Todd Bowles owes us all an explanation

[redlichtie]

Maybe he was distracted by the white facemasks!

[jack48]

7 hours ago, jetscrazey said:

LOL if the Bills get the onside kick you are all singing a different tune.  Being a head coach involves risk management and understanding of risk/reward, and Bowles made a very questionable decision there.  He's letting a game his team dominated potentially be lost instead of going to OT by one play going wrong.

It is true.  They were not going to tie it 13 behind in 2 drives unless they missed an extra point. Needed three possessions to tie and only two to win.  Good point.

[bealeb319]

7 hours ago, jetscrazey said:

Regardless of the outcome of the game, how do you kick a PAT and not go for 2 to go up 14 instead of 13 with less than 4 minutes left?  And then play prevent D, you're literally giving them a chance with the onside kick 

IDK...Maybe it had something to do with the what 50% chance or so that we were converting redzone possessions into touchdowns vs the 100% for points Folk gave us last night? Maybe he had faith in his defense to let the Bills run the clock down? Maybe he just felt like kicking a PAT who cares. We went into a divisional rivals home and marched up and down the field effortlessly beating them at home along with our former coach what explanation does bowls owe us...

[UnitedWhofans]

Also, I hate the title of this thread. Todd Bowles doesn't owe you sh*t.

Obviously the reporters didnt pick up on it, because they didn't bring it up. Was it a mistake? Yes, it was. But it wasn't a big deal because the odds of getting into a situation where it would matter were very slim

[ECURB]

Why chase the points there and risk a big momentum swing or worse a pick 6 or fumble (2 points for them?) in that scenario?

Imagine if they got a sack fumble and ran it back making it a 10 point game instead of a 12 point game and they get the ball then you would all be killing him for risking it.

Rule of thumb is not to chase points in that scenario... Very little time ledt and a 2 score lead regardless.

[SBBound]

10 minutes ago, ECURB said:

Why chase the points there and risk a big momentum swing or worse a pick 6 or fumble (2 points for them?) in that scenario?

Imagine if they got a sack fumble and ran it back making it a 10 point game instead of a 12 point game and they get the ball then you would all be killing him for risking it.

Rule of thumb is not to chase points in that scenario... Very little time ledt and a 2 score lead regardless.

Interesting point...I think he probably should have gone for two but the only thing that I can come up (heard something similar last night) is that by going up 13 points he makes Carpenter hit both of the extra points if the Bills scored two TD's. If you go for two and fail, then all they have to do is hit one of two extra points to win. If you look at Carpenter's history of making extra points, I believe he has miss 6 in his career - that is a lot. So maybe Bowles was playing that percentage. I am curious to hear what he has to say today - he WILL be asked about it.

[JetsFanatic]

8 hours ago, jetscrazey said:

Regardless of the outcome of the game, how do you kick a PAT and not go for 2 to go up 14 instead of 13 with less than 4 minutes left?  And then play prevent D, you're literally giving them a chance with the onside kick 

I agree, I thought we were going for 2. Good news is we won!

[Ohio State NY Jets fan]

Only explanation that I can think of (besides he forgot) is considering how emotional Rex coaches, maybe Todd thought a stop on the 2 pointer would fire up the Bills after the Forte touchdown, almost like they opened up a lane for him

[UnitedWhofans]

27 minutes ago, SBBound said:

Interesting point...I think he probably should have gone for two but the only thing that I can come up (heard something similar last night) is that by going up 13 points he makes Carpenter hit both of the extra points if the Bills scored two TD's. If you go for two and fail, then all they have to do is hit one of two extra points to win. If you look at Carpenter's history of making extra points, I believe he has miss 6 in his career - that is a lot. So maybe Bowles was playing that percentage. I am curious to hear what he has to say today - he WILL be asked about it.

I made that point. The extra point becoming missable has certainly changed the game. While going for two is probably the right play, it is not as locked in as it once was because now there is a danger of missing it and 

[bostonmajet]

Sorry it was a HUGE mistake with very little downside. If we fumbled the 2 point play and they returned it, it would still be an 11 point game - it would still require 2 TDs to win or a TD and 2 FGs (no real time for that with 3.5 minutes). Sure the odds of getting an on side kick is small, but why take the risk? What has a greater chance, Us going for 2, missing it and the Bills scoring a TD, getting an on side kick, and then getting another TD - or - Bills scoring TD, getting an on side kick, scoring again and missing the field goal?

It was a mistake; correctable, but a mistake ....

[SBBound]

10 minutes ago, UnitedWhofans said:

I made that point. The extra point becoming missable has certainly changed the game. While going for two is probably the right play, it is not as locked in as it once was because now there is a danger of missing it and 

Didn't see that but I agree with your line of thinking. I am hoping that is what Bowles was thinking and that he just did not have a senior moment. Bowels strikes me as too detailed and strategic to simply have "missed" this. People may disagree with him and the decision if it was based on the desire to have the Bills kick two extra point, but the reasoning that you pointed out earlier is valid, although debatable for sure

[SBBound]

8 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

Sorry it was a HUGE mistake with very little downside. If we fumbled the 2 point play and they returned it, it would still be an 11 point game - it would still require 2 TDs to win or a TD and 2 FGs (no real time for that with 3.5 minutes). Sure the odds of getting an on side kick is small, but why take the risk? What has a greater chance, Us going for 2, missing it and the Bills scoring a TD, getting an on side kick, and then getting another TD - or - Bills scoring TD, getting an on side kick, scoring again and missing the field goal?

It was a mistake; correctable, but a mistake ....

I believe if they fumbled the 2 point play it would have been a 10 point game

[bostonmajet]

2 minutes ago, SBBound said:

I believe if they fumbled the 2 point play it would have been a 10 point game

Sorry, you are right, but still what is the % on a 2 point play being taken back? I would say the odds of missing 2 PT (12 point game - same as 13) > making 2 PT (14) > getting 2 PT returned (10). If you are playing a numbers game (and not playing scared) you go for 2.

[SBBound]

12 minutes ago, bostonmajet said:

Sorry, you are right, but still what is the % on a 2 point play being taken back? I would say the odds of missing 2 PT (12 point game - same as 13) > making 2 PT (14) > getting 2 PT returned (10). If you are playing a numbers game (and not playing scared) you go for 2.

I agree in principle but I think people are just coming up with potential reasons that may have fed into Bowles' thinking. If you combine the unlikely event of the 2pt swing with the fact that Carpenter has a fairly solid history of missing extra points, there is at least a foundation for why Bowles may have elected to do the extra point. Personally, I go for 2 points, but I am mostly interested in hearing Bowles provide a logical, reasoned response, regardless of whether it fits with my thinking. I think the above points are justifiable to some degree.

[Jet Nut]

4 hours ago, Smashmouth said:

was it any worse than constantly putting safeties in the box while our Corner gets beat deep with no help ?

Is it any worse that since our corners get no help deep that they constantly get beat underneath since they play 10+ yards off the WR's ?

Our offense adjusted when will the defense adjust ?

Problem is the corner wasn't in the box.  The corner had deep coverage and keeps biting on the fake and leaving the corner who thinks he has deep help.  

[mphtrilogy]

I watched the press conference, and I don' think it was even asked.

 

maybe today or tomorrow a beat reporter will ask.

 

It was clearly a mistake.

[UnitedWhofans]

1 minute ago, mphtrilogy said:

I watched the press conference, and I don' think it was even asked.

 

maybe today or tomorrow a beat reporter will ask.

 

It was clearly a mistake.

Craig Carton was just on the radio defending the call. Not as clear cut as made out to be here

[JiFtheOracle]

The guy has some serious game management issues.  You just hope he's got someone giving him feedback because there are a few head scratchers each week from Bowles. 

[bostonmajet]

42 minutes ago, SBBound said:

I agree in principle but I think people are just coming up with potential reasons that may have fed into Bowles' thinking. If you combine the unlikely event of the 2pt swing with the fact that Carpenter has a fairly solid history of missing extra points, there is at least a foundation for why Bowles may have elected to do the extra point. Personally, I go for 2 points, but I am mostly interested in hearing Bowles provide a logical, reasoned response, regardless of whether it fits with my thinking. I think the above points are justifiable to some degree.

Yep, but our crack reporters who make up stories at the drop of the hat didn't have the forethought or integrity to ask him in his press conference.

[ljr]

59 minutes ago, JiF said:

The guy has some serious game management issues.  You just hope he's got someone giving him feedback because there are a few head scratchers each week from Bowles. 

 

In general I'm happy with most of what I've seen ... But this is dead on

you're a young HC Todd ...learn from your mistakes & do better next time

dont play HC like Geno plays QB

[nyjets782]

2 hours ago, ECURB said:

Why chase the points there and risk a big momentum swing or worse a pick 6 or fumble (2 points for them?) in that scenario?

Imagine if they got a sack fumble and ran it back making it a 10 point game instead of a 12 point game and they get the ball then you would all be killing him for risking it.

Rule of thumb is not to chase points in that scenario... Very little time ledt and a 2 score lead regardless.

Rule of thumb there is without question to go for 2.  It's not chasing points when there are 4 minutes left.  It is a 6% chance they miss an extra point and a 50% chance they get the 2 pt conversion.  Don't know about you, but I will take 50% over 6% any day.

And people saying "it should not have mattered" are missing the point.  You do everything you can to put the nail in the coffin instead of saying "it shouldn't matter in the end."

That said, I like Bowles and I am very happy today. 

[Integrity28]

Has anyone gotten their explanation yet? I've check my messages like 3 times. Nothing.

WTF is going on here!

[Beerfish]

Very dumb coaching decision, too little time to worry about TD, FG, FG.  And of course we let them walk down the field with no resistance at all to boot.

[peebag]

ehh...some coaches prescribe to the theory that you only go for 2 points when you have to....

 

seems legit to me....

[ScarletKnight89]

I honestly think that the Jets might not feel that the extra point is a given anymore. Therefore they might think that if Buffalo ties the game at 37 all it's not necessarily over. That's the only thing that makes sense.

[Rangers9]

He owes us an explanation for that. And why the secondary is playing so poorly. That's his area of specialty. This was kind of a Rex-like game coaching wise except on offense which neither of them are responsible for. Clock management, and game decisions etc. are.

[Big Blocker]

I like Bowles, but considering the situation the choice to go with the extra point looks indefensible.

[Jetster]

9 minutes ago, Big Blocker said:

I like Bowles, but considering the situation the choice to go with the extra point looks indefensible.

I can't believe anyone would defend him? You've been shellshocked by 2 quick TDs already. Whether you make it or fail has no bearing IF THEY DO SCORE 2 TDS! You LOSE. So of course you protect yourself if you have a chance of being up 14 instead of 13! No way with the Jets playing the way they were on offense Bills get 3 offensive series at that point in the game to go TD, FG, FG.

[Adoni Beast]

I'm a big fan of Bowles. But this was so brutally clueless that it worries me. I mean I'm sure all of us were assuming the 2 point conversion was an automatic decision. Simple math. Hopefully, this is not a sign of greater problems.

[kelticwizard]

I think Bowles went for the 1 point conversion because if we missed the two point conversion it would have given Buffalo momentum.  The Jets had just nailed the game down, Bowles said just kick the extra point as usual and let the Bills try to generate their own momentum, let's not help them.

[Big Blocker]

I don't see how missing a 2 point conversion gives the other team momentum.  They're going to get the ball in any event, and it is no help to their offense that their special teams thwarted the attempt.

[PatsFanTX]

I'm a big fan of Bowles. But this was so brutally clueless that it worries me. I mean I'm sure all of us were assuming the 2 point conversion was an automatic decision. Simple math. Hopefully, this is not a sign of greater problems.

It should have been an automatic decision.

Hell, if that was Manning, Brady or Rogers, they never would have let the offense come off the field.

[Rangers9]

Just now, PatsFanTX said:

 

 

It should have been an automatic decision.

 

Hell, if that was Manning, Brady or Rogers, they never would have let the offense come off the field.

Look it wasn't Brady, etc. ok. Nobody ever said it was. Fitz is an adequate to good Qb. And he had a good game. Last season overall he did a very good job for the Jets. In 18 starts he's been ok to very good. That is the best the Jets can do at the Qb position in 2016. It was totally stupid to low ball him on a contract for 7 months and then end up signing him to the same deal he wanted two months earlier. He could have been at Florham Park and working out with his receivers that entire time. 

[Bleedin Green]

4 hours ago, ECURB said:

Why chase the points there and risk a big momentum swing or worse a pick 6 or fumble (2 points for them?) in that scenario?

Imagine if they got a sack fumble and ran it back making it a 10 point game instead of a 12 point game and they get the ball then you would all be killing him for risking it.

Rule of thumb is not to chase points in that scenario... Very little time ledt and a 2 score lead regardless.

Other than the possibility of not even thinking about it, this is the only other scenario I could think of that might explain the reason for not going for 2, that if it all went wrong it could cut the lead down to 10, and they preferred to push it up to 13.  That would be playing scared if that was the reason for the decision, so I still wouldn't agree with it, but it might be some sort of answer.

[hawk]

Maybe this has been said.  I am just seeing it now.  The Jets had a sack for a loss of only two yards, and there was a holding call on 2nd and 10.  How do you take the penalty, when it would have been 3rd and 12 for 2 and 20?  That is not a smart decision.  IMO.  2nd quarter around 9 and half minutes left.