MRM33064

The timing was definitely not great, and we don't know how things would've played out had the changes not been made, but in these cases I think the records had a decent chance to have been the same (or close to the same) no matter what they did. 3 very mediocre teams, talent-wise, with a pretty tough stretch of opening games, generally. We'll see how it plays out over the season, but on balance it seems like with these teams there wasn't a heck of a lot of downside risk. KC: Ravens, Raiders, Eagles Bucs: Cowboys, Bills, Giants Bills: Patriots, Bucs, Saints

This is a weird one, because my initial reaction was that TO was the one who acted like a complete turd, but I also don't discount the fact that Sully certainly does enjoy being a big fish in a one newspaper town. In an odd way, all this noise probably benefit both of them personally, but not the team. The difference is, it's not Sullivan's job to cheerlead or help the team - but that is part of TO's. Personally, I think TO was the bigger knucklehead in that situation, but it's a close call with Sullivan. Maybe they deserve each other. FWIW, Martz and Mariucci supported Owens on the NFL Network, though I suppose that's not entirely surprising - they're still more coaches than media members.

A 90%+ losing record against winning teams. An abysmal record in division games. A laundry list of horrible tactical decisions in key moments. On top of it, when that camera pans to him on the sideline and we see that blank stare, it's foreshadows the future in about same way as a stray black cat running across the street in front of your car. On a brighter note, after yesterday's punting decision - designed to lock in a respectable losing margin - I heard the Washigton Generals called Ralph, very interested.

It seems like the Belichick (and staff) mindset is usually focused on making the decision that maximizes his chance to win now (at the time the decision is made), as opposed to making the decision that might give us a chance to win the game later. The odd part is that Jauron sticks to his ways as though they've served him incredibly well in the past.

Living in South Florida, I'll say that the 4pm start time next week is a good thing for the Bills. The heat and humidity is brutal for both teams, but it's worse if you're not used to it.

I'm not sure his appearance has as much influence as, say, his decisions. 4th-and-1, 10 points down with time running out ... and punting. The message: "well, we tried, we're probably not going to win, so let's try to make sure we don't lose by too much." We can only hope that doesn't affect the team in the same way that it affects the fans.

TO's post-game conference (or whatever we could call it) was a complete embarrassment. I think Jauron ought "call out" TO on that ... and I wouldn't have minded seeing Trent "call out" TO little after a very lame attempt at what would've been a very big play. I agree that there's calling out to do (penalties, decision-making, etc.), but I don't think TO's credibility at this point is sufficient to be calling out anyone himself.

Just out of curiosity - did anyone spot Trent (or anyone else on the offense) arguing/fighting with the coaching staff to go for it there? I'd like to think that there'd be a QB and an entire offensive line insisting on going for it there, fighting to stay alive by gaining 1 yard with time running low. It's the job of the coach to rationally make the final decision, but it'd be nice to see some competitive spirit for that coach to have to manage. I hope that this overriding sense of risk aversion doesn't seep too far into these young OL of ours.

We just can't afford to keep treating Evans and TO essentially as decoys to draw coverage away from [insert Name Here: Derek Fine, Josh Reed.] 1-2 deep balls a game to our WRs just won't do it; we need to integrate these guys into the offense. I suppose we just don't know if the plays aren't being called in to go to Evans/TO, or if the plays are getting sent in and Trent just won't (purposefully) throw into any kind of coverage. I'm guessing it's more the latter.

It is difficult to think how Jauron (or whoever is making the decision) looks at that situation and thinks that he is maximizing our chance to win the game by punting. By punting, we voluntarily concede two of the metrics we need the most - time and possession - absent a fumble on the punt reception. Even had we failed on 4th-and-1 (an unlikely event if you buy into historical data), the defense would've still had the opportunity to hold NO to a FG, keeping it a 2 score game.

Last week's 4th-and-1 thread was pretty active - this one has just a wee bit potential as well. The situation: 4-and-1, down by 10, less than 8 mins to go, ball on own 28. Thoughts?

Wow, that's a high standard. There's so .... so MANY ....

Out of curiosity - does anyone know how many times Trent has thrown to Evans and Owens ... I'm remembering only 1 to each but might've missed ........

I'm with you .. but let's not get too crazy, he's 8/11 for 103 yards and we're barely in the 2nd quarter ....

Exciting play ... and I like the attempt at the pooch too, even though we didn't get it ....

... Mike Tirico stays at least 100 miles away from The Ralph.

Agreed, the Jets look tough. As to Sanchez, yes it's very early ... but that run for the TD was quite a display as well. When that play broke down, his instinct was to drive that ball into the endzone himself.

Any word on whether this is a sign that McKelvin's injury is going to be a bigger factor today than we hoped?

FWIW, WGR550 evidently just won “Sports Station of the Year” at the 2009 National Association of Broadcasters' Marconi Radio Awards. I'm not cheerleader, but I do enjoy WGR550, especially living out-of-town. They stack up pretty well against some of the South Florida stuff.

It does have a certain Wayne's World-ish quality about it. Meh - it's always easier to criticize than to do. If you're having fun keep it up.

Very sharp critique, and FWIW, I agree with the vast majority of it - especially the big picture, which is well summarized in the first sentence and is probably the most important takeaway. If/when a similar situation presents, I really hope you take the time to post an analysis. I think this can be a tool to help improve a team's decision-making and, ultimately, its chances to win. (BTW, on the specific situation, I do think it'd be entirely reasonble to interpret the win% differential just as might be implied by what Waterloo said; that is, even if we could all stipulate to the 96% (for sake of argument) the win % may be sufficiently high enough at that point either way so as make the decision inconsequential, especially when factoring in error.)

I really started this analysis as a good faith attempt to analyze the decision using some objective metrics, and somehow it all fell apart. Some folks got it. In any case, as I pointed out, the 96% figure didn't come from my data, so people are free to assume it's entirely made up and/or falsified. (Actually, I don't think anything about this is particularly easy or "softball.") In the very low probability (pun intended) that the question was a sincere attempt to learn a little more, I'd point you to this link, which I think is helpful. It's a good summary (or what I think is a good summary of the concepts. http://www.advancednflstats.com/2008/08/win-probability.htm. Also, FWIW, I provided a few other references on this as well, if you can request from me via private message if you're interested. There are also several other forums that spend time analyzing these type questions, though they're not Bills-focused, obviously. That's it on this ... until the next 4-and-? ...

Again, the point is that basic concept of "pot odds" may not be the sole factor, but is certainly relevant in the process - or ought to be - and subject to being quantified. As to whether these concepts have little actual validity in "situational football theory", we disagree. I (obviously) think they are highly relevant.

Completely off-topic, but that was quality.

Completely rational, totally correct .... with one small caveat. This is more about a methodology to guide decisions with the understanding that outcomes are indeed variable, as you state. When folks sit down at a blackjack (or poker) table, or when an insurance actuary needs to underwrite risk, something needs to guide their decisions. The blackjack player needs to decide whether to hit that 14 to the dealer's face card. The actuary needs to quantify the value of what can sometimes appear to be a myriad of possible outcomes. Some blackjack players do it by "feel" (the "football sense" crowd), others - like the actuaries - use tools such as studying the results of millions of similar or analogous situations to guide their actions. Either methodology can ultimately win or lose (outcomes vary), but we're trying to give some objectivity to whether one has a better chance of winning or losing, at the time the decision is made. We'll close this out - but maybe we'll get another chance to debate a similar decision soon ... and hopefully it will involve a situation where we already have another >90% chance of winning.