Shaw66

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.

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.