dave mcbride

I'm not angry. I'm wondering where people stand and why. I think if you're the Rams or KC or NO, most of the time you won't need it. Teams like the Bills, though ...

I respectfully disagree. I just think a TO is worth more than 5 yards in most situations (again, if it's 3rd and 1 on, say, the opponent's 30 yard line, you take the TO). And for a team that commits pre-snap penalties like there's no tomorrow, what's another five yards? Timeouts, however, are genuinely precious, and a team like the Bills should never assume they're going to win walking away. They should assume that any victory scenario will probably be in a close game, and that timeouts will be absolutely crucial.

I think the 13 yard line. Regardless, they had a ways to go (10 yds, I think). I'd of course rather not give up the five yards, but there's a big price to pay when you decide to avoid the loss by burning a TO. I happen to think that the TO is a lot more valuable than the 5 yards, even in a situation like that.

The penalty on Milano was absolutely the correct call. You can't arm bar a receiver and then knock him around without looking back for the ball -- which is exactly what Milano did.

Where do folks stand on that? I'll go on record and say that the TO is pretty much always more important than the five yards in a close game (as this one was). That TO would have been extremely valuable on the Bills final possession, and it would have given the Bills more options and forced the Jets D to defend differently. I'm generally always opposed to burning TOs to save five yards in the second half unless it's something like 3rd and 1 at an important moment.

That drove me nuts! The Bills needed to clock to stop, and he's begging them to roll it. What was he thinking??

It was an extremely dirty play by Dawkins, and obviously so. Before the game, one of the Jets was quoted as saying "they [the Bills] really don't like us, and we don't like them." It was an extremely chippy game on both sides.

Anderson, who is a good player, also had a very nice subtle push-off that dramatically affected the play. It's the sort of push-off that's never called, so that makes it a good play by Anderson. Nothing White could do about that; it knocked him out of position and it's never gonna get called.

Observation: Derek Carr is playing a LOT better than most folks seem to realize. He has 8 TDs and 0 INTs in his last 4 games, and for the season he's at 7.5 ypa, 69.4 completion rate, and 3 fourth quarter comeback wins. He's on pace for 4,226 yards, 22 TDs, and 9-10 INTs. And needless to say, the Raiders roster is garbage.

This will make you feel better: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200209080buf.htm.

This one really sticks in my craw. Bledsoe threw 5 INTs in a game that the Bills D played lights out. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/boxscores/200212220gnb.htm The Bills were 7-7 at the time. Look at how the season ended: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2002/. (Also note the Bills lost a game in OT in the first game when the surrendered a KO return for a TD at the beginning of overtime right after tying it up on a dramatic pass from Bledsoe to Mulds to tie the score as time ran out in regulation. They never touched the ball. Yep ... NFL OT rules.)

Agreed. I was thinking the same thing given the Miami game, but this is pretty eye-opening.

I agree mostly, but I do think Darnold was the better QB yesterday because he played better late. Also, Allen had four TO opportunities (one bad fumble, 2 INTs, and one drop of an easy INT on a terrible throw), while Darnold had 2 (one INT and one drop by Levi Wallace on what should have been an easy pick). 4 is a lot worse than 2. Plus Darnold averaged 2 yards per attempt more than Allen. As for the two missed FGs, the second miss is one that should never have been tried, so I'm not giving credit to the Bills for that missed opportunity. They should have punted it or gone for it given the situation with Hauschka.

My general take on this game: whereas the Miami game was a "good loss" (relatively speaking, of course), this one was a bad loss. The Bills outplayed Miami late and probably should have won the game; they improved over the course of the game and were dominating at the end. The Jets thoroughly outplayed the Bills late, especially at the QB position. Allen's final possession was one of his worst. With everything on the line and a decent amount of time, he made two awful throws. The first short-hopper may have been deliberate (who knows?) because the receiver was double covered, but that just begs the question of why he chose to throw it there in the first place. The INT was a really bad, inaccurate throw. He also had Zay Jones open for a TD but threw the ball out of bounds on their final FG possession. Overall, he had a decent game, but got worse as the game progressed.

There did appear to be some sort of brawl a-brewin' when the players went into the tunnel at halftime. Players had to be restrained. I agree that the decision to kick a 54-yarder with a clearly injured kicker (who had already decided that he needed to squib all kickoffs because of the injury) was completely mystifying. Really poor decision by McDermott.

No -- Darnold averaged 6.8 yards per attempt (league average-ish), and Allen averaged 4.8 (which is bad). YPA is probably the most indicative stat for QB success.

Goff had a bad game - but so does everygood qb at some point in a long season (ie, Brees last week). Just one game. Great performance by the Bears’ D.

Good game so far. Fun to watch.

Nice argument. You are one of my favorite posters, but i can’t help but think if you work for the league. Quips don’t cut it (again). Why are the rules fine and why are the my fair? Explain in at least moderate detail why. Not an argument. Why does no team defer in OT?

I know the rules. The rules are the problem. Address my point about no other major sport having such a system in which the offense is so heavily favored based on luck. And I mean really. You are not arguing; you are merely asserting. That is just not good enough. And again, remind me of how 100 percent of teams react to coin flips.

Defenses are exhausted in ot. Offenses have the advantage. Name me a team that has deferred in the last few years (outside of the slater episode). If 100 percent choose to take the ball and indeed celebrate “winning” the coin flip, that is telling you something.

See my point above about not including NFL OT stats in regular stats. It is a simple fix. Playoff stats don’t count as “real” stats, and if they did Brady would have another 8000 yards or so.

Elaborate. No quips, which is all you are offering. In other major team sports — baseball, soccer, basketball, and hockey — no side is given an advantage remotely comparable to what the NFL offers the coin flip winners in OT (including extra innings), in the sense that one side may well have zero chance to handle the ball (and factoring in exhausted defenses). And again: catalog for me every team that has chosen to defer in OT (seriously, do it - you are a very knowledgeable fan) outside of the infamous Slater episode. Again, though, “LOL” quips are weak as arguments and simply don’t cut it. That’s sort of my point. No team ever defers, and for good reason.

E-l-a-b-o-r-a-t-e. As in, tell me why *zero* teams have ever deferred in OT under the current rules (outside of Matthew Slater, who said in that Jets game that the referee completely misinterpreted what he asked for). Again, quips are weak and ain’t good enough. Lay out a real argument with evidence.

Defenses are ALWAYS at a disadvantage at the end of a brutal game because they are necessarily reactive on a play by play basis. Just think of Atlanta’s D in the SB in 2017, when the Pats reacted with delighted glee after they “won” the coin flip. They were right to teact that way.