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.