Dan

OK, lets forget our woes for a moment. Once again, the Ravens are beating an undefeated team (referring to the Pats* game last year and the Titans game yesterday) and once again the Refs make a horrendous call against the Ravens. Late 4th quarter, the Titans are down, but driving. The Ravens appear to stop them; but wait. 2 flags on the play. 1st is false start on the Titans; 2nd is roughing the passer on the Ravens (not to mention the guy didn't even knock Collins down, he just ran into him - ticky tack to say the least). They throw out the false start and enforce the roughing the passer. Titans proceed to score and win the game. WTF?? Is this a new rule that you can choose to decline a false start penalty? Someone please explain to me how that can happen.

I gotta admit... that's gold. Pure gold, Jerry.

Not dumb down the players; dumb down the schemes, the stunts, the pulls and traps. Just line up in front of a guy and hit him.

Great opinions. Can't find much that I don't disagree with. From what I can tell and I don't pretend to be some line guru, but the Bills seem to be stunt happy. It's almost like they learned a new trick and think they should use it all the time. One of the reasons we seem to get no rush from our D-line is they spend half their time stunting and running around each other. Schobel, for example, has been criticized for not getting past Gandy. However, it seemed (and I haven't reviewed the game to verify this) that he spent most of his time stunting and rushing over the center. How many times did the Bills go with that "lets open the entire middle of the defense" look. Ya know the one where all the Tackles and DEs are lined up a few yards outside either of the guards, the LBs are 10-15 yards off the line of scrimmage. Then at the snap, they all run around each other before they rush the QB. This defense didn't work in the 2007 preseason and its not working now. I have no idea why they continue to try it. They got great pressure on Seattle because they loaded the line right in the middle and rushed straight through the gaps. It worked. But, for some inexplicable reason they shelved that plan. Offensively, I'd say its a similar situation. There seems to be too many pulls, stunts and zone blocks and not enough just straight up knock the crap out of the guys in front of you. It just seems to me they need to dumb down the line play a little. Just line the guys up and let them go at the guys in front of them. And while they're at it, get back to the basics of tackling. I'm not sure how you teach a guy to tackle. But, I'd probably call in a high school or possible middle school coach and have him spend a couple of days with the defense this week. Maybe that would drive the point home that they need to focus on the basics a little more.

I hear ya there. Mine made it until the Royal fumble. Good thing the wife doesn't know how to post videos to youtube. That's all I can say.

Sorry, the sarcasm didn't come through. I was agreeing with you and adding to it. He was one of the few defensive players that I wasn't cussing throughout the game.

Several pressures, several tackles for no gain, and a tipped pass today. Other than that, he sucked. Schobel is not the problem. Yes, it would be nice to see more sacks, but running one of the few guys actually playing out of town is not the answer.

That's what I see. He clearly leaves the ground and seems to drive Trent into the ground not to mention the ball was thrown and the dude in no way tried to pull up. Definitely a viscous-looking hit. I've seen far milder hits draw a flag every week it seems; in the Pitt/Jag game tonight, for example. I'd be shocked if there's a fine though.

Maybe we should put him at LT and switch Peters to TE?

There's a whole fanclub of guys that would ask you to recant that statement. Thank you very much.

I know.. I know. I was trying to think of a really bad chick flick. But you seem to have gotten the point.

I think you're missing the point. To even bring up JP's play and relate that in any way to why we lost is kinda like watching Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants and saying the movie sucked because the pants were ugly. One thing has nothing to do with the other. The Bills lost because their defense let Warner look like the league's MVP. JP or no JP it doesn't matter.

Yep. I'm fairly certain it was during the Colts game.

I think by "recently" he meant in the 4 games prior to today's game. Otherwise, his post makes little sense.

Trick question. If Hamdan comes in, football as we all know it ceases to exist as the Chroisen one breaks all records ever set in one game and all Bills opponents forfeit their games in fear of being smited. So, the SD game becomes irrelevant.

IMO, all young teams have to go through a process of learning how to win. They've already proven to themselves that they can come back in the 4th quarter. Now they got their first big and embarrassing loss of the season. The question now is how do they respond? Do they learn from it and come out fired up in 2 weeks and get back to winning or do they lose confidence and stumble through the next few games? I think we should have all expected a bad loss sooner or later. Now, how they respond against the Chargers will tell us how the season ends. Again, in my opinion.

We were down by 14. They had just scored the TD after the stupid Jenkins penalty that gave them another shot. There was about 2 minutes left in the 3rd quarter.

I forget which game it was (because I was flipping throughout all the early games), but someone caught a pass on the sideline and they called him in because his shin was down. First I had heard of it, but that's what they said.

I would have to agree. It probably wouldn't have been overturned, upon looking at the rewind a few times. However, we had only one angle to look at. I would assume a replay official would have had more than that to base a decision on. I still say Jauron should have challenged it. It was an absolutely critical time in the game and he needed to try. Granted, neither him nor the coaches seemed to have any better replay than we had sitting in our homes. But, still, challenge the play. What did we have to lose? A time out. What did we have to gain? The ball and more importantly the Cards not having the ball deep in their end.

His shin on his right leg looks very much like it hit the grass. The left leg, no, not even close.

I agree; it would have been close as to whether it was overturned or not. On TV feed, we had one replay to look at. On that one, as he was being pulled backwards, I saw the light disappear from about his ankle to mid way up his leg (not quite to his knee); but there was still light between his knee and the grass. Kinda weird to think your shin could be down and not your knee, if you ask me; but maybe he's got fat calves. Now, maybe there was better angle the replay official would have seen.

OK, upon review: His knee was NOT down. However, his shin almost certainly was. As I recall from earlier today 1 shin = 1 knee. So he should have been down. Initially, I thought the ball came out when he hit it on the ground. It actually came out of his hand just inches above the ground. So, the ground did not cause the fumble. It would have been a close review and I would never expect the Refs to give the Bills a call. But, IMO, his shin was down when the defender was pulling him back. Regardless of the outcome, Jauron still should have challenged it.

Glad to see someone else post this. I posted a thread early and it was deleted (no biggie), but Bryan, #96, pretty much gets beat every time he's on the field. I'm guessing the offense sees him come on the field and they call a run right at him. The guy was by far the weakest link of a weak defensive effort. Please, bench #96.

You're missing the point. JP being in the game allowed the Cards to score 41. If Trent was playing the Cards would have only score 20 points and we would have won. Not saying I agree with it, just pointing out the logic that dictates that JP is responsible for all bad plays.

I hear ya and more power to ya.