Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Jetsbb

Todd Bowles decision is indefensible

Recommended Posts

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

Share this post


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

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.

I love the Jets, I enjoy thes Board, but quite frankly it's getting harder to put up with all the crazy stuff that is posted here right now. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes to go with the 2 minute warning and 3 time outs is a ton of time in the league

The only people who think that's too little time to score twice are Jets fans who forgot what a healthy offense looks like. 

It is a defensible decision, especially when defense and the punter are the only unit making plays. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, ASH1962 said:

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

Lol, anything to get him off the team.  I'm not sure I've ever seen a guy fail this badly at adjusting.  I feel like he's one of those guys that walks around in pain after dinner because he refuses to adjust his belt a little looser.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

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.

the statistic in tis case does mislead.  it clearly indicates that there is twice the probably of success going one way versus the other without any regard to the actual means. and this is because the statistic is focused on data compiled from a large number of events and not related to any particular team.  moreover the stated success rate in the situation was very minimal, less than 2% in either case so as to be insignificant.  so yes there are lies damn lies and statistics.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, southparkcpa said:

 

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.

 

I too went to school in Buffalo and I agree with your friends, unfortunately ☺️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You need to put that punt in context with the knee at the half, and the lack of urgency through the entire time we were down 2 scores until that decision. Bowles was coaching like we were up by 3 and trying to shorten the game.

We could have had at least 3 more possessions. If that happened then we had maybe a 30% chance of winning against a bad Bills team.

More than likely we would have lost by 10 more points but at least we would have had a chance, and would have gained experience in pressure situations for our young team.

Bowles goal is to be competitive. It's not even about the team because he's had this same philosophy since he's been here.

How many times do you hear announcers wonder when we are going to start trying to conserve clock? The team has taken on this man's personality. Whether or not the odds say you should go for it you need to show faith in your players to make a play at crunch time.

Do you notice how good teams always believe they're going to win no matter how desperate the situation is? That faith comes from the HC and it is half the battle. 

No the game was not close and the score reflects the fact that Bowles ran the clock out to keep it that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rangerous said:

the statistic in tis case does mislead.  it clearly indicates that there is twice the probably of success going one way versus the other without any regard to the actual means. and this is because the statistic is focused on data compiled from a large number of events and not related to any particular team.  moreover the stated success rate in the situation was very minimal, less than 2% in either case so as to be insignificant.  so yes there are lies damn lies and statistics.

You still aren't comprehending. The expression's purpose is to denounce misleading statistics that are knowingly misleading, and is otherwise easily proven to be untrue when viewed outside the statistic's narrow context. 

If every other statistic indicates Bowles made the correct decision, but an insignificant one (insignificant without proper context) indicates it was incorrect, then citing only the latter - and without giving such necessary context - is willfully misleading, and that is what the expression is about.

You are merely claiming that this possibly could have been an exception to a rule, or exception to a trend. That isn't close to the same thing, and that certainly isn't a statistic that is purposefully misleading (a statistic we definitively know isn't true) along the same thought process as a lie or damn lie.

Examples of stats where it is applicable to refer to it as being akin to a lie or damn lie:

  • The Jets gave up the 17th-fewest passing yards last year. Based on this statistic we therefore had the 17th-best pass defense. We know this is provably untrue despite this statistic.
  • The Jets won 10 games in 2015. They won only 5 games in 2016. Based on this statistic Todd Bowles was therefore literally twice as smart of a HC in 2015 than in 2016. Of course this is patently ridiculous.
  • The Jets have never won a superbowl without both Babe Parilli and Lee White on the roster. Therefore this statistic indicates Babe Parilli and Lee White were instrumental to winning a superbowl. The statistic is 100% provably true, but the inference based on the statistic is nonsensical.

Get it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 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.

So the Jets are offensively impaired and therefore its best to burn all timeouts on defense and pray for an on-sides recovery so that the offense can then drive the field and score twice in under three minutes?  Or are you saying they were throwing in the towel four minutes before the end of the game down 9 points?  I'm not sure of the point of view here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You still aren't comprehending. The expression's purpose is to denounce misleading statistics that are knowingly misleading, and is otherwise easily proven to be untrue when viewed outside the statistic's narrow context. 

If every other statistic indicates Bowles made the correct decision, but an insignificant one (insignificant without proper context) indicates it was incorrect, then citing only the latter - and without giving such necessary context - is willfully misleading, and that is what the expression is about.

You are merely claiming that this possibly could have been an exception to a rule, or exception to a trend. That isn't close to the same thing, and that certainly isn't a statistic that is purposefully misleading (a statistic we definitively know isn't true) along the same thought process as a lie or damn lie.

Examples of stats where it is applicable to refer to it as being akin to a lie or damn lie:

  • The Jets gave up the 17th-fewest passing yards last year. Based on this statistic we therefore had the 17th-best pass defense. We know this is provably untrue despite this statistic.
  • The Jets won 10 games in 2015. They won only 5 games in 2016. Based on this statistic Todd Bowles was therefore literally twice as smart of a HC in 2015 than in 2016. Of course this is patently ridiculous.
  • The Jets have never won a superbowl without both Babe Parilli and Lee White on the roster. Therefore this statistic indicates Babe Parilli and Lee White were instrumental to winning a superbowl. The statistic is 100% provably true, but the inference based on the statistic is nonsensical.

Get it?

The Jets only gave up 1 sack. That means we have a very good Oline.

McCown had a 66.7 completion% That means he's incredibly accurate and our passing game is elite.

The defense only gave up 21 points. that means they aren't that bad. 

We never had a chance because we never took a chance. If Bowles learned anything from this game it will be that letting McCown throw deep after the game is already lost is a bad idea.

Those 2 picks ruined Bowles stat line. We could have lost 14-12 if we had not ever opened up the offense. That's what we'll do next time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

I think going for 2 too early was also a terrible decision. he's just over his head as a head coach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, NYs Stepchild said:

The Jets only gave up 1 sack. That means we have a very good Oline.

McCown had a 66.7 completion% That means he's incredibly accurate and our passing game is elite.

The defense only gave up 21 points. that means they aren't that bad. 

We never had a chance because we never took a chance. If Bowles learned anything from this game it will be that letting McCown throw deep after the game is already lost is a bad idea.

Those 2 picks ruined Bowles stat line. We could have lost 14-12 if we had not ever opened up the offense. That's what we'll do next time.

 

No. They were only even in the game enough to argue about the punt on 4th an 8 BECAUSE they didn't take chances. You play to keep the game close enough so that you can turn the tide in your favor with a few big plays. Problem is, no one on the Jets O made any big plays. Burris had a chance to change the dynamics of the game if he converted his pick for 6, but he was unfortunately tackled in a very Jet-like manner.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is simple the Jets are a bad football team and by extension they must play it close to the vest to stay even remotely close in games, and this will be the case all year.  

We all should have known this prior to this based upon our own evaluation of the talent on the Jets and our own lying eyes. 

Simple with Brady as QB you can take chances with McCown and company not so much.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Sonny Werblin said:

No. They were only even in the game enough to argue about the punt on 4th an 8 BECAUSE they didn't take chances. You play to keep the game close enough so that you can turn the tide in your favor with a few big plays. Problem is, no one on the Jets O made any big plays. Burris had a chance to change the dynamics of the game if he converted his pick for 6, but he was unfortunately tackled in a very Jet-like manner.

You're saying we didn't win because we didn't get a 102 yard pick 6? If only the horrible Bills had made more mistakes we might have had a chance?

They were never in the game. This is the appearance that Bowles was trying to create apparently successfully in some cases. 

We didn't throw a ball downfield until half way through the 4th quarter. Well there was the couple of passes to TEs that were left uncovered but those would have been open all day if only we had tried. Maybe we could have loosened them up. Who knows? we didn't try. Too risky. 

The Bills never opened their playbook because they never had to. They could see that Bowles was milking the clock and all they had to do was let him do it. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Last year TB made some real "rookie" coaching mistakes. And I said that it was to be expected... Just the same as a player has to make mistakes and watch film and train and learn, so does a coach.

I had hopes that TB would go into the offseason, sit down with some game tape and some analysis of his coaching and adapt and grow from his mistakes and miscues...

So far, not so much... I do think he's done better so far at getting the guys to play together and to buy into his philosophy... But that only goes so far. He has to make smarter on-field choices, and soon. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, NYs Stepchild said:

You're saying we didn't win because we didn't get a 102 yard pick 6? If only the horrible Bills had made more mistakes we might have had a chance?

They were never in the game. This is the appearance that Bowles was trying to create apparently successfully in some cases. 

We didn't throw a ball downfield until half way through the 4th quarter. Well there was the couple of passes to TEs that were left uncovered but those would have been open all day if only we had tried. Maybe we could have loosened them up. Who knows? we didn't try. Too risky. 

The Bills never opened their playbook because they never had to. They could see that Bowles was milking the clock and all they had to do was let him do it. 

 

When you have a young team that you are grooming, you play it straight because you are training them how to play.

I suggest you find yourself a bad junior football team and employ your "take chances" strategy to see how it works out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Charlie Brown said:

It is simple the Jets are a bad football team and by extension they must play it close to the vest to stay even remotely close in games, and this will be the case all year.  

We all should have known this prior to this based upon our own evaluation of the talent on the Jets and our own lying eyes. 

Simple with Brady as QB you can take chances with McCown and company not so much.  

Brady is a perfect example. He has no special skills. What he has is a drive, and a fear of failure.

In Bowles offense he would never have amounted to anything. How would you know he could open up a game and be trusted to make plays in pressure situations unless you put him in pressure situations?

 If Bowles was the coach on the 2000 Pats they would have folded and Bledsoe would have been reinstated as the starter as soon as he was healthy.

Share this post


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

When you have a young team that you are grooming, you play it straight because you are training them how to play.

I suggest you find yourself a bad junior football team and employ your "take chances" strategy to see how it works out. 

Yeah teach them how to kneel, and punt away, then teach them how to revolt just the way they did last year.

Okay now today we're going to practice grabbing our ankles. No one's leaving until they do it right. It's less painful if you don't struggle. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NYs Stepchild said:

Yeah teach them how to kneel, and punt away, then teach them how to revolt just the way they did last year.

Okay now today we're going to practice grabbing our ankles. No one's leaving until they do it right. It's less painful if you don't struggle. 

Nice non-response.  

Share this post


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

The Jets only gave up 1 sack. That means we have a very good Oline.

McCown had a 66.7 completion% That means he's incredibly accurate and our passing game is elite.

The defense only gave up 21 points. that means they aren't that bad. 

We never had a chance because we never took a chance. If Bowles learned anything from this game it will be that letting McCown throw deep after the game is already lost is a bad idea.

Those 2 picks ruined Bowles stat line. We could have lost 14-12 if we had not ever opened up the offense. That's what we'll do next time.

 

:thumbup:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Sperm Edwards said:

You still aren't comprehending. The expression's purpose is to denounce misleading statistics that are knowingly misleading, and is otherwise easily proven to be untrue when viewed outside the statistic's narrow context. 

If every other statistic indicates Bowles made the correct decision, but an insignificant one (insignificant without proper context) indicates it was incorrect, then citing only the latter - and without giving such necessary context - is willfully misleading, and that is what the expression is about.

You are merely claiming that this possibly could have been an exception to a rule, or exception to a trend. That isn't close to the same thing, and that certainly isn't a statistic that is purposefully misleading (a statistic we definitively know isn't true) along the same thought process as a lie or damn lie.

Examples of stats where it is applicable to refer to it as being akin to a lie or damn lie:

  • The Jets gave up the 17th-fewest passing yards last year. Based on this statistic we therefore had the 17th-best pass defense. We know this is provably untrue despite this statistic.
  • The Jets won 10 games in 2015. They won only 5 games in 2016. Based on this statistic Todd Bowles was therefore literally twice as smart of a HC in 2015 than in 2016. Of course this is patently ridiculous.
  • The Jets have never won a superbowl without both Babe Parilli and Lee White on the roster. Therefore this statistic indicates Babe Parilli and Lee White were instrumental to winning a superbowl. The statistic is 100% provably true, but the inference based on the statistic is nonsensical.

Get it?

you know, you must have a busy life or you wouldn't be wasting your time telling everyone why this or that is wrong.  frankly i do get it.  i gave you tons of outs but you needed the last word no matter what.  it's a non issue.  if you want to judge bowles coaching accumen on this one play have at it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, sirlancemehlot said:

So the Jets are offensively impaired and therefore its best to burn all timeouts on defense and pray for an on-sides recovery so that the offense can then drive the field and score twice in under three minutes?  Or are you saying they were throwing in the towel four minutes before the end of the game down 9 points?  I'm not sure of the point of view here.

the point of view is that there is way too much focus on the play.  it was a meaningless play and detracts from the good things that were done by the team and by bowles.  people seem to forget that he went for it on 4th and 1 and also for 2 points after the td.  i'm not saying that it means bowles is a risk averse coach but it does show he will take risks.  i've just about said all i am going to say about the play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, rangerous said:

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.

Actually, most of us want BOTH!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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




I was actually glad they didn't go for it because I was worried Bowles would show that he learned from last year. Thankfully he hasn't and we can hopefully be rid of his stupidity in 16 more weeks


Sent from my iPhone using JetNation.com mobile app

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  



×