Lose on purpose?

[Prospector]

I want to see us purposefully not score any points and win. 

[Mango]

Does losing to an NFC opponent still help us? Or did they remove that in the last CBA?

[strive_for_five_guy]

Do you eat crayons?

[Herc11]

22 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Exactly.  It’s cool we have this long streak but it leaves it unclear if we NEED to win the turnover battle,.  Also, each week the odds increase that we lose it.  If we are way ahead, we might as well get those odds back in our favor.

How in the h3ll does the odds increase???

 

It's not like there's a 1 in 1000 chance of a fumble and every possession reduces those odds and they definitely don't reset once you do turn the ball over. Each possession carries its own set of odds that are entirely separate of every other possession. 

18 minutes ago, MJS said:

Let's then see if we can win a game without scoring any points on offense. That's the logical next step, I think.

 

You're definitely on to something! We need to see if we have to depend on the offense to win us games! 

 

Then try and all field goal game to see if we need to depend on touchdowns. 

Edited September 28 by Herc11

[Rubes]

@4merper4mer reels them in again! It’s been a while since we’ve seen one of these. Well done, sir.

 

[4merper4mer]

7 minutes ago, Herc11 said:

How in the h3ll does the odds increase???

 

It's not like there's a 1 in 1000 chance of a fumble and every possession reduces those odds and they definitely don't reset once you do turn the ball over. Each possession carries its own set of odds that are entirely separate of every other possession. 

 

 

Maybe I didn’t explain it right.  Forget individual turnovers.  There are two teams in every game.  The turnover battle in each game will either go to team A, team B or will be even.  So you have a 2 in 3 chance of either winning or breaking even.  The Bills have done that 25 times in a row or something like that.  2/3 to the 26th power is an extremely low number so the odds are the Bills will lose the turnover battle tomorrow whether they try or not.  2/3 to the 27th power is an even lower number.  NE isn’t great but they are better than NO and a divisional opponent.  I’d rather have a 2/3 chance at not losing the turnover game to them than such a small number like 2/3 to the 27th.  That’s why I think if things are even and we are safely ahead…….fumble.

[Iiiiiiiiive Got a Feeeelin]

3 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

That’s why I think if things are even and we are safely ahead…….fumble.

Fumbling on purpose and making it not blatant would be tough to do.  And what is this some kind of turnover karma logic you’re using? It’s not sound

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, Iiiiiiiiive Got a Feeeelin said:

Fumbling on purpose and making it not blatant would be tough to do.  And what is this some kind of turnover karma logic you’re using? It’s not sound

It’s stats 101.

[MasterStrategist]

3 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Maybe I didn’t explain it right.  Forget individual turnovers.  There are two teams in every game.  The turnover battle in each game will either go to team A, team B or will be even.  So you have a 2 in 3 chance of either winning or breaking even.  The Bills have done that 25 times in a row or something like that.  2/3 to the 26th power is an extremely low number so the odds are the Bills will lose the turnover battle tomorrow whether they try or not.  2/3 to the 27th power is an even lower number.  NE isn’t great but they are better than NO and a divisional opponent.  I’d rather have a 2/3 chance at not losing the turnover game to them than such a small number like 2/3 to the 27th.  That’s why I think if things are even and we are safely ahead…….fumble.

Too bad probability doesnt work like that...

 

I think you missed a class or 2 in college bro.

 

After every event, the next event is "independent"- hence, that 2/3 odds (which isnt correct anyhow, but thats a different issue), is our chances each game.  

 

So to counter your point, if we have thr turnover battle wrapped up or even, in this game.  It makes zero sense to intentionally turn it over - because in our next game we still have the same odds.  Ie: our odds dont change going forward

 

So again, your lost makes zero sense

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, MasterStrategist said:

Too bad probability doesnt work like that...

 

I think you missed a class or 2 in college bro.

 

After every event, the next event is "independent"- hence, that 2/3 odds (which isnt correct anyhow, but thats a different issue), is our chances each game.  

 

So to counter your point, if we have thr turnover battle wrapped up or even, in this game.  It makes zero sense to intentionally turn it over - because in our next game we still have the same odds.  Ie: our odds dont change going forward

 

So again, your lost makes zero sense

Then why hasn’t Joe Dimaggio’s hit streak ever been broken?

[MasterStrategist]

2 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

It’s stats 101.

So if I flip a coin 9x, and all 9 are tails.

 

Then on the 10th flip, what is the odds its tails again? 

 

50/50.  Again, having 25 straight games of not losing the turnover battle, doesnt change our odds in game 26.  Just a perception

1 minute ago, 4merper4mer said:

Then why hasn’t Joe Dimaggio’s hit streak ever been broken?

You're missing the point. 

 

See my prior post

[eee1776]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

This might be the dumbest post I've ever read .

 

[4merper4mer]

4 minutes ago, MasterStrategist said:

So if I flip a coin 9x, and all 9 are tails.

 

Then on the 10th flip, what is the odds its tails again? 

 

50/50.  Again, having 25 straight games of not losing the turnover battle, doesnt change our odds in game 26.  Just a perception

You're missing the point. 

 

See my prior post

Well then I guess you should have talked to Pete Rose…….and about a hundred other players…..before the odds caught up with them.  I guess it was all in their imagination.

[Big Turk]

5 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Well then I guess you should have talked to Pete Rose…….and about a hundred other players…..before the odds caught up with them.  I guess it was all in their imagination.

 

Logic isn't your strong suit. Please stick to tiddlywinks.

 

Edited September 28 by Big Turk

[Albany,n.y.]

1 hour ago, Big Turk said:

This might be the dumbest post I've ever read on here and that says a lot.

Another reason this is the dumbest post ever is because if a player did this in today's NFL with legal gambling, the NFL and the FBI would be looking at him for point fixing and he could be banned for life and end up in prison.

Edited September 28 by Albany,n.y.

[MasterStrategist]

6 minutes ago, 4merper4mer said:

Well then I guess you should have talked to Pete Rose…….and about a hundred other players…..before the odds caught up with them.  I guess it was all in their imagination.

I think you've been dunked on enough already here, so I won't pile on anymore.

 

Go Bills, and keep that turnover stat streak alive tomorrow!

[4merper4mer]

1 minute ago, Albany,n.y. said:

Another reason this is the dumbest post ever is because of a player did this on today's NFL with legal gambling, the NFL and the FBI would be looking at him for point fixing and he could be banned for life and end up in prison.

This is actually a valid point.  I hadn’t thought of it.  It would be interesting to see how the league reacted when the player indicated he was trying to help the team in the long run.  It’s probably not worth the risk.

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

I think the bigger question is WHO should be the designated fumbler.  Josh has finally tamped down all the turnover-prone talk, so not him.  If Cook lays it down, future opponents will see that in film study, and try harder to knock it out when it counts, so not him.

 

How about we call up Gore from the practice squad and let him fill the role this week?  He won't be on the field for future playoff games, so less risk of future consequences.  If he takes (gives?) one for the team, so to speak, maybe reward him by making the other practice squad guys pick up the used towels for a while.

[gonzo1105]

We should probably give this one away since it’s an NFC opponent and it doesn’t mean as much because of Conference record. 
 

Plus we need to make the Saints feel better about themselves 

[Buffalo716]

1 minute ago, gonzo1105 said:

We should probably give this one away since it’s an NFC opponent and it doesn’t mean as much because of Conference record. 
 

Plus we need to make the Saints feel better about themselves 

Sarcastaball baby! Let's just be really polite tomorrow

Edited September 28 by Buffalo716