THE ROCKPILE REVIEW - Lake Effect

[rockpile]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I'm watching with interest. But this team is going nowhere in the playoffs, so making the playoffs just means breaking the drought and not much more. I care more about being good than how many years it's been. 

 

I don't see the Bills competing with any team likely to be in the playoffs. 

 

Sadly I agree.

[WhoTom]

10 minutes ago, dlonce said:

Nice write up.

 

Why couldn’t this LE snowstorm happen last Sunday?

 

Because Darth Hoodious controls the weather.

 

 

[Shaw66]

27 minutes ago, richardb1952 said:

Shaw66;

Any comment on the punt on 4th and 1 in OT?  I personally thought it was the wrong call at the time, but I could see where coach was coming from.  Poor conditions, 3rd string QB, Punt and play defense for 3 and out/ turnover.

Here's the same long post I just posted in the thread about that question:  

 

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, 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 reduce 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. 

 

[WhoTom]

3 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

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, it’s more important not to lose than it is to win.

 

 

I agree with your probabilities, but I disagree that a tie is a positive outcome under the circumstances. If that game ended in a tie, the Bills would most likely have to win out - including beating NE in Foxboro - to make the playoffs. In that case, McD should have played for the win instead of playing not-to-lose.

 

It worked out okay in the end, but I disagree with the call. Now we have to go 2-1 to have a good chance at the postseason.

 

The one questionable play call that nobody seems to be talking about is the pass play with about a minute in regulation. We're in our own territory with the 3rd-string QB in a blizzard. That's the time to be conservative - run the ball and play for OT.

 

 

 

[Shaw66]

8 minutes ago, WhoTom said:

 

I agree with your probabilities, but I disagree that a tie is a positive outcome under the circumstances. If that game ended in a tie, the Bills would most likely have to win out - including beating NE in Foxboro - to make the playoffs. In that case, McD should have played for the win instead of playing not-to-lose.

 

It worked out okay in the end, but I disagree with the call. Now we have to go 2-1 to have a good chance at the postseason.

 

The one questionable play call that nobody seems to be talking about is the pass play with about a minute in regulation. We're in our own territory with the 3rd-string QB in a blizzard. That's the time to be conservative - run the ball and play for OT.

 

 

 

I don't think so.  I couldn't possibly calculate the probabilities, but I think the bottom line is this:  With a loss yesterday, Bills had to win out to have a chance of getting into the playoffs.  Had to.   Practically no chance otherwise.   With a tie yesterday, Bills would have had a shot at the playoffs without a win in Foxboro, and would have been in great shape if they won out.   

 

 

[WhoTom]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't think so.  I couldn't possibly calculate the probabilities, but I think the bottom line is this:  With a loss yesterday, Bills had to win out to have a chance of getting into the playoffs.  Had to.   Practically no chance otherwise.   With a tie yesterday, Bills would have had a shot at the playoffs without a win in Foxboro, and would have been in great shape if they won out.   

 

 

 

Agreed. In either case, the Bills need help from other teams. Yesterday's W (as opposed to a tie) means we need less help.

 

 

[Gugny]

I think people are overlooking the fact that the Colts are a very, very bad football team.

 

I don't believe McD was playing for a tie.  Getting 3 feet in those conditions - with a 3rd string QB, no less - was not a safe bet.

 

Getting a punt off and holding the 2017 Colts was a far safer bet, in my opinion.

 

I think McD was playing for the win and he went about it wisely.

[Figster]

One of the main reasons I think McD decided to punt is because the D has come through on several occasions to help close out football games this season. The O on the other hand, not so much, especially with a 3rd string QB behind center.

 

Didn't like the call at the time, but I also had a bad feeling Buffalo wasn't going to get to the 1st down marker.

 

Smart, calculated, and thanks to OP's good breakdown the correct call to make.

 

Buffalo may not have a boatload of talent right now , but what we do have is a smart HC and a smart group of players buying into the process.

 

Contrary to OP I think anythings possible once you make the playoffs.

 

I'm a Billiever...

Edited December 11, 2017 by Figster

[Shaw66]

18 minutes ago, Figster said:

One of the main reasons I think McD decided to punt is because the D has come through on several occasions to help close out football games this season. The O on the other hand, not so much, especially with a 3rd string QB behind center.

 

Didn't like the call at the time, but I also had a bad feeling Buffalo wasn't going to get to the 1st down marker.

 

Smart, calculated, and thanks to OP's good breakdown the correct call to make.

 

Buffalo may not have a boatload of talent right now , but what we do have is a smart HC and a smart group of players buying into the process.

 

Contrary to OP I think anythings possible once you make the playoffs.

 

I'm a Billiever...

Right, except at the end of regulation the defense didn't come through at all.  

[Figster]

8 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Right, except at the end of regulation the defense didn't come through at all.  

If your suggesting McD should have lost confidence in his D at that point, I disagree.

 

 

[Shaw66]

11 minutes ago, Figster said:

If your suggesting McD should have lost confidence in his D at that point, I disagree.

 

 

I'm not suggesting it isn't completely clear you should rely on your defense when it just let you down 15 minutes ago.  It's another variable that made this a very difficult decision.   

 

Do you rely on your offense, that hasn't done much for the past hour and a half, or do you rely on your defense which nearly gave the game away 15 minutes ago?   I don't know - the answer isn't obvious. 

[Figster]

Just now, Shaw66 said:

I'm not suggesting it isn't completely clear you should rely on your defense when it just let you down 15 minutes ago.  It's another variable that made this a very difficult decision.   

 

Do you rely on your offense, that hasn't done much for the past hour and a half, or do you rely on your defense which nearly gave the game away 15 minutes ago?   I don't know - the answer isn't obvious. 

 

It boiled down to who do I trust more in my humble opinion. My D, or my 3rd string QB.

 

T Mobiles on the field I think McD goes for it... 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, Figster said:

 

It boiled down to who do I trust more in my humble opinion. My D, or my 3rd string QB.

 

T Mobiles on the field I think McD goes for it... 

I'm okay with your opinion.  It just isn't an obvious conclusion.

Funny, I think with Taylor on the field he makes the same decision.  He trusts his defense.  Done it all season long. 

[Gugny]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Do you rely on your offense, that hasn't done much for the past hour and a half two and a half years, or do you rely on your defense which nearly gave the game away 15 minutes ago?   I don't know - the answer isn't obvious. 

 

 

Slight adjustment.

[Shaw66]

13 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

 

Slight adjustment.

Slight.  I like it.