Shaw66
-
Posts
9,251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
1 minute ago, ScottLaw said:
They are the 2007 Jauron led Buffalo Bills. The AFC is incredibly weak. Bills would be a lock for the playoffs had they kept some key pieces and built an offense around the strengths of the team.
Instead McEgo traded all the talented guys away for scrubs who play hard.
The team is doing a nice job of playing Jauron ball by getting leads and basically punting while hoping the defense can hold until the clock expires.
I expect 1-2 down the stretch and more fan blame on Tyrod rather than the guy in charge who made bad trades and hired these moron offensive coaches.
I'm even okay with the trades. I think the Bills would have been much better if they'd simply tailored the offense more to Taylor.
One point I've been making all season is that the Bills have been trying to get Taylor to pass out of a traditional pocket, a cup that the QB stands in. That takes away Taylor's ability to scramble.
Last week I finally heard an announcer say what I've been saying about the Saints. They don't make Brees stand in a pocket like that. They don't steer DEs around the outside. They keep the pass rush in front of them. If the DEs beat the tackles to the inside, they don't worry about it, because Brees can scramble and avoid the sack.
The Bills refused to do that. I think the Bills offense could have been substantially better than it was. still a threat.
Did it hurt to lose Watkins.? Well maybe. But they brought in Benjamin, a different kind of threat, but still a threat.
-
16 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:
I heard it on wgr today. They definitely would need some help
I have to admit I'm thoroughly confused on the tie-breakers. I just started looking at the standings, and what the networks have been showing apparently is wrong. Right now the Bills apparently are in the #6 spot, so they have the tie-breakers on the Ravens and the Chargers. Head to head, which they obviously lose to the Chargers, doesn't count in a 3-way tie. Chargers lose out because their conference win-loss is worse than Bills and Ravens. That might not hold after three more weeks.
When I step back and look at all this, I find it all very weird. We've all watched the Bills this season, and as exciting as the first several weeks were, I don't there are many Bills fans who think the Bills are a good team today. Maybe they're better than we think - maybe their defense is back to being good (three good games in a row - Chiefs, Pats and Colts), but I'm not feeling it. And yet here we are about how legitimate a shot they have at the playoffs. Playoffs? This team? In disarray at the most important position, no receivers, mediocre to horrible pass protection. Playoffs?
-
1 minute ago, NoSaint said:
Oh jeeze— I appreciate you actually adding the context to your stance here. I think we are so far off on philosophy that it’s probably just agree to disagree here.
The benefit of a punt from the 27 is just so non-existent in my philosophy...
Yeah, I'm with you. I think you have to consider how much you improve field position with the punt. As I said, 25 yards was worth it. I don't think 15 yards would have been worth it.
-
2 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:
9 and 7 gives them a 60 percent chance to get in as of now
Where does it say this?
My understanding is that there's only a 14 or 16% chance that they make it, and they only have 6 losses now.
I looked and in 5 of the last 10 years NO team at 9-7 made the playoffs as a wildcard. In the other team one of the 9-7 teams made it. So I don't see how the Bills could possibly have a 60% chance of getting in. Right now they're behind in the tie breakers to two teams that also could finish 9-7, so I don't see how they could be 60%. The Bills need a lot of help if they're getting in at 9-7.
-
8 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:
You can't bank your season on winning the last 3 games, especially with two road games and one against the defending champs.
Their season depended on winning the last 4 games already. Or winning 3 and tying 1. They couldn't afford a loss yesterday.
-
23 minutes ago, NoSaint said:
I’m still curious at what yard line you would go for it, happy or Shaw? 35? 30? Not until you are confident you make the fg (and where is that?)
also, if you miss at the 40, what do you think the odds of the colts scoring are?
That's a good question. Certainly go for it at the 30. It's 47 yard field goal into the wind, so that's not a good idea. Punting from the 40 you can count on gaining 25 yards of field position, maybe more. That's worth it. Punting from the 30 only gets you 25 yards, so it isn't a big enough difference.
It's really an odd situation. I'd almost say that you never go for it. Either punt or kick the field goal. But I certainly would have gone for it on the 30.
I don't know the odds of the Colts scoring from anywhere. All I know is that the odds are considerably higher when they start 25 yards closer. Remember, Vinatieri probably only needed the line of scrimmage to be at the 35 to have a shot at the field goal. Turning the ball over at the 40 would have given the Colts a short field. So I'd say the Colts chances of winning from the 40 were probably twice there chances from the 15.
-
3 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:
I want a coach who isn't content with a tie to a bottom feeder...
At the end of the season you make the playoffs if you have enough wins compared to losses. No one asks who your wins were against or who you losses were to. You make the playoffs on your record.
I'm sorry if a tie would have hurt your feelings; I want a coach who's trying to preserve the Bills chances to make the playoffs.
-
4 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
This just isn't true. The only result that killed the season was a loss. You really want a coach who assumes a loss to New England?? Guys like that don't make it in the NFL, they post on message boards.
Every once in a while you find one of these threads where you feel like you've been transported to another planet. This is one of them, Happy. I should have warned you.
The funny thing is that most of the posters here think you and I are the ones from outer space.
-
12 minutes ago, NoSaint said:
If he was content playing for a tie yesterday because he believes we will win out... well, count me out.
He went into the game believing he had to win out. Next Bills loss probably ends their season. He knew he couldn't afford a loss. He could live with a tie, but not with a loss.
-
3 minutes ago, PolishDave said:
Some of you guys really, really, really miss Dick Jauron apparently.
I liked Jauron. We was the all-time conservative coach.
Jauron was really smart. Really smart. He understood that if you have subpar talent, the only way to compete was to keep the score low. He had subpar talent, so he kept the score low. His defenses didn't allow big plays - if you scored on him, you scored by going on long, time consuming drives. His offenses ran the clock, and he punted a lot. The result was (1) boring football and (2) a lot of games that were close in the fourth quarter. Three years of teams that competed more than they deserved.
I've often wondered what he would have done if he had any talent on his teams. His conservative approach would have been deadly with a lot of talent, but maybe his approach would have changed with talent.
-
1 hour ago, NoSaint said:
The only metric that mattered was our odds of scoring. A tie is as good as a loss. That’s exactly the issue here- you have to play yesterday to win. Not losing isn’t good enough.
If you think it was the right call to punt you are arguing, essentially, that punting made us more likely to score. If true I’m curious how far we have to get for that to tip. We weren’t kicking a fg at the 35, so do you still punt there, for instance? Anything across the 50 seems a no brainer to go for it to me.
Just in case you didn't see my earlier posts:
Going into the game, the Bills needed to finish the season 4-0 or 3-0-1. If they finish the season 3-1, they'd finish 9-7 and there's practically no chance they will win the tie breakers. In other words, if they lose a game, they're out. So a tie is not as good as a loss - a loss is fatal and a tie isn't.
McDermott's objective is to keep playing meaningful games. A loss makes the rest of the games this season. A tie means next week is meaningful.
Others have posted these numbers: With a win, the Bills had a 14% chance of making the playoffs, with a tie 3% and with a loss 0%.
So there was real value in playing not to lose. A tie means the Bills have a chance.
-
2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:
No, it was Bart Starr's idea and Vince went along with it because they were cold and wanted to go home and he trusted his QB I guess.
Like I said, you actually believe that?
Do you actually believe that he didn't know that if he went for the field goal, his chance of winning was less than 50%? You think he didn't know that? And you think he didn't compare that piece of knowledge with whether he thought the chances of scoring on the sneak were better than 50%? You think he was just standing on the sideline empty headed? Or he was thinking about what he'd have for dinner that night?
What do you think he was thinking about?
I think he was thinking about how to win the game. You think he was just standing there picking his nose and Starr said "let's go for it" and he said "why not?"
Okay.
2 hours ago, NoSaint said:So, for those that think the odds of being the next to score went up when we punted... where is the tipping point for you? The 35? Do you punt from closer than that?
I don't think the chances of scoring went up they punted. The chances of scoring went down. But the chances of the Colts scoring also went down, and that is the important point. The chances of getting a tie went way up.
-
4 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:
He did it because everybody was cold and didn't' want to have to play OT. Either win it or lose it and it'd be over. That's what he said.
I know what he said. Do you really believe that one of the greatest, most detail oriented coaches of all time decided that way? I don't.
It was very simple. If he goes for the field goal, his chances of winning are under 50-50 because he might miss the field goal. If he goes for the win, his chances of winning are whatever he thinks they are. If he thinks it's 60% or 70%, going for it is the smart call.
-
17 minutes ago, Dunkirk Don said:
If the bills lose on Sunday to Miami, that will be the last time we see Tyrod take a snap for the Bills. Bills will be moving on and heavily targeting Kirk cousins
I think that's a really good guess.
I can't imagine they're planning to go forward in 2018 with Taylor starting, unless they have a rookie phenom who just isn't ready.
-
35 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:
What if you were in a game and you had the football with 16 seconds left and no timeouts. It's 3rd down on the opponents 1 yard line down by 3. What do you do? Kick a FG to take it to OT or try a QB sneak? If you don't get the sneak, you lose. What do you do? What do stats tell us to do?
The guy that went for the QB sneak now has the Super Bowl trophy named after him. Considered to be one of the greatest calls in NFL history.
Coaching decisions work like this: If it works, you're a coaching genius. If not, you're a dumbass.
This doesn't necessarily prove the point you think it does. You think you're winning an argument because Lombardi didn't go conservative, and that therefore going conservative is a bad thing. That isn't correct.
As I've been saying throughout this thread, it's about probabilities. The outcome Lombardi was looking for was a win. He made a judgment about which choice gave him the best chance to win.
So you have to work through the options. What's the probability of scoring on the sneak? I don't know, call it 60%. Lombardi liked the sneak because his interior linemen were good, could get their footing set before the snap and probably could get a good push. After all, they'd just driven to the one.
He didn't like the footing for his kicker - the kicker had to approach the ball and could slip. What's the probability that he makes the kick? Well, in good weather, maybe 95%. In this weather, maybe 80%.
Okay, so his chances of tying are better than his chances of winning on the sneak. But the game isn't over if he ties. Then he has a coin toss, and he has only a 50-50 chance there. So if he loses the toss and the Cowboys score, he's lost the game. What are the chances that either team scores on the first possession? Not great, it's a low scoring game. So the overtime is probably going to go at least a few possessions. That means you have to figure your chances of winning are only 50-50.
When you do all the math, what that tells you is that if you go for the field goal, you have an 80% chance of making the field goal and a 50% chance of winning in overtime, which means kicking the field goal gives you a 40% chance of winning the game. If you think you have a 60% chance of scoring on the sneak, the sneak is the better choice.
It's not about taking risk; it's about evaluating risk.
-
36 minutes ago, artmalibu said:
This topic is old already. Most say go for it, I would.
But what gets me mad is the waste of the timeout. If you going to try and pin them and get the ball back, fine but to waste a timeout to talk about it is awful
I'm not exactly sure what this means - the "wasted time out." What was "wasted" about it? The clock was running. The timeout stopped the clock. In some ways it doesn't matter when you stop the clock, because you save the same amount of time. Or were they way into the play clock when they took the TO? I don't remember.
Edit - just checked. They DID let the play clock run down with the clock running. Then it WAS a wasted timeout.
-
1 hour ago, Scott7975 said:
Technically in moral victories he is right. In reality 8-7-1 is not getting in the playoffs. 9-7 itself might barely squeak us in. So without playoffs draft order is the next goal IMO. 8-7-1 is worse for us draft wise than 8-8 is.
8-7-1 isn't the issue. 9-6-1 is. 9-6-1 gets the Bills in, 9-7 probably doesn't.
The only outcome yesterday that almost certainly knocks you out is a loss. A win or a tie gives you a fighting chance.
-
1 minute ago, joesixpack said:
don't mind domdab. he's...different.
I guess.
-
3 minutes ago, sven233 said:
You don't get it...... a TIE put our probability to make the Playoffs at about 3%. A loss is 0%. You had to win based on the math of what's left on the schedule for us and every other team.
Wait. Today the Bills probability of getting into the playoffs is 16% or so. You're saying it would have been 3% if they'd tied and 0% if they'd lost?
That is EXACTLY my point. Survive and advance. The only unacceptable option was losing. I want winning, but in that situation I'll take tying, because 3% is definitely better than O%. And let's face it, 16% aint great.
Survive and advance. We survive with a tie and we don't with a loss. And then, amazingly, we got the win anyway.
-
1
-
-
13 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:
LOL do you even know what the playoff machine is?
Here you go, have a ball: http://www.espn.com/nfl/playoffs/machine
Well, I'm confused. This site says the Bills are 6th. It also says the Bills win the tie breaker over the Chargers. But it also says the first tie breaker is head to head, and if memory serves the Chargers slipped past Bills by about 30 when they played, so how are the Bills in?
Chargers have Chiefs, Jets, Raiders. They should go 2-1, maybe 3-0. Bills lose to Pats and go 2-1. How do the Bills get in?
-
2 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:
I think everybody including shady would agree there will never be another Barry Sanders...
but if Barry ever had a long lost son or a doppelgänger
he would play like Lesean McCoy
I think it's heresy to say anyone is like Barry Sanders, but I agree with you. Sanders was so special it's hard to imagine anyone doing what he did.
But Shady comes closer than anyone I've seen. It truly is a pleasure to watch him.
-
Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:
Yes! Rolling it all on one play was foolish.
Why do QBs intentionally throw the ball away instead of throwing into double coverage? Because rolling it all on one play is foolish.
Serious competitors know that the smart move is to live to play another day. Survive and advance.
-
1
-
-
3 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:
Uhm no, as long as we beat the Dolphins both games, we have a decent shot at the playoffs. Titans have to lose two games, though, and the Chargers have to win their division. It'd be better to beat the Patriots, yes...but if we tied the Colts game, we'd have to beat the Patriots to have any chance at all.
That's true. But the chances of the pieces falling just right are pretty slim. It could happen, but probably not. Any coach will tell you he'd rather his fate in his own hands, and with a tie or a win McDermott pretty much did. With a loss, he didn't.
-
7 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:
And if they tie with the /colts they have to beat the Patriots. You sure you know what you're talking about, Shaw?
how far exactly did it get him? Any Super bowl wins?
If they BEAT the Colts they STILL have to beat the Patriots. If they lose to the Pats they're 9-7 and lose the tie-breakers. Before yesterday's game the practical reality was the Bills had to go 4-0 or 3-0-1. Beating (or tying) the Pats was always on the agenda.
-
2
-
Gutless Call to Punt
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Yeah, he did. He had no quarterback, for starters. No running back, no receivers, no recognizable names other than Urlacher.
Look back at that season. They won a ton of close games, a few in OT.
They 5 and 11 the season before and 4 and 12 the year after.