dave mcbride

A couple of these players had some decent moments (Shawn Bryson), but none were any good relative to actually good NFL RBs. 40 years with basically nothing beyond backup production from the RB position among players taken after rd 2 is truly pathetic.

Here is a list of every Buffalo Bills RB draft pick who was taken *after* the second round going back to 1978. It is a truly sorry list. There is not one player among the 25 players selected who turned out to be a difference maker by any definition of the term. Sammy Morris was probably the best of the bunch and he ran for only 3000 yards in 12 seasons. Longtime backup, basically. Not one of the RBs listed below ever ran for 750 yards in a season. Anyway, while many teams have clearly found good RBs after round one, The Bills have a 40-year history of never finding one. 2016: Jonathan Williams 2015: Karlos Williams 2011: Johnny White 2008: Xavier Omon 2007: Dwayne Wright 2005: Lionel Gates 2002: Jarrett Ferguson 2000: Sammy Morris 1999: Shawn Bryson 1998: Jonathan Linton 1996: Leon Neal 1995: Darick Holmes 1991: Amir Rasul 1990: Eddie Fuller 1989: Sean Doctor 1988: Bo Wright 1987: Jamie Mueller 1987: Kerry Porter 1986: Carl Byrum 1983: George Parker 1982: Van Williams 1981: Rob Riddick 1979: Mike Harris 1978: Dennis Johnson 1978: Steve Powell

?? - the Mets made the playoffs the year after he left. And as I'm sure you're aware, the Mets lost both Syndegaard and Matz - two of their three best starters - to injury in 2017.

He's basically a criminal who managed to escape the hand of justice, no? https://www.theringer.com/nfl/2017/11/29/16715556/jimmy-haslam-cleveland-browns-pilot-flying-j

After reading this, Haslam for me replaces the Jerry Jones/Snyder as the worst owner in the NFL. What a snake.

Huh? Seriously. My point -- and my only point, really -- is that winning the coin toss bestows an inarguable advantage to a team. Even if they don't score on the opening possession -- an again, a 43 percent opening-drive score rate is high -- they still end up with an advantage because mathematically they're more likely to end up with more possessions than their opponent overall and hence more opportunities to exploit weaknesses of a tired defense. Equally important, look at the recent trend line. 4 out of the last 5 games (80 percent) have ended with a first round knockout. Coincidentally, rules changes that favor the offense have gone into effect in that same period. In the regular season, teams that win the toss win 52.7 percent of the time, which is not insignificant (think of a baseball team that goes 85-76). In the postseason, though, where the quarterbacks are generally better (and playing in a rules system that is increasingly friendly to good QBs), it goes up to .667 percent, which is obviously very high. The team that gets it first in postseason OTs is also working with a 43 percent chance of delivering a knockout blow with no possibility of a response. Again, that's really high. It's not as if the opponent is going to score 100 percent of the time after making a stop (not even close, actually). The fact that 8 out of the last 9 wins have gone to the coin flip winner should register with people, but apparently it's not.

I thought he had a way better roster vs. Carolina and both of those Giants teams (especially 2007; they had no business losing that game). It was arguably better than Philly's in 2004 too; Brady was a good bit better than McNabb and Dillon was a beast that season (and to be fair that Eagles wasn't as close as the score indicated). Bear in mind that i think he's the greatest coach ever.

I'm cherry picking data? Come on. The data is exactly as I've shown it: 67 percent of the time, the coin flip winner wins the game, and 43 percent of the time he does it in a first round knockout in a quarter that's ostensibly 15 minutes. I'm doing the opposite of cherry picking here. You don't offer any evidence yourself except cliches about "stopping them on D."

But it's not actually 50-50 even if the team doesn't score right away. In trading possessions, they will get more chances to expose a tired defense than the opponent. It's very simple math. 9 out of 21 first round knockout punches, 14 out of 21 wins total, 8 out of the last 9 going to the coin flip winner, and 4 out of the last 5 ending in a first round knockout. At what point do the numbers register with you?

A team that gets a stop yet doesn't score itself allows the opponent a second chance. If the coin flip winner scores on the second possession, the ratio remains an unfair 2-1. It's basic math. The team that wins the coin flip wins 2/3 of the time historically, and 88 percent of the time in the last few years. In the last five matches, 80 percent of the coin flip winners scored ended the game on their opening drive.

14 out of 21, 8 out of 9, and 4 out of 5. You said above that you assumed the bias would be small. I have collected data that shows that the bias toward the coin flip winner is actually massive and only getting more and more pronounced (possibly because of rules that favor the offense). The numbers are the numbers.

Scoring on what is effectively an opening drive at a 43 percent rate is very, very high. More importantly, though, it means that in only 57 percent of the games will the opposing team even have a chance at the ball. If given a choice, no team will defer given these numbers. And if they fail, the team that won the toss gets a SECOND possession to their one. Most of the games above that weren't decided on the first possession were over by the third possession. Only a small handful dragged on into 4th and 5th possessions. Anyway, 14-7, 8 out of the last 9, and 4 out of the last 5. Those numbers are extremely difficult to argue with.

It was certainly was as final as the Jeffrey play. If the call gets made, there is 1:45 left on the clock and it's first down with only one TO left for the Rams. If you assume three plays take around 15-18 seconds and then add on 78 seconds for between-play runoff, the Saints would have kicked the FG with about 8-9 seconds left. The Rams would have got it with 3-4 seconds left if it was a touchback, and zero time if they returned it. Game over. It's basic math. Also, no comment on Belichick's string of decisive victories in Super Bowls?

I am only talking about playoff games - games between teams with offenses that are presumably competent at worst. I can't speak to the regular season.

Obvious and blatant pick (he takes out two guys!) that wasn't called.

Um, you might want to reconsider after watching this brutally obvious and blatant pick play that went for 38 yards late in the game:

I sorta agree about NRC, but remember: the mind is the most powerful organ of all, so regardless of his physical position, he was out of the play. The pass was on target. But you're right, he panicked and basically choked. I'm honestly not sure of your other point. The Rams are a good, talented team that overcame a couple of chokes by Gurley and put it together against an opponent they were about even with on the coaching and talent fronts. A lot of these games are see-saw affairs. Christ, when is the last time the greatest coach in NFL history had a "decisive win" in a SB? To paraphrase your favorite coach, it's hard to win against good teams in the NFL.

OK, here goes. This is for the postseason only because I want to focus on good teams, and just for games in the past 25 years, going back to the 1994 season (i can't find game logs from 1995 and earlier). I've bolded the winners who got the ball first and won, and bolded and underlined the teams that got the ball first and scored on the opening drive. 1998 -ATL/MN: Minnesota gets ball first but ATL eventually wins. 2000: Miami/Indy: Miami gets ball first, but doesn't score; Indy misses a FG; Miami then scores and wins. 2001: NE/Oakland: NE gets ball first and scores; wins on first possession. 2002: TN/Pitts: TN gets ball first and scores; wins on first possession. 2003 - GB/SEA: Seattle gets ball first, but GB wins. 2003: Carolina/STL: Carolina gets ball first but doesn't score; eventually wins in double OT 2003: GB/Philly: Philly gets ball first but doesn't score; eventually wins on second possession after a Favre INT. 2004 - SD/Jets; SD gets ball first; but Jets win (SD misses a FG on their second possession). 2006 - Chi/Seattle: Seattle gets ball first but doesn't score; Bears win. 2007 - GB/NYG: Packers get ball first but turn it over; Giants win. 2008 - SD/Colts: SD gets ball first; scores on first drive and wins. 2009 - GB/AZ: GB gets ball first; strip sacked fumble return TD for AZ; AZ wins 2009: NO/MN: Saints get ball first and score on first drive; win. 2011 - Den/Pitt: Den gets ball first; score on first play from scrimmage and win. 2011 - NYG/SF: Giants get ball first but don't score; they do eventually win, however. 2012: Den/Bal: Ravens get ball first but don't score; eventually win in double OT. 2014: Seattle/GB: Seahawks get ball first and score on opening possession to win. 2015: AZ/GB: Arizona gets the ball first and scores on first possession; wins. 2016 - NE/ATL: NE gets ball first and scores on opening drive to win. 2018: NE/KC: NE gets ball first and scores on opening drive to win. 2018: NO/LA: NO gets ball first but LA wins. -- My takeaways: 1) In four of the last five postseason games, the team that won the toss scored on their first possession. There's a trend going on of late. Perhaps it's a function of the recent rule changes that favor the offense? 2) The overall record of teams that get the ball first is 14-7. This is important because by starting first and going last, it means they get an extra possession -- always one more than their opponent. In the last 9 OT playoff games, 8 of the teams that received the ball first won. 3) In 9 out of 21 games, the team that won the toss won on their first possession alone. That is a REALLY high rate.

Agreed.

I just disagree with this. It's all well and good to say "win the game decisively," but as it happens all final four teams were really good this year and there were no walkaways on offer. The Rams were 13-3 and dominant at many times this season. Plus they are probably the most star-heavy team in the league on both sides of the ball. This wasn't a game against the Bills or the Arizona Cardinals. Exactly. He basically said he had no idea where the ball was because he was beaten so badly. An INT wasn't ever in the cards.

The picture of the brace combined with the description of what likely has happened so far on the surgery front is gruesome.

The problem is that against good offenses, defenses are at a serious disadvantage because they're flat out exhausted. Does it matter in a Bills/Arizona Cardinals game? Not so much. However, when the Pats are the opponent - a team that constantly runs a TON of offensive plays in regulation (roughly 85 plays going into OT vs both Atlanta and KC, btw) -- the coin flip win gives them a huge advantage. I know that the Saints lost, but I believe that in most games involving playoff teams with good QBs/offenses, losing the coin flip puts you at a serious disadvantage to the point where it increases the likelihood that you'll lose.

That wasn't a muff. It was the right decision to overturn it. There was not the slightest alteration in the ball's trajectory while in air at any point. Anyway, they turned it over 2 plays later and the Chiefs got the ball at roughly the same point. They then scored a TD with ease.

Every other one has, and 8 is a pretty huge sample size ...

Who knows. Based on 8 pieces of evidence, we can be reasonably sure of one thing—the game will go down to the wire. Say what you will about the Pats, but they always give you an exciting game in the Super Bowl. It’s been 8 straight good, close games, and I don’t expect that to change.