Recent Posts

+1

You could say many teams are average without their QB, for instance Kansas City and Baltimore are average without their QB's.

I wouldn't say KC is average without Mahomes, they have a very good defense year in and year out. They wouldn't be perrenial SuperBowl contenders, but I still think they would be pretty good. Prior to this year I would have said the same for Baltimore for the most part, but I don't see their defense as being quite as good this year as previously.

Yes, I agree that any team is not as good without their starting QB but I think this year in particular Allen is basically carrying that team.

You don't actually know that because (unlike, say, BAL) you haven't seen BUF forced to play without Josh Allen.

Last season, BUF with Josh Allen (voluntarily) on the bench lost on the road to NE 23-16.
This season, BUF with Josh Allen under center lost at home to NE 23-20.
That is not particularly compelling proof of how bad the Bills would be without Josh Allen.

If you assume that NE and Buffalo last year and this year are exactly the same which I don't. Besides it wasn't just Allen that sat the bench that day it was most of Buffalo's starters. Maye didn't play that game either. Can't really tell anything from that game.

I just saw a coach in unserious capri pants walk into a locker room and "go ballistic" after a week 11 win like his team just won the conference championship.  So unserious!  Yet more evidence that only Serious Coaches win in the National Football League.

You measure head coaching success in the NFL via the winning of mere single games?

How would you phrase "The defense can't stop anyone, so the offense has to score virtually every time they get the ball or the Dolphins lose"?
I call that being forced to simply outscore the opponent.

This is only the second or third game in the McDaniel era that was won by the defense (as opposed to the offense being forced to simply outscore every opponent).

    That's quite a spin. lol  "The offense being "forced" to outscore their opponents." That is so funny.  And here I thought it was the job of the offense to score points.

"More likely" is more likely than "less likely," no matter how you slice it.
But sometimes the facts don't matter and public perception is what it is.

[increase]

I thought that McDaniel was crazy and I would have agreed with you.

But I started thinking about it and the liklihood of winning and you're 3.5% more likely to win the game if you go for the TD, according to Dan Lebatard today.  Granted, those numbers are averages, assuming a completely generic offense and defense.  You don't get to factor in that we're uniquely bad at running for 1 yard or that Mariota is a bum.

But the decision, on paper at least, seems to have been the right one.

And it worked out, so I think I need to eat crow.

A 3.5% increase in winning is an extremely small increase and not worth the risk.  I used a probability calculator with a 3 point lead, 2 minutes left, with the opponent starting on the 30 yard line (no option to enter available TO's).  The result is a win 90.89% of the time.

You don't actually know that because (unlike, say, BAL) you haven't seen BUF forced to play without Josh Allen.

Last season, BUF with Josh Allen (voluntarily) on the bench lost on the road to NE 23-16.
This season, BUF with Josh Allen under center lost at home to NE 23-20.
That is not particularly compelling proof of how bad the Bills would be without Josh Allen.

At the risk of repeating myself, I think we know what the list of "credible names" will look like when Pam Bondi is done with it:

I just saw a coach in unserious capri pants walk into a locker room and "go ballistic" after a week 11 win like his team just won the conference championship.  So unserious!  Yet more evidence that only Serious Coaches win in the National Football League.