Gutless Call to Punt

[mannc]

5 minutes ago, sven233 said:

The outcome of the game has nothing to do with whether the call to punt was correct or not.  Forget the outcome for a minute and let's just break the call down at the time it was made.  Put yourself in that situation, not knowing what the outcome of the game will be.

 

People supporting the punt are basically saying this: You were more confident in the defense forcing a punt, a WR playing QB leading us 60-70 yards down the field in a blizzard, & scoring (all in under 4 minutes) than you were in making 3 feet in 1 play.

 

People supporting the decision to go for it a saying this:  I like my chances of getting 3 feet in 1 play more than the odds of the defense forcing a punt, a WR playing QB leading us 60-70 yards down the field in a blizzard, & scoring (all in under 4 minutes)

 

That's basically it.  If you are more confident in all of those things happening than making 3 feet in 1 play, then that's fine. 

 

Me, I like my odds of getting 3 feet better.

 

 

PS.  Not only do you have to weigh these factors in this decision, but you also have to take into an account that a tie basically ends your season.  So, if all of these things don't happen in those 4 minutes, and you tie.....your season is over.

You also have to consider that going for it and not making it does not end the game; it just gives the Colts better field position.  So the downside is relatively small.

[Domdab99]

4 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

 

Punting on 4^th 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 4^th 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 4^th 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 4^th 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. 

 

 

this is so amazingly wrong on so many levels, I'm completely stunned.

 

If you want to know why we haven't been to the playoffs in 18 years, it's because the organization thinks just like this. I am literally stunned there are so many otherwise intelligent posters on this site - who have apparently watched years of football without learning a damn thing - who can't understand basic math and probability.

 

It's astonishing.

[ExiledInIllinois]

I like the odds of field position better than 3 feet in a blizzard and everybody knowing where the play is going.  Don't even get me going on a possible spot and the Offense already moved 40 yards and O-Line freezing in.  4-1 advantage goes to D.

 

Patience in this situation wins out and it did. Get O off the field, keep D warmed up and O rewarmed... Slow and steady, even with 4 on the clock... Big chunks next drive. Don't worry about tie.

 

Balance... Don't run out of gas. Like climbing a mountain or tacking in sailing... It paid off.

 

Old Bull vs. Young Bull here.  Young Bull, wanted to do it all now!

 

If you don't know the joke:

 

"An old bull and a young bull stand on a hillside, overlooking a pasture. The young bull says to the old bull, “Hey, let’s run down and !@#$ one of those heifers.” The old bull replies, “let’s walk down and !@#$ ’em all.”

 

Patience my friends, patience in a snowstorm with 6" on the field!

Edited December 11, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois

[Domdab99]

4 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Really....

 

So going 65 yards with JOE WEBB at QB and NO TO is a safer bet then picking up 1 yard against the colts?  Really?

 

this is the whole argument right here. 

[Gugny]

Just now, Domdab99 said:

 

this is the whole argument right here. 

 

I think the bigger argument is that we won the !@#$ing game and no one will ever know what would have happened had he chosen to go for it on 4th and 1.  And frankly, no one should care.

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:

 

this is so amazingly wrong on so many levels, I'm completely stunned.

 

If you want to know why we haven't been to the playoffs in 18 years, it's because the organization thinks just like this. I am literally stunned there are so many otherwise intelligent posters on this site - who have apparently watched years of football without learning a damn thing - who can't understand basic math and probability.

 

It's astonishing.

It's funny, because people on the other side of this argument can't believe others can't see the obvious.   A loss on Sunday and the Bills are essentially out of the playoffs.  A win or a tie, they're still in.   So you play for the win or tie, and that means you punt.  

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

It's funny, because people on the other side of this argument can't believe others can't see the obvious.   A loss on Sunday and the Bills are essentially out of the playoffs.  A win or a tie, they're still in.   So you play for the win or tie, and that means you punt.  

 

 Blatantly and stubbornly wrong. 

[Domdab99]

8 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

It's funny, because people on the other side of this argument can't believe others can't see the obvious.   A loss on Sunday and the Bills are essentially out of the playoffs.  A win or a tie, they're still in.   So you play for the win or tie, and that means you punt.  

 

so if they go for it and don't make it, the game is over?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Going for it is high risk, high reward.  Plain and simple.  That's playing to lose more times than often.

 

And it was opening drive.  Colts could answer a FG or still win the game with TD.

 

My irrational gut tells me to go for it when the proper answer was to tack around the problem given the conditions.

 

This is so lost on people in this sterile football enviro of today: nuance.  Everybody plays win-win.  It was a gutsy and ballsy move to punt.  I am no fan of McD and conservative football... But this was the time for it!

 

A tie is better than loss.

 

 

[mannc]

3 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Going for it is high risk, high reward.  Plain and simple.  That's playing to lose more times than often.

 

 

 

No, going for it there is low risk, high reward.

[sven233]

17 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I think the bigger argument is that we won the !@#$ing game and no one will ever know what would have happened had he chosen to go for it on 4th and 1.  And frankly, no one should care.

But at the time of the decision, you don't know that you are going to win the game, either.  That's the point.  If the game ends in a tie or loss, then everyone would say it was the wrong decision to punt.  You can't know the outcome at the time you make the decision.

 

In that moment where the decision is made it comes down to this:

 

People supporting the punt are basically saying this: You were more confident in the defense forcing a punt, a WR playing QB leading us 60-70 yards down the field in a blizzard, & scoring (all in under 4 minutes) than you were in making 3 feet in 1 play.

 

Forget the result of the game.  You don't know it when you are making the decision.  It is only about making the choice that gives you the best chance to win......because a tie kills your season.  You have to win.

 

So....

 

more confident in the defense forcing a punt, a WR playing QB leading us 60-70 yards down the field in a blizzard, & scoring (all in under 4 minutes) > 3 feet in 1 play

 

or

 

more confident in 3 feet in 1 play > defense forcing a punt, a WR playing QB leading us 60-70 yards down the field in a blizzard, & scoring (all in under 4 minutes)

[26CornerBlitz]

7 minutes ago, mannc said:

No, going for it there is low risk, high reward.

 

Yep!

[ExiledInIllinois]

5 minutes ago, mannc said:

No, going for it there is low risk, high reward.

Agree to disagree.

 

The O-Line already played a series of downs... Freezing in. They had a disadvantage.  Then the refs too with spotting and the snow.  Total crap shoot if close.  Video can't help.

 

[Shaw66]

14 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:

 

so if they go for it and don't make it, the game is over?

No.  It's all a matter of probabilities.   If they go for it and don't make it there's a higher probability that they lose.   

 

Just like by punting they reduced the probability that the Bills would win.  That's clearly true.  In neither case would the game be over. 

 

But the probabilities are what matter.  The Bills could afford not to win, but they couldn't afford to lose.  So the choice that gives you the higher probability of not losing is the better choice.   Punting gave them the higher probability of not losing.   

 

Turns out they had their cake and ate it too.  

[ExiledInIllinois]

Very high risk.

[Domdab99]

9 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

I think the bigger argument is that we won the !@#$ing game and no one will ever know what would have happened had he chosen to go for it on 4th and 1.  And frankly, no one should care.

 

I care because I want our new, young coach to use analytics and make proper "go-for-it" and two-point or PAT decisions. That gives the Bills a better chance to win games and, down the road, become elite. We are never going to become THAT TEAM if coaches make decisions based on fear instead of following the basic laws of probability.

 

Old time coaches would rather put off the likely loss a few more minutes than make the right decision now - possibly fail - and then have no shot of winning the game. 

 

Here's a situation almost all head coaches in the NFL get wrong:

 

Down by 15 with 5 minutes left. So you need one TD with an PAT and one TD with a 2 pt. conversion to tie, correct?

 

Your team scores a TD. Every NFL coach will kick the PAT, when analytics says you must go for two there. Why? Because it's better to know you have to score more than once more NOW if you happen to fail at the conversion, then if you kick the PAT, get the ball back, and score a TD with 30 seconds left. Yes, you're down by two now and you have to make the conversion to tie the game, correct? But it you don't make it, the game is effectively over. However, if you go for two after the first TD and fail, you're still down by 9 and you know you have to play differently to give yourself a better chance at a win - maybe an offsides KO, whatever. 

 

But most coaches are more comfortable kicking the PAT because now they know that if they score the 2nd TD, they must go for two - or most likely lose the game. But it's the wrong decision.

 

Same with the punt on 4th and 1. If they don't make, it yes, the Bills are not likely to win the game now. But if they punt it, they are LESS LIKELY to win the game than if they go for it. That's the whole point. 

 

Did it work out? Yes, and i'm glad it did. But it's so frustrating to see other teams with younger coaches - who still make mistakes - but who seem to get it. The game is changing, just like baseball did. Yes, there are more variables in football and those yes/no decisions are not as clear. But you still have to strive to make the right one.

 

And McD is not doing that. He'll be gone in three years and we will start over again. But I hope I'm wrong and I hope he learns from this. 

[sven233]

26 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

It's funny, because people on the other side of this argument can't believe others can't see the obvious.   A loss on Sunday and the Bills are essentially out of the playoffs.  A win or a tie, they're still in.   So you play for the win or tie, and that means you punt.  

A tie was basically the same as a loss.  We are only 25% to get in even with the win yesterday.  If we would have tied, the chances would have been like 3%.  So, a tie and a loss were essentially the same thing.  A tie wasn't an option yesterday.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

No.  It's all a matter of probabilities.   If they go for it and don't make it there's a higher probability that they lose.   

 

Just like by punting they reduced the probability that the Bills would win.  That's clearly true.  In neither case would the game be over. 

 

But the probabilities are what matter.  The Bills could afford not to win, but they couldn't afford to lose.  So the choice that gives you the higher probability of not losing is the better choice.   Punting gave them the higher probability of not losing.   

 

Turns out they had their cake and ate it too.  

You are right.  Won't get into the younger guys head... This sterile football we all watch is making them lose nuance.  Thank God we still play in the elements!

1 minute ago, sven233 said:

A tie was basically the same as a loss.  We are only 25% to get in even with the win yesterday.  If we would have tied, the chances would have been like 3%.  So, a tie and a loss were essentially the same thing.  A tie wasn't an option yesterday.

Yes it was an option.  Better than losing.

[Jay_Fixit]

It was a bad call. Worked out in the end but at the time, it was a bad call.

 

If the Bills lost it would have taken me quite some time to forgive McDermott.

 

QUITE some time. And when I capitalize a word, you should know I mean business.

[Shaw66]

11 minutes ago, mannc said:

No, going for it there is low risk, high reward.

Going for it is HIGH RISK.   

 

The reward you're after is going to the playoffs.   Going for it risks losing the game, which means you don't make the playoffs.  So going for it is high risk. 

 

Punting is low risk, because the chances are good that you won't lose the game if you punt.   If you don't lose the game, you're still in the playoff hunt, so punting is low risk.  

[ExiledInIllinois]

What was the end result?

 

/thread

 

 

[Domdab99]

Shaw, just play with the playoff machine and plug in a tie yesterday - then see what we'd have to do to make the playoffs. A tie yesterday was the same as a loss. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

Going for it is HIGH RISK.   

 

The reward you're after is going to the playoffs.   Going for it risks losing the game, which means you don't make the playoffs.  So going for it is high risk. 

 

Punting is low risk, because the chances are good that you won't lose the game if you punt.   If you don't lose the game, you're still in the playoff hunt, so punting is low risk.  

This!  Also, D can score in football.

 

Punting puts ball on 10 yard line... That is closer to a win!

Edited December 11, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

What was the end result?

 

/thread

 

 

 

Not even the point.  He got away with a terrible decision. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, Domdab99 said:

Shaw, just play with the playoff machine and plug in a tie yesterday - then see what we'd have to do to make the playoffs. A tie yesterday was the same as a loss. 

But it wasn't as same as loss.

[Domdab99]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

Going for it is HIGH RISK.   

 

The reward you're after is going to the playoffs.   Going for it risks losing the game, which means you don't make the playoffs.  So going for it is high risk. 

 

Punting is low risk, because the chances are good that you won't lose the game if you punt.   If you don't lose the game, you're still in the playoff hunt, so punting is low risk.  

 

Again plug in a tie into the playoff machine and you'll see that the only way we can make the playoffs is by winning out and getting a whole bunch of other things to go our way. Meaning: it ain't going to happen. A tie was as bad as a loss. 

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

But it wasn't as same as loss.

 

Okay, I get it now...you just want to be right. Fair enough. Don't bother playing with the playoff machine and seeing that you're wrong, that would be frustrating, I know. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Not even the point.  He got away with a terrible decision. 

No.  Got away with a great, gutsy call... In an error of double-down, sexy risk taking because we play very few games in these types of elements now.

[sven233]

 

5 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

You are right.  Won't get into the younger guys head... This sterile football we all watch is making them lose nuance.  Thank God we still play in the elements!

Yes it was an option.  Better than losing.

Not in this case....a tie still knocks you out of the Playoffs for all intents and purposes.  0% or 3%.....no real difference. 

[Shaw66]

5 minutes ago, Domdab99 said:

 

Here's a situation almost all head coaches in the NFL get wrong:

 

Down by 15 with 5 minutes left. So you need one TD with an PAT and one TD with a 2 pt. conversion to tie, correct?

 

Your team scores a TD. Every NFL coach will kick the PAT, when analytics says you must go for two there. Why? Because it's better to know you have to score more than once more NOW if you happen to fail at the conversion, then if you kick the PAT, get the ball back, and score a TD with 30 seconds left. Yes, you're down by two now and you have to make the conversion to tie the game, correct? But it you don't make it, the game is effectively over. However, if you go for two after the first TD and fail, you're still down by 9 and you know you have to play differently to give yourself a better chance at a win - maybe an offsides KO, whatever. 

 

But most coaches are more comfortable kicking the PAT because now they know that if they score the 2nd TD, they must go for two - or most likely lose the game. But it's the wrong decision.

 

This is really classic.   Dozens of NFL head coaches over the past 20 years have studied this.  Their jobs depend on getting decisions like this right.   They all reach the same conclusion:  kick after first score.   And yet you sit here and tell us that you have this right and all of them have it wrong. 

 

Here's why you're wrong:   I'm always better off, any time in the fourth quarter, to be in a one score game than a two score game.   Why?  Well the clock is working against me, for one.  But it's also better because it puts pressure on my opponent's offense.  If it's a one score game, the offense feels pressure to get first downs, which means they're likely to pass more, which means they're going to be stopping the clock for me every time they throw incomplete.  It also increases my chances of a takeaway.   If it's a two score game, they feel more comfortable running the ball and running the clock, forcing me to use my time outs.  

 

Every coach in the league will tell you he'd rather defend a two-score lead than a one-score lead.   Your strategy plays into the hands of your opponent. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

He wasn't playing for the tie.  A punt gets you 30 yards closer to a win.  Concedes the opening drive, turns game into sudden death.

 

You guys are underestimating the power of the D.  14 points were scored the whole game.  If BFLo was to win via kick, Colts would have to have a possession.

 

What better place to put that possession than on their own 10!!

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

This is really classic.   Dozens of NFL head coaches over the past 20 years have studied this.  Their jobs depend on getting decisions like this right.   They all reach the same conclusion:  kick after first score.   And yet you sit here and tell us that you have this right and all of them have it wrong. 

 

Here's why you're wrong:   I'm always better off, any time in the fourth quarter, to be in a one score game than a two score game.   Why?  Well the clock is working against me, for one.  But it's also better because it puts pressure on my opponent's offense.  If it's a one score game, the offense feels pressure to get first downs, which means they're likely to pass more, which means they're going to be stopping the clock for me every time they throw incomplete.  It also increases my chances of a takeaway.   If it's a two score game, they feel more comfortable running the ball and running the clock, forcing me to use my time outs.  

 

Every coach in the league will tell you he'd rather defend a two-score lead than a one-score lead.   Your strategy plays into the hands of your opponent. 

Sign of the times we live in.  People's risk assessment are off the rails. Pulling cart before the horse!

Edited December 11, 2017 by ExiledInIllinois

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

He wasn't playing for the tie.  A punt gets you 30 yards closer to a win.  Concedes the opening drive, turns game into sudden death.

 

You guys are underestimating the power of the D.  14 points were scored the whole game.  If BFLo was to win via kick, Colts would have to have a possession.

 

What better place to put that possession than on their own 10!!

 

Give me the ball against bad D like the Colts at their 41 yard line with 1 yard to go and I'm going for it every time without exception. 

[Domdab99]

ahahahahahaha...thank you for making my point, guys. Classic. By the way,  I'm 54 - not a "young guy." 

[Shaw66]

14 minutes ago, sven233 said:

A tie was basically the same as a loss.  We are only 25% to get in even with the win yesterday.  If we would have tied, the chances would have been like 3%.  So, a tie and a loss were essentially the same thing.  A tie wasn't an option yesterday.

This point is lost on people all the time.  It comes up this time of year in most seasons.   Teams that are trying to make the playoffs know that losses knock them out, ties don't.  9-6-1 gets the Bills into the playoffs, because it leaves the Bills a half game ahead of all the teams that are 9-7.  If the Bills are 9-7, it's quite likely they lose the tiebreakers and they're out. 

 

A tie is more like a win than like a loss. 

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just now, Domdab99 said:

ahahahahahaha...thank you for making my point, guys. Classic. By the way,  I'm 54 - not a "young guy." 

But you think like them!

 

Did you have a cow when we played "Chuck Knox Ball"... It got him far.

[Domdab99]

And if they tie with the /colts they have to beat the Patriots. You sure you know what you're talking about, Shaw? 

Just now, ExiledInIllinois said:

But you think like them!

 

Did you have a cow when we played "Chuck Knox Ball"... It got him far.

 

how far exactly did it get him? Any Super bowl wins? 

[ExiledInIllinois]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

This point is lost on people all the time.  It comes up this time of year in most seasons.   Teams that are trying to make the playoffs know that losses knock them out, ties don't.  9-6-1 gets the Bills into the playoffs, because it leaves the Bills a half game ahead of all the teams that are 9-7.  If the Bills are 9-7, it's quite likely they lose the tiebreakers and they're out. 

 

A tie is more like a win than like a loss. 

But... But...

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, Domdab99 said:

And if they tie with the /colts they have to beat the Patriots. You sure you know what you're talking about, Shaw? 

 

how far exactly did it get him? Any Super bowl wins? 

 

Ding! Clearly not.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Just now, Domdab99 said:

And if they tie with the /colts they have to beat the Patriots. You sure you know what you're talking about, Shaw? 

 

how far exactly did it get him? Any Super bowl wins? 

Like we'd win the SuperBowl... We are just trying to sniff playoffs... And this kinda ball works well for that.  Baby steps!

We gotta beat the Cheaters anyway!  For any real chance.

[Shaw66]

5 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

He wasn't playing for the tie.  A punt gets you 30 yards closer to a win.  Concedes the opening drive, turns game into sudden death.

 

You guys are underestimating the power of the D.  14 points were scored the whole game.  If BFLo was to win via kick, Colts would have to have a possession.

 

What better place to put that possession than on their own 10!!

Sign of the times we live in.  People's risk assessment are off the rails. Pulling cart before the horse!

This point is completely separate from the one I was making, but it's also correct.  

 

Without regard to playoffs, the punt is correct because of the kind of game it was.   

 

What do the announcers say about who will win the game that is 35-35 after three quarters?  They say the team with the last possession will win, because the teams are scoring on almost every possession.

 

What's the opposite of that?   In low scoring games, the rule is and always has been that field position determines the outcome.  So in low scoring games, where the ball is on the field is more important than which team possesses it at any given time. 

 

Remember the world's worst football game?  Bills lose to the Browns 6-3.   It was a total field position game.  Neither team could move the ball, so it was 3-3 forever.   Browns punt with two minutes left.   Roscoe knows his offense is not going to move the ball 40 yards downfield or more to try a field goal into the wind at the open end of the stadium.   So he makes a high risk effort to catch the ball on the run, figuring he's the best hope to get a big gain or a score.   Muffs the punt, Browns recover and get the field position their offense couldn't give them, kick field goal and Bills lose.  

 

Except for two drives, it was a field position game.   McD knows that, the fans don't. 

[Domdab99]

3 minutes ago, ExiledInIllinois said:

Like we'd win the SuperBowl... We are just trying to sniff playoffs... And this kinda ball works well for that.  Baby steps!

We gotta beat the Cheaters anyway!  For any real chance.

 

Uhm no, as long as we beat the Dolphins both games, we have a decent shot at the playoffs. Titans have to lose two games, though, and the Chargers have to win their division. It'd be better to beat the Patriots, yes...but if we tied the Colts game, we'd have to beat the Patriots to have any chance at all.