Shaw66

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.

The problem with your analysis is that you're assuming a loss to New England. Now, I agree, a loss to New England is likely, but if you assume a loss to New England the season is already over. Why? Because a loss to NE means the BEST the Bills can do is 9-7. Now, over the past 10 years 9-7 has gotten some team a wildcard spot six times, so 9-7 might do it. However, the tiebreakers are lined up fairly badly against the Bills, so 9-7 probably has less than a 5% chance of getting the Bills in. 10-6 is the only sure way to get in, but you're already assuming a loss to the Pats, so there's not much hope for you even if the Bills beat the Colts. By your assumption, the season was done before the kickoff. So the only way for the Bills to have any kind of reasonable chance of getting the last wildcard is for the Bills to beat the Pats in New England. If you make that assumption and the Bills sweep the other games, great, Bills are 10-6 and they're almost certainly in. But if the Bills beat the Pats in New England and go 2-1 in the other three games, the Bills are almost certainly OUT, since they finish 9-7 and lose the tie-breaker. BUT - and here's the point - if the Bills beat the Pats in NE and go 2-0-1 in the other three games, they're in unless some other team gets to 10-6. Why? 9-6-1 is a better record than 9-7, so the tie-breakers are irrelevant. To put it more simply, at 6-6, the Bills had to go 4-0 or 3-0-1 to make the playoffs. 3-1-0 almost certainly doesn't make it. One loss and the Bills were out. So playing not lose made a lot of sense yesterday.

I'm not suggesting it isn't completely clear you should rely on your defense when it just let you down 15 minutes ago. It's another variable that made this a very difficult decision. Do you rely on your offense, that hasn't done much for the past hour and a half, or do you rely on your defense which nearly gave the game away 15 minutes ago? I don't know - the answer isn't obvious.

It DOESN'T end your season, and that's the whole point. LOSING ends your season; tying leaves you with possibilities.

Dubs, I think you're wrong about this. The fact that the odds can't be calculated with precision, like a the odds of a poker hand can be, doesn't mean that the odds aren't an important part of the decision making. McDermott's job was to make a decision, and in making the decision he considered what he thought the odds of success and failure were, and then the odds of winning or losing the game with either outcome on the play. Neither McD nor you nor I can say with any certainty what the odds are, but he had to make his best guess nonetheless. Otherwise, he's just guessing, and guessing is never the right to go if there's any data that's worth evaluating. More importantly, you guys are talking about the odds of winning or losing, and as I've said, that analysis is incorrect. He had to consider the odds of winning, losing and TYING and then evaluate what the value of those various outcomes was. A tie is much closer to a win than a loss, and punting, although it decreased the likelihood of a win, also significantly decreased the likelihood of a loss. In this situation there was real value in not losing.

Right, except at the end of regulation the defense didn't come through at all.

I don't remember what Rex's decision was.

Yes. The important point is that avoiding the loss was more important than getting the win. McDermott got the best of both worlds: He told his defense he had confidence in them, and then his offense took advantage of the opportunity his defense presented. AND he got the win. All while he was protecting his downside by reducing the likelihood of losing, which would have been a killer.

I don't think so. I couldn't possibly calculate the probabilities, but I think the bottom line is this: With a loss yesterday, Bills had to win out to have a chance of getting into the playoffs. Had to. Practically no chance otherwise. With a tie yesterday, Bills would have had a shot at the playoffs without a win in Foxboro, and would have been in great shape if they won out.