Shaw66

That's an interesting theory. McD doesn't do much with a reason, and that's a better rationale than most we heard when that craziness was going on.

As I said, I think it's a close question. If you put another 7 points on the board, it shortens the game in another way - the number of scores, and therefore the number of possessions, your opponent needs goes up. With a two-score lead, your defense has to be tighter; with a three-score lead you can go into more of a no-doubles defense and force the opponent to burn clock. Frankly, I think what decides the question is the nature of the team you have. In this case, McD has a team where he trusts the D more than the O. Sohe decides that burning clock and punting is okay because it reduces the possibility of mistakes and puts his better unit on the field.

I know the feeling, but I really wonder if that's the difference between a coach and a fan. Yes, I want my team to be dominant and look like they're in total control. But look at what that attitude got the Falcons in the Super Bowl. They went for the jugular instead of preserving the field goal try and running the clock, and they lost the game. I really don't know the answer, but I understand the logical. The question is when you're leading by more than two scores in the second half, is it a better move to keep pounding on their defense or to go more conservative to run the clock. I think the analysis goes something like this: Aggressive: If I keep playing a diverse offense with a fair amount of passing, I can another touchdown or two and put the game out of reach by early in the fourth quarter. Even if I don't score, if I get a couple more first downs than I would get going conservative, I hold the ball longer and run some clock. What's the downside? Two or three things: Passing risks losing field position if I get sacked. Passing increases the risk of a turnover. And perhaps most important, if subtle: each incomplete pass is like a timeout for the other side. That is, each incomplete pass saves the opponent 30 seconds of playing time, more or less, and which means the opponent gets two or three extra plays that he wouldn't get otherwise. Conservative: If I start featuring the run, the clock negative of passing becomes a positive. Every time I run, I take 30+ seconds off the clock. So if I run three plays for 9 yards and punt, I'm better off - by a whole minute of running time - than if I go 1 for 3 passing for 9 yards and punt. If I get three first downs rushing, I can run an extra three minutes off the clock, which essentially ends the game at the time the two minute warning ordinarily would be given. That's a big plus. And I'm less likely to turn it over. And I'm less likely to lose 6 or 7 yards, what I might lose on a sack. As I said, I don't know if there's a right answer to this problem, but I'm confident that the question is a closer call than following our guts, which are telling us that it should be pedal to the metal all the way.

The Rockpile Review – by Shaw66 Chorus of Westerly Had lunch Sunday with some old friends, and then attended the annual Christmas Pops concert by the Chorus of Westerly (Rhode Island). It’s a great show, talented performers. Catch it some time, if you get a chance. Tickets go fast. Consequently, I didn’t watch the Bills defeat the Dolphins to go 8-6 with the Patriots and the Dolphins (again) standing in the path to the playoffs. Looking at the box score, it looks like another typical Bills win of late. Just enough offense and just enough defense to win. A workmanlike game by Tyrod Taylor, with enough good passing and some big runs. What is it with this team? No one is mistaking the Bills for an NFL powerhouse. In the second half of this season (the second half being the time when the best teams emerge), the Bills certainly haven’t dominated. Every game’s an adventure. So, what is it? Looks like grit. This time of year, for teams around .500, the mantra is survive and advance. It isn’t a beauty contest, there are no style points. All that matters is winning (or at least not losing) this week’s game. It’s 100% about this week’s game. Nothing else matters. Find a way to survive this week’s game and next week’s game will take care of itself. These Bills, week after week, have been finding ways to win. Since their three-game collapse in the middle of the season, the Bills are 3-1, having lost only to the Patriots in a game where the Pats offense couldn’t dominate and where the Bills offense may have been better if Taylor hadn’t gotten injured. These Bills seem to be focused on the prize. They may get beaten, and they may not make it, but it won’t be because they quit. These guys fight to the end, and if at the end the score doesn’t go their way, they will come back fighting next week. These Bills are playing meaningful games in December. Survive and advance. The season isn’t over, but we already know some things about the Bills in 2017. We know that their rookie head coach isn’t a bust – he’s gotten a team with a lot of problems to 8 wins and maybe more. We know that the 2017 Bills are a team in transition – Beane and McDermott have gotten rid of players most fans thought were part of the Bills’ core, and they’ve gotten performance out of newcomers and no-names. And we know the 2017 Bills don’t quit. Survive and advance. Bring on the Pats. GO BILLS!!! The Rockpile Review is written to share the passion we have for the Buffalo Bills. That passion was born in the Rockpile; its parents were everyday people of western New York who translated their dedication to a full day’s hard work and simple pleasures into love for a pro football team.

Good for you. I just came back to this thread and saw your first post. I was going to respond how wrong you were, but you figured it out yourself. Starting at the top, OJ is top 10 and probably top 5, Thurman is top 15 and probably top 10. Cowboys and Bears are probably the only other teams with two in the top 15. Gilchrist didn't play enough to prove anything, but he was probably top 25. Shady may very well be top 25. On average, each team should have one running back in the top 32. Bills have four. But I do like your Dollar Store comment.

Joe Cribbs and Cookie Gilchrist. Cowboys may be the only team that have had such a great stable of running backs - Dorsett and Smith at the top of their list. And the Bears. Payton and Sayers. Gilchrist didn't play in the NFL long enough, but he probably was in the top 25 all-time. Fact is, Gilchrist may have been top 15 all-time, and Simpson and Thomas are probably top 10. And McCoy is top 25. There probably are NO NFL teams whose FIFTH best running back could compare to Cribbs. Or whose SIXTH best running back compares to Lynch. (Or flip Lynch and Cribbs if you want.)

Yeah, they're 6th as it currently stands. It's because there's a 3-way tie with the Ravens and Chargers. In that situation, head to head doesn't matter. BIlls and Ravens have better conference records than the Chargers, and they teams they've beaten have a better aggregate record than the teams the Ravens beat. But as soon as the Bills play the Dolphins, the Bills and Ravens will have had four common opponents, and under the common opponent tie-breaker, the Ravens will move ahead of the Bills. Bills have to go undefeated. If they lose one, they need help.

I think the league will be embarrassed if the Bills are in the playoffs. Now way, now how are they a playoff team. Train wreck at QB, weak at receiver, ugly offensive line, no dominant defenders and a mediocre defense at best.

I think you're correct. The rules differ, depending on whether there's a two-way tie for a spot or three or more. So head-to-head with the Chargers doesn't matter because it's a three-way tie with the Ravens. The ESPN listing showing Bills sixth is where they are right now. I'd guess what SI is doing is looking at some things that are going to be true by the end of the season like, as someone said, the Dolphins. Once the Bills play the Dolphins the four-common-opponent tie-breaker will kick in and apparently the Ravens have the Bills there, even if the Bills beat the Dolphins. As a practical matter, all we need to know is that the Bills need to keep winning or tying. Once they get to 7 losses, the chances are slim that the tie-breakers will do it for them.

I think they could get something for him. There will be some teams out there who need a QB and who will think they can shape an offense around him. I don't know what they can get - I'd guess maybe a third or fourth.

I'm reporting you for saying that.

I think they won a couple of overtime games and several other close games. And I think he got a lot of coach of the year votes. They won about 4 to 6 games a season for about 5 years before that year and they went in the tank immediately after. His one good year was a combination of good coaching of below-par talent (that's what he was good at) and a lot of luck. Bills got those 7-9 seasons out of him for three years, and every year I thought his teams outperformed their talent. As I said, he never got a chance to show anyone if he would get away from his ultra-conservatism if he had good talent, because he never coached a team with good talent.

Yeah, he did. He had no quarterback, for starters. No running back, no receivers, no recognizable names other than Urlacher. Look back at that season. They won a ton of close games, a few in OT. They 5 and 11 the season before and 4 and 12 the year after.

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.

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?

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.

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.