If he were the Bills HC I would have lost my mind at that call. I would certainly want him to be gone and Id wager a good portion of this board would feel the same way.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Circlethewagon8404 said:

This is an easy one.  He had zero confidence in his offense to move the ball down the field.  Against our defense, they were struggling to get 1st downs.  Did he make the right call?  I actually think so.  He knew his chances of getting a 1st down was slim, so he took the chance of just putting points on the board with plenty of time left on the clock.  Titans defense was playing pretty well all game as well.  He trusts his defense more than his offense, so his logic was that his defense would be able to stop us with his offense having enough time for one last drive to either win (if they made the FG) or tie the game and send it to OT.  But of course our offense prevailed and didn't give them that chance.  In a close defensive battle, he would've gotten ridiculed no matter what decision he made.

Together, that makes a grand total of zero sense. If he didn't have confidence in his team getting 5 yards on fourth. Where is this confidence in them to go the length of the field to win?

 

It was a muttonhead decision from a muttonhead. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought because of the previous misses that this kick was going to be a gadget play of some sort but i'm glad it wasn't !!

 

Those misses helped in the Bills win & McD needs to pull back his ego on the 4th down go for it plays that missed 4th down play where they could have had 3 points instead could have been the difference if their guy would have made a couple of those kicks !!

 

I get having confidence in your offense but don't get to cocky put the points on the board when given the chance !! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...