Gutless Call to Punt

[BillsFan130]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

This is where we disagree. I don't think we can afford to lose another game either way. I doubt McDermott thought about it this hard, but when I look at tiebreakers and the records of the other wildcard contenders I just don't see a path in at 9-7. But 9-6-1, absolutely.

Apparently if they finish 9 and 7 they have a 60 percent chance to get in. But yes I know what you're saying.

 

Honestly answer this though. Do you actually think the bills are going to go in New England and win? From a fans perspective, not a coaches perspective

Just now, Shaw66 said:

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

9 and 7 gives them a 60 percent chance to get in as of now

[keepthefaith]

One thing that really bugs me about the NFL is how most teams needing a yard so often can't get it.  Granted the weather yesterday limits the playbook but to me teams have to work harder on short yardage.  When you need less than 2 yards on any down, you damn well should get it most of the time running the ball. 

[HappyDays]

1 minute ago, NoSaint said:

Come on happy- give me this one... where do you pull the trigger and go for it?

 

Or do you punt until a field goal, and at what yard line do you make that call?

 

I wouldn't have bothered with a field goal until like the 10. I would have punted anywhere up to maybe the 25. It was pretty much a sure thing we were getting the ball back and Shady had been dangerously close to breaking a long TD run a few times. Field position is what matters there. Lost in all this is that the Bills have sucked at converting 3rd/4th and short situations. Playing to lose is counting on the weakest part of your team to win the game for you. Playing to win is living to see another drive.

[Augie]

I’m not making excuses, but this was a year designed to set up the future. Look at how they dumped players/contracts and accumulated draft picks. It was never “giving up” on this year, but it was never “all in at all costs” either. We are not a player away (even a QB). Having said that, win a couple more and I call it a good start. 

[NoSaint]

Just now, HappyDays said:

 

I wouldn't have bothered with a field goal until like the 10. I would have punted anywhere up to maybe the 25. It was pretty much a sure thing we were getting the ball back and Shady had been dangerously close to breaking a long TD run a few times. Field position is what matters there. Lost in all this is that the Bills have sucked at converting 3rd/4th and short situations. Playing to lose is counting on the weakest part of your team to win the game for you. Playing to win is living to see another drive.

 

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... 

[Shaw66]

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.  

[HappyDays]

3 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:

Apparently if they finish 9 and 7 they have a 60 percent chance to get in. But yes I know what you're saying.

 

Honestly answer this though. Do you actually think the bills are going to go in New England and win? From a fans perspective, not a coaches perspective

 

I haven't seen that percentage but I could believe it's true. But that's not so far off from 50/50. I just want us to assume we need to win our last 3 games, and in that world a tie against the Colts is totally fine. People are saying a tie is the same as a loss, but in the world where we need to win our last 3 games no matter what a tie is the same as a win. Only a loss is a loss. I don't know which world we're in yet.

 

As a fan I don't think we are winning that game. But I'm assuming we need to. I'm not exactly optimistic about our playoff chances, this whole year to me is just a test and preparation for the future.

[BillsFan130]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

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.  

I heard it on wgr today. They definitely would need some help

[Shaw66]

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.  

[HappyDays]

5 minutes 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 get it, I have completely changed my mind in the last 24 hours. I would have supported it either way. And by no means do I agree with everything McDermott has done this year, not even close. But I realized a tie is much better than a loss here and his decision in that respect was right.

[BillsFan130]

1 minute ago, HappyDays said:

 

I haven't seen that percentage but I could believe it's true. But that's not so far off from 50/50. I just want us to assume we need to win our last 3 games, and in that world a tie against the Colts is totally fine. People are saying a tie is the same as a loss, but in the world where we need to win our last 3 games no matter what a tie is the same as a win. Only a loss is a loss. I don't know which world we're in yet.

 

As a fan I don't think we are winning that game. But I'm assuming we need to. I'm not exactly optimistic about our playoff chances, this whole year to me is just a test and preparation for the future.

I guess from a fans perspective, I'm mad he didn't go for it because I'm assuming the bills have 0 chance against the Pats. So tie against the Colts and lose against the Pats, the season is done.

 

I understand the coach can't mark losses on the calendar, but he should also know it's almost an impossible task to win those last 3 games, especially given the tough schedule ahead. That's where I think he mis calculated the decision to play"not to lose".

 

9 and 7 gives you a descent shot so you can maybe afford to lose one more game. 8-7-1 gives you no shot

[GoBills808]

Awesome roughing call

[NoSaint]

29 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

One thing that really bugs me about the NFL is how most teams needing a yard so often can't get it.  Granted the weather yesterday limits the playbook but to me teams have to work harder on short yardage.  When you need less than 2 yards on any down, you damn well should get it most of the time running the ball. 

 

Agreed. 

 

Its one of those stats that makes such a difference too. I think I heard the announcer say the eagles were 12-12 in 3rd or 4th and 1 situations this year? The pats are likewise consistently above average. Converting 4 and 1 is essentially manufacturing a turnover and I think we can all agree on how important the turnover battle is. 

[Shaw66]

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?

[PolishDave]

40 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I wouldn't have bothered with a field goal until like the 10. I would have punted anywhere up to maybe the 25. It was pretty much a sure thing we were getting the ball back and Shady had been dangerously close to breaking a long TD run a few times. Field position is what matters there. Lost in all this is that the Bills have sucked at converting 3rd/4th and short situations. Playing to lose is counting on the weakest part of your team to win the game for you. Playing to win is living to see another drive.

 

That is flat out apeshit crazy.

 

 

 

Come on dude... You made that up.

 

No way in hell you really believe that.    Just no way.

Edited December 12, 2017 by PolishDave

[reddogblitz]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

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. 

 

Did he have sub par talent in Chicago when he went 13-3? I believe Brian Erlacher was on that team.

[Augie]

8 minutes 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.

It’s nice to know we can always count on you!   

[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.  

[reddogblitz]

The percentages are based on past games. I would wonder how many of those games the field was covered n 8" of snow in OT with your 3rd string QB?  The answer is ZERO. 

 

I don't think one should blindly follow the percentages in such an extreme circumstance.  He made the right decision because we won.

 

I have never in many years of following football have heard so much whining after a win.

[Domdab99]

55 minutes ago, keepthefaith said:

One thing that really bugs me about the NFL is how most teams needing a yard so often can't get it.  Granted the weather yesterday limits the playbook but to me teams have to work harder on short yardage.  When you need less than 2 yards on any down, you damn well should get it most of the time running the ball. 

 

??? Have you ever played football?