Shaw66
-
Posts
9,251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
14 minutes ago, sven233 said:
A tie was basically the same as a loss. We are only 25% to get in even with the win yesterday. If we would have tied, the chances would have been like 3%. So, a tie and a loss were essentially the same thing. A tie wasn't an option yesterday.
This point is lost on people all the time. It comes up this time of year in most seasons. Teams that are trying to make the playoffs know that losses knock them out, ties don't. 9-6-1 gets the Bills into the playoffs, because it leaves the Bills a half game ahead of all the teams that are 9-7. If the Bills are 9-7, it's quite likely they lose the tiebreakers and they're out.
A tie is more like a win than like a loss.
-
1
-
-
5 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:
Here's a situation almost all head coaches in the NFL get wrong:
Down by 15 with 5 minutes left. So you need one TD with an PAT and one TD with a 2 pt. conversion to tie, correct?
Your team scores a TD. Every NFL coach will kick the PAT, when analytics says you must go for two there. Why? Because it's better to know you have to score more than once more NOW if you happen to fail at the conversion, then if you kick the PAT, get the ball back, and score a TD with 30 seconds left. Yes, you're down by two now and you have to make the conversion to tie the game, correct? But it you don't make it, the game is effectively over. However, if you go for two after the first TD and fail, you're still down by 9 and you know you have to play differently to give yourself a better chance at a win - maybe an offsides KO, whatever.
But most coaches are more comfortable kicking the PAT because now they know that if they score the 2nd TD, they must go for two - or most likely lose the game. But it's the wrong decision.
This is really classic. Dozens of NFL head coaches over the past 20 years have studied this. Their jobs depend on getting decisions like this right. They all reach the same conclusion: kick after first score. And yet you sit here and tell us that you have this right and all of them have it wrong.
Here's why you're wrong: I'm always better off, any time in the fourth quarter, to be in a one score game than a two score game. Why? Well the clock is working against me, for one. But it's also better because it puts pressure on my opponent's offense. If it's a one score game, the offense feels pressure to get first downs, which means they're likely to pass more, which means they're going to be stopping the clock for me every time they throw incomplete. It also increases my chances of a takeaway. If it's a two score game, they feel more comfortable running the ball and running the clock, forcing me to use my time outs.
Every coach in the league will tell you he'd rather defend a two-score lead than a one-score lead. Your strategy plays into the hands of your opponent.
-
11 minutes ago, mannc said:
No, going for it there is low risk, high reward.
Going for it is HIGH RISK.
The reward you're after is going to the playoffs. Going for it risks losing the game, which means you don't make the playoffs. So going for it is high risk.
Punting is low risk, because the chances are good that you won't lose the game if you punt. If you don't lose the game, you're still in the playoff hunt, so punting is low risk.
-
14 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:
so if they go for it and don't make it, the game is over?
No. It's all a matter of probabilities. If they go for it and don't make it there's a higher probability that they lose.
Just like by punting they reduced the probability that the Bills would win. That's clearly true. In neither case would the game be over.
But the probabilities are what matter. The Bills could afford not to win, but they couldn't afford to lose. So the choice that gives you the higher probability of not losing is the better choice. Punting gave them the higher probability of not losing.
Turns out they had their cake and ate it too.
-
1
-
-
8 hours ago, PaattMaann said:
OK, that was quick research...according to the Game Operations Manual set forth by the NFL:
- ONLY players can clear an area on the field with their hands and feet to set up for a field goal attempt (no other team personnel is allowed to do so)
- Field officials should use judgement to assess and penalize for any violations
So, nothing is set in stone other than the two things mentioned above...so until refs tell the Bills players to get out of there (like they did with Tre) I dont see why Bills players couldnt kick the snow back into the cleared area, but you would be risking a penalty that the refs COULD legally throw...
Lots of judgement calls here by usually incompetent officials
This doesn't say the opposing team CAN'T push snow back onto the field. Seems to me that if I can clear snow to my advantage, my opponent should be able to move it, too, to HIS advantage.
However, I suspect that there's a rule that says between plays players must stay on their side of line scrimmage, unless they're on their way to or from the bench.
Otherwise, a defender could go stand in the offensive huddle and sprint back on side when the huddle broke. It would be chaos.
But that's why the officials did a bad job on this play yesterday. Between resetting the clock and the allowing non-players on the field, they gave a serious advantage to the Colts. That shouldn't happen.
-
13 minutes ago, Gugny said:
Slight adjustment.
Slight. I like it.
-
1
-
-
4 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:
this is so amazingly wrong on so many levels, I'm completely stunned.
If you want to know why we haven't been to the playoffs in 18 years, it's because the organization thinks just like this. I am literally stunned there are so many otherwise intelligent posters on this site - who have apparently watched years of football without learning a damn thing - who can't understand basic math and probability.
It's astonishing.
It's funny, because people on the other side of this argument can't believe others can't see the obvious. A loss on Sunday and the Bills are essentially out of the playoffs. A win or a tie, they're still in. So you play for the win or tie, and that means you punt.
-
2 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
Old time outdated thinking that too many NFL coaches cling to.
Outdated thinking beats no thinking every time.
-
1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
A tie was bad for their chances with a loss obviously being even worse. Recalculate as you're the one who's wrong here.
Sure, a tie is worse than a win. But a loss and the season is over.
You're always better off playing with a chance than no chance. Playing for the tie meant the Bills stay in the playoff hunt with three games left.
Going into the game Bills needed to finish 4-0 or 3-0-1. 3-0-1 is certainly worse than 4-0, but 3-0-1 keeps you in the hunt. 3-1 kills you. So, faced with an opportunity to pretty much guarantee he wouldn't lose yesterday, McD took it. Yes, now they have to beat the Pats, but they were going to have beat or tie the Pats anyway.
Losing kills them, so going for it on fourth down was a big risk without a big reward.
-
1 hour ago, Figster said:
It boiled down to who do I trust more in my humble opinion. My D, or my 3rd string QB.
T Mobiles on the field I think McD goes for it...
I'm okay with your opinion. It just isn't an obvious conclusion.
Funny, I think with Taylor on the field he makes the same decision. He trusts his defense. Done it all season long.
-
1
-
-
22 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:
It could be said easily yesterday. A tie would have been very bad for their chances.
That's just wrong. A loss would have more or less eliminated the Bills. A tie gives them a shot. Have to win out, but that's a shot. A loss yesterday and even winning out wouldn't save them.
-
13 hours ago, Shotgunner said:
I would be shocked if they rested anyone in week 16
I think Belichick might tell Gronk to get "injured" late in the Steeler game so he'll be able to sit Gronk credibly for the Bills game. I don't think Belichick wants to risk having Gronk on the field if anyone might want to retaliate.
-
1 hour ago, MAJBobby said:
In all likelihood the big picture a TIE ends your season just like it did in MIA If you tied this game you are 6-6-1.
say two wins against MIA 8-6-1
And yeah NE in NE
So you played essentially into the stacked deck a loss and a tie ENDS your season. I want my coach to understand that big picture
AND HE WOULD DO IT AGAIN he just said it.
The problem with your analysis is that you're assuming a loss to New England. Now, I agree, a loss to New England is likely, but if you assume a loss to New England the season is already over. Why? Because a loss to NE means the BEST the Bills can do is 9-7.
Now, over the past 10 years 9-7 has gotten some team a wildcard spot six times, so 9-7 might do it. However, the tiebreakers are lined up fairly badly against the Bills, so 9-7 probably has less than a 5% chance of getting the Bills in.
10-6 is the only sure way to get in, but you're already assuming a loss to the Pats, so there's not much hope for you even if the Bills beat the Colts. By your assumption, the season was done before the kickoff.
So the only way for the Bills to have any kind of reasonable chance of getting the last wildcard is for the Bills to beat the Pats in New England. If you make that assumption and the Bills sweep the other games, great, Bills are 10-6 and they're almost certainly in. But if the Bills beat the Pats in New England and go 2-1 in the other three games, the Bills are almost certainly OUT, since they finish 9-7 and lose the tie-breaker.
BUT - and here's the point - if the Bills beat the Pats in NE and go 2-0-1 in the other three games, they're in unless some other team gets to 10-6. Why? 9-6-1 is a better record than 9-7, so the tie-breakers are irrelevant.
To put it more simply, at 6-6, the Bills had to go 4-0 or 3-0-1 to make the playoffs. 3-1-0 almost certainly doesn't make it. One loss and the Bills were out. So playing not lose made a lot of sense yesterday.
-
11 minutes ago, Figster said:
If your suggesting McD should have lost confidence in his D at that point, I disagree.
I'm not suggesting it isn't completely clear you should rely on your defense when it just let you down 15 minutes ago. It's another variable that made this a very difficult decision.
Do you rely on your offense, that hasn't done much for the past hour and a half, or do you rely on your defense which nearly gave the game away 15 minutes ago? I don't know - the answer isn't obvious.
-
3 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:
And Shaw TYING ends your season so it is no different then a loss. Just like Rex in MIA
It DOESN'T end your season, and that's the whole point. LOSING ends your season; tying leaves you with possibilities.
-
21 minutes ago, dubs said:
I am sorry to say, but you are missing the point.
The premise of your point is that going for it is the equivalent of having pocket aces and punting is pocket 2s. I am saying that's unknowable. You can calculate the odds in poker, you cannot in a game with 6 inches of snow on the ground, a strong wind in one direction, a terrible offensive team on both sides of the ball, etc.... unless you can and then I am all ears because I would love to learn about it.Dubs, I think you're wrong about this. The fact that the odds can't be calculated with precision, like a the odds of a poker hand can be, doesn't mean that the odds aren't an important part of the decision making. McDermott's job was to make a decision, and in making the decision he considered what he thought the odds of success and failure were, and then the odds of winning or losing the game with either outcome on the play. Neither McD nor you nor I can say with any certainty what the odds are, but he had to make his best guess nonetheless. Otherwise, he's just guessing, and guessing is never the right to go if there's any data that's worth evaluating.
More importantly, you guys are talking about the odds of winning or losing, and as I've said, that analysis is incorrect. He had to consider the odds of winning, losing and TYING and then evaluate what the value of those various outcomes was. A tie is much closer to a win than a loss, and punting, although it decreased the likelihood of a win, also significantly decreased the likelihood of a loss. In this situation there was real value in not losing.
-
1
-
-
18 minutes ago, Figster said:
One of the main reasons I think McD decided to punt is because the D has come through on several occasions to help close out football games this season. The O on the other hand, not so much, especially with a 3rd string QB behind center.
Didn't like the call at the time, but I also had a bad feeling Buffalo wasn't going to get to the 1st down marker.
Smart, calculated, and thanks to OP's good breakdown the correct call to make.
Buffalo may not have a boatload of talent right now , but what we do have is a smart HC and a smart group of players buying into the process.
Contrary to OP I think anythings possible once you make the playoffs.
I'm a Billiever...
Right, except at the end of regulation the defense didn't come through at all.
-
9 minutes ago, MAJBobby said:
You really make yourself look like an idiot everytime you say that, go throw yourself through another table
Ummm yep they do it is real time based on what is on the field
So shaw was Rex decision to punt right? (avoiding the loss) what about Marrone (avoiding the loss)
I don't remember what Rex's decision was.
-
4 minutes ago, HappyDays said:
I don't think that's how McDermott thought about it. For the fans we look ahead at every other team's schedule and we've already decided X team will have X wins. We've already decided a tie kicks us put of the playoff race. From McDermott's perspective he needs to get the best possible record and let the chips fall where they may. A tie is better than a loss. He took what seemed like a sure tie or a decent chance to win. Whereas a 4th down failed conversion would have significantly increased our chances of losing. It wasn't an easy decision and I don't think the probability would have been that different either way. He has gone for 4th and shorts before but maybe with Joe Webb as QB it isn't a good idea.
Yes. The important point is that avoiding the loss was more important than getting the win.
McDermott got the best of both worlds: He told his defense he had confidence in them, and then his offense took advantage of the opportunity his defense presented. AND he got the win. All while he was protecting his downside by reducing the likelihood of losing, which would have been a killer.
-
8 minutes ago, WhoTom said:
I agree with your probabilities, but I disagree that a tie is a positive outcome under the circumstances. If that game ended in a tie, the Bills would most likely have to win out - including beating NE in Foxboro - to make the playoffs. In that case, McD should have played for the win instead of playing not-to-lose.
It worked out okay in the end, but I disagree with the call. Now we have to go 2-1 to have a good chance at the postseason.
The one questionable play call that nobody seems to be talking about is the pass play with about a minute in regulation. We're in our own territory with the 3rd-string QB in a blizzard. That's the time to be conservative - run the ball and play for OT.
I don't think so. I couldn't possibly calculate the probabilities, but I think the bottom line is this: With a loss yesterday, Bills had to win out to have a chance of getting into the playoffs. Had to. Practically no chance otherwise. With a tie yesterday, Bills would have had a shot at the playoffs without a win in Foxboro, and would have been in great shape if they won out.
-
1 minute ago, HappyDays said:
If we didn't convert the game was over. We would have lost field position.
And the importance of field position is magnified in low-scoring games.
-
27 minutes ago, richardb1952 said:
Shaw66;
Any comment on the punt on 4th and 1 in OT? I personally thought it was the wrong call at the time, but I could see where coach was coming from. Poor conditions, 3rd string QB, Punt and play defense for 3 and out/ turnover.
Here's the same long post I just posted in the thread about that question:
Punting on 4th and 1 was the right decision.
Let me start by saying that I was watching the game at a sports bar. The room was filled with the audio from another game, so I couldn’t hear the announcers for the Bills game. Looking at the screen, it was impossible to know where the ball was because all the yard markings were obliterated. The network only occasionally showed in writing where the ball was. So when they got to 4th and 1, I thought punting was a good idea because I would have guessed the Bills hadn’t crossed the 50.
If I had known that they were at the Colts 41, I would have said go for it. And that would have been the wrong decision. Here’s why:
The objective is to make the playoffs. For the coaches and players, that’s all that matters. And when you get to this point of the season, it’s almost like you’re already in the playoffs.
The over-riding rule in playoffs is “survive and advance.” In other words, it doesn’t matter how you survive, it doesn’t matter how ugly or how beautiful or whatever. Survive. Giving yourself another game where you have a chance is what you need. Whether you can win that next game is irrelevant; just getting to the next game is all you want – you’ll worry about how to win that game later.
Survive and advance is where the Bills are now, along with all the other teams in the AFC hovering around .500 and trying to get to the postseason.
And in this period when you’re fighting to get into the playoffs, there is a second important point: Tie games are closer to wins than to losses. Why? Well, 9-6-1 gets you into the playoffs over every 9-7 team, so you don’t have to look to tie-breakers. 8-7-1 gets you in over every 8-8 team, and this is one of those years were 8-8 could actually be enough.
In other words, a tie is not a neutral result. A tie is a positive result. Yes, a win is better. But a tie is more like a win than like a loss. Stated differently, it’s more important not to lose than it is to win.
Okay, with that in mind, go back to 4th and 1 at the Colts 41. I don’t know the exact probabilities, but looking just at winning or losing, I’d say that going for it on fourth down gave the Bills a 50-50 chance of winning or losing. Why? Because the chances of making the first down were around 50-50. Whichever team had the ball on the next play would have had four minutes left and would have needed to move the ball about 25 yards to try a field goal. The Bills would have needed 25 to get to the 15 to have a shot at 35 yard field goal into the wind, and the Colts would have need 25 to get to the Bills 35 to try a 50-yard field goal with the wind at their back. We can argue about the percentages and how far they had to go, etc. but I think I’m in the ball park.
So in a two-outcome scenario, going for it is more or less a coin toss. But it isn’t a two-outcome scenario; it’s three outcomes – win, lose or tie. It isn’t 50-50; it’s more like 40-40-20.
Given that the Bills are in the playoff hunt, and given that in the hunt ties are more like wins than losses, it’s easy to see why punting was the right call. If the Bills punt, the chances that either the Bills or the Colts will win the game (if those are the only choices) are probably still 50-50. The Colts have the ball, which is a plus for them, but they have a long way to go. The Bills don’t have the ball but they have field position, but they also may run out of time.
But those aren’t the only choices; it’s a three outcome scenario. Although if they punt the chances the Bills will win go down, probably pretty dramatically, the chances that they get a tie go way up. I’d guess that punting with 4 minutes left reduce the chances of the Bills winning in those conditions to 20%, probably less. But the chances of tying go UP from 20% to 60%.
Remember, in the playoff hunt, winning is the objective, but not losing is more important than winning. Going for it on 4th and 1 the Bills had a 60% chance of not losing. Punting they had an 80% chance of not losing. Punting was the right call.
Survive and advance.
-
Punting on 4th and 1 was the right decision.
Let me start by saying that I was watching the game at a sports bar. The room was filled with the audio from another game, so I couldn’t hear the announcers for the Bills game. Looking at the screen, it was impossible to know where the ball was because all the yard markings were obliterated. The network only occasionally showed in writing where the ball was. So when they got to 4th and 1, I thought punting was a good idea because I would have guessed the Bills hadn’t crossed the 50.
If I had known that they were at the Colts 41, I would have said go for it. And that would have been the wrong decision. Here’s why:
The objective is to make the playoffs. For the coaches and players, that’s all that matters. And when you get to this point of the season, it’s almost like you’re already in the playoffs.
The over-riding rule in playoffs is “survive and advance.” In other words, it doesn’t matter how you survive, it doesn’t matter how ugly or how beautiful or whatever. Survive. Giving yourself another game where you have a chance is what you need. Whether you can win that next game is irrelevant; just getting to the next game is all you want – you’ll worry about how to win that game later.
Survive and advance is where the Bills are now, along with all the other teams in the AFC hovering around .500 and trying to get to the postseason.
And in this period when you’re fighting to get into the playoffs, there is a second important point: Tie games are closer to wins than to losses. Why? Well, 9-6-1 gets you into the playoffs over every 9-7 team, so you don’t have to look to tie-breakers. 8-7-1 gets you in over every 8-8 team, and this is one of those years were 8-8 could actually be enough.
In other words, a tie is not a neutral result. A tie is a positive result. Yes, a win is better. But a tie is more like a win than like a loss. Stated differently, until you absolutely MUST win, it’s more important not to lose than it is to win.
Okay, with that in mind, go back to 4th and 1 at the Colts 41. I don’t know the exact probabilities, but looking just at winning or losing, I’d say that going for it on fourth down gave the Bills a 50-50 chance of winning or losing. Why? Because the chances of making the first down were around 50-50. Whichever team had the ball on the next play would have had four minutes left and would have needed to move the ball about 25 yards to try a field goal. The Bills would have needed 25 to get to the 15 to have a shot at 35-yard field goal into the wind, and the Colts would have need 25 to get to the Bills 35 to try a 50-yard field goal with the wind at their back. We can argue about the percentages and how far they had to go, etc. but I think I’m in the ball park.
So in a two-outcome scenario, going for it is more or less a coin toss. But it isn’t a two-outcome scenario; it’s three outcomes – win, lose or tie. It isn’t 50-50; it’s more like 40-40-20.
Given that the Bills are in the playoff hunt, and given that in the hunt ties are more like wins than losses, it’s easy to see why punting was the right call. If the Bills punt, the chances that either the Bills or the Colts will win the game (if those are the only choices) are probably still 50-50. The Colts have the ball, which is a plus for them, but they have a long way to go. The Bills don’t have the ball but they have field position, but they also may run out of time.
But those aren't the only choices; it’s a three outcome scenario. Although if they punt the chances the Bills will win go down, probably pretty dramatically, the chances that they get a tie go way up. I’d guess that punting with 4 minutes left reduces the chances of the Bills winning in those conditions to 20%, probably less. But the chances of tying go UP from 20% to 60%.
Remember, in the playoff hunt, winning is the objective, but not losing is more important than winning. Going for it on 4th and 1 the Bills had a 60% chance of not losing. Punting they had an 80% chance of not losing. Punting was the right call.
Survive and advance.
-
1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:
I'm looking forward to next season. But I'm not ready to say this season is over yet!
I'm watching with interest. But this team is going nowhere in the playoffs, so making the playoffs just means breaking the drought and not much more. I care more about being good than how many years it's been.
I don't see the Bills compete g with any team likely to be in the playoffs.
Gutless Call to Punt
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
This point is completely separate from the one I was making, but it's also correct.
Without regard to playoffs, the punt is correct because of the kind of game it was.
What do the announcers say about who will win the game that is 35-35 after three quarters? They say the team with the last possession will win, because the teams are scoring on almost every possession.
What's the opposite of that? In low scoring games, the rule is and always has been that field position determines the outcome. So in low scoring games, where the ball is on the field is more important than which team possesses it at any given time.
Remember the world's worst football game? Bills lose to the Browns 6-3. It was a total field position game. Neither team could move the ball, so it was 3-3 forever. Browns punt with two minutes left. Roscoe knows his offense is not going to move the ball 40 yards downfield or more to try a field goal into the wind at the open end of the stadium. So he makes a high risk effort to catch the ball on the run, figuring he's the best hope to get a big gain or a score. Muffs the punt, Browns recover and get the field position their offense couldn't give them, kick field goal and Bills lose.
Except for two drives, it was a field position game. McD knows that, the fans don't.