Williams makes his point about conversion

[lordofgun]

Buffalo Bills coach Gregg Williams explained his rationale when he decided to attempt a two-point conversion rather than kick an extra point after taking a 36-32 lead late in the fourth quarter against the Minnesota Vikings on Sunday. Basically, he played against the percentages with little regard for conventional wisdom.
It was a major risk. Fortunately for the Bills, they came away with a 45-39 victory.

Williams said he hoped the Bills could have grabbed a 38-32 lead going into the final minutes by converting a two-point pass from Drew Bledsoe to rookie Josh Reed, because it would have allowed Buffalo to win the game with a late field goal if the Vikings scored a touchdown.

"A two-point conversion, we felt we could get up six points," Williams said Tuesday. "Knowing if we didn't get it, we would still be a field goal (from tying). Obviously, it's a double-edge sword. We were trying to make it a six-point game."

The Bills didn't need a six-point lead. Consider, had they kicked the extra point, they would have had a 37-32 advantage. The Vikings would have led, 38-37, after they scored on the next possession, prompting a decision by their coaches whether to kick or go for a two-point conversion.

http://www.buffalonews.com/editorial/20020918/1024618.asp

[Earthquake Enyart]

Saw GW on Empire last nite, trying to splain. Mumbo jumbo gibberish. Like your article said, he thought that if we got the 2, we would be up 6. Then if the Vikings got a TD, they'd kick the point to go up one. Then a Bills FG would win it.

My point would be if the Bills kicked the point, they would be up 5. The Vikings score a TD to go up 1, then would go for 2. (as stated earlier a 40% proposition). If they made it, then a Bills FG would only tie it. But if they didn't get it, a Bills FG would win it. In my mind, you would want to force a scenario where the Vikings would go for 2, since the odds say it is not as likely to happen.

[Dozerdog]

Yup-
GW is a kind of guy who in a game of Blackjack, would hit on a 15 with the dealer showing a 6

[lordofgun]

MAkes absolutely no sense. Whatever happened to admitting you made a mistake? He'd earn more respect that way.

[NoCtUrNaL]

His logic is confounding...oh well; eventually it'll be the thing that'll do him in as a head coach.

He's beginning to look like "the tuna", to bad he can't coach like him.

[Kelly The Dog]

When will sports fans finally understand the concept that once one thing changes in a game, you CANNOT, under any circumstance, ever, assume the rest of the game would play out the same. If GW chose to kick the PAT, there would not have been a personal foul on Josh Reed in the endzone, the Bills would not have kicked off on the 15, the Vikes would not have had the exact same field position and the plays they ran down the field to score would not have come out exactly the same. They could have scored earlier, they could have fumbled, they could have gone backwards. It's just plain stupid for any fan to say that if GW had chose to kick the PAT, then Hollis' 54 yard kick would have won it. The game would have turned out differently. And NO one knows how it would have played out.

[Gunzlingr]

Where I was sitting, everybody said we should go for 2. I would have kicked it, myself.

[Gunzlingr]

Kelly is right, too. It is easy to second guess, but things could have been completely different if we kicked the PAT.

[NoCtUrNaL]

Originally posted by Kelly The Dog
When will sports fans finally understand the concept that once one thing changes in a game, you CANNOT, under any circumstance, ever, assume the rest of the game would play out the same. If GW chose to kick the PAT, there would not have been a personal foul on Josh Reed in the endzone, the Bills would not have kicked off on the 15, the Vikes would not have had the exact same field position and the plays they ran down the field to score would not have come out exactly the same. They could have scored earlier, they could have fumbled, they could have gone backwards. It's just plain stupid for any fan to say that if GW had chose to kick the PAT, then Hollis' 54 yard kick would have won it. The game would have turned out differently. And NO one knows how it would have played out.

HUH? His logic made no sense at the time and it makes less sense after the fact.


Williams said he hoped the Bills could have grabbed a 38-32 lead going into the final minutes by converting a two-point pass from Drew Bledsoe to rookie Josh Reed, because it would have allowed Buffalo to win the game with a late field goal if the Vikings scored a touchdown.

If the Bills had kicked the EXTRA POINT the score would've been 37-32. If the Vikings turned around and scored a TD and the extra point the score would've been 37-39. The Bills could've still won the game with a field goal. (40-39)

But, getting no points after the Bills touchdown (failing the two point conversion) meant they could only tie with a field goal.

Williams is an idiot...given enough time this will become apparent even to other idiots.

[WG]

I think the right decision was made. You must remember that we hadn't stopped the Vikes all day except w/ TOs!!!

Hello!

You'd have to figure they march right down the field.

If you go for 1, you don't force anything. If you go for 2 and make it, then you essentially force them to go for 2. If you miss, they more than likely try for one, leaving you the FG to tie.

If we had gone for 1, then the next Vike TD, they would have gone for 2 anyway. Judging by the way we played D, 39 points in regulation, I really wouldn't have wagered against the Vikes getting the 2, thereby making it a 3 point game anyway.

Good choice as I see it considering how the game was going. If it had been 16-12, I would have gone for 1.

Let's face it; while we had some big-plays, our D certainly was far from anything close to a solid defensive unit. We were a few "non-big plays" away from disaster in that game. If Culpepper doesn't have the TOs and Moss gets a call or two or Culpepper hits him w/ the slop coverage that Watson had on him or Alexander a time or two, then the Vikes score in the 50s or 60s.

Our D is not good. It sucks! That much will be apparent this week in Denver.

In any case, as far as solid D goes, it was terrible. We didn't stop them. We got lucky and made some big plays to force some TOs. But overall, we didn't "stop" them.

[NoCtUrNaL]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
I think the right decision was made.

Hello!

You'd have to figure they march right down the field.

If you go for 1, you don't force anything. If you go for 2 and make it, then you essentially force them to go for 2. If you miss, they more than likely try for one, leaving you the FG to tie.

If we had gone for 1, then the next Vike TD, they would have gone for 2 anyway. Judging by the way we played D, 39 points in regulation, I really wouldn't have wagered against the Vikes getting the 2, thereby making it a 3 point game anyway.

Good choice as I see it considering how the game was going. If it had been 16-12, I would have gone for 1.

Let's face it; while we had some big-plays, our D certainly was far from anything close to a solid defensive unit. We were a few "non-big plays" away from disaster in that game. If Culpepper doesn't have the TOs and Moss gets a call or two or Culpepper hits him w/ the slop coverage that Watson had on him or Alexander a time or two, then the Vikes score in the 50s or 60s.

Our D is not good. It sucks! That much will be apparent this week in Denver.

In any case, as far as solid D goes, it was terrible. We didn't stop them. We got lucky and made some big plays to force some TOs. But overall, we didn't "stop" them.


If you go by the logic, "we hadn't stopped the other team all day so we have to do whatever we can to win" then we should have went for it on forth down on our opening drive of OT because as you said, "You must remember that we hadn't stopped the Vikes all day except w/ TOs!!!". Right?

Were you cursing the poor decision when we punted on forth down in OT to a team "we hadn't stopped all day"? Hmmm?

[Kelly The Dog]

NoCtUrNaL, perhaps you should invest in a reading comprehension class instead of calling people idiots. I didn't make any reference whatsoever to whether it was the right call or not by Williams. I only pointed out that the entire end of the game would have played out differently had GW chose the PAT. Perhaps we would have tied it and gone to OT like it did, but we just can't assume it would because it ALL would have been different. Try reading before responding.

[justasportsfan]

GW's statements just made it clear he has no confidence with his D.

Next Media Conference - TD explains why he hired GW

Maybe we'll know why by the end of the season.

[lordofgun]

NO ONE has pointed out a reasonable excuse for this decision yet. There is no possible way this made sense at the time the decision was made.

I don't want stupid decisions like this to cost us games down the road. We may have escaped this time, but it can't continue or it WILL hurt us.

[NoCtUrNaL]

Originally posted by justasportsfan
GW's statements just made it clear he has no confidence with his D.

Next Media Conference - TD explains why he hired GW

Maybe we'll know why by the end of the season.

Well, if he has no confidence in our D, then why'd he punt of 4th down after our 1st possesion in OT.

[NoCtUrNaL]

Originally posted by Kelly The Dog
NoCtUrNaL, perhaps you should invest in a reading comprehension class instead of calling people idiots. I didn't make any reference whatsoever to whether it was the right call or not by Williams. I only pointed out that the entire end of the game would have played out differently had GW chose the PAT. Perhaps we would have tied it and gone to OT like it did, but we just can't assume it would because it ALL would have been different. Try reading before responding.

That reads like some lame rationalization for every poor decision ever made.

[Dozerdog]

Originally posted by Kelly The Dog
When will sports fans finally understand the concept that once one thing changes in a game, you CANNOT, under any circumstance, ever, assume the rest of the game would play out the same. If GW chose to kick the PAT, there would not have been a personal foul on Josh Reed in the endzone, the Bills would not have kicked off on the 15, the Vikes would not have had the exact same field position and the plays they ran down the field to score would not have come out exactly the same. They could have scored earlier, they could have fumbled, they could have gone backwards. It's just plain stupid for any fan to say that if GW had chose to kick the PAT, then Hollis' 54 yard kick would have won it. The game would have turned out differently. And NO one knows how it would have played out.


Kinda swings both ways-

Had he made the logical and prudent thing and kicked the XP, then the discussion about GW not using his Time outs on Defense with the Vikes inside the 10 (to give Bledsoe more time if they scored the TD) would be moot, the terrible play calling on 1st and 5 at the Vikes 19 would be moot (Bledsoe sack resulting in missed FG from 45+ yards) and this ridiculous explanation on why he did what he did would be moot.

[lordofgun]

MOOT MOOT MOOT!

[WG]

I more than anyone can appreciate all the enthusiasm. But we also need to look at things a little bit more realistically here. We are like the Chargers under Air-Coryell. We have an explosive offense, largely due to passing. The Chargers had a much better and more consistent rushing game than we now have. Yet, we are dead last, or close to it, in D.

That's not good.

Drew has tossed for 734 yards on 88 attempts w/ 4 TDs and 2 INTs.

If the averages bear themselves out, Drew will set monumental records this year w/ over 5,800 yards passing and over 700 attempts. While the 700 attempts may happen, even when he had 691 attempts in '94, he still didn't have more than 4,600 yards passing.

So look for around 5,000 yards this year, possibly slightly less. I can see the extrapolated 32 TDs happening and the 16 INTs. But not almost 6K yards and 700+ attempts.

Assuming 5,000 yards, that leaves about 4,300 left for 14 games, or about 300 per game, which is still aggressive. The better Ds, of which we've played 0 so far, won't allow us to win games w/ merely a passing game.

Gilbride has shown nothing, absolutely nothing in terms of plays to keep the D off-balance. When he's tried a few, they've failed or been only nominally effective. Denver, Chicago, Oakland, S.D., and several other teams have solid Ds that likely Henry won't do well against.

This euphoria is good to an extent, but being realistic, we have to realize that this scoring isn't going to happen every week. Especially not when it's only passing that's doing it. Good HCs and DCs aren't going to allow a one-dimensional attack to win games against them, particularly if those teams have any Offense.

We've proven that we can't stop anyone so far. The Jets many of you will point to, but all they put up was their passing attack. They didn't even try to run. It's not like they tried and we stopped them! They just didn't even try. Well a passing attack w/ Chrebet, Moss, and Coles alone isn't going to fare very well against any team in this league.

The Phins held them to a fraction of what we held them to anyway. What does that say for our D? Not much IMO.

This weekend, look for Denver to have ~200 yards rushing and put up at least in the 30s. Does anyone really think that an offense that generated only 2 TDs in regulation vs. the Vikes, a team w/ a crud D, is really gonna score in the 30s vs. a D like Denver's?? I'm not that naive.

Henry hasn't shown me anything other than he just can't play against decent teams. Until he has a big or at least decent game vs. a top 15 rushing D, I don't think he's cemented himself as anything yet. Of course GW and I seem to differ on that. ;)

To keep this game close is gonna take a special effort by Gilbride, and by GW by rotating in Bryson to run some corner routes if Henry proves ineffective as I'm surmising he will. Barring some creativity on O, we could get pounded. The Denver pass rush will be much better than Minnesota's and I'm sure Rhodes will have some nice blitzes and other stuff in store for us.

They know full well that our chances in this game revolve entirely around Drew. They also know his weaknesses and will capitalize on them. I'm not saying we don't have a chance. I am saying we don't if nothing changes. But if KG comes up with some plays to keep the D honest and on their toes, and if by some chance we can get any rushing production at all out of Henry or Bryson, then we will.

But the Broncos will run us into the ground for a ToP that will be extremely lopsided. We won't be able to keep the O on the field for nearly as long via simply passing as we did vs. the Vikes. It just won't happen against the Denver D and before a pumped up crowd.

I really hope Gilbride comes up w/ something. But I'm counting on a disappointing week in Denver. Things just don't line up well for us in this game. Again, this complete neglect of our DL in the offseason is gonna haunt us each and every game from here on out.

[Dozerdog]

Let's say he did kick the XP-

Scenario#1- No fantastic Field Position for the Vikes- drive stalls Bills win.
Press conference- No on asks why he went for 1 instead of 2

Scenario #2- Vikes score TD- up by 1- probably have to go for 2 to make it a 3 pt lead instead of 1- 40% chance they make it. Bills either win on last second FG, Tie- go to OT, or Lose

Press conference- No on asks why he went for 1 instead of 2

[Kelly The Dog]

Guys... please try to understand the concept here. Take a breath and read. I am not making any judgment on whether or not any decision by GW was good or bad. Just go back and carefully read the post. It could have been the worst decision ever.

All I said was that if ONE PLAY CHANGES with three minutes to go in the game, and the ball is put into play in a different part of the field, a different sequence of events will play out. It HAS to. It's irrefutable science. It may very well have played out somewhat similar, no one knows. I just simply and correctly stated that if we kicked instead of went for two, the game would have had a different sequence of ball placements, player movements, down and distance, etc., and we cannot AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME that every single play would have been exactly the same.

[NoCtUrNaL]

Originally posted by Kelly The Dog
the post. It could have been the worst decision ever.

All I said was that if ONE PLAY CHANGES with three minutes to go in the game, and the ball is put into play in a different part of ther field, a different sequence of events will play out. It HAS to. It's irrefutable science. It may very well have played our somewhat similar, no one knows. I just simply and correctly stated that if we kicked instead of went for two, the game would have had a different sequence of ball placements, player movements, down and distance, etc and we cannot AUTOMATICALLY ASSUME that every single play would have been exactly the same.

I give that post my "John Madden Firm Grasp of the Obvious" award.

[WG]

Easy there NoCtUrNaL,

"Were you cursing the poor decision when we punted on forth down in OT to a team "we hadn't stopped all day"?"

Actually, I was too busy cursing 2 incomplete passes and a fumble to set up the 4th and 15 that existed as I saw this one slipping away. Again, luck that we even got the ball back after that. Minnesota deserted the "gal that brung them" in favor of play calling that was ludicrous. That's why we even had a second/third chance!

LOG,

"NO ONE has pointed out a reasonable excuse for this decision yet. There is no possible way this made sense at the time the decision was made."

Gotta disagree w/ ya on this one. The context of the game was one of scoring, either FGs or TDs. You have to keep that in mind when making the assessment. Strange game for sure. In most cases, it might not make sense. In this one, at minimum it was a judgement call. I was thinking the same exact thing before GW even said it.

[The Natrix]

I think we should have kicked the X-P. However I don't think it was a horrible decision:

If we converted the 2, then Minn scores a touch and two we can tie it with a FG. Sure, maybe Minn would not go for 2 even if we did, but you never know.

being up by six, Minn could only tie it with 2 FG's, not win it. I think that this is the best reason

With our passing game on fire like it was, the % of converting was much higher than the 45 league average is, or whatever.

However, if we lost, I would be calling for the immediate dismissal of GW

Nate out

[WG]

DD,

I'd say the chances of the Vikes getting two were a "tad bit" greater than the traditional or average 40%. Heck, a simple run up the middle probably would have gotten Williams to the back of the endzone standing up! Culpepper could have snuck it in himself w/ little effort apparently if he could simply hang onto the ball.

I'd say 80%+ against our DL and D unit.

[Dozerdog]

The only logical reason- and this is a massive stretch- is that if the Bills make the 2pt AND the Vikes miss an XP FOR THE 3RD TIME then the Bills are TIED

The Odds of missing 1 XP-= 30-1
Odds of missing 2 in the same game-900-1
Odds of Missing 3 in the same game= 27,000-1
Odds of Bills or Vikes converting a 2pt conversion-3-1

Odds of Vikes missing 3 XPs AND Bills Converting the 2= 81,000-1
So GW played an 81,000 to 1 shot that this scenario played out for a 38-38 tie and going to OT

[WG]

Here's another scenario:

Bills go for the 1. Vikes then score like they did, go for 2 and make it, odds are, big time since we apparently couldn't stop them w/ a game average rush of greater than 6 ypc.

Then we line up for that 54 yarder and the ball bounces out. There was definitely some luck in this game.

[lordofgun]

That's hindsight, Wys. At the time he made the decision, it was a horrible call which had no reasonable explanation.

I agree with Kellythe Dog that many things could have changed, but that doesn't make it any different thatn what it was...a horrible call.

[Dozerdog]

Wys- now you are making stuff up.

Ball bouncing in or out of the crossbar has no bearing on this discussion.

[NoCtUrNaL]

Like I said before, if we go for the extra point and make it, it puts the onus on the Vikings to decide if they should go for the two point conversion. Then they can try and defy the odds of making it.

[lordofgun]

The positives of kicking the XP FAR outway the negatives. That's putting it mildly.

[Dozerdog]

Decisions on the sideline can be simplified-

Think ahead! Is the play or decision you are making a logical one? Most teams can convert a 4th and 1 but they punt 90% of the time. Why? Because the odds dictate it.

The Bills Oilers comeback game had a number of decisions that defied the odds because Levy was forced into it dictated by the score. Onside kick in the 3rd Qtr. Going for a 4th down &6 TD pass to Andre Reed. You defy the odds when you are losing.

You MUST play the precentages when you are leading! Regardless of what your opponent MIGHT do!

Mike Martz of the Rams learned this painful lesson in week #1 vs the Broncos when he elected to go for a 4th and short instead of kicking a FG. They didn't play the precentages and it put them in a hole, as well as give the Broncos momentum.

[Dozerdog]

Please- someone tell me what was the gain in going for 2, make or miss

[NoCtUrNaL]

Originally posted by lordofgun


I agree with Kellythe Dog that many things could have changed, but that doesn't make it any different thatn what it was...a horrible call.

The "many things could've changed" stance for making a decision is the lamest rationalization I've ever heard.

I'm surprised it's not a plea in criminal court..."<i>sir, are you pleading guilty, not guilty, or many things could've changed</i>?”

[lordofgun]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
Please- someone tell me what was the gain in going for 2, make or miss

I'm waiting for that as well.

[Dozerdog]

There is an old coach's axiom-

Never take points off the board.

That is why when you see teams kick a FG, and their's a penalty on the D- many times the coach will not take the 3 points off the board for anothe rfirst down (Unless it is a significant yardage gain or if they trail, or if their team is a significant underdog).

Going for 2 takes 1 point off the board- you better absolutly need 2 points

[NoCtUrNaL]

Originally posted by Dozerdog
Please- someone tell me what was the gain in going for 2, make or miss

We're only losing by one point, not two if the Vikings score a TD and XP. :dizzy:

[Earthquake Enyart]

He should have just blamed Gilbride. "Kevin is the genius and he told me to go for 2. I'm too dumb to know better." Then Buddy Ryan emerges from the wings and punches both of them.

[justasportsfan]

Originally posted by NoCtUrNaL


Well, if he has no confidence in our D, then why'd he punt of 4th down after our 1st possesion in OT.

He said it himself Noc "If the vikes score a TD we could win in with a field goal" ..........he had already thought of the Vikes scoring a TD.

[JayWood]

WE WON PEOPLE...CAN WE PLEASE JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT!!!

[NoCtUrNaL]

Imagine how many threads and posts that decison would've caused had we lost in OT. :evil:

[NoCtUrNaL]

Originally posted by JayWood
WE WON PEOPLE...CAN WE PLEASE JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT!!!

I think those trying to answer this question...


Originally posted by Dozerdog
Please- someone tell me what was the gain in going for 2, make or miss


...would like to leave at that. :D

[Dozerdog]

Probably the same-

[WG]

"Wys- now you are making stuff up.

Ball bouncing in or out of the crossbar has no bearing on this discussion."

Not really. We had no idea what was going to happen. You don't plan for what actually happened in hindsight. You plan for what is likely to occur or what could occur based on the game thus far.

There was plenty of time left on the clock for Minnesota to have driven down and made a FG, then kicked an onside kick. Granted, not outstanding odds on the OSK, but w/ our luck I wouldn't have pushed it. 2 FGs then win the game.

We had no idea that we were going to get into FG range! You just can't make that assumption. It's easy to second guess if the scenario doesn't fall exactly right. But this could have gone a dozen other ways w/ good odds.

[WG]

With only minutes remaining, you also don't plan on getting the ball back. At least not w/ our defense!

ALL of that completely defied the odds.

[WG]

Honestly, if Minnesota had not abandoned the way they had played in the last part of the game and in O/T, they very likely could have won this game.

I have no idea what the Vike coaches were thinking! They were gaining ground on us almost at will. They outplayed us yardage wise in regulation by a LONG shot! Then when the game was on-the-line, they completely went away from what had worked up until that time. It was the most puzzling thing.

[Earthquake Enyart]

3 posts in a row is a personal foul.

And loss of down.

[Dozerdog]

http://www.billsfanzone.com/images/awards/yellowcard.gif

[lordofgun]

-15 ZBs :D

[NoCtUrNaL]

Originally posted by Earthquake Enyart
3 posts in a row is a personal foul.

And loss of down.

I think that's a sign of someone trying to convince themselves. ;)

[Dozerdog]

Was he wearing black hightops?

-$5000 ZBs

[vmark11]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
If you go for 1, you don't force anything. If you go for 2 and make it, then you essentially force them to go for 2.


So if they had tied the game, they would've went for 2 to go up by 2 rather than kicking an extra point for the lead?
Oyh vey....get some sleep buddy.

Although in fairness, that may not be the dumbest argument I've heard this week. At least you didn't try telling us they could've kicked 2 FG's with 3 minutes left.

[Rebecky]

I'm still a lot more concerned with the pass-play on the 19 in OT that got DB sacked --

Why?

[DIHARD2]

Has everyone forgot that this team is a work in progress?

We upgraded our offense and don't forget we have almost $10 million in cap money that doesn't even count towards our players this year. If I were the coach, I would trust my offense that's where the money was spent. We do not have a championship caliber team as yet, but we do have a better team than we had last year. If that was a mistake by a rookie coach I would hope he learned from it. Just as all those missed tackles by our special team, would be teaching the special team their job. If you learned from your mistakes that is the important thing.

No point is a give me or guarantee especially in field goals. You have three different people touching the ball and with that many variables mistakes are easier made.

GO!!!...BUFFALO!!!...

[NoCtUrNaL]

Originally posted by DIHARD2


No point is a give me or guarantee especially in field goals. You have three different people touching the ball and with that many variables mistakes are easier made.


Short of the quarterback running himself or a direct snap to the a tailback most plays involve at least three people touching the ball. :D

[helmetguy]

Got a good laugh outa Williams' rationale.Had a whole section about it in the column I submitted Sunday night. Funny that it showed up in today's Buffalo News. As I've said since mid-season last year, any Bills' success will come in spite of "Tennesse" Williams, not because of him.

[Valerie]

Hi Helmet Guy. :) Nice to see you on the boards. :) There are some pictures from the tailgate party in the Twilight Zone. :)

[Sabre Ally]

Hi helmetguy :wave:

[Creemoredrinker]

:lastyr:

I was on WGR Tuesday morning with Festerhead and the Bulldog with Festerhead arguing that it was the right call. Festerhead was arguing that Greg made the right call going for two points because "you always protect against the worst scenario".

I started off by giving my condolences to the Bulldog for having
to now work with someone with 1/10th the intelligence of Bowery. They had already milked this stupid discussion for one hour so I told them I would straighten them out now that the Mathematicians, Stataticians and Philosophers had had their turn.

I said it is quite simple, as a Coach you always make the decision that trusts or has faith in your team. In this case, you go for the one point having faith your defense will stop the Vikings.

In the first game, you go for the two points. Well, Festerhead
was NOT happy being called stupid and after he cuts me off (I did ask him what call he would have made in the first game), Festerhead makes fun of my first name (Elvis). What class!

BUT SERIOUSLY I WOULD HAVE GONE FOR THE TWO POINT CONVERT DURING THE LAST PLAY OF THE HOME OPENER. You don't get it, Greg shows his players he has complete faith in them and has a killer instinct -- not a bad message to give a young team at the first game of the season. You make it, well, you are a hero NOT only in Buffalo, but around the NFL. It is the call I would have made. Ask Clint and Tripod if I was NOT yelling it at the top of my lungs from our excellent seats at the time.

Any comments?

[LouGrant]

No offense- but going for two vs the Jets would be ridiculous.


Unless you are Temple playing the Miami Hurricanes and find yourself with the opportunity to kill Goliath, play the precentages!!

Mike Martz believes that the Rams can do anything- he's an X's and O's genius but a moron on the sidelines. He went for a 4th and 1 vs the Broncos instead of kicking a 3. Turns out to be a killer as the Rams got back to within 3 in the 4th quarter. Instead, they had to play catch up.

[Creemoredrinker]

:feedback:

Percentages are after the fact. They may have some meaning in baseball where the sample field is 162 games and players go to bat almost a 1,000 times in a season. They are meaningless in this situation because you are talking about a specific team -- the Bills (who are completely different than last year or the year before) -- being able to score two points against a specific team -- the Jests -- in a specific situation rather than how the whole NFL does on two point converts. Even in baseball, the stats the managers most rely on are how a specific batter has done against a specific pitcher.

Again this is NOT all about playing it safe. There was a very important message Greg had the opportunity to leave with his players during the first game of the season. I would hope, as a Bills fan, that you would have supported and respected his decision to go for two during the Home Opener rather than joining the other critics in town who wish to attack everything Greg does (e.g. Coach Dickhead).