I don't understand all the Lindell bashing

[KOKBILLS]

The guy hit two of the three kicks he was asked to make, the only exception being a 40+ yrdr from the left hash (a righties least favorite spot) into the wind which barely slid wide. He hit deep, high kickoffs all day long and I think he even made a big tackle on the Jags KR that got called back on a penalty.

And because he just missed one kick outside 40, it's like we've suddenly got a board full of that Sullivan guy. In addition to the wags who want to cut him right now we even had one math major who was ranting about how he cost us 6 points on Sunday 

Lindell hasn't been great over his career, but he's been striking the ball very well every single time I've seen him this year. If he keeps regularly missing 42yrdrs then maybe giving him hell will be in order, but don't blame the kicker because Mularkey didn't have the guts or the confidence in his defense to let him try a 49yrdr from the right hash (I think) with the wind at his back when another 3points would have been enormous.

Cya

31475[/snapback]

 

It's interesting, and I guess this just dawned on me, but you can parallel the Lindell situation to the Bills overall situation... What I mean is, if Lindell had not gone 3 for 7 from 40-49 yds. last season, I don't think anyone would be spazzing. And even though the loss of a Home Opener while only totaling 10 points is always going to sting a bit, had it not come after a 6-10 Season where our biggest problem was scoring points, I don't think the furvor would be quite so intense...

 

Just a thought... B)

[jarthur31]

The guy hit two of the three kicks he was asked to make, the only exception being a 40+ yrdr from the left hash (a righties least favorite spot) into the wind which barely slid wide. He hit deep, high kickoffs all day long and I think he even made a big tackle on the Jags KR that got called back on a penalty.

And because he just missed one kick outside 40, it's like we've suddenly got a board full of that Sullivan guy. In addition to the wags who want to cut him right now we even had one math major who was ranting about how he cost us 6 points on Sunday 

Lindell hasn't been great over his career, but he's been striking the ball very well every single time I've seen him this year. If he keeps regularly missing 42yrdrs then maybe giving him hell will be in order, but don't blame the kicker because Mularkey didn't have the guts or the confidence in his defense to let him try a 49yrdr from the right hash (I think) with the wind at his back when another 3points would have been enormous.

Cya

31475[/snapback]

 

LOL!

 

Look at his history. Chances are very good that he won't improve.

 

Have you noticed other kickers with his numbers and how long they play in this league?

 

Yea, I didn't think you did.

 

Close, but no cigar.

[MDH]

I was MUCH more pissed at Moulds for his extremely untimely fumbles.  I mean, that may have scored as many as 14 points, and in that case, we don't need our coach second guessing our kicker.  I put Lindell as third goat behind Moulds and Clements.

31502[/snapback]

 

I'm tired of saying this, but I'll say it again anyway. The Moulds fumble at the 7 didn't have any effect on the outcome of the game, period. We got the ball back two plays later with Reese's INT which he returned to the 3 (we actually gained 4 yards by trading turnovers)...trying to say we could have added another 7 if not for his fumble is wrong. We had the shot from the 3 to put it in and failed.

 

The other Moulds "fumble" wasn't even a fumble, it was a backward pass that was broken up...just because the stat sheet calls it a fumble doesn't tell the entire story.

[kasper13]

Turnovers kill teams regardless if any one directly affects the outcome of the game. The Moulds fumble took potential points off the board and indirectly affected the final score. The hot new stat this year is that the team with the fewer turnovers in a game wins 85% of the time.

[Buftex]

Firstly, let me state, I am not one to crucify a player when he has a bad play or two. That being said, Jerry Sullivan, and the rest of you are right, Lindell has to go.

 

I am not sure where I heard it on Sunday, but it was mentioned somewhere that Lindell is the only NFL kicker under 50% for his career from beyond 40 yards (excluding rookies), and has the second lowest all percentage of any vetran kicker in the leauge, other than Neal Rackers, from the Cardnals. If that is true, you might say that there are 30 or 31 kickers better than Lindell in the NFL. The odds are that there is someone sitting at home, with some experiece, who could be more effective.

Truth is, Lindell had one decent season, his last year in Seattle, where he showed some improvement. He has regressed since coming to the Bills.

 

The problems with Lindell go beyond this past weeks game. He was horrible last season as well, and you might make the claim that his misses, from distances not necessarily considered erxtra difficult, directly contributed to 2 or 3 losses last season. Granted, the offense was putrid, but having 3 or 6 extra points on the board may have effected playcalling the rest of the game. (I know, I know, Killdrive would have Drew passing every down, even with a 6 point lead, and 5 minutes to go)

Suppose Lindell has the same sort of yeat again, the Bills finish 7-9, maybe they wold have been 10-6 if Lindell could kick from beyond 40.

 

I can't believe that Tom Donohue, as pro-active as he normally is, has not braught in somebody to at least challenge Lindell. I realize that TD signed Lindell to a long contract, but please, this guy is not getting the job done. You can only coddle someone for so long. I would hope that TD is not so proud that he won't at least bring some other guys in. Lindell is not in a slump, he just is not a very good NFL kicker. If Mike Hollis is healthy, and he and TD can put their differences aside, it would be crazy to not at least bring him in and see how he can do.

[BuffaloBob]

The guy hit two of the three kicks he was asked to make, the only exception being a 40+ yrdr from the left hash (a righties least favorite spot) into the wind which barely slid wide. He hit deep, high kickoffs all day long and I think he even made a big tackle on the Jags KR that got called back on a penalty.

And because he just missed one kick outside 40, it's like we've suddenly got a board full of that Sullivan guy. In addition to the wags who want to cut him right now we even had one math major who was ranting about how he cost us 6 points on Sunday 

Lindell hasn't been great over his career, but he's been striking the ball very well every single time I've seen him this year. If he keeps regularly missing 42yrdrs then maybe giving him hell will be in order, but don't blame the kicker because Mularkey didn't have the guts or the confidence in his defense to let him try a 49yrdr from the right hash (I think) with the wind at his back when another 3points would have been enormous.

Cya

31475[/snapback]

I new as soon as I saw the title of this post that you were really setting yourself up to take one more shot at Mularkey for not going for the 50+ yard field goal. LOL!

 

It may be that Lindell has improved over the offseason and we may have just seen a statistical aberration in him missing his first medium-long field goal of the season. He may make his next 15 in a row for all we know. And I agree that he has struck the ball much better so far this year.

 

But this position that our head coach didn't have the guts to make what you believe was the right decision (i.e. the one to win and not the one not to lose) is simply illogical.

 

Once again I use the black jack example. If you have a hand that, in view of what the dealer has showing, dictates standing pat and not taking a hit because the odds are in your favor of winning by doing so, how is that going against the odds and taking the hit anyway is the gutsy call and playing to win? Logically, playing the odds correctly is playing to win, even if that means not making the aggressive play.

 

In this game, the Bills defense had shut down the Jags so completely for 58 minutes, why would you not want to play the odds in your favor, pin the Jags deep (or maybe even get a TO on the punt) to stack the odds against them as much as possible and rely on your defense to win the game? Why is it that instead you would have your kicker make an attempt that the odds dicated he would NOT make (given his earlier miss, given his historical record from the distance), and further risk some other potential catostrophic events such as a block, bad snap and fumble etc. instead?

 

In hindsight, the change in field position was not as good as it should have been (due to what was frankly a lousy punt by Moorman), and was obvioulsy not enough for the Bills to stop them, but hell, sometimes the dealer hits and wins even though the odds were greatly in favor her busting.

 

Regardless, playing the odds is playing to win, regardless of whether one hits or stands pat. Not playing the odds is playing to lose, even if one hits because its gutsy.

 

Now you can argue over whether in fact MM's assessment of the odds was incorrect, but frankly I'm not sure how you could support that. Regardless, to label MM as not having the guts to hit when the odds to him and many other observers said stand pat is just not supportable in any objective manner. And it is no more supportable just because the dealer was forced to hit and still won against the odds.