MRM33064 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 The score is tied. The Bills have no timeouts. 1-5-BUF 5 (2:02) 31-J.Lewis up the middle to BUF 6 for -1 yards (95-K.Williams, 59-A.Palmer). *** Two-Minute Warning **** The clock stops. At this point, the umpteen coaches on the CLE sideline choose to kneel, run clock, then attempt a game-winning FG, essentially leaving the Bills no time to tie. Except they don't. 2-6-BUF 6 (1:56) 31-J.Lewis left guard to BUF 4 for 2 yards (99-M.Stroud). 3-4-BUF 4 (1:13) 31-J.Lewis up the middle to BUF 1 for 3 yards (90-C.Kelsay, 99-M.Stroud). They run a play ... no, they run two plays ... but wait a second .... we stop them both times. The BUF braintrust evidently determined that we'd be better off letting CLE run out the entire game and attempt a winning FG - leaving us with roughly 20 seconds score a tying FG (kicking into the wind, I believe) - than simply letting them score the TD and leaving us with about 1:50 remaining to score a tying TD. Tawwk amongst yaw-selves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 The score is tied. The Bills have no timeouts. 1-5-BUF 5 (2:02) 31-J.Lewis up the middle to BUF 6 for -1 yards (95-K.Williams, 59-A.Palmer). *** Two-Minute Warning **** The clock stops. At this point, the umpteen coaches on the CLE sideline choose to kneel, run clock, then attempt a game-winning FG, essentially leaving the Bills no time to tie. Except they don't. 2-6-BUF 6 (1:56) 31-J.Lewis left guard to BUF 4 for 2 yards (99-M.Stroud). 3-4-BUF 4 (1:13) 31-J.Lewis up the middle to BUF 1 for 3 yards (90-C.Kelsay, 99-M.Stroud). They run a play ... no, they run two plays ... but wait a second .... we stop them both times. The BUF "braintrust" evidently determined that we'd be better off letting CLE run out the entire game and attempt a winning FG - leaving us with roughly 20 seconds score a tying FG (kicking into the wind, I believe) - than simply letting them score the TD and leaving us with about 1:50 remaning to score a tying TD. Tawwk amongst yaw-selves. Never let a team score!! What is the snap on FG was fumbled or kick was missed? There are many other things to complain about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bklnpete Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 "Never let a team score!! What is the snap on FG was fumbled or kick was missed? There are many other things to complain about. " That's Jauron ball you're advocating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West End Stench Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Nothing here to really discuss, you just don't "let teams score". Period. Forcing a fumble or a jail-break on the field goal is just as likely as the Bills going down and scoring a touchdown in 1:50 seconds (especially when they barely managed a field goal in the first 58:10). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRM33064 Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share Posted October 12, 2009 "Never let a team score!! What is the snap on FG was fumbled or kick was missed? There are many other things to complain about. "That's Jauron ball you're advocating. There are a zillion other things to complain about, agreed. A FG of that length - while by no means guaranteed - is extremely likely to be successful. The expiration of time off the clock is 100% guaranteed and is - technically - the only thing that ultimately determines whether a team loses the game (i.e. the game ends.) The JauronBall decision, generally, is to take the most conservative, boring, uncreative action. Considering letting a team score in that position (subtlely, of course ... because I believe that overtly letting a team score was made an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty, specifically to address this type of situation), would be more akin to HoodieBall. CLE's decision to run plays in that situation was worse ... but BUF's decision was that they believed that they were better off: (a) Letting CLE run the game clock down to less than 30 seconds and attempt an 18-yrd FG, relying on CLE to either fail on the kick, or give us a chance to tie kicking our own FG (into the wind) with <30 seconds to do it; as opposed to (b) Having a full 1:50 on the clock to score a tying TD. I'm not sure in that case the correct answer is ... "you never let them score." And yes, there are far bigger issues, but these are the kind of game management decisions that have nothing to do with ... say ... Demetrius Bell's ineptitude on the OL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pkwwjd Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 yeah ... how did the "let them score fast" work for the Packers against Broncos in Super Bowl XXXII? and that was a game when both teams were moving the ball ... When you let another team score, you have joined Jauron and his game management. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRM33064 Posted October 12, 2009 Author Share Posted October 12, 2009 yeah ... how did the "let them score fast" work for the Packers against Broncos in Super Bowl XXXII? and that was a game when both teams were moving the ball ... When you let another team score, you have joined Jauron and his game management. Generally, I agree that one doesn't consider letting a team score ... unless the situation is utterly desperate and the alternatives (probability-wise) are grossly against you otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eSJayDee Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Momentarily ignoring the "you don't let them score" edict, in this particular case, I think this was the better decision anyway. Are we more likely to go ~70 yds for a TD in 2:00 or ~30 for a FG in 25 seconds? Considering our EXTREME inability to sustain a drive, I think the chances of getting lucky for the FG try are MUCH greater. Good decision by default in this case IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NY Nole Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 leaving us with about 1:50 remaining to score a tying TD. We had 58:10 to score a "tying" TD and could not do it. Do you honestly think we could have moved down field in under two minutes? At that point, I was grateful for the sorry game to be over -- but the Browns still tried to give it away by kicking the ball out of bounds. Would have been interesting to see if Manning, Brady or about 20 other decent QB's could have gone 30 yds in the 15-20 seconds that was left. I'd bet they could have positioned it for a legitimate field goal attempt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Miyagi-Do Karate Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Nothing here to really discuss, you just don't "let teams score". Period. Not true at all; there are certain situations where you are better off letting a team score, and having more clock. Here, though, I agree that we had to stop them, only because there was zero percent chance that we would score a TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Odds of Browns missing the FG >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Odds of Bills marching down for a tying TD in less than 2 minutes with no timeouts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conch Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 The score is tied. The Bills have no timeouts. 1-5-BUF 5 (2:02) 31-J.Lewis up the middle to BUF 6 for -1 yards (95-K.Williams, 59-A.Palmer). *** Two-Minute Warning **** The clock stops. At this point, the umpteen coaches on the CLE sideline choose to kneel, run clock, then attempt a game-winning FG, essentially leaving the Bills no time to tie. Except they don't. 2-6-BUF 6 (1:56) 31-J.Lewis left guard to BUF 4 for 2 yards (99-M.Stroud). 3-4-BUF 4 (1:13) 31-J.Lewis up the middle to BUF 1 for 3 yards (90-C.Kelsay, 99-M.Stroud). They run a play ... no, they run two plays ... but wait a second .... we stop them both times. The BUF braintrust evidently determined that we'd be better off letting CLE run out the entire game and attempt a winning FG - leaving us with roughly 20 seconds score a tying FG (kicking into the wind, I believe) - than simply letting them score the TD and leaving us with about 1:50 remaining to score a tying TD. Tawwk amongst yaw-selves. You think this team is capable of scoring a TD? Last two home games no TDs by the offense in eight quarters. Going back to last year, what do we have a couple TDs by the offense at home in the last 7 games or so? Prepare to be shut out next week in NY. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I also thought the clock management at the end of the first was awful. Bills line up for 2nd and 8 or something close, around the 15 ,you have two timeouts left, and the play clock will bring you to the 2 minute warning. Friggen Trent snaps the ball at 2.01..WTF? Just absolutely idiotic decision making by both coach and QB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 simply letting them score the TD and leaving us with about 1:50 remaining to score a tying TD. Ignorant post. You couldn't get a TD in 58 minutes. And you say to let them score 7 so in less than 2 minutes we WILL get one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leh-nerd skin-erd Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Ignorant post. You couldn't get a TD in 58 minutes. And you say to let them score 7 so in less than 2 minutes we WILL get one Plus, it would have taken away our ability to see the Bill's whoopty-doo flip-a-rooney let's win it on a You Tube play to end the game like it took place in some local elementary school parking lot. You just can't find entertainment like that these days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brandon Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 If the Bills offense had looked anything close to competent, I might have considered allowing them to score the TD. Unfortunately, the offense has played like utter crap, so the decision to force a FG attempt seems to be the correct one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
West End Stench Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Not true at all; there are certain situations where you are better off letting a team score, and having more clock. Here, though, I agree that we had to stop them, only because there was zero percent chance that we would score a TD. I would be interested in knowing in what type of desperate situation a team would have to be in to let a team score? Not only because I can't think of one, but because I've been watching football for a long time now and have never even seen anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 I would be interested in knowing in what type of desperate situation a team would have to be in to let a team score? Not only because I can't think of one, but because I've been watching football for a long time now and have never even seen anything like that. About the only one I can think of is a similar situation to yesterday except you are already down one point. Thus, even if they don't get the FG you are still screwed by letting them run the clock. If you let them score a TD, now down by 8, you have a chance to come back for the tie. Of course, a smart opponent would refuse to score in that situation -- this actually happened a couple years ago when Brian Westbrook fell down at the one yard line rather than score late in a game the Eagles were leading by one. It was the worst fantasy football moment in history. In a game you were leading or tied? You'd never let someone score under any circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkyMannn Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Plus, it would have taken away our ability to see the Bill's whoopty-doo flip-a-rooney let's win it on a You Tube play to end the game like it took place in some local elementary school parking lot. You just can't find entertainment like that these days. True. And Parrish killed that one too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MRW Posted October 12, 2009 Share Posted October 12, 2009 Gotta agree with the consensus here, you're way off-base on this one. No way are you better off letting Cleveland get a touchdown in that scenario. It'd be one thing if they would've been able to run the clock down to have their kick be the last play of the game - but 20 seconds is enough time for teams to have a shot at a field goal. Well, competent teams. Realistically it didn't matter what the Bills did in that scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts