Bad Brian Flores Decision

[dw49]

Why not take the ball after winning the coin toss. You have to figure Allen would not start the second half ?

[life long]

They lost by a mile. Buffalo wanted the 2 seed

[GoColts8818]

Well they got an INT and points if I am not mistaken because of that decision.  Honestly of the problems Miami had today I think that was the least of their worries.

[waterdog]

11 hours ago, dw49 said:

Why not take the ball after winning the coin toss. You have to figure Allen would not start the second half ?

You're right, and Belichick would have taken the ball, hoping for one less series for Josh.

I was tracking only the Bengals game, and checked the Buffalo score at halftime, with Ravens controlling the ball ~26 of the first 30 minutes.

[NewColtsFan]

Didn’t I read that Buffalo and Allen went 3 and out on their first three drives?   Don’t know if it’s true (I’ll check and correct if it’s wrong).   But if true then the decision to let the Bills go on offense first wasn’t bad.   Didn’t hurt the Dolphins at all. 
 

[dw49]

5 hours ago, NewColtsFan said:

Didn’t I read that Buffalo and Allen went 3 and out on their first three drives?   Don’t know if it’s true (I’ll check and correct if it’s wrong).   But if true then the decision to let the Bills go on offense first wasn’t bad.   Didn’t hurt the Dolphins at all. 
 

 

If you read my post , I didn't say this hurt Miami's chances in the game. What I said was considering it was highly unlikely Josh Allen would be the QB at then start of the second half , he should have taken the ball. Your argument is like staying on 16 vs a 20 in blackjack . If you do that 100 times , you will win less hands than you would hitting it. Unless you are counting , then you would need only a true count of minus 1 to justify staying as it's a close play. But my point is if you stay on 20 vs the dealer's 10 and he ends up breaking , that doesn't mean you made the correct play. IMO ... same would be true here. 

[chad72]

5 minutes ago, dw49 said:

 

If you read my post , I didn't say this hurt Miami's chances in the game. What I said was considering it was highly unlikely Josh Allen would be the QB at then start of the second half , he should have taken the ball. Your argument is like staying on 16 vs a 20 in blackjack . If you do that 100 times , you will win less hands than you would hitting it. Unless you are counting , then you would need only a true count of minus 1 to justify staying as it's a close play. But my point is if you stay on 20 vs the dealer's 10 and he ends up breaking , that doesn't mean you made the correct play. IMO ... same would be true here. 

 

But when you start by saying 'bad...decision', it implies you are saying this hurt Miami's chances. That is what is misleading.

 

It was a puzzling decision purely from an analytics point of view, that should be your argument. But then, lots of coaches go with analytics and lots of them do not. 

[dw49]

1 minute ago, chad72 said:

 

But when you start by saying 'bad...decision', it implies you are saying this hurt Miami's chances. That is what is misleading.

 

It was a puzzling decision purely from an analytics point of view, that should be your argument. But then, lots of coaches go with analytics and lots of them do not. 

 

I never said the decision hurt them in the game. It was a "decision" Flores made after winning the coin toss. My post said considering that Allen was said to be on limited playing time , the "decision" was IMO incorrect. Remember that teams , when they do defer , can cost their teams one less possession. Thus , again ... IMO , this "decision " was incorrect.

[chad72]

Just now, dw49 said:

 

I never said the decision hurt them in the game. It was a "decision" Flores made after winning the coin toss. My post said considering that Allen was said to be on limited playing time , the "decision" was IMO incorrect. Remember that teams , when they do defer , can cost their teams one less possession. Thus , again ... IMO , this "decision " was incorrect.

 

Rename the title to 'Incorrect Decision' then instead of doubling down and tripling down on what everyone sees as a trivial argument.

[dw49]

4 minutes ago, chad72 said:

 

Rename the title to 'Incorrect Decision' then instead of doubling down and tripling down on what everyone sees as a trivial argument.

 

Naa... just leave the thread if it bothers you. Furthermore , I don't believe you can change the title .

 

[NewColtsFan]

3 hours ago, dw49 said:

 

If you read my post , I didn't say this hurt Miami's chances in the game. What I said was considering it was highly unlikely Josh Allen would be the QB at then start of the second half , he should have taken the ball. Your argument is like staying on 16 vs a 20 in blackjack . If you do that 100 times , you will win less hands than you would hitting it. Unless you are counting , then you would need only a true count of minus 1 to justify staying as it's a close play. But my point is if you stay on 20 vs the dealer's 10 and he ends up breaking , that doesn't mean you made the correct play. IMO ... same would be true here. 

I think you start with a flawed premise or two... 

 

That it was highly unlikely Allen would start the second half.   I think the only way it was likely was if Buffalo was rolling on Miami — which they did.   But if your Miami’s head coach, that can’t be your mindset deciding whether or not to receive or defend. 
 

Plus....

 

The strength of Miami’s team is its defense.  They were #1 in the NFL in scoring defense.  I think Flores was trying to tell Allen his team didn’t fear him.  That they were willing to take him on right from the jump.   Perhaps with some success, they get inside his head just a little?   Now, that clearly didn’t happen, but I don’t think Flores can be faulted for having faith in his own team.  
 

Just food for thought... 

[coltsva]

After watching Tua and the Miami offense, I can understand Flores decision to put his defense on the field first.

 

I think this would make for an interesting discussion if the Bills had marched down the field and put up some quick points.

[dw49]

18 minutes ago, NewColtsFan said:

I think you start with a flawed premise or two... 

 

That it was highly unlikely Allen would start the second half.   I think the only way it was likely was if Buffalo was rolling on Miami — which they did.   But if your Miami’s head coach, that can’t be your mindset deciding whether or not to receive or defend. 
 

Plus....

 

The strength of Miami’s team is its defense.  They were #1 in the NFL in scoring defense.  I think Flores was trying to tell Allen his team didn’t fear him.  That they were willing to take him on right from the jump.   Perhaps with some success, they get inside his head just a little?   Now, that clearly didn’t happen, but I don’t think Flores can be faulted for having faith in his own team.  
 

Just food for thought... 

 

It was stated before the game that Barkley was going to get significant snaps. Plus the line went from Buffalo minus 2 to miami minus 4. Add in the fact that Buffalo sat their 2 best defensive players and it kind of points to Allen probably sitting. But I hear you ....valid points but I think the odds of Miami possibly losing a possession vs facing a Barkley led team in the second half kick off clearly pointing to him electing the opening half kick off. Don't forget until a short time ago , teams always elected to receive the opening kick off. Reason being is it could mean an extra possession .