Shaw66

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Slight. I like it.

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.

Outdated thinking beats no thinking every time.

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.

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.

That's just wrong. A loss would have more or less eliminated the Bills. A tie gives them a shot. Have to win out, but that's a shot. A loss yesterday and even winning out wouldn't save them.

I think Belichick might tell Gronk to get "injured" late in the Steeler game so he'll be able to sit Gronk credibly for the Bills game. I don't think Belichick wants to risk having Gronk on the field if anyone might want to retaliate.