Shaw66
-
Posts
9,726 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
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
-
-
5 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:
He wasn't playing for the tie. A punt gets you 30 yards closer to a win. Concedes the opening drive, turns game into sudden death.
You guys are underestimating the power of the D. 14 points were scored the whole game. If BFLo was to win via kick, Colts would have to have a possession.
What better place to put that possession than on their own 10!!
Sign of the times we live in. People's risk assessment are off the rails. Pulling cart before the horse!
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.
-
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
-
Gutless Call to Punt
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
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.