slipkid

Yep. Maybe some Vicks Vap-o Rub, too!

Yes Exactly! I felt strangely good when the offense came on with 4:30 left and needing a TD. the 3rd and 22 was a tough one to swallow because it felt Josh self-inflicted, but the throw to Beasely was a gunshot that caught seven or eight Rams off guard. And yet again, the self-inflicted 3rd and 17 rifle to Diggs made the PI call possible. it’s a good feeling, for sure!

As someone who grades subjective stuff, I gotta agree with OP—B+ seems fair. Those insisting on an A+ were either getting beer while Josh turned a seven-yard sack into a double digit sack and didn’t get rid of the ball, or perhaps, they’re still waiting for their participation trophy. An MVP season is not a matter of earning an A every time out. It’s more a matter of avoiding multiple D’s. Josh has been great, and we’ll probably have to watch some head-scratchers to enjoy the “did you just see that!” plays he pulls out of his hat. Personally, I most appreciate that for the past ten or so games and I see Josh walk onto the field with four minutes left and needing a TD, I honestly feel like the Bills will walk away with a W. Been a long time.

It almost looked looked like his shoulder was already banged up before he planted it on Crowder’s hip or he got a “stinger” there. He never extended his arm to wrap Crowder up.

Aaah, this is the first “confirmation” I’ve heard for my nearly 30 year old theory! Not that I don’t trust you, but is there a link or something you can share? The Gary Anderson saga is among many “theories” I’ve had over the years and one of the few that have been confirmed or proven false.

Yep. Good call. Let’s keep on the Bills for this forum.

It seems that you have a feeling.

Red towel!? No class. I can get behind the Whammy Weenie, though.

Yeah right. It’s the longest thread that I’ve started since “Who is the hairiest Bill in history?” back 2001 or 2002. I think Doug Flutie, Fred Smerlas, and Art Still were the finalists. I’m just pointing out—as Burke’s analytic breakdown implies—that it’s more situational than some are saying here.

Interestingly (or not), my fantasy team beat a team called “Hot Garbage” this week, so maybe it’s in my head. ?

Agreed. That’s why the best argument to go for two with seven minutes left is that you planned to go for two after the second TD, make both, and win in regulation. I think that’s in my first post.

I want coaches to put the team in the best position to win. McD said that they “saw something” to make the two-point more possible. I’m good with that. A lot of posters here are claiming that you always go for two there. You don’t—it’s situational and dependent on the game. Unless they had a play in mind—and they did, according to McD—you don’t try it during this particular game.

Yes. But I need to clarify. The Bills were not gonna have two meaningful possessions after that TD. And even the “analytics” bear out that the call for going for two is a situational decision. There was nothing from that game—the Ravens D, the fact they ran the clock out in the 49ers, the OL play, Allen’s play, the Ravens running game, etc. that indicated the Bills had two possessions and two scores in them. The decision was whether you wanted the game to be essentially over at the seven minute mark or after the second TD. Hey, I’m glad they converted and trust McD’s judgment that they had the right play called.

You seem really invested in this. Let’s be clear—if you do not convert, you need both a field goal and a TD. If you make the PAT, you need a TD. Then, you worry about the two-point conversion. What isn’t clear to me is the notion that the Bills were somehow gonna get the ball back twice and score both times—at the very least, they get it back the second time via onside kick (good luck with that) or, in the best case, with less than a minute, on their thirty or so, and no timeouts. Did you watch the game? Do you really think the Bills would have two more possessions and score on both? FWIW, they held the Ravens to a three-and-out and still only had the ball once. But I understand the play-calling might have been different. Perhaps it would have been so brilliant that they wouldn’t need the 50+ yards in penalties on the final drive. In short, if they miss the two with seven minutes left, the game is essentially over. If they take the PAT (the 90% option over the 50% option) at least the game comes down to their final possession, assuming the Ravens don’t score. They went for two because the coaches decided that they saw something that made that 50% option a higher percentage. Seems fair, and I’ll trust coach on that. But you don’t always go for two in that situation—it depends on the game and the team you’re playing. That’s why we have coaches, not computers, calling plays. IMHO, the best argument in favor of going for two there is the opportunity to go for two if Brown cuts his route tighter and they score at the end.

Fair enough. I’ll defer to McD. if they had the right play with the defensive “look” they expected, go for the two. (And they got it—I’m glad they did.) But “analytics” is an excuse—you coach the game you’re playing. The argument that “you know what you need” if you don’t get the two doesn’t hold water. Anyone who thought the Bills would get the ball twice and score twice was not watching the same game I was watching.

The alternative is to kick the extra point and see if you can get one drive with about 3:30 left and need one drive (exactly what they got against the NFL’s best running offense) and a two-point at the end of the game. If they don’t get the two-point conversion with 7 minutes left, game over. I’m not complaining as much as I’m curious to see a reasonable explanation. Maybe you see what you got and when you use your timeouts earlier, but it still seems like a bad call.

Ummmm. Actually, almost the exact opposite. If they kick the point, they’re down one TD and a two-point conversion. If they don’t get the two on that touchdown, they’re down two scores. I’m not sure what “offensive rhythm” we had there—it took three plays, two Ravens penalties, and a time out to punch it from the three. edit: You go for two when you absolutely need it—aka, the final TD.

Going for two when down by nine with seven minutes left makes no sense to me. Hauschka was fine today. Why take yourself out of the game if you don’t get the two there? Maybe McD had already decided that we would go for two again and the win if we scored another TD. I don’t know. Does anyone have a reasonable reason why they would do that?

I was thinking “that took the sails out of our wind’.” RIP Coach.

Not to take anything away from Singletary, Milano, or Tre’, but watching Feliciano step up at center when Morse was sidelined made me feel good about this team.

Welp. If ya “win ugly,” you’re probably gonna “lose ugly,” too. We get to see the latter today. I expect more of each.

Right? Ya know, him being the OC and all, Daboll might want to rely on the other side of the ball—maybe the side for which he’s responsible.

Cowboys! End this already!

And “just like you.” The difference is that I know poor decision-making when I see it. That was the wrong decision. You know it but decided to call me out rather than admit it. McBeane has a good thing going, but Sean has to get out of his own way and make better decisions during the game. You know that. Don’t spend your time on me.

C’mon now. I dont’t post much, but I appreciate how well you think you know me. ? Taking the field goal at that time was the right decision. You don’t make Matt Barkley have to zing something through a tight window. And no. I wouldn’t complain about McD’s decision-making if the Bills lost by three—I would have spent my time on Josh.?