Shaw66

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.

Their season depended on winning the last 4 games already. Or winning 3 and tying 1. They couldn't afford a loss yesterday.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I guess.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.