Lori Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 I'm hoping you can see the difference... The Bills scored 41 of those 51 points in the FIRST HALF. They didn't score a TD with 20 seconds left in the game. In fact, we probably could've put up close to 100 points that game, if we had wanted to. That's not the same as scoring with a 14 point lead and 10-20 seconds left in the game. CW 485798[/snapback] There's no point-differential tiebreaker once you get to the playoffs. That's one difference I see. And to your earlier post, I only had to go back to 1998, and the reason the Bills played at Miami in the WC game instead of them coming here: Miami finished ahead of Buffalo based on better net point totals in division games. One more TD in any of Buffalo's division games, and that playoff game would've been at RWS. Likewise: PIT over JAX 1997 for the AFC Central Championship, net points in division games SD over OAK 1980 for the AFC West Championship, net points in division games PHI over DAL 1980 for the NFC East Championship, net points in division games CHI over WAS 1979 for the last wildcard spot, total net points CHI over WAS 1977 for the last wildcard, net points in conference games Not like either of these teams are likely to end up in a playoff tiebreaker, but it has happened before... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 There's no point-differential tiebreaker once you get to the playoffs. That's one difference I see. And to your earlier post, I only had to go back to 1998, and the reason the Bills played at Miami in the WC game instead of them coming here: Miami finished ahead of Buffalo based on better net point totals in division games. One more TD in any of Buffalo's division games, and that playoff game would've been at RWS. Likewise: PIT over JAX 1997 for the AFC Central Championship, net points in division games SD over OAK 1980 for the AFC West Championship, net points in division games PHI over DAL 1980 for the NFC East Championship, net points in division games CHI over WAS 1979 for the last wildcard spot, total net points CHI over WAS 1977 for the last wildcard, net points in conference games Not like either of these teams are likely to end up in a playoff tiebreaker, but it has happened before... 485827[/snapback] So it's been nearly 30 years since net points in a conference game has been a tiebreaker... I'm pretty sure the tiebreakers have changed since then, to make it even more difficult to get down that far. As I stated in my last post, the '98 season was division points. Here's the new tiebreaker rules (changed in '02, when they changed to 4 divisions per conference): http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakers Points in non-divisional games are way down on the list now. Cw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blue Chipper Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Anybody here complain when the score was 51-3?Nope? Then shaddup. 485772[/snapback] we had 48 at half time so to only kick a field goal over the next 30 minutes of playing time when we probably could have put up another 4 or 5 scores- thats the right thing to do. We seriously could have scored over 70 that day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 So it's been nearly 30 years since net points in a conference game has been a tiebreaker... I'm pretty sure the tiebreakers have changed since then, to make it even more difficult to get down that far. As I stated in my last post, the '98 season was division points. Cw 485841[/snapback] And division points no longer exists as a tiebreaker - after strength of schedule, you go right to "Best combined ranking among conference teams in points scored and points allowed." That's the #6 tiebreaker between 2 teams in different divisions, #7 between three or more. The three tiebreakers immediately following also involve net points. As I said: Likely? No. But it exists. And as long as it does, Turner was just doing his job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 As I said: Likely? No. But it exists. And as long as it does, Turner was just doing his job. 485853[/snapback] Then Turner's the only coach in the league doing his job, because most coaches don't do that at the end of a game. For example: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=251023034 1st and 10 at HST 15 (:48) P.Manning kneels to HST 17 for -2 yards. PENALTY on HST, Defensive 12 On-field, 5 yards, enforced at HST 15 - No Play. 1st and 5 at HST 10 (:38) P.Manning kneels to HST 11 for -1 yards. 3rd and 13 at HST 11 (:25) P.Manning kneels to HST 13 for -2 yards. Pretty sure Indy could've scored another TD if they wanted to (or at least kicked a FG). I guess Dungy isn't doing his job. The Rams' new coach isn't doing his job properly either: 2nd and 11 at NO 12 (:48) J.Martin kneels to NO 14 for -2 yards (B.Young). 3rd and 13 at NO 14 (:22) J.Martin kneels to NO 15 for -1 yards (B.Young). 2nd and 11 at NO 12 (:48) J.Martin kneels to NO 14 for -2 yards (B.Young). 3rd and 13 at NO 14 (:22) J.Martin kneels to NO 15 for -1 yards (B.Young). And can you believe those KC Chiefs? What the heck, why weren't they running up the score? Don't they know it's a tiebreaker?! 1st and 10 at MIA 31 (1:08) T.Green kneels to MIA 32 for -1 yards.2nd and 11 at MIA 32 (:37) T.Green kneels to MIA 33 for -1 yards. http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=251021015 CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Feel free to work yourself into a lather over this, Fez, but in my opinion, the Raiders did nothing wrong. And as was said earlier: if the Bills defense didn't want that last TD scored on them, maybe they should've freakin' tackled somebody. #&%! this, it's past my bedtime. Later, all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fezmid Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Feel free to work yourself into a lather over this, Fez, but in my opinion, the Raiders did nothing wrong. And as was said earlier: if the Bills defense didn't want that last TD scored on them, maybe they should've freakin' tackled somebody. #&%! this, it's past my bedtime. Later, all. 485882[/snapback] I'm not "working myself into a lather," I'm simply stating (with facts) that NO other coach in the NFL would run up the score like that. It's a pretty weak argument to say, "They should've tackled the back." The point is, it was a classless move by the Raiders. CW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 I'm not "working myself into a lather," I'm simply stating (with facts) that NO other coach in the NFL would run up the score like that. It's a pretty weak argument to say, "They should've tackled the back." The point is, it was a classless move by the Raiders.CW 485901[/snapback] Sam Wyche of the B'gals and Jerry Glanville of the then-Houston Oilers hated each and would run it up on each other when they had the chance: 1987: Cin 44-27, Hou 45-27 1988: Cin 45-21, Hou 41-6 1989: Cin 61-7, Hou 26-24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 we had 48 at half time so to only kick a field goal over the next 30 minutes of playing time when we probably could have put up another 4 or 5 scores- thats the right thing to do. We seriously could have scored over 70 that day. 485851[/snapback] we only had 41 at the half and scored 10 2nd half points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plenzmd1 Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 we only had 41 at the half and scored 10 2nd half points. 485943[/snapback] Ya know what, I do not remember one play from the second half of that game. I remember walking to the car, partying in the lot for a good hr or two, but do not remember ONE stinkin play in the second half. Now, on the other hand when it comes to tie breakers....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gggbills Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 So it's been nearly 30 years since net points in a conference game has been a tiebreaker... I'm pretty sure the tiebreakers have changed since then, to make it even more difficult to get down that far. As I stated in my last post, the '98 season was division points. Here's the new tiebreaker rules (changed in '02, when they changed to 4 divisions per conference): http://www.nfl.com/standings/tiebreakers Points in non-divisional games are way down on the list now. Cw 485841[/snapback] Ya, and we all know the Raiders are playoff bound, so they better score as many points as possible.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Who the hell cares what the final score was and if they ran up the score. Buffalo got crushed and the way they played, they deserved it. I can't believe people are whining about running up the score. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anon Y. Mous Posted October 25, 2005 Share Posted October 25, 2005 Hell, if I were the Raiders I wouldn't have stopped there if you are playing against a bunch of pushovers who gave up at halftime why not go for the onside kick as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 hey mike, as far as i am concerened, the jury is still out on you until we get you a GM who knows how to draft, but FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, QUIT WHINING about that last raiders touchdown to the media! just stop RIGHT NOW before you embarrass yourself any worse! if the raiders pounding it in one last time on our sorry asses was so humilating to the boys that you need to make a public issue out of it, then there is no hope for them anyway- since they are clearly not emotionally tough enough for the NFL.. but still, if you're going to complain about something, why not complain about the lack of pride and intensity we showed in letting them run it down our throats! THAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM COACH- not the fact that "somebuddy's wittle fee-wings" got hurt on a late touchdown! jesus! honestly! i am astonished that he would even discuss the matter when, time and time again, we have seen that this is a team with NO BALLS when it counts. and he is worried about their feelings being hurt! no wonder this team has no spine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 hey mike, as far as i am concerened, the jury is still out on you until we get you a GM who knows how to draft, but FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, QUIT WHINING about that last raiders touchdown to the media! just stop RIGHT NOW before you embarrass yourself any worse! if the raiders pounding it in one last time on our sorry asses was so humilating to the boys that you need to make a public issue out of it, then there is no hope for them anyway- since they are clearly not emotionally tough enough for the NFL.. but still, if you're going to complain about something, why not complain about the lack of pride and intensity we showed in letting them run it down our throats! THAT'S THE REAL PROBLEM COACH- not the fact that "somebuddy's wittle fee-wings" got hurt on a late touchdown! jesus! honestly! i am astonished that he would even discuss the matter when, time and time again, we have seen that this is a team with NO BALLS when it counts. and he is worried about their feelings being hurt! no wonder this team has no spine. 486887[/snapback] I agree with all your points. The only thing I can figure is that its pure desperation on Mularkeys part. I got to think he is using that last TD to inspire his team. But your right, the least of this teams problem is something like a late touchdown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I'm not so sure that him saying "We wouldn't do it" is whining. In fact, it sounds like everyone but Mularkey is making a big deal out of it, doesn't it? Mularkey and Turner had a civil conversation about the touchdown as they walked off the field and into the tunnel. "He said I would understand someday," Mularkey said during his weekly radio show Monday night. "Even as a young coach, I've already experienced it one time. . . . I'm not sure what he's going through there with everything, so I can't question that." A source close to Al Davis said the Raiders' owner was not happy with the touchdown because he is a longtime friend of Bills owner Ralph C. Wilson Jr. Turner was quoted in the San Francisco Chronicle as saying, "We've gone through a rough stretch, and they wanted to go get another score. There have been times when I've taken a knee, but it was important for our guys, so it was important for me." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jester43 Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 when asked about the late TD he should flat out say: "that touchdown is the least of our problems." or "the issue is not that they tried to score, but that we LET them." he should not give some wishy-washy answer like, "gee i wouldn't ever do that." and the fact that he even brought it up to norv shows his head's not in the right place! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 I'm not so sure that him saying "We wouldn't do it" is whining. In fact, it sounds like everyone but Mularkey is making a big deal out of it, doesn't it? 486916[/snapback] mm is gonna have the raiders circled in blood next time, so bet against the bills the week before then dump it all on the bills the weekend after that game..the one against the raiders Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 and the fact that he even brought it up to norv shows his head's not in the right place! 486921[/snapback] What makes you think that Norv didn't bring it up? Also, he didn't start his post game comments talking about the TD. He was asked about it, and he responded that he would've taken a knee, etc. Honestly, I view it as a non-issue, but to each his own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
e-dog Posted October 26, 2005 Share Posted October 26, 2005 Right now I want to see if he has this team ready to play in New England. Thats the team he needs to "circle in blood". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts