Randall Flagg

Here's a GIF of the face that works a little better than PA's video

I get your point, but we aren't in a playoff spot unless you assert Montreal loses their next game AND Tampa goes 1-3-0 or worse in their next 4 to catch up. People aren't about to do front flips for having the 10th best points percentage in the conference on the heels of all that's transpired since 2017. They're gonna complain after bad losses and strings of 20+ games with 6 wins or less, and coming into the thread after a lone victory to post these standings really won't change any feelings Suggesting people shouldn't be upset about it doesn't work after years and years of doing so in the face of continued upsetting results

I've come around on the folly of thinking it was an "error" to go for 2 where we did, as in affecting our chances at a win in a big way, but I still wouldn't have done it. The focus on end-of-drive scenarios doesn't do it for me when we are talking about this game against this defense, because we struggled so much in moving the ball. Going for one completely ensures that one more TD drive gives you the chance to tie the game. This is a tall order in itself, as we only had one all day. I place tremendous value in guaranteeing this effective four minute drill for our young offense in this kind of moment. Success or failure, it's invaluable material for Josh and a young offensive core. The upside of going for two early does not functionally improve this DRIVE situation, even if it helps us by about 40% in a one-off two yard play at the end of it. We still require the same touchdown drive in the same amount of time - it doesn't make THIS part easier, which is the most important part of the day (because as we went on to show, we weren't quite capable of doing this). However, the downside of going for two there is a 40% chance at the game ending, and functionally removing the opportunity of a young offense to go through that last drive, which brought value even if it was unsuccessful, because again, it would require two fast stops and in the best case scenario give us a max of ~3:45 to go down the field twice - closing off much of the playbook. If we had a vet QB and a vet roster, old hat in big games against strong opponents? Sure, take that chance now and try to win it with another 2 point conversion later. But I'd choose to play it safe early and guarantee that Josh gets this drive with all his plays and time on the clock, rather than a 40% chance of effectively ending the game. I think we're better that this last drive had happened going forward, than we would have been in the other case, presuming worst case scenarios for the 2 pointer in both cases. Because this case got Josh a 4 minute drill against the best team in the league. It is amazing how you call every discussion that takes place on this forum that you don't care that much about "getting worked up" and "getting emotional" and "freaking out" nobody is doing any of this, and this is a sports forum, we talk about sh*t, deal with it

If it was changing the type of score or number of scoring drives needed, then it would have been worth it. It didn't. The drives themselves, and situations they're in, are more relevant to me than the coin flip at the end if they're successful.

If the 2 point conversion is a necessary coin flip, I'd just rather flip the coin on the last play of the game. The upside of the two point success with 7 minutes left wasn't worth its downside. Because it didn't materially change the gameplan from an extra point kick.

The way I'm looking at it is this: The probability of the Bills missing the two point conversion (I'm not asserting it will happen here, I'm referring to the 40% chance that this happens at the time of making the decision) and still being capable of tying the game with two scoring drives in five minutes left, given our offensive performance in the game and the Ravens' ability to grind clock, is in my imagination, SUBSTANTIALLY lower than their probability of needing one drive to score the potential game tying touchdown, multiplied by the 60% chance of making a 2 pointer at the end. The risk is far larger in the first case, as it's 40% game over instantly, versus living to fight on and postponing that same value of failed 2 point conversion to the end of ONE scoring drive rather than messing around with two drives with an offense that hasn't moved all day, shows terrible clock management (see the Cleveland game), with a team that can grind the clock down better than perhaps anyone else in the league on the other side of the LOS. Definitely feels true that rookie TEs tend to look worse than rookies at some other positions in the NFL

The best case scenario for the two point conversion (a 60% play) means that we need a TD drive with 5 minutes left. It's identical to the 95% likelihood that we make an extra point. The worst case scenario is getting the ball back with 5 minutes left, like we did, needing two scoring drives, which was absolutely not going to happen. This had a 40% likelihood, as opposed to the 5% likelihood of a missed extra point. I'd believe you if there were 10 minutes left in the game, but our full playbook was miserable today, and cutting it to the clock management offensive plays would have been even worse. There wasn't time for two drives. There is no chance I will be convinced that this was the right choice in this game I'd rather have a 2 point conversion needed with a few seconds left than a 40% chance of game over the second the play is finished with 6 minutes left and the ravens getting the ball. And it's not even close.

Yes. No guarantee it stays AS good, but reason to believe it will still be good.

Nope. Option A.) You kick the extra point. You need one Ravens stop and one scoring drive, and have 5 minutes and therefore a full playbook to do it. At the end, you'll need to make one two point conversion. Option B.) You go for two. Just like before, you need to make one total two point conversion,and then get one stop and have one more TD drive - that doesn't change. what does change is, if you don't, the game is over right there, because you need TWO stops, and TWO scoring drives, and will only have the ball for about 3-3.5 minutes total, closing up the playbook. The benefit of "knowing" an impossibility (two scoring drives on the ravens after stopping Lamar twice and having less than 5 minutes to do it) is completely meaningless. The Bills, had they kicked the extra point, would have had the same situation at the end of the game (that they didn't take advantage of). Had they missed the two points, they showed that with 5 minutes and a full playbook they couldn't even get to the end zone once before there was no time left, much less doing it AGAIN after another stop (far from guaranteed).

Brady sux

Mahomes sux

D is legit

Also, as long as we get to ten wins, finishing the year against BAL, PIT, NE, and NYJ's defenses is going to be a blessing in disguise.

Allen isn't going to improve on the deep ball this year, which is why I don't think it's smart to call those plays 4 times in the first 7 passes. The reason he went from awful to near best in the league in the intermediate range is a disproportionate amount of reps spanning the last 12 months. The deep pass has been moved to the back burner because of this. They've told us this themselves. This offseason they'll work more on the deep ball. It'll likely never be a strength of his but I'd be pretty surprised if it didn't become serviceable. It's not an accuracy thing, it's purely trajectory It's the story of having a raw QB prospect. Woah. Mahomes sucks! ? Allen is still overwhelmed by teams that can both blitz and cover simultaneously. the previous three games his quarter back rating (not sure which one) against the blitz was well over 100, because those teams weren't the Ravens and Pats. The Texans, Chiefs, can't/won't do this, so our offense probably won't look this bad if we make the playoffs and go on the road. Last year, he would have unraveled in the Cowboys game. This year, he didn't, but he did against Baltimore and NE. And his performance against Baltimore was better than his performance against NE. As long as there's continued growth I'm happy

I'm curious about what happened to Poyer on the long TD.

To be fair, Jackson has 3TEs better than any weapon we have, schemed college open every play. He was o-fer on NFL throws to the boundary today, he wasn't very good either

He has very good speed, sure hands that won't make spectacular grabs but are reliable, and runs a variety of routes impeccably. A perfect #2 that won't win you the game on the last play of the game. Need to find the #1. And on that last play, a #1 is simply not that well covered in man.

I love John Brown. Imagine Mike Evans running that route. We'd be going to overtime.

Tough game. I'm not discouraged.

Refs holding our hands down the field! Yeah, that was PI.

One point that doesn't change the requirement of a TD on this drive doesn't change the complexion of the game IMO.

That was a bad decision. You need 2 points either way, but if you kick an EXP, you have one scoring drive needed if you stop them and get the ball back, and should have enough time to keep the playbook relatively open. If you miss the 2, then you need two stops, two drives, and can't call either one the way you'd want to.

I would kick the extra point here... What do I know? ?

These guys seem to execute better on the road for whatever reason.

Pretty much. Whenever they do design runs for Allen it goes horribly, save for about 3 plays this season, but he's really effective when the play breaks down. Lamar can run always but is in a RPO offense