I've found that "playing to win vs. playing not to lose" is one of the most overused turns of phrase used in discussing football...what does that even mean anymore? Looking to stick with "safer" or conventional plays vs. taking chances?
I wouldn't characterize the Cleveland game nor today's game as either playing to win or lose. I would characterize them both as simply playing stupid.
I would characterize the Cleveland game as the Bills being one-dimensional because TE was playing badly, but I wouldn't call the long kick DJ settled for over trying to move the ball a little closer in the air a higher-percentage play, and as such "playing not to lose." The roll-out by JP today, again, while it bucked the trend of conventional wisdom given the success on the ground and the imperative to run out the clock, was dumb given the circumstances. Maybe if you've got a decent, starting quality QB and some success with having run those type of plays....ok...it's maybe conceivable. But given the personnel on the field, it wasn't "playing to win." It was playing stupid.