Mike Mularkey's first big gameday decision

[BuffaloBob]

 

What would Parcells have done?

 

What would Herm Edwards have done?

 

I think both those guys would have gone for the kick.  But that's just me perhaps...

27910[/snapback]

I think it is you! Under the same circumstances, with an iffy kicker who already missed from 10 yards closer, and a defense that has dominated for nearly the entire game, I think Parcells and possibly most other coaches in the league do the same: punt the ball close to the endzone and you make them have to drive a very long field against the strength of your game.

 

Any number of things could go wrong with a field goal kick besides the miss, including the obvious block or bad snap which could lead to an immediate score if not significantly better field position.

 

Sorry, but there is no way you can prove your opinion to be the correct decision. Again, if one could actually calculate the odds for all of the different scenarios, it is my suspiscion that the best scenario is not to risk the kick from that far away under all of the circumstances that existed at the time of the decision, and if that is the case, regardless of how you spin it, that would be by defintion playing to win!

[BuffaloBob]

Irrespective of hindsight, it's a general philosophical question.  I am a firm believer you play to win.  If Lindell doesn't make it, then find someone who does.  But playing scared is just not the way to play in the NFL.

27912[/snapback]

But playing the percentages is not playing scared, it is playing intelligently. I mean, the same argument could be made for going for it on 4th down and less than a yard every time, no matter where you are on the field. After all, if you don't think you're going to make it, you're a kitty coach and you're admitting your team is an impotent bunch of pussies, right? Come on, it's less than yard for crissake! Are you playing scared? What's the matter? Going to punt and play field position and rely on your defense Fraidy Cats? If you weren't playing not to loose, you'd just go for it wouldn't you?

[Simon]

your justification of it based on the yardage traded and the ultimate result is in hindsight.

 

Whaaa?

How on earth is it hindsight that I believe that the points are far more imporant than the field position in that situation?

 

The problem here is that while you may be convinced that you are right, there is no way to prove that, and thus no way to support your claim that Mularkey was wrong in his decision

 

Well then there is apparently no way to support your claim that Mularkey was right.

So it is a matter of opinion, which is why I said I "thought" he made the wrong call. Whereas you are the one attempting to use some bizarre sort of logic to support your unqualified statement of fact that Mularkey was not in error.

 

And your claim that you would have been right even had he followed your opinion and the same result had occurred only helps to demonstrate that!

 

So on the one hand you're saying my opinion is hindsight because you're trying to infer that it's based on the results of the game.

Yet on the other hand you're saying that because I claimed the result of the game was irrelevant to the merits of the decision, that my opinion can't be supported.

Ummmmm, Okay.

 

So what exactly is demonstrated by your claim that he was right to follow your opinion?

I'd have to say the fact that you're better off sticking to salary cap issues.

 

Cya

[34-78-83]

I stand on the side that even if you have a guy like Vanderjagt, the right call is the one that was made. Yes I've read all the theories about playing to win vs. playing not to lose but it's really a sound, dare I say "no brainer" decision amongst the friends , and past coaches that I've been involved with in my meaningless football career. Take a look at the odds of a team going 80 vs. a team going 60, you'll be amazed. With a D like the one we have , it was the right call in my camp, but I do realize there are some "risk-taking" (IE. Martz) type coaches out there who would feel differently. Bottom line in my book is that we gave up 2 absolute Prayer passes to lose the game. There were mistakes made as there are in every NFL game, but I really can't put the balance of the game on that call.

[Guest Guest]

And I thought he failed the test:-(

 

Opting for a measly 15yrds of field position instead of giving Lindell a shot to make it a 7pt lead: especially when the kick was inside 50 on a dry sunny day with the wind at the kicker's back.

 

You gotta play to win, and Mularkey was playing not to lose today.

 

Cya

27665[/snapback]

 

You morons have to stop blaming the coaches for Buffalo's problems. MM had a great game plan and the team played with much more direction and discipline than the Gregg William teams. The problem with Buffalo is that we don't have enough play makers! No pass rush out of the base defense; the offensive line is marginal; no tight-end play what so ever; and still nothing but Moulds as far as wide outs go. This all comes back to TD, he simply has not drafted any pro-bowl type players in the last 3 drafts and add that to Butler's last couple of Bill drafts and you have the answer why we are a marginal team today. In the old days, Butler use to always find that Sam Cowart type player that TD has yet to find. Look who made the winning play today, a 4th round rookie! When is the last time a Bill's rookie got any of our juices flowing? This team lacks playmakers, it is that simple. Please stop the BS regarding Nate Clemens being a future Pro-Bowler; he got beat soundly by one today when it counted. We also need to pull the plug on the Coy Wire experiment, where was he on the 4th and 16? Did he bite on the short crossing route by the full back and leave his corner one and one with their best wide out? I thought he went to Stanford?

[Simon]

Take a look at the odds of a team going 80 vs. a team going 60, you'll be amazed.

 

I'll bet those odds aren't nearly as amazing when the offenses are in 4down territory.

 

I really can't put the balance of the game on that call.

 

I don't either. I just think the huge potential gain from the FG attempt far outweighs the potential gain from a little extra field position. We had far more to gain from a FG than a punt and I'd think that teams who went for the 7pt lead would win more often than teams who went for a little extra field position, especially with that much time on the clock.

 

Now if it had been a 59yrd FG instead of 49, or if there had been 1:30 left with the Jags only holding 1 timeout, or if the Bills were playing into a stiff breeze, then I'd probably have leaned toward giving the ball up.

But a 49yrd kick on a warm, dry field with the wind at his back that would have put the Bills up the full touchdown with 2 1/2 minutes left?

The payoff as compared to the short punt is so much greater that I think you've just got to take the shot.

Cya

[Guest BADOL]

And I thought he failed the test:-(

 

Opting for a measly 15yrds of field position instead of giving Lindell a shot to make it a 7pt lead: especially when the kick was inside 50 on a dry sunny day with the wind at the kicker's back.

 

You gotta play to win, and Mularkey was playing not to lose today.

 

Cya

27665[/snapback]

 

My call was punt it and try to put it out of bounds at or inside the 10 yard line. They blew the punt, but I think it was the right call to not attempt a 52 yard kick with a lousy kicker like Lindell. The Bills best chance to win games is to run the ball and play defense. He put it in the defenses hands and they gagged.

[34-78-83]

I'll bet those odds aren't nearly as amazing when the offenses are in 4down territory.

I don't either. I just think the huge potential gain from the FG attempt far outweighs the potential gain from a little extra field position. We had far more to gain from a FG than a punt and I'd think that teams who went for the 7pt lead would win more often than teams who went for a little extra field position, especially with that much time on the clock.

 

Now if it had been a 59yrd FG instead of 49, or if there had been 1:30 left with the Jags only holding 1 timeout, or if the Bills were playing into a stiff breeze, then I'd probably have leaned toward giving the ball up.

But a 49yrd kick on a warm, dry field with the wind at his back that would have put the Bills up the full touchdown with 2 1/2 minutes left?

The payoff as compared to the short punt is so much greater that I think you've just got to take the shot.

Cya

28063[/snapback]

 

Your points are not one's that I can argue really. It's a feel thing. The people I learned the game from would have advised to punt and let the d play though, that's all, and I agree with them. 4th and 13 odds are about the same as making a basketball shot from half-court! And Lindell is about 33% beyond 44 yards.

[Simon]

MM had a great game plan and the team played with much more direction and discipline than the Gregg William teams

 

I never said he didn't and this post had nothing to do with any of that. The difference between what we saw today and the circus of GWilliams' tenure was very noticable. It's not my fault that you read something into it that wasn't there.

I simply wondered if Mularkey made an overly conservative call on his first tough decision.

If you think that makes me a moron, you should see the other stuff I do on a daily basis!

[AJ1]

We're already up 4, so they needed a TD anyway.  Might as well make it as hard as possible for them to get it.  Blame the D for that last drive.  Reminded me of SB 25 when our great D just couldn't close the deal.

27749[/snapback]

 

I blame Donohoe for the lack of a reliable kicker.

 

If the loses pile up this year, I'll be blaming Donahoe, not the players or coaches.

[Guest Billy]

I never said he didn't and this post had nothing to do with any of that. The difference between what we saw today and the circus of GWilliams' tenure was very noticable. It's not my fault that you read something into it that wasn't there.

I simply wondered if Mularkey made an overly conservative call on his first tough decision.

If you think that makes me a moron, you should see the other stuff I do on a daily basis!

28081[/snapback]

 

MM made the right call. Leftwich was awful for the first 58 minutes. The odds of the defense preventing Jacksonville from putting the ball in the end zone from, at best, 80 yards away were much greater than Jacksonville reaching into its posterior region and pulling out a prayer to Smith (note to Clements: you don't need the pick there. KNOCK IT DOWN) and the schoolyard "throw the ball into triple coverage and hope the guy who hasn't done a thing all game comes down with it." He made the right call, with perhaps the exception of not burning the timeout to set the defense on fourth and the game. Hate to lose with timeouts, and it may have been helpful to give the pass rushers a breather, select a blitz package (Priloeu, or however one spells it, was perhaps our best blitzer off the edge in pure passing situations, which is not necessarily a slight against the OLBs). All things considered, not MM or DB's fault, if anything, our Pro Bowl receiver has to hang onto the football, and our worthless kicker needs to be fired.

[34-78-83]

Makes alot of sense Billy. I agree...Why not register ?

[disco]

And I thought he failed the test:-(

 

Opting for a measly 15yrds of field position instead of giving Lindell a shot to make it a 7pt lead: especially when the kick was inside 50 on a dry sunny day with the wind at the kicker's back.

 

You gotta play to win, and Mularkey was playing not to lose today.

 

Cya

27665[/snapback]

 

Every time that scenario comes up and a team decides to punt instead of take a long field goal...it seems the opposing team drives that 20 yard difference in about 6 seconds. I'm going to have to look through the stats and see how many times that decision pays off.

[BuffaloBob]

Whaaa?

How on earth is it hindsight that I believe that the points are far more imporant than the field position in that situation?

28027[/snapback]

 

Opting for a measly 15yrds of field position instead of giving Lindell a shot to make it a 7pt lead:

 

OK, here is the first bit of hindsight you use to support your position. The fact that we only got a measley 15 yards is because Moorman punted poorly. This should have been a more substantial 30 plus yards of field position had Moorman done his job correctly, but this is NOT something you could have known. Also, although you do not come out and state it, it is implied in your position that the outcome of the game also supports your position, which again is hindsight.

 

Also, let's make sure we are correct in that you believe that a CHANCE at the three points is far more important than field position, as the points were by no means guaranteed, especially after he already missed from almost ten yards closer earlier in the game. Moreover, let's also point out that it is not JUST field position that's at issue here. There is also the possibility for a blocked kick or a blown snap, etc. that could lead to an even worse position.

 

Well then there is apparently no way to support your claim that Mularkey was right.

28027[/snapback]

 

It is my opinion that Mularkey made the better decision, but my point is not that he was right, but that it is all a matter of probabilities, and that just because you choose what appear to be (and perhpas are in actuality) the better probabilities based on the circumstances of the game doesn't mean you are playing "Not to Lose" as you describe it. Playing the better probabilites would be in fact playing to win. That would be like saying that while playing Black Jack, if the probabilities say not to hit, that by not hitting that you are merely playing not to lose, which is somehow different than playing to win. Logically, this makes no sense.

 

So it is a matter of opinion, which is why I said I "thought" he made the wrong call. Whereas you are the one attempting to use some bizarre sort of logic to support your unqualified statement of fact that Mularkey was not in error.

So on the one hand you're saying my opinion is hindsight because you're trying to infer that it's based on the results of the game.

Yet on the other hand you're saying that because I claimed the result of the game was irrelevant to the merits of the decision, that my opinion can't be supported.

Ummmmm, Okay.

28027[/snapback]

 

Actually, bizarre to you perhaps, but not necessarily to an objective observer. You take the position that you thought he failed a test by making an incorrect choice. This necessitates that there is a correct answer and an incorrect answer to this test. But when it comes to outcome probabilites, there is no correct and incorrect decision. Take the Black Jack example. Even if the probabilites say not to hit, and you hit anyway, is that decision the incorrect one? Aren't you actually playing to lose rather than to win if you defy the better odds? Perhaps not if you are aware of other issues that might mitigate those probabilites (like how many face cards are still in the deck and whether the dealer will bust with a face card). The analogy would be that MM saw Lindell kicking this week and he was consistently missing (or making) kicks longer than 45 yards out.

 

My point is simply that there is no failure here on his part unless you can prove that he miscalculated the probabilities or correectly calculated them and went against the better odds. And because that would be incredibly arduous, there is no way for you to assess whether he failed some test with a correct and incorrect choice. As for your hindsight support of your position, please see above.

 

So what exactly is demonstrated by your claim that he was right to follow your opinion?

28027[/snapback]

 

My point was not to claim that he was correct in his decision, although I do think he was in my opinion. I have demonstrated that he could not have failed a test that necessitates a correct and incorrect answer, because you cannot prove that one decision was correct over another without assessing the cumulative probabilities under the circumstances at the time of the decision; I have demonstrated that playing the best odds is not necessarily "playing not to lose," and in fact by logic is playing to win; and I have demonstrated that you were using hindsight to support your position that his decision was incorrect, rather than to assess the cumulative outcome probabilities at the time of the decision.

 

I'd have to say the fact that you're better off sticking to salary cap issues.

28027[/snapback]

 

I'll take that under advisement.......NOT!

[MDH]

Or not.

 

I would have given Mularkey the nod for taking a shot whether Lindell hits or not.

 

The difference between a 60+yrd drive and an 80yrd drive isn't so great that it's worth denying yourself the chance to take a touchdown lead late in the game.

He got caught overcoaching for at least the 2ndtime on the day and both times it stung us.

Hell, he'd have been better off going for it at that point, than just surrendering the ball in exchange for 0 freaking points.

 

It was a mistake in foresight and in hindsight.

 

Cya

27699[/snapback]

 

It wasn't a mistake in foresight (and anybody can second guess things in hindsight). The D hadn't allowed a TD all game long, you make the other team drive the field to win the game, you don't give them a short field when your FG kicker misses the kick....and it was pretty much a foregone conclusion he would miss that kick.

[BuffaloBob]

It wasn't a mistake in foresight (and anybody can second guess things in hindsight).  The D hadn't allowed a TD all game long, you make the other team drive the field to win the game, you don't give them a short field when your FG kicker misses the kick....and it was pretty much a foregone conclusion he would miss that kick.

28179[/snapback]

And as I pointed out above, this presumes that the only outcome is a shot at a field goal or adding twenty yards of field position. There are other possibilities as well, such as adding 30 plus yards if Moorman hits a good punt, or a blocked field goal or blown snap that leads to an even shorter field than the missed field goal does.