3rd and 3 at the end of the game...

[MikeInRoch]

The Bills decided to pass on 3rd and 3 with under 2 minutes left. If it falls incomplete (which it did), the clock stops and the Jets are not forced to use their last time out. Of course, if it's completed, the game is over.

If they run instead, the odds seem smaller that they get a first down, but the Jets probably have to burn their last time out.

So did they make the correct call?

[The King]

When your QB has 4 incomplete passes in the game at that point. You can make the gutsy call. especially where Lynch was having some trouble running up the gut. You dont want to swing your back outside the tackles on 3rd and 3. It was the right call.

At that point you have to go for the win and not play games with the clock.

[Luisito23]

You always take the odds and run it....Especially when you have a beast like Lynch who so far has been nothing but clutch....




GO BILLS!!!!!

[CSFAN]

A lot of teams pass in that situation. Running on 3rd & 3 is a fairly conservative call, unless there is less than a minute left in the game & the other team has no timeouts.

The way Edwards was passing, it was definitely a good call...

[MikeInRoch]

I agree - I think passing there was the correct call. Especially considering that they were able to pick on that DB all game long.

[Dr. Lecter]

I disagree.

Lynch was having a good day running the ball and making the Jets burn there last timeout was the way to go. Run behind Dockery and Peters to get 3 yards. You have to be able to that at the end of the game.

[CSFAN]

Lynch had a good day, but he must have had about 8-9 runs that were stopped after a yard or 2 yards. He had short pickups all day.

It was just as likely that he'd be stopped on that play as it was that Edwards would throw incomplete, especially considering the percentages from that day...

[OpIv37]

When your QB has 4 incomplete passes in the game at that point. You can make the gutsy call. especially where Lynch was having some trouble running up the gut. You dont want to swing your back outside the tackles on 3rd and 3. It was the right call.

At that point you have to go for the win and not play games with the clock.

at that point, taking time off the clock IS playing for the win.

When Pennington threw that final INT, there were 11 seconds left on the clock. Those 11 seconds would have been gone if we had ran the ball and Pennington never would have had an opportunity to make that play. The game would have been over already.

We didn't learn from the Denver game but McGee bailed us out this time.

[OpIv37]

Lynch had a good day, but he must have had about 8-9 runs that were stopped after a yard or 2 yards. He had short pickups all day.

It was just as likely that he'd be stopped on that play as it was that Edwards would throw incomplete, especially considering the percentages from that day...

so if it's 50-50, the smart play is to run because running takes time off the clock and passing doesn't. It's not rocket science.

[Romes]

I would have ran.

[JD]

Edwards was hot all day, why not? The pass was there, reed just couldnt hold onto the ball. I could see it going the other way though. I would have thrown a screen to lynch, it would have ate up even more time on the clock even if he didnt break 3 yards.

[TacklingDummy]

Run the ball. Make the Jets use their timeouts to stop the clock.

[mysticsoto]

The Bills decided to pass on 3rd and 3 with under 2 minutes left. If it falls incomplete (which it did), the clock stops and the Jets are not forced to use their last time out. Of course, if it's completed, the game is over.

If they run instead, the odds seem smaller that they get a first down, but the Jets probably have to burn their last time out.

So did they make the correct call?

I don't like timid teams that play not to lose. If you ask me, I will say go for the jugular every time! How else are they going to learn? Wins should be earned!!! Besides, what do we have to lose? We are very unlikely to be able to do much this year with all the injuries...why not go for it? Same logic applies to the 4th down that they went for when they scored...

[OpIv37]

I don't like timid teams that play not to lose. If you ask me, I will say go for the jugular every time! How else are they going to learn? Wins should be earned!!! Besides, what do we have to lose? We are very unlikely to be able to do much this year with all the injuries...why not go for it? Same logic applies to the 4th down that they went for when they scored...

it was 3rd and 3- throwing a short pass underneath isn't going for the jugular any more than a running play. In fact, I would argue that running the ball is going for the jugular more so than passing in that situation. If we converted, we kill the clock- if not, we take a significant amount of time and maybe force the Jets to use their last time out.

Running the ball basically says: "We need 3 yards. If you can't stop us, you lose. If you can, you still have to go 40+yards to tie and 60+ yards to win. Good luck."

[OpIv37]

I don't like timid teams that play not to lose. If you ask me, I will say go for the jugular every time! How else are they going to learn? Wins should be earned!!! Besides, what do we have to lose? We are very unlikely to be able to do much this year with all the injuries...why not go for it? Same logic applies to the 4th down that they went for when they scored...

4th and 1 on the goal line in the middle of the 4th does NOT require the same logic as 3rd and 3 in our own territory with less than 2 minutes left.

[CSFAN]

It's a choice between putting the game away for good, and "taking more time off the clock." We still would have left the Jets with plenty of time to score, regardless of how much time was burned.

I like going for the win. It's what we've been complaining that coaches haven't been doing. When you have a chance to put the game away & keep the ball from going back to the other team again, you go for it...

[OpIv37]

It's a choice between putting the game away for good, and "taking more time off the clock." We still would have left the Jets with plenty of time to score, regardless of how much time was burned.

I like going for the win. It's what we've been complaining that coaches haven't been doing. When you have a chance to put the game away & keep the ball from going back to the other team again, you go for it...

stupid logic because it was an UNDERNEATH pass. It wouldn't have scored and we still would have had to take time off the clock. It's a 3 yard run vs an 8 yard pass- the pass play they called wasn't going for the win, either- it was just another way of getting the first down.

[CSFAN]

"stupid logic because it was an UNDERNEATH pass. It wouldn't have scored and we still would have had to take time off the clock. It's a 3 yard run vs an 8 yard pass- the pass play they called wasn't going for the win, either- it was just another way of getting the first down."

You're kidding, right?

If they get a 1st down, the game's over. That's called "going for the win."

[MikeInRoch]

stupid logic because it was an UNDERNEATH pass. It wouldn't have scored and we still would have had to take time off the clock. It's a 3 yard run vs an 8 yard pass- the pass play they called wasn't going for the win, either- it was just another way of getting the first down.

Sure it was. If they get the first down, it's kneel down time.

[Mr. Pink]

I can't fault the play call too much here...seeing I used this play as an example of what they should have done against Denver if they were gung ho on throwing the ball.

It was a short, conservative, ball control pass call. The play was there for Reed to make, albeit in tight coverage and he dropped the ball.

It's a play designed to fool the defense into crashing the box and leaving open on a skinny out. The defense didn't buy into it, probably because we always go pass in these type of situations but it's still not a bad play call, just poor execution this time.

[mysticsoto]

stupid logic because it was an UNDERNEATH pass. It wouldn't have scored and we still would have had to take time off the clock. It's a 3 yard run vs an 8 yard pass- the pass play they called wasn't going for the win, either- it was just another way of getting the first down.
We don't need to score. We need to get a 1st down for the win. The Jets were clearly putting everyone up on the line, so it is clear that they were going to play the run. The call was the correct call and it even landed on Reed's hands and was almost complete. Do you think the Patriots would have played it "safe" and gone for the run when the line/box was stacked? They would have done the same thing. You want us to have a good team, but you want us to play like little pussies. If we want a win, we should earn it. Not win by doing the least possible to not lose. Do teams like that ever make it very far? No, we may have alot of injuries and not likely be going anywhere, but we don't have to play like a team that is intimidated by the opponents. If anything, the fact that we have little to lose should make us more daring and dangerous!!!

[OpIv37]

"stupid logic because it was an UNDERNEATH pass. It wouldn't have scored and we still would have had to take time off the clock. It's a 3 yard run vs an 8 yard pass- the pass play they called wasn't going for the win, either- it was just another way of getting the first down."

You're kidding, right?

If they get a 1st down, the game's over. That's called "going for the win."

if they get a first down running the ball the game's over too!

For some ridiculous reason, you think passing the ball is more likely to get 3 yards than running the ball. It's not.

[AndreReed83]

I would have prefered a run. A run would have taken a few more seconds off the clock and burned the last Jets timeout. Those surefire facts, along with the strong chance that the running game could have picked up the first down, makes it a better call for me than the pass.

I will say, however, that they judgement calls by the coaching staff were fantastic yesterday. They coached a smart game.

[CSFAN]

"if they get a first down running the ball the game's over too!

For some ridiculous reason, you think passing the ball is more likely to get 3 yards than running the ball. It's not."

Then why were you talking about them needing to score?

Looking at the day, passing was a higher percentage play. Lynch, though he had a good day, was getting stuffed on quite a few runs, for 1 or 2 yard gains.

I just don't see why you don't like the call. It was basically a decision to put the game away, which has been lacking in recent years. Same philosophy as going for it on 4th & goal...

[OpIv37]

We don't need to score. We need to get a 1st down for the win. The Jets were clearly putting everyone up on the line, so it is clear that they were going to play the run. The call was the correct call and it even landed on Reed's hands and was almost complete. Do you think the Patriots would have played it "safe" and gone for the run when the line/box was stacked? They would have done the same thing. You want us to have a good team, but you want us to play like little pussies. If we want a win, we should earn it. Not win by doing the least possible to not lose. Do teams like that ever make it very far? No, we may have alot of injuries and not likely be going anywhere, but we don't have to play like a team that is intimidated by the opponents. If anything, the fact that we have little to lose should make us more daring and dangerous!!!

you're comparing us to the patriots? Ha.

How is running the ball playing like pussies? It's saying "we're gonna run the ball and we don't think you can stop us. Oh, btw, if you do stop us, you have no time left and you're pretty much ****ed"

I guess smart football is now playing like pussies.

Hell, why bother running the ball at all? When we got the ball back, we should have attempted 60 yard bombs on every play. Don't worry about killing the clock- go for the jugular! :rolleyes:

They had 11 seconds left when McGee intercepted- those 11 seconds would have been GONE if we had ran the ball and we would have taken away their last opportunity.

And that's if we didn't convert- if we did convert, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

[OpIv37]

"if they get a first down running the ball the game's over too!

For some ridiculous reason, you think passing the ball is more likely to get 3 yards than running the ball. It's not."

Then why were you talking about them needing to score?

Looking at the day, passing was a higher percentage play. Lynch, though he had a good day, was getting stuffed on quite a few runs, for 1 or 2 yard gains.

I just don't see why you don't like the call. It was basically a decision to put the game away, which has been lacking in recent years. Same philosophy as going for it on 4th & goal...


simple: we left them enough time to attempt a comeback. If we had ran the ball and gotten the first down, game over. If we don't get the first down, they still have an uphill battle against the clock. They had 11 seconds left on the last play when McGee intercepted- 11 seconds that would have been GONE if we had ran the ball. We would have eliminated their last opportunity- instead, we gave them their last opportunity.

[CSFAN]

"They had 11 seconds left when McGee intercepted- those 11 seconds would have been GONE if we had ran the ball and we would have taken away their last opportunity."

And the Jets would have run their offense completely differently if they had less time on the clock.

It's a weird thing to 2nd guess. I can see if it was a little shorter, and a run is a higher percentage play, but the fact is that most of the winning teams in the league right now probably pass it there, especially with the box stacked.

[OpIv37]

"They had 11 seconds left when McGee intercepted- those 11 seconds would have been GONE if we had ran the ball and we would have taken away their last opportunity."

And the Jets would have run their offense completely differently if they had less time on the clock.

It's a weird thing to 2nd guess. I can see if it was a little shorter, and a run is a higher percentage play, but the fact is that most of the winning teams in the league right now probably pass it there, especially with the box stacked.

at that point in the game, there are 2 goals: to keep moving the ball so they can't get it back and to take time off the clock.

A running play is guaranteed to do at least one of those.

[OpIv37]

Sure it was. If they get the first down, it's kneel down time.

and if they get the 1st down running, it's... .still kneel down time. There are two ways of getting the first down- one takes time off the clock whether it fails or succeeds, and the other doesn't take time off the clock if it fails.

It's just asinine to say that passing was "going for the jugular" and running isn't. We're talking about 3 yards vs. 8 yards or so- not a huge bomb for a TD.

[Captain gameboy]

I would leave the call to a staff who is paid to do it; has studied the other team's tendencies; knows what its team is capable of; knows what matchups it is looking for and can force, and leaves an audible option if its on the field decision maker sees something that changes the decision.

[OpIv37]

I would leave the call to a staff who is paid to do it; has studied the other team's tendencies; knows what its team is capable of; knows what matchups it is looking for and can force, and leaves an audible option if its on the field decision maker sees something that changes the decision.

yeah because our coaching staff has made so many great decisions in the past :rolleyes:

What's the point of a message board if we're not going to debate calls like this?

[mysticsoto]

you're comparing us to the patriots? Ha.

How is running the ball playing like pussies? It's saying "we're gonna run the ball and we don't think you can stop us. Oh, btw, if you do stop us, you have no time left and you're pretty much ****ed"

I guess smart football is now playing like pussies.

Hell, why bother running the ball at all? When we got the ball back, we should have attempted 60 yard bombs on every play. Don't worry about killing the clock- go for the jugular! :rolleyes:

They had 11 seconds left when McGee intercepted- those 11 seconds would have been GONE if we had ran the ball and we would have taken away their last opportunity.

And that's if we didn't convert- if we did convert, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

I'm not comparing us to the Patriots, what I'm saying is that a good team will do what is right to counter what the other team is doing. You want us to be a good team, but don't like the calls that a good team would make at particular points.

Smart football? Smart football is to try and run when you have 9 or 10 in the box? That's news to me...I thought smart football was doing something the defense might not expect and countering what they were heavily enforcing.

Pennington is a veteran QB. With a few more seconds off the clock, he would have just tailored his calls differently against us. He might have just as easily changed the calls enough such that they connect on a few bombs and then they win...you can start guessing the what-ifs all you want...I can do the same. The point is, you get the 1st down, and the game is over. You don't think, "Hey I'll let my defense win the game" when our defense is battered and bruised. If we had a superb defense, that would be a different story. But how many times has our defense caved in, in the last drive of the game only to lose? The last thing I want is another Denver ending!!! Try to keep the defense off the field at all costs and to do that, a 1st down is necessary!!! And that's what they went for. Good call by the coaching staff. Good throw by Trent. Nice try by Reed. Revis just made a great defensive play on his own one on one...

[CSFAN]

The call shows an attitude of a winning team. You KNOW it's what the Pats would do. It also shows a lot of confidence in the QB, and an understanding of where we got most of our success against the Jets.

The fact is, Lynch got stuffed at the line quite a bit that day, and Edwards was on the money ALL day, even when the passes were incomplete. I was hoping they'd pass, especially seeing how the D was playing it...

[OpIv37]

I'm not comparing us to the Patriots, what I'm saying is that a good team will do what is right to counter what the other team is doing. You want us to be a good team, but don't like the calls that a good team would make at particular points.

Smart football? Smart football is to try and run when you have 9 or 10 in the box? That's news to me...I thought smart football was doing something the defense might not expect and countering what they were heavily enforcing.

Pennington is a veteran QB. With a few more seconds off the clock, he would have just tailored his calls differently against us. He might have just as easily changed the calls enough such that they connect on a few bombs and then they win...you can start guessing the what-ifs all you want...I can do the same. The point is, you get the 1st down, and the game is over. You don't think, "Hey I'll let my defense win the game" when our defense is battered and bruised. If we had a superb defense, that would be a different story. But how many times has our defense caved in, in the last drive of the game only to lose? The last thing I want is another Denver ending!!! Try to keep the defense off the field at all costs and to do that, a 1st down is necessary!!! And that's what they went for. Good call by the coaching staff. Good throw by Trent. Nice try by Reed. Revis just made a great defensive play on his own one on one...

See, here's where you're mistaken: a good football team can get 3 yards even with 9 or 10 in the box. They can execute without regarding to trickery.

Also, we're not a good football team so we can't make the same calls that good teams make- we have to execute like a good team first.

You're talking about the D caving, but then you're willing to use a play call that gives the Jets' O more time? Come on, that makes no sense.

And as far as different play calls, less time would have made it harder on Pennington. Notice how they used the middle of the field on several plays on the last drive? Well, less time would have taken those plays right out of the playbook and the D would have had less field to defend.

Terrible calll by the coaching staff that gave the Jets and their veteran QB one last chance to mount a comeback drive.

[MikeInRoch]

What do you think the percentage chance was that we gain the first running vs. passing? I'd bet that the percentage chance that we get the first is easily under 25%. The percentage that the pass gets the first is (based on Edward's passing in this game) probably 80%. That's a HUGE difference.

Besides, with how bad our D is at stopping teams from ripping right down the field, I would want to maximize the percentage chance they have to even step foot on the field.

[Captain gameboy]

yeah because our coaching staff has made so many great decisions in the past :rolleyes:

What's the point of a message board if we're not going to debate calls like this?

I answered the question and I am not trying to stifle debate.

I did not come out of the huddle knowing what I had called and what I was looking at.

To be more direct, I have zero hope that this team can convert a 3rd and two by running, and that attitude has existed for four years.

[OpIv37]

The call shows an attitude of a winning team. You KNOW it's what the Pats would do. It also shows a lot of confidence in the QB, and an understanding of where we got most of our success against the Jets.

The fact is, Lynch got stuffed at the line quite a bit that day, and Edwards was on the money ALL day, even when the passes were incomplete. I was hoping they'd pass, especially seeing how the D was playing it...

when we can execute like the Pats, then we'll make the calls that the Pats make. But we can't execute like the Pats and instead we gave the Jets the opportunity to mount one last attempt. Stupid.

[OpIv37]

What do you think the percentage chance was that we gain the first running vs. passing? I'd bet that the percentage chance that we get the first is easily under 25%. The percentage that the pass gets the first is (based on Edward's passing in this game) probably 80%. That's a HUGE difference.

Besides, with how bad our D is at stopping teams from ripping right down the field, I would want to maximize the percentage chance they have to even step foot on the field.

you're making up numbers based on your own estimation. This is a new low, even for BZ.

If you're worried about how bad our D is, the smart thing to do is give their O as little time as possible, and that means running it.

[MikeInRoch]

See, here's where you're mistaken: a good football team can get 3 yards even with 9 or 10 in the box. They can execute without regarding to trickery.


Not with regularity, they cannot.

[CSFAN]

"Terrible calll by the coaching staff that gave the Jets and their veteran QB one last chance to mount a comeback drive"

You're way too vehement on this; it's really armchair quarterbacking at its finest.

It's 3rd & 3. Good coaches could call either a run or a pass...neither is really a "terrible" call. 3rd & 3 is rarely a running play during the game when a team is trying for a 1st down; usually teams are in the shotgun on that play. When you consider the way the D was set up, the way Edwards was completing passes & the time still left on the clock, a pass is the way a lot of coaches would go.

It's hardly a "terrible" call....

[MikeInRoch]

you're making up numbers based on your own estimation. This is a new low, even for BZ.

If you're worried about how bad our D is, the smart thing to do is give their O as little time as possible, and that means running it.

Well, of COURSE they are made up. Duh. Just how is that a new low? Do you think that coaches don't think about the chance that something will be successful before making a decision? Maybe not an explicit number, but certainly approximates.

No, the SMART thing to do would be to maximize the chance the D won't hit the field.

[OpIv37]

"Terrible calll by the coaching staff that gave the Jets and their veteran QB one last chance to mount a comeback drive"

You're way too vehement on this; it's really armchair quarterbacking at its finest.

It's 3rd & 3. Good coaches could call either a run or a pass...neither is really a "terrible" call. 3rd & 3 is rarely a running play during the game when a team is trying for a 1st down; usually teams are in the shotgun on that play. When you consider the way the D was set up, the way Edwards was completing passes & the time still left on the clock, a pass is the way a lot of coaches would go.

It's hardly a "terrible" call....

it gave them the last 11 seconds to make the last ditch attempt, therefore it's a terrible call.

They had the opportunity to take the time off the clock and they chose not to take it, just like they did against Denver.

The coaches are 0-2 with this strategy. In one instance, it cost us the game. In the other instance, we were able to get away with it.

But you people insist on defending a failing strategy.

[CSFAN]

"when we can execute like the Pats, then we'll make the calls that the Pats make. But we can't execute like the Pats and instead we gave the Jets the opportunity to mount one last attempt"

Edwards was throwing as accurate as Brady on that day. I'm not saying he's Brady, but ON THAT DAY, he was just as accurate; every throw was on the money.

You still haven't really addressed that Lynch was stuffed for 1 or 2 yards quite a bit against the Jets, and explained how a pass from a guy who is hitting everything is lower percentage than a running back picking up 3 against a box that is stacked...

[CSFAN]

"it gave them the last 11 seconds to make the last ditch attempt, therefore it's a terrible call."

This is such flawed reasoning. If we run, and burn a little more time, the Jets run a completely different offense.

The last play would have been something completely different, and the timeframe would have been different.

You're redefining "armchair QB"

[OpIv37]

"when we can execute like the Pats, then we'll make the calls that the Pats make. But we can't execute like the Pats and instead we gave the Jets the opportunity to mount one last attempt"

Edwards was throwing as accurate as Brady on that day. I'm not saying he's Brady, but ON THAT DAY, he was just as accurate; every throw was on the money.

You still haven't really addressed that Lynch was stuffed for 1 or 2 yards quite a bit against the Jets, and explained how a pass from a guy who is hitting everything is lower percentage than a running back picking up 3 against a box that is stacked...

If he got stuffed, he got stuffed- it still takes time off the clock, guaranteed- and takes away the last opportunity for the Jets.

[OpIv37]

"it gave them the last 11 seconds to make the last ditch attempt, therefore it's a terrible call."

This is such flawed reasoning. If we run, and burn a little more time, the Jets run a completely different offense.

The last play would have been something completely different, and the timeframe would have been different.

You're redefining "armchair QB"

exactly- they run a different offense- ie, they can't use the middle of the field and we only have to defend the sidelines.

It makes it easier on the D.

If they do use the middle of the field, the clock runs out.

It's called "logic"- try using it sometime.

[MikeInRoch]

Lynch ran for 3 yards or more 10/23 times. And that's when the Jets weren't stacking the box. So I don't think my guess of about 25% is that un-reasonable.

[OpIv37]

Well, of COURSE they are made up. Duh. Just how is that a new low? Do you think that coaches don't think about the chance that something will be successful before making a decision? Maybe not an explicit number, but certainly approximates.

No, the SMART thing to do would be to maximize the chance the D won't hit the field.

yet, they didn't complete the pass, so by supposedly maximizing the chances, they still failed.

Like I already said- the goals are two fold at that point in the game- maintain possession and take time off the clock. Running was GUARANTEED to accomplish one of those goals- taking time. So, that's maximizing- taking the guarantee.

[MikeInRoch]

The coaches are 0-2 with this strategy. In one instance, it cost us the game. In the other instance, we were able to get away with it.


Last time I checked, we won yesterday...

[CSFAN]

"It's called "logic"- try using it sometime"

I am. The fact is, on 3rd & 3 during a game, most teams are in the shotgun. On 3rd & 3 at the end of a game like that, most coaches are going for the 1st down & win, with a high percentage play against a D that is playing the run.

You're talking about playing MAINLY to run more time off the clock; you're not thinking logically about actually picking up a 1st down.

It's ridiculous to say it's a "terrible call." I wouldn't have been upset had they run, but by passing, they're showing me that they're playing for a win, which is an upgrade, imo.

[MikeInRoch]

yet, they didn't complete the pass, so by supposedly maximizing the chances, they still failed.

Like I already said- the goals are two fold at that point in the game- maintain possession and take time off the clock. Running was GUARANTEED to accomplish one of those goals- taking time. So, that's maximizing- taking the guarantee.

Actually, it was guarenteed to burn the Jets last time out, not to run time. But that's a side point.

Just because a decision didn't work out this time doesn't mean it's the wrong decision. When you take a hit on 12 when the dealer is showing a 9 and bust out, that doesn't mean you shouldn't have taken the hit.

[OpIv37]

"It's called "logic"- try using it sometime"

I am. The fact is, on 3rd & 3 during a game, most teams are in the shotgun. On 3rd & 3 at the end of a game like that, most coaches are going for the 1st down & win, with a high percentage play against a D that is playing the run.

You're talking about playing MAINLY to run more time off the clock; you're not thinking logically about actually picking up a 1st down.

It's ridiculous to say it's a "terrible call." I wouldn't have been upset had they run, but by passing, they're showing me that they're playing for a win, which is an upgrade, imo.

I don't care about what "most" teams do- I care about what the smartest thing was for OUR team in that situation. A run GUARANTEES time off the clock and still has a chance of getting the first down and winning the game. So, it was a terrible call.

And you say I'm not concerned about the first down- you're the one who refuses to acknowledge that a run could have picked up the 1st down as well.

[justasportsfan]

The Bills decided to pass on 3rd and 3 with under 2 minutes left. If it falls incomplete (which it did), the clock stops and the Jets are not forced to use their last time out. Of course, if it's completed, the game is over.

If they run instead, the odds seem smaller that they get a first down, but the Jets probably have to burn their last time out.

So did they make the correct call?


IMO , yes. The same can be said about the TD. They went with who was hot. Edwards.

[OpIv37]

Actually, it was guarenteed to burn the Jets last time out, not to run time. But that's a side point.

Just because a decision didn't work out this time doesn't mean it's the wrong decision. When you take a hit on 12 when the dealer is showing a 9 and bust out, that doesn't mean you shouldn't have taken the hit.

they're 0-2 with that call. It cost us the Denver game.

You can't argue with results, and the results have been bad both times. Give it up and take the smarter play.

[OpIv37]

IMO , yes. The same can be said about the TD. They went with who was hot. Edwards.

TD was a good call, but it was a different situation altogether.

[CSFAN]

"And you say I'm not concerned about the first down- you're the one who refuses to acknowledge that a run could have picked up the 1st down as well."

It's a lower percentage call on 3rd & 3, particularly with the #'s from the day.

You're really way off on this. And you keep comparing the decision to the Denver game, which is a terrible comparison. A long pass is a low percentage play.

Like I said: having watched Lynch get stuffed at the line 9-10 times, and having watched Edwards complete a very high % of passes (with the incompletes being pretty much on the money), I was HOPING they'd pass. A much more sure 1st down at that point.

Any way you slice it, it's not a "terrible call." You are way overreacting to this...

[MikeInRoch]

they're 0-2 with that call. It cost us the Denver game.

You can't argue with results, and the results have been bad both times. Give it up and take the smarter play.

This is a much different case than the Denver game. Throwing the bomb was a much, much lower percentage call than the short pass.

[MikeInRoch]

TD was a good call, but it was a different situation altogether.

Right, because they made it. That's really what your argument seems to be. Gee, it didn't work, so it wasn't the right call. Not very 'logical'.

[Oaf]

at that point, taking time off the clock IS playing for the win.

When Pennington threw that final INT, there were 11 seconds left on the clock. Those 11 seconds would have been gone if we had ran the ball and Pennington never would have had an opportunity to make that play. The game would have been over already.

We didn't learn from the Denver game but McGee bailed us out this time.
*Schobel.

That amazing stop by Whitner likely would have ended it if we had run on 3rd and 3 and not made it.

[OpIv37]

Right, because they made it. That's really what your argument seems to be. Gee, it didn't work, so it wasn't the right call. Not very 'logical'.

hahahaha nice try.

At the time we scored the TD, we weren't worried about killing the clock. a 3 point lead or a 6 point lead both lose to a TD, and our D had been holding up well and even if we failed, they would have had to go 99 yards. So, it's an entirely different situation regardless of the success or failure of the play in question.

It's very logical- you're making the illogical assumption that both situations are the same.

[justasportsfan]

TD was a good call, but it was a different situation altogether.

Both were important decisions. Both needed to be be made. You go with your bread and butter for the day and that was the pass.

The reason why we ended up with a 4th and goal was because we couldn't punch it in. Even Lynch had to run hard for his TD with players riding him.

[OpIv37]

"And you say I'm not concerned about the first down- you're the one who refuses to acknowledge that a run could have picked up the 1st down as well."

It's a lower percentage call on 3rd & 3, particularly with the #'s from the day.

You're really way off on this. And you keep comparing the decision to the Denver game, which is a terrible comparison. A long pass is a low percentage play.

Like I said: having watched Lynch get stuffed at the line 9-10 times, and having watched Edwards complete a very high % of passes (with the incompletes being pretty much on the money), I was HOPING they'd pass. A much more sure 1st down at that point.

Any way you slice it, it's not a "terrible call." You are way overreacting to this...

Either one could have gotten the first down. One takes time off the clock GUARANTEED, regardless of success or failure. It's a terrible call that gave the Jets a final opportunity. Take the guaranteed time off the clock- that's the highest percentage play.

[MikeInRoch]

Do you think that the run had the same percentage chance of getting the first down?

[OpIv37]

Do you think that the run had the same percentage chance of getting the first down?

I don't know and I don't care- it was guaranteed to take time off the clock (or use the Jet's time out, which takes the middle of the field away from them when they're back on O- same difference).

This whole thing is so ridiculous- you guys are talking like passing is the more "gutsy" call- well, wouldn't trying to get 3 yards against a stacked D be a gutsier call? If we succeed, game over. If we don't, time goes off the clock (or they use the TO), it's that simple.

[CSFAN]

"I don't know and I don't care"

You don't care?

Taking a few seconds more off the clock before handing the ball over is a "better call" than going for the win, right then & there?

That's called "playing it conservative." You go for your best chance at the 1st down. Trying to take a few more seconds off the clock is playing not to lose...

[MikeInRoch]

I don't know and I don't care.

Read: "Sure the pass had the higher percentage, but that doesn't help my argument."

[OpIv37]

Read: "Sure the pass had the higher percentage, but that doesn't help my argument."

It's irrelevant to my argument.

Running had a 100% guarantee of using up either time or the Jets' final TO. Passing didn't.

It's that simple.

[OpIv37]

"I don't know and I don't care"

You don't care?

Taking a few seconds more off the clock before handing the ball over is a "better call" than going for the win, right then & there?

That's called "playing it conservative." You go for your best chance at the 1st down. Trying to take a few more seconds off the clock is playing not to lose...

AAAARRRGGH!
RUNNING CAN STILL GET A FIRST DOWN! RUNNING IS STILL GOING FOR THE WIN!

And it has the added bonus of taking time off the clock.

Damn, you people are so obsessed with defending this coaching staff and every stupid move they make that you can't see the forest from the trees anymore.

[CSFAN]

"It's irrelevant to my argument.

Running had a 100% guarantee of using up either time or the Jets' final TO. Passing didn't.

It's that simple."

Would you agree that passing had a higher percentage of ending the game right then & there, instead of just taking a few more seconds off the clock?

[CSFAN]

"AAAARRRGGH!
RUNNING CAN STILL GET A FIRST DOWN! RUNNING IS STILL GOING FOR THE WIN!"

If that's what you're arguing, how is the percentage for a successful run vs. the percentage for a successful pass "irrelevant?"

You really don't know what you're talking about, but I give you credit for beating it to death, anyway...

[OpIv37]

"It's irrelevant to my argument.

Running had a 100% guarantee of using up either time or the Jets' final TO. Passing didn't.

It's that simple."

Would you agree that passing had a higher percentage of ending the game right then & there, instead of just taking a few more seconds off the clock?

no, because passing isn't guaranteed to take time off the clock, and if you leave time on the clock then you give the other team an opportunity.

[CSFAN]

"no, because passing isn't guaranteed to take time off the clock, and if you leave time on the clock then you give the other team an opportunity."

I said higher percentage of ENDING THE GAME. Taking a few more seconds off the clock doesn't end the game.

[PECKERWOOD]

I disagree.

Lynch was having a good day running the ball and making the Jets burn there last timeout was the way to go. Run behind Dockery and Peters to get 3 yards. You have to be able to that at the end of the game.

That's my style as well. I want to dominate the opposing team via run game. I want them to know that we are going to run, yet they can't stop it anyways.

[OpIv37]

"AAAARRRGGH!
RUNNING CAN STILL GET A FIRST DOWN! RUNNING IS STILL GOING FOR THE WIN!"

If that's what you're arguing, how is the percentage for a successful run vs. the percentage for a successful pass "irrelevant?"

You really don't know what you're talking about, but I give you credit for beating it to death, anyway...
This argument is going in circles and you're the one who doesn't know what he's talking about. And you're completely avoiding my points.

I'm going to say this ONE LAST TIME and then I'm done:

There are two goals at that point in the game- maintain possession and take time off the clock.

Running is guaranteed to do one of those. 100%.

Either running or passing can get the first down, but passing is not guaranteed to take time off the clock.

So you run- if you make it, game over. If you don't, the Jets are going to have either about 1:45 with no time outs or 1:15 and no time outs to get into FG range. You can argue all day whether or not passing had a higher percentage of getting the first down- it did NOT guarantee time off the clock so it's not important.

By passing, we gave the Jets a final opportunity and allowed them to use the whole field in that opportunity because they still had the time out.

It was a TERRIBLE call and it disgusts me that you guys are so hell bent on defending the coaching staff that you can't even see it.

[Mr. Pink]

"AAAARRRGGH!
RUNNING CAN STILL GET A FIRST DOWN! RUNNING IS STILL GOING FOR THE WIN!"

If that's what you're arguing, how is the percentage for a successful run vs. the percentage for a successful pass "irrelevant?"

You really don't know what you're talking about, but I give you credit for beating it to death, anyway...

I'd say running Lynch over a skinny out to a WR has the same chance at getting a first down actually. The only difference is the run woulda kept the clock running or forced the Jets to use a timeout.

And no, I don't hate the playcall because it was a high percentage play, it just wasn't executed. Unlike the Denver game where they called a low percentage play that wasn't executed.

I'll take high percentage plays over low percentage 9 times out of 10.

[CSFAN]

"There are two goals at that point in the game- maintain possession and take time off the clock."

Says you.

To me, there is one goal: win the game. A high percentage pass for a 1st down keeps the ball in Bills hands until the clock shows 0:00. That wins the game.

Running, imo, is conservative, and is "playing not to lose"

[mysticsoto]

AAAARRRGGH!
RUNNING CAN STILL GET A FIRST DOWN! RUNNING IS STILL GOING FOR THE WIN!

And it has the added bonus of taking time off the clock.

Damn, you people are so obsessed with defending this coaching staff and every stupid move they make that you can't see the forest from the trees anymore.

I'm not interested in defending them at all. If they didn't go for it on 4th down when they scored, I would have blasted them. If they hadn't gone for it in the end, I likely wouldn't have blasted them, but I would have said, "they should have known that the Jets were going to stack the line and gone for a short pass to try and catch them off guard". For all intents and purposes, they did, as they only had a CB on Reed and the pass landed on his hands. As I said before, Revis finally made a good play after Trent torched him all day long...credit should go to Revis' good play and not against the Bills coaching staff.

Oh, and guess what? This is the 2nd time they do that. In the future, OCs will have to think if they want to play the run and stack the line, or fake it and play the pass...OCs are not going to be able to assume that we are going to play conservative. That inserts doubt into their playcalling b'cse they don't know what we are going to do - that...is a good thing!

[OpIv37]

"There are two goals at that point in the game- maintain possession and take time off the clock."

Says you.

To me, there is one goal: win the game. A high percentage pass for a 1st down keeps the ball in Bills hands until the clock shows 0:00. That wins the game.

Running, imo, is conservative, and is "playing not to lose"

well your opinion is flat out wrong because you're refusing to acknowledge that running could also have kept the ball in the Bills' hands.

I'm done with this argument.

[mysticsoto]

I'd say running Lynch over a skinny out to a WR has the same chance at getting a first down actually. The only difference is the run woulda kept the clock running or forced the Jets to use a timeout.

And no, I don't hate the playcall because it was a high percentage play, it just wasn't executed. Unlike the Denver game where they called a low percentage play that wasn't executed.

I'll take high percentage plays over low percentage 9 times out of 10.

Perhaps normally, but not when you have 9 or 10 in the box!!!

[CSFAN]

"well your opinion is flat out wrong because you're refusing to acknowledge that running could also have kept the ball in the Bills' hands."

How can it be 'wrong'?

You're the one who said the percentage for run vs. pass on that play is "irrelevant." How can it be irrelevant, if we're talking about which would have a better chance of keeping the ball in Bills hands? Either way, there is a CHANCE we'd get a 1st, but we'd have a BETTER chance on a short pass play.

Man, am I glad you're not coaching. I mean, you're doing your best there from the armchair, but a run there is uber-conservative....

[MikeInRoch]

So here's my logic. Feel free to disagree (and I know you will).

First, assume that if we run the ball and don't get the first down, the Jets will use their time out. That seems like their best play (rather than letting all that time run off).

a - percentage chance of making the first down if they run
b - percentage chance of making the first down if they pass

c - percentage chance of the Jets scoring if they do not have a timeout
d - percentage chance of the Jets scoring if they have a timeout

The percentage chance of the Bills winning the game if they run is a + (1-a)*c = a + c - ac.
The percentage chance of the Bills winning the same if they pass is b + (1 - b)*d = b + d - bd.

What does this say? If the difference between a and b is higher than the difference between c and d, the right play is to run.

In my opinion, the difference between a and b is much, much higher than that of the difference between c and d. I'd bet that b is at least three times a based on the statistics from yesterday's game.

[Mr. Pink]

Perhaps normally, but not when you have 9 or 10 in the box!!!

There's ways to run the ball to combat that too though. You know this as well as I do...

Run a toss or a sweep to the strong side of the field, get the run going to the outside when the inside is crammed with defenders. Hope your guys can block at the POA and that some of the unblocked defenders get hemmed in.

Like I said though, I don't hate the call we did instead, just saying that a run could have worked as well.

At least we weren't stupid enough to try another bomb in that situation, which is good. It shows the coaching staff is learning and adapting.

[justasportsfan]

Like I said though, I don't hate the call we did instead, just saying that a run could have worked as well.


this is my stance actually. But for one to say passing was stupid is not accurate.

[mysticsoto]

So here's my logic. Feel free to disagree (and I know you will).

First, assume that if we run the ball and don't get the first down, the Jets will use their time out. That seems like their best play (rather than letting all that time run off).

a - percentage chance of making the first down if they run
b - percentage chance of making the first down if they pass

c - percentage chance of the Jets scoring if they do not have a timeout
d - percentage chance of the Jets scoring if they have a timeout

The percentage chance of the Bills winning the game if they run is a + (1-a)*c = a + c - ac.
The percentage chance of the Bills winning the same if they pass is b + (1 - b)*d = b + d - bd.

What does this say? If the difference between a and b is higher than the difference between c and d, the right play is to run.

In my opinion, the difference between a and b is much, much higher than that of the difference between c and d. I'd bet that b is at least three times a based on the statistics from yesterday's game.

Uh-oh...math has been brought in - the only thing that can counter one math major is another. Sorry Op. You lose...unless you can get Lecter to help you out. :D

[MikeInRoch]

well your opinion is flat out wrong because you're refusing to acknowledge that running could also have kept the ball in the Bills' hands.

I'm done with this argument.

So you are willing to acknowledge that a chance exists, but you have no idea how to characterize what that chance is, and mock anyone who TRIES to assess what the chance would be.

[OpIv37]

So you are willing to acknowledge that a chance exists, but you have no idea how to characterize what that chance is, and mock anyone who TRIES to assess what the chance would be.

I'm done with this argument- I already stated my opinion on it. Go back and read my posts if you want the answer to that.

[OpIv37]

Uh-oh...math has been brought in - the only thing that can counter one math major is another. Sorry Op. You lose...unless you can get Lecter to help you out. :D

well, even he admitted it was his OPINION- it's theoretical math, so it doesn't prove anything because his equasion requires subjective assessments and subjective weighting of the results.

[mysticsoto]

There's ways to run the ball to combat that too though. You know this as well as I do...

Run a toss or a sweep to the strong side of the field, get the run going to the outside when the inside is crammed with defenders. Hope your guys can block at the POA and that some of the unblocked defenders get hemmed in.

Like I said though, I don't hate the call we did instead, just saying that a run could have worked as well.

At least we weren't stupid enough to try another bomb in that situation, which is good. It shows the coaching staff is learning and adapting.

I don't disagree, though one could argue that a toss play or even a sweep can be looked at as lower percentage run plays...

My whole thing is I don't want to play that conservative let's cross our fingers and hope type of game. I want to attack and beat opponents. Did the Bills of the early 90s play this way? Would they have just sat back and hoped to run the clock down? No way! They would have attacked and probably scored in the process. We have to get this team thinking that way. We're already unlikely to make the playoffs...what do we have to lose?

[MikeInRoch]

I'm done with this argument- I already stated my opinion on it. Go back and read my posts if you want the answer to that.

You stated that it's dumb to try to assess the percentage, and that we've reached a new low by trying to. When in fact, we cannot accurately assess the playcalling without doing that assessment. That's not very logical, IMO.

[MikeInRoch]

well, even he admitted it was his OPINION- it's theoretical math, so it doesn't prove anything because his equasion requires subjective assessments and subjective weighting of the results.

Subjective assessments that you are unwilling to even think about.

[CSFAN]

"My whole thing is I don't want to play that conservative let's cross our fingers and hope type of game. I want to attack and beat opponents. Did the Bills of the early 90s play this way? Would they have just sat back and hoped to run the clock down? No way! They would have attacked and probably scored in the process. We have to get this team thinking that way. We're already unlikely to make the playoffs...what do we have to lose?"

You got it. To me, it shows a change in philosophy, and I like it.

Despite what some here want to portray, neither running nor passing there is "stupid," or indicative of a lame coaching staff. I like the idea of going w/ a higher percentage play to win the game, as opposed to giving the ball back to the other team, no matter how much time is left. I've seen what happens w/ the latter a bit too much....

[justasportsfan]

You stated that it's dumb to try to assess the percentage, and that we've reached a new low by trying to. When in fact, we cannot accurately assess the playcalling without doing that assessment. That's not very logical, IMO.
that's because you threw in your math. Even I'm confused and I'm asian.

[OpIv37]

You stated that it's dumb to try to assess the percentage, and that we've reached a new low by trying to. When in fact, we cannot accurately assess the playcalling without doing that assessment. That's not very logical, IMO.

I said it was IRRELEVANT to assess the percentage when it doesn't account for taking time off the clock, which it doesn't.

You know, I'm trying to get out of this circular argument and I'm trying not to repeat myself, but you guys make it hard by mischaracterizing what I say.

[OpIv37]

Subjective assessments that you are unwilling to even think about.

because you're not considering the right things. Your whole basis is off.

[MikeInRoch]

I said it was IRRELEVANT to assess the percentage when it doesn't account for taking time off the clock, which it doesn't.

You know, I'm trying to get out of this circular argument and I'm trying not to repeat myself, but you guys make it hard by mischaracterizing what I say.

Actually, it does take into account just that - but you haven't bothered to read it.



c - percentage chance of the Jets scoring if they do not have a timeout
d - percentage chance of the Jets scoring if they have a timeout

[CSFAN]

He's made up his mind. You always run on 3rd & 3 at the end of the game & clinging to a 3-pt lead, period. Any coach that doesn't is stupid.

Weird...

[OpIv37]

I can't even believe I even have to argue this. They failed to take time off the clock AND they failed to get the first down, but you guys are insisting it was the right call? Holy ****- that's just mind boggling stupidty.

We've all got a bad taste in our mouth for "conservative" game plans after the first 3 games, but you guys are forgetting that sometimes conservative football is smart football.

[OpIv37]

He's made up his mind. You always run on 3rd & 3 at the end of the game & clinging to a 3-pt lead, period. Any coach that doesn't is stupid.

Weird...

no, that's not what I said- doing it with a rookie QB and our **** receiving corps after the same strategy cost us the Denver game is a terrible call. You continue to forget that IT DIDN'T WORK.

[justasportsfan]

He's made up his mind. You always run on 3rd & 3 at the end of the game & clinging to a 3-pt lead, period. Any coach that doesn't is stupid.

Weird...

on 3rd? who's on 2nd?

[mysticsoto]

well, even he admitted it was his OPINION- it's theoretical math, so it doesn't prove anything because his equasion requires subjective assessments and subjective weighting of the results.

Boo. Op, I was hoping for so much more. Maybe something like:

(L^Inf - 3 yds) - Well, Lynch's success at getting a 1st down running would increase as his speed approaches infinity...

[CSFAN]

"I can't even believe I even have to argue this. They failed to take time off the clock AND they failed to get the first down, but you guys are insisting it was the right call? Holy ****- that's just mind boggling stupidty."

I usually try not to waste so much time with armchair quarterbacks who rely almost solely on hindsight for their conclusions....

[MikeInRoch]

There you go falling back to a falsehood again. Just because something didn't work does NOT mean that it was the incorrect call. You cannot use hindsight to make that determination - you must use the facts that were in hand at the time the decision was made.

[OpIv37]

Boo. Op, I was hoping for so much more. Maybe something like:

(L^Inf - 3 yds) - Well, Lynch's success at getting a 1st down running would increase as his speed approaches infinity...

Lynch's speed would only be approaching infinity if he had stopped by Rodney Harrison's locker for some "supplements" before leaving Foxboro last week.

[CSFAN]

"no, that's not what I said- doing it with a rookie QB and our **** receiving corps after the same strategy cost us the Denver game is a terrible call"

You're still ignoring the fact that comparing it the long pass against Denver is a truly horrible comparison, and not applicable whatsoever in regard to percentages...

[MikeInRoch]

no, that's not what I said- doing it with a rookie QB and our **** receiving corps after the same strategy cost us the Denver game is a terrible call. You continue to forget that IT DIDN'T WORK.

And AGAIN, this is NOT the same as the Denver game. Throwing a 50 yard pass would NOT have been a good option here. That is not what was done.

[justasportsfan]

I can't even believe I even have to argue this. They failed to take time off the clock AND they failed to get the first down, but you guys are insisting it was the right call? Holy ****- that's just mind boggling stupidty.

.
but we won so you guys are aguing a moot point.

[OpIv37]

There you go falling back to a falsehood again. Just because something didn't work does NOT mean that it was the incorrect call. You cannot use hindsight to make that determination - you must use the facts that were in hand at the time the decision was made.

You're right- it does not prove that it was a bad decision, but it certainly lends credibility to it. We could have taken more time off the clock or forced the Jets to use the time out AND still had a shot at the first down- we failed on all accounts. But you're insisting that it was the right decision despite the failed outcome and the fact that we passed on a guarantee of using time/timeouts.

Fine, insist on being wrong.

[Dr. Lecter]

They should have ran the ball to use time and still possibly get the first down.

But comparing it to the Denver bomb is stupid - It was a 3 yard pass while having a 3 point lead, not a bomb while having a 2 point lead.

Two totally different scenarios.

[justasportsfan]

But comparing it to the Denver bomb is stupid - It was a 3 yard pass whiel having a 3 point lead, not a bomb while havign a 2 point lead.

Two totally different scenarios.I agree but I still think that was a great gutsy call. If it worked, genius. If not idiot.

[mysticsoto]

no, that's not what I said- doing it with a rookie QB and our **** receiving corps after the same strategy cost us the Denver game is a terrible call. You continue to forget that IT DIDN'T WORK.
B'cse something doesn't work doesn't mean it's not the right call. Mike even gave you a good example before that you ignored:


Just because a decision didn't work out this time doesn't mean it's the wrong decision. When you take a hit on 12 when the dealer is showing a 9 and bust out, that doesn't mean you shouldn't have taken the hit.
Let me paint you this scenario...if the Bills had run, failed to make the 1st down, kicked and then due to less time, Chad followed a different play calling that actually allowed the Jets to come back and win...would you claim that the call was the wrong one?

[OpIv37]

B'cse something doesn't work doesn't mean it's not the right call. Mike even gave you a good example before that you ignored:



Let me paint you this scenario...if the Bills had run, failed to make the 1st down, kicked and then do to less time, Chad followed a different play calling that actually allowed the Jets to come back and win...would you claim that the call was the wrong one?

I don't know if you're talking to me or him, but I would have still thought it was a good call. The smartest thing to do in that situation is kill as much clock as possible.

And before someone goes back on this- remember, I never said the fact that the call didn't work work proved that it was wrong- I said it lent credibility to the other reasons why it was the wrong call.

[CSFAN]

"The smartest thing to do in that situation is kill as much clock as possible."

I just don't see how you can make a statement like this. According to whom? Using what logic?

There have been times - MANY times -over the years that this is EXACTLY what the Bills did, and still ended up giving the other team the ball with plenty of time to score. Call it conservative, call it playing not to lose - that's pretty much what it is, and it leads to a lot of nailbiting, and more often than not, to a loss.

You play for the win. You go with the short, high percentage pass against a team that is stacked for a run. Reed catches it, and it's game over.

That's what winning teams do.

[mysticsoto]

I don't know if you're talking to me or him, but I would have still thought it was a good call. The smartest thing to do in that situation is kill as much clock as possible.

And before someone goes back on this- remember, I never said the fact that the call didn't work work proved that it was wrong- I said it lent credibility to the other reasons why it was the wrong call.

So you're agreeing that the outcome doesn't affect whether it should be considered a good call or not???

[OpIv37]

So you're agreeing that the outcome doesn't affect whether it should be considered a good call or not???

I already answered that.

[MikeInRoch]

They should have ran the ball to use time and still possibly get the first down.

But comparing it to the Denver bomb is stupid - It was a 3 yard pass while having a 3 point lead, not a bomb while having a 2 point lead.

Two totally different scenarios.

Lector, what do you think the percentage chance of getting the first down with a run vs a pass would be?

[OpIv37]

"The smartest thing to do in that situation is kill as much clock as possible."

I just don't see how you can make a statement like this. According to whom? Using what logic?

There have been times - MANY times -over the years that this is EXACTLY what the Bills did, and still ended up giving the other team the ball with plenty of time to score. Call it conservative, call it playing not to lose - that's pretty much what it is, and it leads to a lot of nailbiting, and more often than not, to a loss.

You play for the win. You go with the short, high percentage pass against a team that is stacked for a run. Reed catches it, and it's game over.

That's what winning teams do.

Running is still playing for the win, and it's the smarter way to do it.

[CSFAN]

"Running is still playing for the win, and it's the smarter way to do it."

Again...says who?

"Smarter" to me means "higher percentage." In that situation, that's what a short pass is.

Regardless, a short pass is not stupid or a "terrible call".

[mysticsoto]

I already answered that.

Then please don't use that as a rationale for why you think this was a bad call:


no, that's not what I said- doing it with a rookie QB and our **** receiving corps after the same strategy cost us the Denver game is a terrible call. You continue to forget that IT DIDN'T WORK.

[OpIv37]

"Running is still playing for the win, and it's the smarter way to do it."

Again...says who?

"Smarter" to me means "higher percentage." In that situation, that's what a short pass is.

Regardless, a short pass is not stupid or a "terrible call".

Only if you think giving the other team a better chance to win isn't stupid or terrible.

[Mr. Pink]

Both a run and a short pass are high percentage plays in that circumstance.

A long bomb is a low percentage play in that circumstance...therefor even if it worked in the game vs Denver, it was still a poor play call.

If you think that this pass play to Reed was a poor playcall then so was the 4th down TD pass to Gaines.

I've said it already I'll go with high percentage plays over low percentage plays 9 times out of 10.

[OpIv37]

Then please don't use that as a rationale for why you think this was a bad call:

One last time:


I don't know if you're talking to me or him, but I would have still thought it was a good call. The smartest thing to do in that situation is kill as much clock as possible.

And before someone goes back on this- remember, I never said the fact that the call didn't work work proved that it was wrong- I said it lent credibility to the other reasons why it was the wrong call.

Everyone gets pissed at me for repeating things but no one READS it when I say it the first time.

[CSFAN]

"Only if you think giving the other team a better chance to win isn't stupid or terrible."

You haven't convinced anyone that a short pass gives them a better chance for a win in that situation.

Not by a long shot.

[Dr. Lecter]

Lector, what do you think the percentage chance of getting the first down with a run vs a pass would be?

Too many variables, to give a good estimate. In that game the passing game was moving better.

But.........

The possibility of failure in either endeavor must also be taken into consideration - Throwing the ball can result in an incompletion, sack, fumble or interception. That is 4 negatives, 3 of which stop the clock without the use of a timeout. There is also a higher probablity of an offensive penalty, which is somewhat offset with the possibility of a defensive penalty.

Running the ball the only real negative is a fumble.

(ignoring the obvious negative - not getting a first down).

Killing the Jets last TO with the run is the call I would have made. The short pass was not terrible, but was not the best call either.

[OpIv37]

If you think that this pass play to Reed was a poor playcall then so was the 4th down TD pass to Gaines.


wrong.

At that point, killing the clock was not an issue like it was on the 3rd and 3. And a TD beats 6 points or 3 so we really needed 7.

You're ignoring the specifics of the situation.

[OpIv37]

"Only if you think giving the other team a better chance to win isn't stupid or terrible."

You haven't convinced anyone that a short pass gives them a better chance for a win in that situation.

Not by a long shot.

wow, you are dense.

Giving the other team MORE time to come back and win gives them a BETTER chance- you'd have to be daft to argue that point.

By running instead of passing we gave them more time. It's very simple and very clear, but you just refuse to acknowledge it because it refutes your point.

[CSFAN]

"Giving the other team MORE time to come back and win gives them a BETTER chance- you'd have to be daft to argue that point."

And not giving them the ball at all reduces their chance completely. That's why a discussion of percentages is perfectly relevant.

You're a real mule on this one. You just want to find new things to skewer the staff about. I am not a fan of this staff, but I know & understand a decent call when I see one...

[mysticsoto]

One last time:

Everyone gets pissed at me for repeating things but no one READS it when I say it the first time.

You posted the fact that it didn't work and even put it in caps on that post as a rationale. You can't use it as a rationale and then hide and say, oh but I posted this disclaimer beforehand so it's okay. It's either a valid rationale to use or it's not. If you agree that it is not, you shouldn't even bring it up then...

[OpIv37]

"Giving the other team MORE time to come back and win gives them a BETTER chance- you'd have to be daft to argue that point."

And not giving them the ball at all reduces their chance completely. That's why a discussion of percentages is perfectly relevant.

You're a real mule on this one. You just want to find new things to skewer the staff about. I am not a fan of this staff, but I know & understand a decent call when I see one...

no you don't- because if you did you wouldn't be arguing this. They didn't convert and they didn't take time off the clock- they failed on both counts- and if they had run, they would have been Guaranteed (as in 100%) to be successful on at least one.

[Mr. Pink]

wrong.

At that point, killing the clock was not an issue like it was on the 3rd and 3. And a TD beats 6 points or 3 so we really needed 7.

You're ignoring the specifics of the situation.

Not completely.

It is more likely to get A yard with a run, than with a pass. Especially when that pass calls for only one receiver to be out on a pattern. Watch the replay of the ball, it was rather appaling that the only player out on a pass pattern was Gaines. If Gaines was covered, there was nowhere else to go with the ball which would have lead to a sack, seeing you can't throw the ball away on 4th down. But passing there, still wasn't the wrong call.

Could a run have been called in either situation? Certainly. Is calling a pass in either situation wrong? No. Is calling a bomb in a similiar situation wrong? Always.

This is why I never flamed the playcall Mularkey called against the Dolphins a couple years back. You know the pass Losman threw in the endzone that was picked off. It wasn't a bad play call and was going for the jugular. Just because it didn't work, didn't mean it was a bad call.

It depends on what type of play you go with...a short pass is a high percentage play. A run is a high percentage play. You go with the percentages to best give your team a chance to win the game. We called a high percentage play that ultimately failed, but it was still high percentage.

[mysticsoto]

Too many variables, to give a good estimate. In that game the passing game was moving better.

But.........

The possibility of failure in either endeavor must also be taken into consideration - Throwing the ball can result in an incompletion, sack, fumble or interception. That is 4 negatives, 3 of which stop the clock without the use of a timeout. There is also a higher probablity of an offensive penalty, which is somewhat offset with the possibility of a defensive penalty.

Running the ball the only real negative is a fumble.

(ignoring the obvious negative - not getting a first down).

Killing the Jets last TO with the run is the call I would have made. The short pass was not terrible, but was not the best call either.

You are going with "quantity of negatives" only. What about the probability on them happening? I'd say it's low enough that they indeed add very little to the entire equation. What about the throwing game being strong yesterday? What about Trent's record in throwing good passes (which he did in this case also, hitting Reed on the hands) vs Lynch having room to run and get 3 yards?

And what's the probability in gaining 3 yards against a box with 9 or 10 people vs a short pass in the same instance???

[CSFAN]

"no you don't- because if you did you wouldn't be arguing this."

Yeah, right. Because it's definitive, 100%, and there is no deliberation by the coaching staff. When you're QB is on fire, you run on 3rd & 3 with under 2 minutes left, because, even though you'll more likely give the ball back & still leave enough time for them to score, you'll cost them a timeout.

It's not as black & white as you're portraying. I can see liking one call over the other (I, and others who prefer a more "play to win" approach, like the pass), but to say one is stupid & out of the question for a smart coaching staff, and the other is the perfect call & the only one that should be considered....

Well, let's just say it redefines "Monday morning QB"....

[Dr. Lecter]

You are going with "quantity of negatives" only. What about the probability on them happening? I'd say it's low enough that they indeed add very little to the entire equation. What about the throwing game being strong yesterday? What about Trent's record in throwing good passes (which he did in this case also, hitting Reed on the hands) vs Lynch having room to run and get 3 yards?

And what's the probability in gaining 3 yards against a box with 9 or 10 people vs a short pass in the same instance???

Oh, I agree the likelihood of the negatives are low in all cases, but they are undeniably higher with a pass. (Op should appreciate me dwelling on the negatives!)

And yes getting 3 yards with 9 in the box is tough. But the Bills were also loaded in the box with big bodies. Chambers was probably in at FB.

Like I said, not a horrible call. But not the best. Lynch seems to do his best when presented with a challenge.

[justasportsfan]

Like I said, not a horrible call. But not the best. Lynch seems to do his best when presented with a challenge.
he couldn't punch it in at the goal line.