Shaw66

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.

And the importance of field position is magnified in low-scoring games.

Here's the same long post I just posted in the thread about that question: Punting on 4th and 1 was the right decision. Let me start by saying that I was watching the game at a sports bar. The room was filled with the audio from another game, so I couldn’t hear the announcers for the Bills game. Looking at the screen, it was impossible to know where the ball was because all the yard markings were obliterated. The network only occasionally showed in writing where the ball was. So when they got to 4th and 1, I thought punting was a good idea because I would have guessed the Bills hadn’t crossed the 50. If I had known that they were at the Colts 41, I would have said go for it. And that would have been the wrong decision. Here’s why: The objective is to make the playoffs. For the coaches and players, that’s all that matters. And when you get to this point of the season, it’s almost like you’re already in the playoffs. The over-riding rule in playoffs is “survive and advance.” In other words, it doesn’t matter how you survive, it doesn’t matter how ugly or how beautiful or whatever. Survive. Giving yourself another game where you have a chance is what you need. Whether you can win that next game is irrelevant; just getting to the next game is all you want – you’ll worry about how to win that game later. Survive and advance is where the Bills are now, along with all the other teams in the AFC hovering around .500 and trying to get to the postseason. And in this period when you’re fighting to get into the playoffs, there is a second important point: Tie games are closer to wins than to losses. Why? Well, 9-6-1 gets you into the playoffs over every 9-7 team, so you don’t have to look to tie-breakers. 8-7-1 gets you in over every 8-8 team, and this is one of those years were 8-8 could actually be enough. In other words, a tie is not a neutral result. A tie is a positive result. Yes, a win is better. But a tie is more like a win than like a loss. Stated differently, it’s more important not to lose than it is to win. Okay, with that in mind, go back to 4th and 1 at the Colts 41. I don’t know the exact probabilities, but looking just at winning or losing, I’d say that going for it on fourth down gave the Bills a 50-50 chance of winning or losing. Why? Because the chances of making the first down were around 50-50. Whichever team had the ball on the next play would have had four minutes left and would have needed to move the ball about 25 yards to try a field goal. The Bills would have needed 25 to get to the 15 to have a shot at 35 yard field goal into the wind, and the Colts would have need 25 to get to the Bills 35 to try a 50-yard field goal with the wind at their back. We can argue about the percentages and how far they had to go, etc. but I think I’m in the ball park. So in a two-outcome scenario, going for it is more or less a coin toss. But it isn’t a two-outcome scenario; it’s three outcomes – win, lose or tie. It isn’t 50-50; it’s more like 40-40-20. Given that the Bills are in the playoff hunt, and given that in the hunt ties are more like wins than losses, it’s easy to see why punting was the right call. If the Bills punt, the chances that either the Bills or the Colts will win the game (if those are the only choices) are probably still 50-50. The Colts have the ball, which is a plus for them, but they have a long way to go. The Bills don’t have the ball but they have field position, but they also may run out of time. But those aren’t the only choices; it’s a three outcome scenario. Although if they punt the chances the Bills will win go down, probably pretty dramatically, the chances that they get a tie go way up. I’d guess that punting with 4 minutes left reduce the chances of the Bills winning in those conditions to 20%, probably less. But the chances of tying go UP from 20% to 60%. Remember, in the playoff hunt, winning is the objective, but not losing is more important than winning. Going for it on 4th and 1 the Bills had a 60% chance of not losing. Punting they had an 80% chance of not losing. Punting was the right call. Survive and advance.

Punting on 4th and 1 was the right decision. Let me start by saying that I was watching the game at a sports bar. The room was filled with the audio from another game, so I couldn’t hear the announcers for the Bills game. Looking at the screen, it was impossible to know where the ball was because all the yard markings were obliterated. The network only occasionally showed in writing where the ball was. So when they got to 4th and 1, I thought punting was a good idea because I would have guessed the Bills hadn’t crossed the 50. If I had known that they were at the Colts 41, I would have said go for it. And that would have been the wrong decision. Here’s why: The objective is to make the playoffs. For the coaches and players, that’s all that matters. And when you get to this point of the season, it’s almost like you’re already in the playoffs. The over-riding rule in playoffs is “survive and advance.” In other words, it doesn’t matter how you survive, it doesn’t matter how ugly or how beautiful or whatever. Survive. Giving yourself another game where you have a chance is what you need. Whether you can win that next game is irrelevant; just getting to the next game is all you want – you’ll worry about how to win that game later. Survive and advance is where the Bills are now, along with all the other teams in the AFC hovering around .500 and trying to get to the postseason. And in this period when you’re fighting to get into the playoffs, there is a second important point: Tie games are closer to wins than to losses. Why? Well, 9-6-1 gets you into the playoffs over every 9-7 team, so you don’t have to look to tie-breakers. 8-7-1 gets you in over every 8-8 team, and this is one of those years were 8-8 could actually be enough. In other words, a tie is not a neutral result. A tie is a positive result. Yes, a win is better. But a tie is more like a win than like a loss. Stated differently, until you absolutely MUST win, it’s more important not to lose than it is to win. Okay, with that in mind, go back to 4th and 1 at the Colts 41. I don’t know the exact probabilities, but looking just at winning or losing, I’d say that going for it on fourth down gave the Bills a 50-50 chance of winning or losing. Why? Because the chances of making the first down were around 50-50. Whichever team had the ball on the next play would have had four minutes left and would have needed to move the ball about 25 yards to try a field goal. The Bills would have needed 25 to get to the 15 to have a shot at 35-yard field goal into the wind, and the Colts would have need 25 to get to the Bills 35 to try a 50-yard field goal with the wind at their back. We can argue about the percentages and how far they had to go, etc. but I think I’m in the ball park. So in a two-outcome scenario, going for it is more or less a coin toss. But it isn’t a two-outcome scenario; it’s three outcomes – win, lose or tie. It isn’t 50-50; it’s more like 40-40-20. Given that the Bills are in the playoff hunt, and given that in the hunt ties are more like wins than losses, it’s easy to see why punting was the right call. If the Bills punt, the chances that either the Bills or the Colts will win the game (if those are the only choices) are probably still 50-50. The Colts have the ball, which is a plus for them, but they have a long way to go. The Bills don’t have the ball but they have field position, but they also may run out of time. But those aren't the only choices; it’s a three outcome scenario. Although if they punt the chances the Bills will win go down, probably pretty dramatically, the chances that they get a tie go way up. I’d guess that punting with 4 minutes left reduces the chances of the Bills winning in those conditions to 20%, probably less. But the chances of tying go UP from 20% to 60%. Remember, in the playoff hunt, winning is the objective, but not losing is more important than winning. Going for it on 4th and 1 the Bills had a 60% chance of not losing. Punting they had an 80% chance of not losing. Punting was the right call. Survive and advance.

I'm watching with interest. But this team is going nowhere in the playoffs, so making the playoffs just means breaking the drought and not much more. I care more about being good than how many years it's been. I don't see the Bills compete g with any team likely to be in the playoffs.

Very true. Good point. Benjamin is one reason to look forward to next season.

In the snow, Tolbert's a better choice. Straight ahead power may help. Cadet's style is like Shady, but not his ability. In that mess today, Cadet couldn't do what Shady did. My opinion.

I don't know if it was the right call or not. I'd like to know the probabilities of winning on that decision. Go for it and don't make it, you're giving the Colts the short field with the wind. They gain 25 yards and they have a shot at a field goal. They gain 15 yards and punt and the Bills are pinned deep. I think if you calculate the probabilities of winning, McD may have made the right decision.

The Rockpile Review – by Shaw66 Lake Effect The Bills beat the Colts, 13-7 on Sunday. That’s what the record books will say. The game was a good example of why the score tells only part of the story. Played as a major lake effect snowstorm poured off of Lake Erie, the game featured basic football – blocking and tackling. Sophisticated passing techniques were useless – quarterbacks couldn’t count on their receivers executing timing routes, sharp cuts, or pick plays properly. Running the ball was the order of the day. Still, many of the big plays were pass plays: Peterman’s sideline completion to Benjamin, followed by the TD throw to Benjamin. The Colts’ crushing drive as time ran out. Webb’s masterful 34-yard throw to Thompson, and Thompson’s outstanding catch. And, of course, the HUGE offensive pass interference call that saved the game for the Bills. The Bills needed the win to preserve their slim playoff hopes. They get credit for winning. But to say they just barely won is an understatement. They won by the narrowest of margins, and for the past six weeks they haven’t looked like a team that can win consistently. Granted, the conditions guaranteed a low-scoring, close game, but through 60 minutes the Bills had exactly one offensive possession that looked like they were imposing their will. The Colts also had exactly one. Then, in overtime, the Bills had one more, and the game was over. So they get credit for winning, but not for making anyone think the Bills are going places. Random thoughts: 1. I love seeing one of those games every once in a while. Reminds me of backyard games we played as kids. And there always are some funny plays. 2. I assume Taylor was a reasonably healthy scratch. If so, McDermott dodged a huge bullet with that decision, because he didn’t have the sub he wanted when Peterman went down. 3. Of course, McDermott figured that no one would get injured in a game slowed down by the snow. He didn’t plan on his rookie QB diving headfirst into a tackle. That was a stupid play by Peterman. The penalty should have been called, but your QB can’t do that. 4. On the other hand, Peterman’s two big throws to Benjamin were beautiful. Big-time throws. 5. When the Bills traded for McCoy, I watched a lot of McCoy highlight videos on YouTube to remind myself what the Bills were getting. Every video included some great runs in the snow in one or two games. Just like the runs we saw in the snow against the Colts. I keep saying it because there’s not much else to say: Shady is an outstanding running back. He gets important yards on important plays, and he makes big runs. Really fun to watch. 6. When McCoy broke the TD run to win it, he had a great hole. When the Bills needed it most, they ran behind Incognito, who didn’t disappoint. Double the DE, then slide to the second level and seal the linebacker. Shady did the rest. Beautiful. 7. Were the Bills lucky? They certainly made enough mistakes to lose, most notably Tolbert’s fumble and Webb’s interception; either one could have lost the game. When they could have won the game, the defense collapsed and allowed the tying TD. MAYBE the offensive pass interference was a legit call – I think it was borderline correct but easily could have been let go. 8. Were the Bills resilient? They made some big plays, for sure. And the defense made the stop the team needed in overtime. 9. Tre’Davious White looked like he was doing some serious cheerleading. Someone has to tell him that he can’t play 10 yards off his man on third and 10. He gave away a first down on that play. 10. Is Benjamin brittle or is this just bad luck? I think bad luck, and maybe a nagging injury that needs the off-season to heal. Another snow day next week wouldn’t be the worst thing. Another “must win” game, but I’m not a believer. 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.

League avg is 59.7 % and 81.5 rating.

Finally looked this up: When the Saints got in trouble for putting bounties on players, to my recollection no opponent ever was injured. In addition I don't recall that any Saints player during that time intentionally hit another player in a clear dead ball situation. The NFL handed out punishments an said this: "We are all accountable and responsible for player health and safety and the integrity of the game. We will not tolerate conduct or a culture that undermines those priorities," said Goodell. Penalties? Payton and Gregg Williams suspended for a year each. Vilma was suspended for the entire 2012 NFL season.[5] Former Saints defensive tackle Anthony Hargrove was suspended for eight games. Saints defensive end Will Smith was suspended for four games. Former Saints linebacker Scott Fujita (then with the Cleveland Browns, now retired) was suspended for three games. Gronkowski got one game. It's ridiculous.

I drive over six hours to the game. By the end of the Pats game I had decided that I'm shutting it down for the season. Anyone want two tickets, for free? PM me.

Fair enough. Some of what you say is true. However, I said Crush for two reasons: First, I wanted a reference to the Gronk play, and I think it's fair to say he crushed White. Second, although the score was relatively close, the Bills essentially never were going to score. The Pats crushed the Bills' offense. The only reason it wasn't 45 to 3 was that the game was 60 minutes long. 100 minutes and it would have been 45-3. 200 minutes and it would have been 90 to 3.

Over MY head!

With respect to Gronk, I don't think the penalty was large enough. I look at it several different ways, and I come out at the same place. Sean Payton created or tolerated an environment where he or other coaches encouraged players to injure opponents, and he got suspended for a year. I don't believe there was evidence that any player was actually injured as a result. Gronk actually intentionally injured a player in a totally unambiguous dead ball situation and he got a game. Guys get suspended for four games for doing drugs but get suspended only one game for intentionally injuring an opponent? If the penalty for an illegal hit during a game that injures in a player is one game, shouldn't the penalty for an illegal hit that injures a player when the game is NOT in progress be larger? During the game, there's at least an argument that the hit was intended to be legal but the guy came in too high or something. There is NO defense when you just hit a guy when he's lying there helpless. And I completely agree with your point about mob rule. We've already heard it from Tre White. If the league isn't tough enough on plays like that, there will be retaliation. The league can't afford to have mob rule on the field. I suspect that unless McDermott is really, really clear to his team about this, someone is going after Gronk's knees in a couple of weeks. Or Brady's. I also suspect that the NFL already has warned the Bills about retaliation. Why would they warn the Bills? Because they know the punishment was strict enough. Think about it. Steelers and Pats play in 10 days. If I know I'm getting only a one game suspension for taking out Brady's knee, why would I do it? It would mean I'd be back for the playoffs, and Brady wouldn't. You can't have that kind of calculation going on in players' heads. They need to know the penalties for intentional illegal actions will be severe. And it shouldn't depend on WHETHER the target gets injured; it should solely depend on whether it's a dead ball intentional act and had the potential to injure. As for who starts, I simply think that a coach who doesn't play his best player at any position loses his other players. My coach expects me to play to win, every play, every game, but he puts in a game who isn't as good as the guy he replaced, what does that mean to me? I'm supposed to play to win but he isn't? I'm supposed to risk injury now so that some kid MIGHT learn something that will make him a quality player a year or two from now? I probably won't even be on the team then, so why should I should do it? Last game of the season, maybe. Or in a totally lost season like the Giants, maybe. But when you're playing .500 ball and you could make the playoffs, I don't think a coach can do that to his players.

Yeah. I don't disagree about upside. Until you see a guy fail consistently he has upside. I just think that he's shown that he isn't ready yet. He needs more practice and more learning so that he doesn't bring so much downside onto the field with him. Yes, he looks and throws quickly, but he doesn't know what he's looking at. Sunday he threw quickly into triple coverage. He needs some more cooking on the practice field before he should get thrown out there. If I'm McD and I'm done with Taylor my plan is toget rid of Taylor in the off season and go all in on Peterman or a new guy.

Did I say nearly as effective? I don't think so. I think Taylor is clearly better. If it were close I'd play Peterman.

I didn't say the Bills were going to the playoffs. I don't think they are. They certainly aren't good enough. But you definitely must play your best players at each position, and if he's healthy that's Taylor. The coach cannot ask all his other players to play they're best when the coach isn't putting the best players on the field. If Peterman is the future (in doubt it) they'll install him in the off season. I agree about Peterman. Not a good arm. Maybe he will improve. Clearly doesn't see the field well. But in any case he is t nearly as effective as Taylor has been.