kick the FG?

[DetDannyWilliams]

My friend at work today told me that he thinks the Bills should have kicked the FG that would of made it 17-16 and then put the D back out there. What do you guys think?

[Novacane]

I didn't have a problem going for the TD. You never know if you'll get the ball back which we ended up not doing. Take your shot to win the game when you have it.

[swiper]

My friend at work today told me that he thinks the Bills should have kicked the FG that would of made it 17-16 and then put the D back out there. What do you guys think?

Absolutely.

[OpIv37]

I wasn't happy with the coaching yesterday but I liked that call. There was no guarantee we would get the ball back.

And the announcer who said we should kick the FG and go for an onside kick is a moron (Wilcots I think). The chances of recovering an onside kick are far worse than converting the 4th down.

[YardRat]

Catch-22. If they score a TD...brilliant. If they kick the three, the defense holds, and get shot at another three to win...brilliant. Any combination of the above that fails? Stupidity. Coaches make their rep on fourth downs, game-deciding decisions on the backs of the execution of the players.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

You have to make that decision on first down. If you are going to go for it on 4th, then the whole playbook is in play, including runs, and you should still work short if its there. If you are going to kick, then throw for the first three times.

[bdutton]

I think once we were at 4th and 15 you need to take the 3 points and go for a deep kick into the endzone. Defense holds and you use timeouts to keep enough time on the clock to get within range of another FG.

[RedEyE]

I was yelling go for it while we were in that situation and as soon as that last ball flew, I knew it was not the right decision.

[CommissarSpartacus]

Kick the field goal.

You certainly don't call a back shoulder toss at the goal line, not in a win or lose situation. Call a play where the QB can throw it to a guy he KNOWS is open, rather than a guy you HOPE is going to be open.

[ServoBillieves]

Hindsight is 20/20. On to the Fish.

[Mace]

My friend at work today told me that he thinks the Bills should have kicked the FG that would of made it 17-16 and then put the D back out there. What do you guys think?

I honestly already thought at that point the game was lost but I was hoping for a miracle catch by Watkins. If they kicked 3, fine, if they made a 1st better, if they drew the defense offsides awesome, just please no, no penalty. Wrong answer. When all the movement happened, I thought "holy crap it worked ! We're a team of destiny !" Then the replays, and I was angry with myself for not knowing better.

Given the final choice I'd say let them live or die on merit and roll the bones on going for it. At the very least, it gives Marrone a chance to say "well, I believed in you" in the locker room after the game before putting his hands in his pockets and walking away to motivate them to not hurt his feelings for believing in them anymore.

[Scumbag College]

You have to make that decision on first down. If you are going to go for it on 4th, then the whole playbook is in play, including runs, and you should still work short if its there. If you are going to kick, then throw for the first three times.

Agree with this and bdutton. 4th and under 5 to go you go for the first down or TD. Fourth and 10 with all of your timeouts and over 2:30 to go with the defense playing the way it was you kick the FG. My biggest problem with the management of the game was that sequence of plays from the 15 and only running 22 times with an average of 5 ypc. Ultimately the game was lost due to idiots Brown and McFumbles, but it was totally salvageable with better decisions and not inexplicably giving up on the run.

[paladin warrior]

I KNOW !!!!!! I was yelling at the television... Kick the FG!!!! You stupidest Marrrone-!!!!

[MikeInRoch]

Wilcots is, in general, a moron. His commentary and analysis is terrible.

You 100% do NOT go for the FG there. Going for the TD is clearly the correct play.

[Herd bull]

Hindsight is 20/20. On to the Fish.
Right, It was a gamble either way, if you don't win the game people are going ***** no matter which choice you make. forget it, it's over.

[CommissarSpartacus]

Going for the td on 4th down was essentially disrespecting the defense, a unit that was dominating the Chiefs offense.

When you go for the FG, you say to the team that I trust the D to come up big and then trust the O to get us into FG range and I trust the kicker to make the kick.

Going for the TD and betting the whole game on a roll of the dice on ONE play says to the team that the coach doesn't trust the defense to get a three and out deep in Chiefs territory with the game on the line.

This way, the team lost and feels disrespected by the coach.

If we'd kicked the FG and still lost, at least the team knows you had their back and so will play harder for you.

[Fletch]

Going for the TD and betting the whole game on a roll of the dice on ONE play says to the team that the coach doesn't trust the defense to get a three and out deep in Chiefs territory with the game on the line.

I would disagree with that Spartacus. What's the difference between trying to get the ball back with the Chiefs at their 15 after a failed 4th down, or kicking off and presumably trying to get the ball back with them around their 20?

I don't see any difference. If we couldn't get the ball back as it was, it doesn't seem to me that we'd have gotten it back for another FG try.

So really, the shot for the TD was the only guarantee of getting another scoring opportunity. There was no guarantee that we'd have gotten the ball back for another FG try. A lot of people seem to assume that we automatically would have had another FG try, but that's far from true.

[Albany,n.y.]

At the time I wanted them to kick the field goal & I'll stand by that position, here's why:
4th & long is a long shot to begin with. You're down 4 points. a FG gets you within 1 point where you only need a FG to win the game instead of a TD. Carpenter can hit from over 50. So you kick the field goal & kickoff with all your timeouts. Gay had been kicking touchbacks except for that squib kick, so you expect to start KC at their own 20. Since you have all your timeouts, you're expecting to get the ball back. Now all you have to do is get the ball to around KC's 35 & try the winning kick. The odds of success doing this have to be greater than 1 shot at 4th & long. The key was they had all 3 of their timeouts. Marrone coached as if they didn't have all their timeouts. If they didn't then I could see going for it on 4th & long, but 2 FGs were much more attainable when one was basically a given, than scoring a TD on 4th down, or even later if they got the ball back. They hadn't scored a TD since the opening drive.

[Buffalogic]

Moot point since we didn't stop them after we failed on fourth down. We did put the defense out there, chiefs got a first down and the game was over. The only play there was going for the TD.

[Fletch]

Moot point since we didn't stop them after we failed on fourth down. We did put the defense out there, chiefs got a first down and the game was over. The only play there was going for the TD.

Exactly.

[Fletch]

At the time I wanted them to kick the field goal & I'll stand by that position, here's why:
4th & long is a long shot to begin with. You're down 4 points. a FG gets you within 1 point where you only need a FG to win the game instead of a TD. Carpenter can hit from over 50. So you kick the field goal & kickoff with all your timeouts. Gay had been kicking touchbacks except for that squib kick, so you expect to start KC at their own 20. Since you have all your timeouts, you're expecting to get the ball back. Now all you have to do is get the ball to around KC's 35 & try the winning kick. The odds of success doing this have to be greater than 1 shot at 4th & long. The key was they had all 3 of their timeouts. Marrone coached as if they didn't have all their timeouts. If they didn't then I could see going for it on 4th & long, but 2 FGs were much more attainable when one was basically a given, than scoring a TD on 4th down, or even later if they got the ball back. They hadn't scored a TD since the opening drive.

Yeah, it was clearly a judgement call with positives either way.

While I supported the decision based on our inability to move the ball in the 4th quarter otherwise and on the three prior drives. I kinda felt that the Chiefs had figured us out by then. But to your point our red zone offense is dead last in the league right now, so based on that coupled with a 4th down chances not being good, a good argument can be made the other way.

Marrone was probably remembering the Detroit, Bears, and Vikes games that all came down to last second or last drive antics to pull out wins and thought that maybe lady luck was shining her light up his ass this season. Who knows.

What I do know is that it's time for a new GM, FO, and head coach.

[Albany,n.y.]

Moot point since we didn't stop them after we failed on fourth down. We did put the defense out there, chiefs got a first down and the game was over. The only play there was going for the TD.

The game wasn't over. We got the ball back for about 20 seconds at the end of the game (more if McKelvin had called for a fair catch instead of dancing around wasting valuable seconds). It would have been a lot easier trying to get in FG range than having to score a TD, which obviously they didn't do. There are a lot more options available when you don't have to get it in the endzone.

[Buffalogic]

But we had our chance to stop them after we missed on fourth down. They got a first down and won. How is that any different than kicking the field goal? If we kick a field goal or if we miss the TD like we did, the result is the same.

[Fletch]

The game wasn't over. We got the ball back for about 20 seconds at the end of the game (more if McKelvin had called for a fair catch instead of dancing around wasting valuable seconds). It would have been a lot easier trying to get in FG range than having to score a TD, which obviously they didn't do. There are a lot more options available when you don't have to get it in the endzone.

Again, it was a judgement call, but I think that you're giving our offense too much credit against a very good D.

At the end of the day we lost a close one, we're on the long end of the stick though for games like that. On the plus side are Detroit, Chicago, and Minnesota, all pretty much last second wins. KC is the best of those four teams.

The coaching staff had better figure out the offense for Thursday because the Fins quietly have a great defense.

I'm thinking that it's going to be a great game and a lot closer than some might think. I don't see their ground game doing much with Miller at RB, so their passing game against our pass D will be interesting. Miami seems to have a better passing D than we do too so given the struggles of our ground game it could be the same type of game going both ways.

Both teams have the same # of giveaways and takeaways. Oddly their rushing game is much better than ours.

[trapezeus]

it really comes down to what the coaches had planned all along. if they knew they were in four down territory, their play calling from 1st down to 4th down was terrible. if they were thinking let's go for the TD, but settle for FG in worst case scenario and let our d get the ball back, fine. that's a strategy.

but if they knew t hey were going for it on 4th down if put in that situation, they should have had some more play calls for a run on 1st or 2nd down and see what 3rd down brought them.

i would rather have gone for it on 4th down, but if they ran just once, they could have killed 30 seconds at minimum and almost made that drive the final drive of game and made the 4th down one of the final plays.

in the end, i don't care about the play call as much as i hate their lack of vision. this isn't the first game in their 1.5 years they've just seemingly called random plays in with no grasp of the clock or situation. it lacks identity and is one of the reason it feels like marrone is chasing what the other coach would do in that situation.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

You have to ask yourself which is more likely:

1) Converting a 4th and 10
2) Scoring a TD either on that play or on a subsequent play
3) Keeping KC from scoring their own TD/FG on the subsequent possession

or

1) Convert a 32 yd fg
2) Force a 3 or 4-and out
3) Drive to FG range
4) Kick another FG

To me those are basically a coin-flip. Like I said, if I was intending to go for it on 4th down, I would coach with that expectation and try to at least cut the conversion shorter with my earlier playcalling.

[trapezeus]

You have to ask yourself which is more likely:

1) Converting a 4th and 10
2) Scoring a TD either on that play or on a subsequent play
3) Keeping KC from scoring their own TD/FG on the subsequent possession

or

1) Convert a 32 yd fg
2) Force a 3 or 4-and out
3) Drive to FG range
4) Kick another FG

To me those are basically a coin-flip. Like I said, if I was intending to go for it on 4th down, I would coach with that expectation and try to at least cut the conversion shorter with my earlier playcalling.

my point is that if you knew you'd take points with a FG, then going pass, pass, pass made sense. because it left you time to get a stop and drive again. you are playing the odds.

but if you wanted to score and end the game, you needed to run the clock which required running the ball and getting closer and take your chance for the endzone when you had it on 3rd or 4th down.

the bills did the worst mix of the grouping. and that is a sign of bad coaching. not even bad coaching, but one who just doesn't have much of a vision.

and in terms of playing the odds, manning up and really going for 4th and 1 at home had the best odds of succeeding.

[bf1]

I have no problem with the decision to go for it.

[IlluminatusUIUC]

my point is that if you knew you'd take points with a FG, then going pass, pass, pass made sense. because it left you time to get a stop and drive again. you are playing the odds.

but if you wanted to score and end the game, you needed to run the clock which required running the ball and getting closer and take your chance for the endzone when you had it on 3rd or 4th down.

the bills did the worst mix of the grouping. and that is a sign of bad coaching. not even bad coaching, but one who just doesn't have much of a vision.

and in terms of playing the odds, manning up and really going for 4th and 1 at home had the best odds of succeeding.

I agree, I said as much earlier in the thread. I think people are focusing too much on the 4th down decision and not the 1-3 down decision.

[K-Gun]

Use the middle of the field and pick up the first down. The were playing like it was 1st and Goal and needed to put it in the end zone.

[Buffalogic]

Simple curl or slant route would have done the trick. Don't see how they don't call that in 4 attempts.

[swiper]

You have to make that decision on first down. If you are going to go for it on 4th, then the whole playbook is in play, including runs, and you should still work short if its there. If you are going to kick, then throw for the first three times.

One of many fundamental coaching failures by Marrone.

[swiper]

You have to ask yourself which is more likely:

1) Converting a 4th and 10
2) Scoring a TD either on that play or on a subsequent play
3) Keeping KC from scoring their own TD/FG on the subsequent possession

or

1) Convert a 32 yd fg
2) Force a 3 or 4-and out
3) Drive to FG range
4) Kick another FG

To me those are basically a coin-flip. Like I said, if I was intending to go for it on 4th down, I would coach with that expectation and try to at least cut the conversion shorter with my earlier playcalling.

The way the defense was playing it was much more likely to see the latter.

[Forward_Lateral]

I wasn't happy with the coaching yesterday but I liked that call. There was no guarantee we would get the ball back.

And the announcer who said we should kick the FG and go for an onside kick is a moron (Wilcots I think). The chances of recovering an onside kick are far worse than converting the 4th down.

Agree. Kicking a FG there is dumb. But, throwing 4 straight into the endzone was also dumb. Why not try to get a first down? Plenty of time on the clock, and the way they were moving the ball, picking up a first down would've been almost guaranteed. I hated those last 4 play calls, whether they were on Hackett, Marrone or Orton.

[CommissarSpartacus]

Moot point since we didn't stop them after we failed on fourth down. We did put the defense out there, chiefs got a first down and the game was over. The only play there was going for the TD.

Entirely different situation.

The damage to the Ds confidence had already been done. The coach had already said he didn't trust then to get a stop. Confidence is a huge part of the game. You don't puncture a guy's ego then beg him to save your ass with the proviso that if he doesn't save your ass, it's his fault.

[CommissarSpartacus]

I would disagree with that Spartacus. What's the difference between trying to get the ball back with the Chiefs at their 15 after a failed 4th down, or kicking off and presumably trying to get the ball back with them around their 20?

I don't see any difference..

What's the difference?

1. Get a stop and you only need to gain 30 yards in the middle of the fioield to get into FG range.

2. Asking the team to do what it takes to win is much easier after a successful play (putting 3 pts on the board) rather than a miserable failure (throwing 4 incompletions).

Teams gain momentum by moving in a positive direction. Going 4 and out in the red 2one is not moving in a positive direction.