Todd Bowles decision is indefensible

[Jetsbb]

4th and 8 mid field down 9 with 4 minutes left and he punts

By punting Bowles is saying he rather go for an on-sides kick than a routine 8 yard conversion. In his best scenario the defense holds they burn all their time outs and go for a score. Okay then what? They cant kick them the ball back with no timeouts. By punting he is literally saying he likes his chances better doing an on sides kick than converting a 4th and 8. There is no rationale explanation there is something mentally wrong with the guy.

[greenwave81]

A mind numbing my bad decision I agree. But I'll take it one step further...

The only reason the Jets were in that particular situation, down 9 rather than 8 (one possession) was Bowles own decision earlier to go for 2 pts which failed... and really that failure at 2 pts I had no problem with.

But once you play the early 2 pt conversion try card and lose, you should understand that you may have to make the decision to go for it in the 4th qtr...that he opted out of. The two decisions are diametrically opposed.

Don't trot old men McCiwn and Forte out there telling me they give you the best chance to win, and then choose to punt on 4th and 7-8 near midfield down two scores with 4 min left because THAT is NOT your best chance to win.

[win4ever]

Can coaches be placed in the concussion protocol?  Can we start a gofundme to bribe the doctor not to clear him?  

[Jet9]

1 hour ago, Jetsbb said:

4th and 8 mid field down 9 with 4 minutes left and he punts

By punting Bowles is saying he rather go for an on-sides kick than a routine 8 yard conversion. In his best scenario the defense holds they burn all their time outs and go for a score. Okay then what? They cant kick them the ball back with no timeouts. By punting he is literally saying he likes his chances better doing an on sides kick than converting a 4th and 8. There is no rationale explanation there is something mentally wrong with the guy.

Bowles is a bad no, terrible, in-game manager, but 'routine' 8-yard conversion....eh. Even the Pats don't believe that one. 

[Better2bgreenthanblue]

Fire Bowles and start a promotion "coach for the week". One lucky PSL holder is pulled from the stands and named that weeks head coach. 

 

[jack48]

Yesterday  for some reason I actually thought the Jets were across the 50 in Bills' territory.  But regardless, the time factor alone removed any possibility of punting.  i understand he does not think his offense can get 8. But he does think they can stop the enemy, go up the field and score, and recvover an onside and score again? Makes no sense.  And of course, this D never comes through!  The Jets score and the get scored upon immediately. Three and out when you absolutely need it?  Don't make me laugh. 

[JetsFanatic]

I didn't get the punt and also did not agree with going for a 2 point conversion in the 3rd quarter. Those points come back to haunt you. 

[bealeb319]

They couldn't get more than two yards on three downs and you are baffled that the head coach won't risk attempting to get 8 yards with one? I understand we were down but we weren't down tremendously, we weren't close to the red zone. If he went for it on fourth down and missed it you would probably tear him apart too.

Sent from my LGUS991 using JetNation.com mobile app

[jetgreen13]

this **** head is a perfect combination of delusion, incompetence, stubbornness, vindictiveness (bryce petty) & pride..
 

[PepPep]

Heloooooo dum dums. We're tanking!!! Duh. 

[rangerous]

On 9/11/2017 at 3:00 AM, Jetsbb said:

4th and 8 mid field down 9 with 4 minutes left and he punts

By punting Bowles is saying he rather go for an on-sides kick than a routine 8 yard conversion. In his best scenario the defense holds they burn all their time outs and go for a score. Okay then what? They cant kick them the ball back with no timeouts. By punting he is literally saying he likes his chances better doing an on sides kick than converting a 4th and 8. There is no rationale explanation there is something mentally wrong with the guy.

oh please.  this is all anyone can come up with?  was anyone watching the offesive offense?  it was plenty clear they weren't going anywhere.  two scores down with 4 minutes left and it's time to pack it in. maybe that sounds defeatist but there was little doubt at that point.  they had a chance with the 4th and 1 play at the goal line but after that play failed it was essentially over.

[varjet]

3 minutes ago, rangerous said:

oh please.  this is all anyone can come up with?  was anyone watching the offesive offense?  it was plenty clear they weren't going anywhere.  two scores down with 4 minutes left and it's time to pack it in. maybe that sounds defeatist but there was little doubt at that point.  they had a chance with the 4th and 1 play at the goal line but after that play failed it was essentially over.

My biggest concern about Sunday is how the DL and LBs were schemed and played, and the fact that a good portion of the Jets best players thus far are junk pile pickups.

That and the current state of the offensive roster.  With who they had, I actually thought they played ok and had a decent plan.

The former in and of itself raises core questions of FO and CS competency (keeping Mo, letting snacks go, drafting Lee, setting these guys up to play).

[rangerous]

1 minute ago, varjet said:

My biggest concern about Sunday is how the DL and LBs were schemed and played, and the fact that a good portion of the Jets best players thus far are junk pile pickups.

That and the current state of the offensive roster.  With who they had, I actually thought they played ok and had a decent plan.

The former in and of itself raises core questions of FO and CS competency (keeping Mo, letting snacks go, drafting Lee, setting these guys up to play).

the wilk non-factor was huge.  lucky for them it was the first game and the stating line ups (except for the defense line) really weren't set. they've got about 3 or 4 more games to get it together and start playing up to their potential, with or without mccown.  that's what bowles needs to do to keep his job.

[jetgreen13]

16 minutes ago, PepPep said:

Heloooooo dum dums. We're tanking!!! Duh. 

sarcasm??

[Jetmech]

Beating the jills was unnecessary in the scheme of things. Let the Jills win as many games as possible especially head to head teams like the Jets...

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Sperm Edwards]

On 9/11/2017 at 3:12 AM, greenwave81 said:

A mind numbing my bad decision I agree. But I'll take it one step further...

The only reason the Jets were in that particular situation, down 9 rather than 8 (one possession) was Bowles own decision earlier to go for 2 pts which failed... and really that failure at 2 pts I had no problem with.

But once you play the early 2 pt conversion try card and lose, you should understand that you may have to make the decision to go for it in the 4th qtr...that he opted out of. The two decisions are diametrically opposed.

Don't trot old men McCiwn and Forte out there telling me they give you the best chance to win, and then choose to punt on 4th and 7-8 near midfield down two scores with 4 min left because THAT is NOT your best chance to win.

What's hilariously depressing is he made an equally inexcusible blunder against the same team 1 year prior. With 4 minutes left (sound familiar?) a TD put us up by 12, and this boob opted to kick the XP. 4 minutes left and we kick the XP like there's any difference between a 13 or 12 point lead at that point, should we fail to convert it.

Now a year after the prior Buffalo stupidity, he does go for 2 with minutes left in the 3rd freaking quarter, because all he can see is "score 1 point and we're still losing, but if we convert and score 2 points and we're tied" and nothing more. With a number of possessions left in the game between the 2 teams, there are too many possible combinations left to guess. That's why you don't go for 2 until it's much later in the game where you can imagine all remaining possessions (and their possible outcomes) for both teams.

Then with 4 minutes left, down by 2 scores, with all 3 TOs left, already around midfield and a makable 4th down distance vs a questionable defense, he actually thought we were better off trying to have Shank Edwards pin them with a perfect punt, then get them to go 3 & out while burning through all 3 of our TOs, to then hopefully get the ball back at midfield with 3:30 left and no TOs, and then - with only the 2 minute warning left to stop the clock - score both a TD and a FG. Oh yeah, and we need to recover an onside kick in between those 2 scoring drives. 

It's as though he never saw the game played before, to presume all that happening is more likely than converting on 4th & 7 and proceeding from there with all 3 of our TOs intact.

[jetgreen13]

6 minutes ago, Jetmech said:

Beating the jills was unnecessary in the scheme of things. Let the Jills win as many games as possible especially head to head teams like the Jets...

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 

beating any team this season is unnecessary.. aside from the resume bowles is already dusting off..

[Tinstar]

2 minutes ago, Jetmech said:

Beating the jills was unnecessary in the scheme of things. Let the Jills win as many games as possible especially head to head teams like the Jets...

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk
 

We had no chance at beating the Bills.

They have a better defense

They have a better QB

They have a better OL and RB

Better HC, GM and owner according to the fans 

Heck, they may even have better fans  and were playing at home. 

[Jetmech]

We had no chance at beating the Bills.
They have a better defense
They have a better QB
They have a better OL and RB
Better HC, GM and owner according to the fans 
Heck, they may even have better fans  and were playing at home. 

Lol, who cares but at least the tailgate was good. Alot of Jets fans were there..

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

[Sperm Edwards]

26 minutes ago, rangerous said:

oh please.  this is all anyone can come up with?  was anyone watching the offesive offense?  it was plenty clear they weren't going anywhere.  two scores down with 4 minutes left and it's time to pack it in. maybe that sounds defeatist but there was little doubt at that point.  they had a chance with the 4th and 1 play at the goal line but after that play failed it was essentially over.

Ddn't he do the same thing last year?

• Down by 2 scores (that would have been 3 without a sack-fumble on Pittsburgh's prior drive)
• Half the 4th quarter gone by and we have 2 timeouts left
• Roethlisberger's already thrown 3 TDs so far
• Just like Sunday, we're at around midfield (our own 46)
• Even worse than Sunday, we had an even easier to convert 4th and 2
• ...and he punted there, too.

Where's Dick Curl when you need him lol.

[Jetsfan80]

40 minutes ago, PepPep said:

Heloooooo dum dums. We're tanking!!! Duh. 

Yes, but then why are McCown and Forte getting any playing time whatsoever?  Why not throw the kids on the field?

[southparkcpa]

On 9/11/2017 at 3:00 AM, Jetsbb said:

4th and 8 mid field down 9 with 4 minutes left and he punts

By punting Bowles is saying he rather go for an on-sides kick than a routine 8 yard conversion. In his best scenario the defense holds they burn all their time outs and go for a score. Okay then what? They cant kick them the ball back with no timeouts. By punting he is literally saying he likes his chances better doing an on sides kick than converting a 4th and 8. There is no rationale explanation there is something mentally wrong with the guy.

 

On 9/11/2017 at 3:12 AM, greenwave81 said:

A mind numbing my bad decision I agree. But I'll take it one step further...

The only reason the Jets were in that particular situation, down 9 rather than 8 (one possession) was Bowles own decision earlier to go for 2 pts which failed... and really that failure at 2 pts I had no problem with.

But once you play the early 2 pt conversion try card and lose, you should understand that you may have to make the decision to go for it in the 4th qtr...that he opted out of. The two decisions are diametrically opposed.

Don't trot old men McCiwn and Forte out there telling me they give you the best chance to win, and then choose to punt on 4th and 7-8 near midfield down two scores with 4 min left because THAT is NOT your best chance to win.

I went to college in western NY so I have a lot of Bills fans as firiends. Here in NC, there are TONS of Bills fans.   That said...   many of them tell me that the game was not as close as the score. That is to say...  the Bills beat us fairly up and down Sunday and should have won by 14 or so.

I wouldn't mind comments on this as  I did not see the game..but it came from reasonable football guys.

 

[southparkcpa]

Either of these guys would be better than Bowles.   I nick named Bowles, Bubba Gump but I now realize thats an insult to Bubba.

[jetspenguin]

We average about 1 new "Cry about Bowles" thread here lately........nothing new or shocking but what the hell, we got 5 more days until we have a game so what the heck...carry on.

[jetgreen13]

3 minutes ago, jetspenguin said:

We average about 1 new "Cry about Bowles" thread here lately........nothing new or shocking but what the hell, we got 5 more days until we have a game so what the heck...carry on.

so what are we to talk about?? 

the inevitable playoff run??

[rangerous]

17 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

Ddn't he do the same thing last year?

• Down by 2 scores (that would have been 3 without a sack-fumble on Pittsburgh's prior drive)
• Half the 4th quarter gone by and we have 2 timeouts left
• Roethlisberger's already thrown 3 TDs so far
• Just like Sunday, we're at around midfield (our own 46)
• Even worse than Sunday, we had an even easier to convert 4th and 2
• ...and he punted there, too.

Where's Dick Curl when you need him lol.

statistically the right call is to go for it.  but there are lies, damn lies and statistics.  the statistics are based on an average team.  the jets are clearly offensively impaired so that has to be factored in.  and this decision is somehow overshadowing the fact that they went for it at 4th and goal and also for the 2 point play. i know it sounds defeatist and the jets have nothing to lose but at the same time the game was over.  there's no point.

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, rangerous said:

statistically the right call is to go for it.  but there are lies, damn lies and statistics.  the statistics are based on an average team.  the jets are clearly offensively impaired so that has to be factored in.  and this decision is somehow overshadowing the fact that they went for it at 4th and goal and also for the 2 point play. i know it sounds defeatist and the jets have nothing to lose but at the same time the game was over.  there's no point.

This is not one of those times this expression has any meaning.

That's used when people cite a statistic to make things appear different than they actually are. Like cherry-picking that we had about an average pass defense in 2016 by citing gross yards-against, while ignoring that we defended a low number of pass attempts and were crappy in yards per attempt, and further ignoring that we surrendered an embarrassing TD:INT ratio of 30:8. Using the gross passing numbers alone, to suggest we had an average pass defense last year, is an example of when you'd break out that expression. Or suggesting Darron Lee had a good game by citing his statistics of 10 tackles and a sack. Meanwhile anyone watching could see he was just awful.

In this situation?

Time was running out. To win, the Jets needed to score twice (including a TD). The only thing that makes this task even more difficult is robbing them of what little time and clock-stops they had.

[sciond]

The  coach is perfect for present situation.

Todd " The Tank" Bowles

[Philc1]

Bowles makes Herm Edwards look like Belichick when it comes to clock management

[rangerous]

5 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

This is not one of those times this expression has any meaning.

That's used when people cite a statistic to make things appear different than they actually are. Like cherry-picking that we had about an average pass defense in 2016 by citing gross yards-against, while ignoring that we defended a low number of pass attempts and were crappy in yards per attempt, and further ignoring that we surrendered an embarrassing TD:INT ratio of 30:8. Using the gross passing numbers alone, to suggest we had an average pass defense last year, is an example of when you'd break out that expression. Or suggesting Darron Lee had a good game by citing his statistics of 10 tackles and a sack. Meanwhile anyone watching could see he was just awful.

In this situation?

Time was running out. To win, the Jets needed to score twice (including a TD). The only thing that makes this task even more difficult is robbing them of what little time and clock-stops they had.

the phrase has tons of meaning.  the probability of winning by going for it was twice that of punting.  my point is that the statistics are based on data averaged over all of the teams.  the jets offense (and sunday's defense) was pretty inept and so would be at the ends of the curve. and who said we had an average pass defense last season?  not to argue but they were in the bottom ten.

[JetsFanatic]

Just now, rangerous said:

the phrase has tons of meaning.  the probability of winning by going for it was twice that of punting.  my point is that the statistics are based on data averaged over all of the teams.  the jets offense (and sunday's defense) was pretty inept and so would be at the ends of the curve. and who said we had an average pass defense last season?  not to argue but they were in the bottom ten.

I would have went for the 1st down.  Bottomline is that it probably would not have made a difference.

[rangerous]

1 minute ago, JetsFanatic said:

I would have went for the 1st down.  Bottomline is that it probably would not have made a difference.

you know, half of the posters here want the jets to have an 0fer season.  the other half want bowles and mac launched.  no matter which way bowles called that play he would've lost.

[bostonmajet]

5 minutes ago, JetsFanatic said:

I would have went for the 1st down.  Bottomline is that it probably would not have made a difference.

It wouldn't have effected the outcome of the game, but it would be nice if the coach made the right call....

[ASH1962]

On ‎9‎/‎11‎/‎2017 at 3:34 AM, win4ever said:

Can coaches be placed in the concussion protocol?  Can we start a gofundme to bribe the doctor not to clear him?  

LOL, I was thinking more along the lines of exploratory brain surgery, but... LOL

[Sperm Edwards]

2 hours ago, rangerous said:

the phrase has tons of meaning.  the probability of winning by going for it was twice that of punting.  my point is that the statistics are based on data averaged over all of the teams.  the jets offense (and sunday's defense) was pretty inept and so would be at the ends of the curve. and who said we had an average pass defense last season?  not to argue but they were in the bottom ten.

It is an improper use of the phrase. Its purpose is not to suggest sometimes anecdotal evidence flies in the face of statistical evidence. Citing examples of exceptions to the rule is not to suggest that the rule is a "lie" per se, though that is the purpose of the phrase: that statistics can be used to suggest it's dark out when it's really light; that something was a success even though it was a failure. Things like that. 

The purpose of the phrase is to suggest that an outlier statistic can be used to infer something greater, in a manner that is designed to be willfully misleading. This was not one of those instances.