We don't have the mentality to win close games

[Big Turk]

Oh?

[eball]

How is our mentality now?

 

[BullBuchanan]

5 minutes ago, eball said:

How is our mentality now?

 

1-7 in the last two years and 0-13 under McD when trailing by 10 or more at the half, but all previous data now invalid.

100% winning percentage in 1 score games and when down 17 points at halftime since October 2nd 2022 - present.



That's how it works, right?

Edited October 3, 2022 by BullBuchanan

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

1-7 in the last two years and 0-13 under McD when trailing by 10 or more at the half, but all previous data now invalid.

100% winning percentage in 1 score games and when down 17 points at halftime since October 2nd 2022 - present.



That's how it works, right?

When the cutoff is arbitrarily set at two years, I guess

[eball]

On 9/25/2022 at 4:15 PM, UKBillFan said:

Complete chokers across the board, with no clue how to play when under pressure. Offense was putrid and the play calling little better. Favourites for the Superbowl? Only if the defense is fully fit because the Offense, even with the so called predicted MVP, is not good enough.

 

ETA 15 minutes later - Won't delete the original post because I have to own it. But now I've calmed down slightly... still annoying. And I think I'll still have doubts about us being able to able to cope with the pressure of a one score game at the death until we win one of them.

 

I'll try to be kind...but this was a ridiculous premise and ridiculous post.  The next time you have a visceral reaction after a game...stay away from the keyboard.

 

[ColoradoBills]

4 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

That's how it works, right?

 

Yes, it is.  The past is the past, it's about going forward.

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

When the cutoff is arbitrarily set at two years, I guess

cutoffs have to exist somewhere when analyzing data. I don't think it's guilty of any severe manipulation but rather just showing recent history. The further you go back, the less relevant the information is to current trends. It's an objective fact backed up by data that they haven't won one-score games in recent history until yesterday. It's not a "narrative". Yesterday's win is awesome though does nothing to change the previous data.

[teef]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

cutoffs have to exist somewhere when analyzing data. I don't think it's guilty of any severe manipulation but rather just showing recent history. The further you go back, the less relevant the information is to current trends. It's an objective fact backed up by data that they haven't won one-score games in recent history until yesterday. It's not a "narrative". Yesterday's win is awesome though does nothing to change the previous data.

why not include 2020?  if you're talking about mcd's coaching in close games, it should really include his entire career to give you a fair idea.  people are picking only including last year because it drives their narrative.  last year wasn't good...at all.  the year before was.  every year is different.

[ColoradoBills]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

cutoffs have to exist somewhere when analyzing data. I don't think it's guilty of any severe manipulation but rather just showing recent history. The further you go back, the less relevant the information is to current trends. It's an objective fact backed up by data that they haven't won one-score games in recent history until yesterday. It's not a "narrative". Yesterday's win is awesome though does nothing to change the previous data.

 

They have a new OC this year.  That is where I consider the "data" to be judged from.

They are 1-1 in close games.

[Motorin']

 

 

 

[Warcodered]

14 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

1-7 in the last two years and 0-13 under McD when trailing by 10 or more at the half, but all previous data now invalid.

100% winning percentage in 1 score games and when down 17 points at halftime since October 2nd 2022 - present.



That's how it works, right?

What does that stat look like 3-4 years out though?

[UKBillFan]

16 minutes ago, eball said:

 

I'll try to be kind...but this was a ridiculous premise and ridiculous post.  The next time you have a visceral reaction after a game...stay away from the keyboard.

 

 

They proved me wrong! Maybe I should try an outburst about how we haven't scored over 23 in the last two weeks and see if that works next Sunday? 😁

[Scott7975]

18 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

1-7 in the last two years and 0-13 under McD when trailing by 10 or more at the half, but all previous data now invalid.

100% winning percentage in 1 score games and when down 17 points at halftime since October 2nd 2022 - present.



That's how it works, right?

 

Its not 1-7 in the last two years.  Its 1-7 in the last year + 4 games.  The season before last they were 5-1.  So in the last two years +4 games they are 6-8.  Thats one game from .500 which is normal in the NFL.

 

You are like the guy thats spends $1000's at the casino every week but has one day where he wins 500 bucks and thinks he actually won.

15 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

cutoffs have to exist somewhere when analyzing data. I don't think it's guilty of any severe manipulation but rather just showing recent history. The further you go back, the less relevant the information is to current trends. It's an objective fact backed up by data that they haven't won one-score games in recent history until yesterday. It's not a "narrative". Yesterday's win is awesome though does nothing to change the previous data.

 

Ok so where is that line drawn.  Same group of people at the begining of the season were all about just the 0-7 and the 5-1 one season prior didnt matter.  Then this year starts and we were 0-1 suddenly last year matters.  The truth of the matter is you are drawing the line at your own bias.  Same as people can manipulate stats to say whatever their agenda wants them to say.

[Scott7975]

So you roll your eyes at my post @BullBuchanan.  I take that to mean you have no further argument.

[BullBuchanan]

36 minutes ago, teef said:

why not include 2020?  if you're talking about mcd's coaching in close games, it should really include his entire career to give you a fair idea.  people are picking only including last year because it drives their narrative.  last year wasn't good...at all.  the year before was.  every year is different.

2020 isn't included because it wasn't part of the trend. It's not a narrative, it's stats. They were good, and then they were bad. 1 deviation from an existing trend doesn't change the trend, but it's the only way to start.
 

31 minutes ago, Warcodered said:

What does that stat look like 3-4 years out though?

What does it look like 7-8 years out? 20-30 years out? They were in an uptrend, then in a downtrend. where they go from here is undetermined.
 

25 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

 

Its not 1-7 in the last two years.  Its 1-7 in the last year + 4 games.  The season before last they were 5-1.  So in the last two years +4 games they are 6-8.  Thats one game from .500 which is normal in the NFL.

 

You are like the guy thats spends $1000's at the casino every week but has one day where he wins 500 bucks and thinks he actually won.

 

Ok so where is that line drawn.  Same group of people at the begining of the season were all about just the 0-7 and the 5-1 one season prior didnt matter.  Then this year starts and we were 0-1 suddenly last year matters.  The truth of the matter is you are drawing the line at your own bias.  Same as people can manipulate stats to say whatever their agenda wants them to say.

What you're doing here is called "projecting". My argument is precisely the opposite of your claim because it takes previous trend into account. You're popping the champagne after the first 1 score victory in the last 8 and declaring all previous data invalid. In your words, you're down $6500 and celebrating your recent $500 win.
 

19 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

So you roll your eyes at my post @BullBuchanan.  I take that to mean you have no further argument.

I don't need any further argument because my previous argument stands.

Edited October 3, 2022 by BullBuchanan

[K-9]

Just now, BullBuchanan said:

2020 isn't included because it wasn't part of the trend. It's not a narrative it's stats. They were good, and then they were bad. 1 deviation from an existing trned doesn't change the trend, but it's the only way to start.
 

What does it look like 7-8 years out? 20-30 years out? They were in an uptrend, then in a downtrend. where they go from here is undetermined.
 

What you're doing here is called "projecting". My argument is precisely the opposite of your claim because it takes previous trend into account. You're popping the champagne after the first 1 score victory int he last 8 and declaring all previous data invalid.
 

I don't need any further argument because my previous argument stands.

When the narrative is these coaches and players can’t win close games, 2020 must be included in the analysis because it’s essentially the same cast of characters being evaluated. Otherwise, it’s dishonest because this group had clearly demonstrated their capability to win close games previously. 

[Jauronimo]

 

 

 

[BullBuchanan]

3 minutes ago, K-9 said:

When the narrative is these coaches and players can’t win close games, 2020 must be included in the analysis because it’s essentially the same cast of characters being evaluated. Otherwise, it’s dishonest because this group had clearly demonstrated their capability to win close games previously. 

So change the argument that they were good at a thing 3 years ago that they've recently been bad at and see how many people care? I don't even have a horse in this race. I'm just here to defend the concept of trends.

[Warcodered]

8 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

2020 isn't included because it wasn't part of the trend. It's not a narrative it's stats. They were good, and then they were bad. 1 deviation from an existing trned doesn't change the trend, but it's the only way to start.
 

What does it look like 7-8 years out? 20-30 years out? They were in an uptrend, then in a downtrend. where they go from here is undetermined.
 

What you're doing here is called "projecting". My argument is precisely the opposite of your claim because it takes previous trend into account. You're popping the champagne after the first 1 score victory int he last 8 and declaring all previous data invalid.
 

I don't need any further argument because my previous argument stands.

So to translate:

 

That information doesn't agree with my narrative so I'm going to ignore it.

[BullBuchanan]

1 minute ago, Warcodered said:

So to translate:

 

That information doesn't agree with my narrative so I'm going to ignore it.

Why did you translate? Was my post in a different language?

Most of the time when people translate posts around here, they do it incorrectly. This is one of those times.

Edited October 3, 2022 by BullBuchanan

[teef]

17 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

2020 isn't included because it wasn't part of the trend. It's not a narrative, it's stats. They were good, and then they were bad. 1 deviation from an existing trend doesn't change the trend, but it's the only way to start.
 

 

so...you're just choosing one year.  i'm not a stats guy, but i think you can certainly go more than one year out to find out who mcd is in a close game.  

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

So change the argument that they were good at a thing 3 years ago that they've recently been bad at and see how many people care? I don't even have a horse in this race. I'm just here to defend the concept of trends.

I’m not changing the argument at all. Just saying you can’t cite stats from 2021 as proof that this team can’t win one score games when the stats from 2020 clearly demonstrate that this team can win one score games. And btw, 2020 was only two years ago and there isn’t a big enough sample from this season to be included for analysis. It’s simply a two season analysis; 2020 and 2021. 
 

And I don’t give a FF if people care or not. 

[GoBills808]

I'd argue the trend was that they were good at winning close games, then bad, now this year they are .500 which is basically the NFL average win% in one score games extrapolated. Not statistically significant one way or the other really, random fluctuations will inevitably occur and people will inevitably try to parse meaning from them.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

McD went for it twice last season and lost both times. 
 

the comments at 1:20 ❤️ 

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, teef said:

so...you're just choosing one year.  i'm not a stats guy, but i think you can certainly go more than one year out to find out who mcd is in a close game.  

"I'm" not choosing anything. As previously stated, I don't really care about the stat and I don't have strong opinions about what it means/doesn't mean.

All I'm pointing out is that being good at something in the past, then recently being really bad at it will make people say and believe you're really bad at it, because that's where the trend is. Sports isn't like the market, it's much more short term because. What the true measure of McD as a coach over a career in close games? Who knows.

Just now, SlimShady'sSpaceForce said:

McD went for it twice last season and lost both times. 
 

the comments at 1:20 ❤️ 

Going for it was pretty clearly the right call. Had they kicked the FG, the bills would've had 4 downs and a 1:30 to move the ball 2 more yards to win. I'd take the Bills for all the money in that spot.

[teef]

1 minute ago, BullBuchanan said:

"I'm" not choosing anything. As previously stated, I don't really care about the stat and I don't have strong opinions about what it means/doesn't mean.

All I'm pointing out is that being good at something in the past, then recently being really bad at it will make people say and believe you're really bad at it, because that's where the trend is. Sports isn't like the market, it's much more short term because. What the true measure of McD as a coach over a career in close games? Who knows.

i think the point was it really wasn't a trend, (well, last year it was).  2020 there was a winning trend, 2021 was a losing trend.  neither means anything to this year.  

 

 

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, teef said:

i think the point was it really wasn't a trend, (well, last year it was).  2020 there was a winning trend, 2021 was a losing trend.  neither means anything to this year.  

 

 

Then that's not an argument that this particular trend didn't exist - it's more of an argument that multi-season win/loss trends don't exist at all. Isn't it?

[Jauronimo]

If you break down any of those games, I don't see any particular pattern.  Two OT coin toss losses, one hail murray, going for it rather than kicking a field goal, one hurricane, three garbage performances where our offense had nothing and the defense kept it close. 

 

Would you guys be less concerned if we got blown out in Jacksonville?  Or maybe if played down to the level of our competition and let everybody hang around each week?

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, Jauronimo said:

If you break down any of those games, I don't see any particular pattern.  Two OT coin toss losses, one hail murray, going for it rather than kicking a field goal, one hurricane, three garbage performances where our offense had nothing and the defense kept it close. 

 

Would you guys be less concerned if we got blown out in Jacksonville?  Or maybe if played down to the level of our competition and let everybody hang around each week?

I think McD's 0-13 record in games down by 10 at halftime before yesterday was FAR more useful and alarming, because it backed up observation that his teams rarely deviated from the script during games, including very rarely making any obvious half time adjustments that resulted in positive change. I'm not sure what changes if any were made on D yesterday, but they clearly played better pitching a second half shutout. Jackson also played quite a bit worse trying to force the ball, and that helped out a lot too.

[machine gun kelly]

14 minutes ago, K-9 said:

I’m not changing the argument at all. Just saying you can’t cite stats from 2021 as proof that this team can’t win one score games when the stats from 2020 clearly demonstrate that this team can win one score games. And btw, 2020 was only two years ago and there isn’t a big enough sample from this season to be included for analysis. It’s simply a two season analysis; 2020 and 2021. 
 

And I don’t give a FF if people care or not. 
 

 

[Low Positive]

1 minute ago, Jauronimo said:

If you break down any of those games, I don't see any particular pattern.  Two OT coin toss losses, one hail murray, going for it rather than kicking a field goal, one hurricane, three garbage performances where our offense had nothing and the defense kept it close. 

 

Would you guys be less concerned if we got blown out in Jacksonville?  Or maybe if played down to the level of our competition and let everybody hang around each week?

And just the tone of this board today pisses me off. Everyone all weeks harps on how we can't win the close one. We go out and win a close game in terrible conditions and everyone wonders what's wrong with the offense because we didn't win in a blowout. The Bills are apparently not "championship caliber" like the almighty Chiefs, who have had the exact same start to the season as the Bills (2 blow outs and 2 close games with one road loss). This is supposed to be victory Monday, and its all doom and gloom. I guess its BBFS, but get over it people. The Bills are really good. Enjoy it!

[teef]

7 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

Then that's not an argument that this particular trend didn't exist - it's more of an argument that multi-season win/loss trends don't exist at all. Isn't it?

no.  i thought the argument was some posters picking a very specific period of time to determine if mcd is good at close games or not.  i suppose we could go back to 2017 and see.  it's enough time and the most fair...right?

[Low Positive]

2 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

I think McD's 0-13 record in games down by 10 at halftime before yesterday was FAR more useful and alarming, because it backed up observation that his teams rarely deviated from the script during games, including very rarely making any obvious half time adjustments that resulted in positive change. I'm not sure what changes if any were made on D yesterday, but they clearly played better pitching a second half shutout. Jackson also played quite a bit worse trying to force the ball, and that helped out a lot too.

What's amazing is that in 85 games coached, the Bills have only been down by 10 at HT in 14 of them.  And that's counting games in 2017 and 2018 where we had very little talent on the field. I think that McDermott gets a lot out of his players.

[machine gun kelly]

On 9/25/2022 at 4:15 PM, UKBillFan said:

Complete chokers across the board, with no clue how to play when under pressure. Offense was putrid and the play calling little better. Favourites for the Superbowl? Only if the defense is fully fit because the Offense, even with the so called predicted MVP, is not good enough.

 

ETA 15 minutes later - Won't delete the original post because I have to own it. But now I've calmed down slightly... still annoying. And I think I'll still have doubts about us being able to able to cope with the pressure of a one score game at the death until we win one of them.

This is a silly argument as I noticed some only look at 2021, and manipulate for their argument a deletion of the validity of 2020.  That’s not 3 years ago.

 2020 and 2021 are a combined two year sample size.

 

this year is all of 4 games.  32 games +4 this year is much more accurate sample size.

 

We are not great here, nor are we the worst.  We also destroy a lot of teams.  It’s not Madden.  You don’t win like Alabama over Appalachian state weekly.

[Warcodered]

17 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I'd argue the trend was that they were good at winning close games, then bad, now this year they are .500 which is basically the NFL average win% in one score games extrapolated. Not statistically significant one way or the other really, random fluctuations will inevitably occur and people will inevitably try to parse meaning from them.

[BullBuchanan]

Just now, teef said:

no.  i thought the argument was some posters picking a very specific period of time to determine if mcd is good at close games or not.  i suppose we could go back to 2017 and see.  it's enough time and the most fair...right?

It wasn't a specific period of time though. It was every game from the Hail Murray-present. It's not like it's some arbitrary slice of past data that has no relevancy. If someone wants to look up records by year, go ahead.

[Scott7975]

39 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

2020 isn't included because it wasn't part of the trend. It's not a narrative, it's stats. They were good, and then they were bad. 1 deviation from an existing trend doesn't change the trend, but it's the only way to start.
 

What does it look like 7-8 years out? 20-30 years out? They were in an uptrend, then in a downtrend. where they go from here is undetermined.
 

What you're doing here is called "projecting". My argument is precisely the opposite of your claim because it takes previous trend into account. You're popping the champagne after the first 1 score victory in the last 8 and declaring all previous data invalid. In your words, you're down $6500 and celebrating your recent $500 win.
 

I don't need any further argument because my previous argument stands.

 

It doesnt stand because you are drawing the line to your bias.  You also said the last two years.  It hasnt been two years.  Your stats are 1 year +4 games.  The least you can do is be geniune on that drawn line of two years which would be 4-9 not 1-7.  This year you want to count last year but last year people didnt want to count the year before.  Thats complete bias.  

Edited October 3, 2022 by Scott7975

[BullBuchanan]

2 minutes ago, FrenchConnection said:

What's amazing is that in 85 games coached, the Bills have only been down by 10 at HT in 14 of them.  And that's counting games in 2017 and 2018 where we had very little talent on the field. I think that McDermott gets a lot out of his players.

There's no doubt about that.

Just now, Scott7975 said:

 

It doesnt stand because you are drawing the line to your bias.  You also said the last two years.  It hasnt been two years.  Your stats are 1 year +4 games.  The least you can do is be geniune on that drawn line of two years which would be 4-9 not 1-7.  This year you want to count last year but last year people didnt want to count the year before.  Thats complete bias.  

It goes back to Hail Murray on November 15th 2020. Why do you keep doubling down on being wrong about publicly available information that takes seconds to source?

[Scott7975]

32 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

So change the argument that they were good at a thing 3 years ago that they've recently been bad at and see how many people care? I don't even have a horse in this race. I'm just here to defend the concept of trends.

 

Again that wasnt 3 years ago.  Thats two years ago + 4 games.  Do you call yourself a year older when your birthday isnt for another 5 or 6 months?

[Scott7975]

25 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

I think McD's 0-13 record in games down by 10 at halftime before yesterday was FAR more useful and alarming, because it backed up observation that his teams rarely deviated from the script during games, including very rarely making any obvious half time adjustments that resulted in positive change. I'm not sure what changes if any were made on D yesterday, but they clearly played better pitching a second half shutout. Jackson also played quite a bit worse trying to force the ball, and that helped out a lot too.

 

Ok again bias.  When it comes to one score games you say that the overall body of work doesnt count but his record for games when down by 10 at halftime his overall body of work somehow does count.  Thats some serious mental gymnastics.  Maybe you should take a break.

18 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

There's no doubt about that.

It goes back to Hail Murray on November 15th 2020. Why do you keep doubling down on being wrong about publicly available information that takes seconds to source?

 

I literally just looked at the exact last two years of games.  It is not wrong.  This year + last year is not two full years.  We are four games into the season.  I skipped the first four games of 2020. You need a break bro.

Edited October 3, 2022 by Scott7975