Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KRL

Game Observations (BUF)

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Tinstar said:

Another scenario could be that the Jets HC was playing pro football, not Madden or fantasy football .  The HC was criticized for going for 2 instead of kicking the extra point .  I will admit that my first impulse was why, but then it occurred to me that the odds of going for 2 are about the same as kicking an extra point these days and the fact that the game would have been tied made the move palatable . The HC was criticized for punting from his side of the 50 with under 4 minutes to go. With that offense, I would punt also . 

There's reason to be negative and reasons not to be, and it all depends on how open minded you are .

Your 2 point reasoning is ridiculous, under your scenario why he went for it before the 3rd quarter was over says you might as well go for 2 after every TD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Registered members do not see this ad. Click here to create your free account today.
Registered members do not see this ad. Click here to create your free account today.
3 minutes ago, Jetster said:

Your 2 point reasoning is ridiculous, under your scenario why he went for it before the 3rd quarter was over says you might as well go for 2 after every TD.

From a math perspective, there's an argument for going for it early and often.  In 2016, the XP % was about 94%.  So, in theory, if you expect a TPC % above 47%, then over the long term, it makes sense to go for it as you'll score more points.  Tactically, the decision should be more influenced later in the game by the score, but actually not so much early (like in the first quarter).  Last year about half the teams had a 50% or better TPC %.  So that's what the math tells us in a general sense.

But the NFL is often about sticking to conventional wisdom.  Kicking the XP is safe and doesn't get coaches second-guessed so that's what they do.  Until someone figures out they can make 60% of their tries and starts going for 2 a lot more.  Then other teams will notice it works and will start to gear up with players and plays that optimize TPCs.

Before you scoff at this, consider Rick Pitino back when he coached the Knicks in the 80s (and really, Providence before that).  He figured out that he had guys (e.g. Trent Tucker, Rory Sparrow) who made enough of their 3-point attempts that they averaged more points per possession than if they went for 2-point shots.  And over the next decade the game changed, and continued to change.  Now look at the Warriors and you can barely recognize it as the same game that was played in the 80s.  

I think moving the XP back was the first step in encouraging this and while it may take a few years, and maybe a few more rule tweaks, I think it will eventually become normal for some teams that are better at TPCs to go for them regularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, nycdan said:

From a math perspective, there's an argument for going for it early and often.  In 2016, the XP % was about 94%.  So, in theory, if you expect a TPC % above 47%, then over the long term, it makes sense to go for it as you'll score more points.  Tactically, the decision should be more influenced later in the game by the score, but actually not so much early (like in the first quarter).  Last year about half the teams had a 50% or better TPC %.  So that's what the math tells us in a general sense.

But the NFL is often about sticking to conventional wisdom.  Kicking the XP is safe and doesn't get coaches second-guessed so that's what they do.  Until someone figures out they can make 60% of their tries and starts going for 2 a lot more.  Then other teams will notice it works and will start to gear up with players and plays that optimize TPCs.

Before you scoff at this, consider Rick Pitino back when he coached the Knicks in the 80s (and really, Providence before that).  He figured out that he had guys (e.g. Trent Tucker, Rory Sparrow) who made enough of their 3-point attempts that they averaged more points per possession than if they went for 2-point shots.  And over the next decade the game changed, and continued to change.  Now look at the Warriors and you can barely recognize it as the same game that was played in the 80s.  

I think moving the XP back was the first step in encouraging this and while it may take a few years, and maybe a few more rule tweaks, I think it will eventually become normal for some teams that are better at TPCs to go for them regularly.

What does any of this have to do with last Sunday? Lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Jetster said:

Your 2 point reasoning is ridiculous, under your scenario why he went for it before the 3rd quarter was over says you might as well go for 2 after every TD.

When the Jets went for 2, the score was 14-12 . If successful, the game is tied with a momentum swing.U don't make it a FG can still win the game if the Bills don't score again . If you manage to hold them to a FG, a TD could help you win the game even if you miss the extra point .  The worst case scenario was not making the play and giving up another TD . You make decisions and you live with them . 

 

4 minutes ago, nycdan said:

From a math perspective, there's an argument for going for it early and often.  In 2016, the XP % was about 94%.  So, in theory, if you expect a TPC % above 47%, then over the long term, it makes sense to go for it as you'll score more points.  Tactically, the decision should be more influenced later in the game by the score, but actually not so much early (like in the first quarter).  Last year about half the teams had a 50% or better TPC %.  So that's what the math tells us in a general sense.

But the NFL is often about sticking to conventional wisdom.  Kicking the XP is safe and doesn't get coaches second-guessed so that's what they do.  Until someone figures out they can make 60% of their tries and starts going for 2 a lot more.  Then other teams will notice it works and will start to gear up with players and plays that optimize TPCs.

Before you scoff at this, consider Rick Pitino back when he coached the Knicks in the 80s (and really, Providence before that).  He figured out that he had guys (e.g. Trent Tucker, Rory Sparrow) who made enough of their 3-point attempts that they averaged more points per possession than if they went for 2-point shots.  And over the next decade the game changed, and continued to change.  Now look at the Warriors and you can barely recognize it as the same game that was played in the 80s.  

I think moving the XP back was the first step in encouraging this and while it may take a few years, and maybe a few more rule tweaks, I think it will eventually become normal for some teams that are better at TPCs to go for them regularly.

The Steelers did it a lot last year .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jetster said:

What does any of this have to do with last Sunday? Lol.

Yes because on this forum, our threads always stay locked in on topic.  What could I have been thinking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, nycdan said:

From a math perspective, there's an argument for going for it early and often.  In 2016, the XP % was about 94%.  So, in theory, if you expect a TPC % above 47%, then over the long term, it makes sense to go for it as you'll score more points.  Tactically, the decision should be more influenced later in the game by the score, but actually not so much early (like in the first quarter).  Last year about half the teams had a 50% or better TPC %.  So that's what the math tells us in a general sense.

But the NFL is often about sticking to conventional wisdom.  Kicking the XP is safe and doesn't get coaches second-guessed so that's what they do.  Until someone figures out they can make 60% of their tries and starts going for 2 a lot more.  Then other teams will notice it works and will start to gear up with players and plays that optimize TPCs.

Before you scoff at this, consider Rick Pitino back when he coached the Knicks in the 80s (and really, Providence before that).  He figured out that he had guys (e.g. Trent Tucker, Rory Sparrow) who made enough of their 3-point attempts that they averaged more points per possession than if they went for 2-point shots.  And over the next decade the game changed, and continued to change.  Now look at the Warriors and you can barely recognize it as the same game that was played in the 80s.  

I think moving the XP back was the first step in encouraging this and while it may take a few years, and maybe a few more rule tweaks, I think it will eventually become normal for some teams that are better at TPCs to go for them regularly.

I remember reading an article that said the math worked similarly for going for it on fourth down all the time. Not gonna see any head coaches embracing that anytime soon for the same reasons. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Tinstar said:

When the Jets went for 2, the score was 14-12 . If successful, the game is tied with a momentum swing.U don't make it a FG can still win the game if the Bills don't score again . If you manage to hold them to a FG, a TD could help you win the game even if you miss the extra point .  The worst case scenario was not making the play and giving up another TD . You make decisions and you live with them . 

 

The Steelers did it a lot last year .

Those % s don't take into account the skill players & QB the team possesses. Steelers? Big Ben, Bell, Brown, Bryant, lol. It cracks me up when people say 47% success rate on 2 point tries. There are 32 teams, those success rates are completely subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, slats said:

I remember reading an article that said the math worked similarly for going for it on fourth down all the time. Not gonna see any head coaches embracing that anytime soon for the same reasons. 

 

Yep.  The optimal point is probably somewhere in the middle.  Some teams should probably go for it on 4th and short more than they do based on personnel, scheme, situation and opponent.  It's certainly a lot more exciting as a fan, both ways.  Nothing gets my pulse racing more than defending against a 4th down.  Maybe the most nerve-wracking moment in football for me.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, southparkcpa said:

That was posted all over FaceBook.  I get push downs as I am a big RUSH fan.

I'm waiting for the Van Halen fans final score of 51-50 , of course that would give Bowles an anuerysm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2017 at 10:21 AM, Maxman said:

Yes, there is. But the Bills should have scored 28. A tipped ball was intercepted. So your theory goes out the window. Read what KRL wrote about Darron Lee. Then rethink the "nice game" you think he had. I don't mean to be harsh, but he was bad. 

That tipped ball was tipped by none other than Darron Lee so you can't really take that away from him. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, slats said:

I remember reading an article that said the math worked similarly for going for it on fourth down all the time. Not gonna see any head coaches embracing that anytime soon for the same reasons. 

 

Yes I suppose you could look at your own 3rd down conversion rates for down and distance. If they are over 30% you should go for it.

Of course there are circumstances when you shouldn't. if you're down by 3 then you kick the field goal, and you may not want to do it inside your own 35 for instance.

Then again if he did not have an 8 yard play in his play book then maybe Bowles was right to punt. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/11/2017 at 8:46 AM, KRL said:

As any reasonable Jet fan knows wins are going to be hard to come by this season.  So progress
has to be measured in other ways and in the first game of the season there were failures all 
over the place:

- Todd Bowles failed on multiple levels, his game management and defense to name a few.  If
you're going to be aggressive and go for the TD on 4th down and go for 2 pts in the third
quarter, you can't punt down two scores with time running out in the game!!!  In addition
after three years of getting the personnel you want on defense, you can't have the amount
of mistakes in execution which allowed simple plays to become "chunk" plays.  Also, what happened
to the secure tackling we saw in the pre-season???  There were whiffs all over the field

- The offense was a continuation of what was seen in camp and the pre-season.  There's no
OLine push in the run game which allows the defense to crowd the box and sit on every WR 
route.  With a compressed offense the only thing available is quick "dinks & dunks" which 
don't stretch the field.  This won't change until the OLine generates push in the run game.
As ineffective as they were the team was only down 14-12 in the 4th quarter.  The big culprits
in this loss was the defense

- An example of how stats don't tell the story, Demario Davis & Darron Lee both had
big games in the stat sheet.  But they may have played the worst interior LB game I've ever
seen!!!  In run defense, zone pass defense and man to man pass defense all they did all game
was guess wrong, leave their lanes and allow simple plays to turn into disasters.  Don't
let anyone fool you they were the main culprits in giving up 200 yards on the ground

- Unfortunate bad luck on the Juston Burris INT, he trips over his teammate (Marcus Maye?)
at midfield which sends him to the ground.  If he doesn't trip it's probably a 105 yard
pick 6 because there were no BUF players in front of him

- Good games by Kony Ealy & Josh Martin at the OLB spots.  Both brought pressure and set
good edges in the run game

- On offense Jermaine Kearse & Will Tye made an impact after only a week.  Kearse with 
tough catches over the middle and Tye with physical running after the catch

- Kalif Raymond needs to secure the ball better, but he did show a glimmer of hope that he
can help in the return game with that 20+ yard punt return

- Excellent leg strength by Chris Catanzaro on his FG's and kickoffs.  And Lachlan Edwards
except for that one shank was excellent in changing field position with his punts

- Awful game by Matt Forte, I know there were no running lanes but you can't drop two screen
passes

   

Todd Blowes had to go.  But he didn't.  He still has to go. Yu cannot come out and do the same things every week and then say yo.u are fine with yourself.  You cannot keep mentioning that there were a lot of missed assignments out there. How are you practising during the week?  How about a little McGuire in the game to perk things up?  How about you take the deep shots you said were in the game plan? You don't have to make those to loosen up a run D.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×