GunnerBill

Im saying it would have been entirely performative. Sure there was limited risk to throwing it. But there was zero chance of winning it. A 5 year old who has never watched football could tell you he was out of bounds.

I agree on Kincaid. I don't agree on Cook. I didn't see a single angle where it looked close to me. He was clearly out. He clearly landed out of bounds. They were 0.0%.

The announcers know sod all about the rules. I think there was a chance on that one. And it was worth throwing the red flag. But we more likely lose it than win it. It was just the cost benefit analysis was in favour of throwing it IMO. You need new glasses

There was 0.0% chance that one was being reversed. McDermott had the red flag in his hand. He was ready to throw it. He no doubt got word from upstairs he would just have looked stupid.

Cook wasn't a touchdown. He woulda been out inside the 5. And he was CLEARLY out. Kincaid I think was a catch and I do think was worth a challenge at that point in the game but I don't think there was clear enough evidence to overturn. I think 60/40 that stays on the field.

The personnel is a problem full stop IMO. The wide receivers in particular are as brutal as expected.

I am just not sure I agree with your premise that the kick would absolutely have been longer. I can see why you get there but it is still based on a ton of assumption. I agree, and have from the start, that three deep shots from the 2 was not good strategy. McDermott agrees with that. I just don't accept the part where it radically changes what happens without a first down.

Yep. And teams are going to stick with that. They know if you cede the middle to the Bills they can move the ball. They are daring us to beat them outside and entirely predictably we are struggling to do it.

You know what is interesting to me about the first down thing? The Bills are VERY bad when passing on first down. Which is really difficult to understand. Generally first down is the most advantageous passing down to start with because defenses are trying to key in on the run. Added to that we are in game five now and the Bills have established on tape that they are primarily a run first team on first down. That SHOULD result in some really advantageous looks for the Bills to pass from on first down. Last night passing first downs the Bills were 1-7 for -7 yards. That is almost unbelievable in the circumstances. And it comes to the point to me that the passing game is struggling even on downs where they should face as easy of a time as it is possible to face. Why is that? Is it playcalls? Is it protection (I think we struggle to protect in obvious passing situations but this should not be that)? Or is it skill player separation? When I get to the film of this game later this week those seven downs are the first ones I will look at. I suspect this a symptom of the skill position deficit, but will revert when I have had the chance to study. EDIT: Just checked the Ravens game - 4 of 11 for 23 yards. This is a real problem. If we can't pass in first down beyond the odd dump off to Cook or a tight end how the hell are we supposed to pass on 3rd down when the defense is selling out to stop the pass?

And they get it back with enough time to run a play, spike and kick. Completely right. I think it was the wrong plan to maximise our chance of a first down. I don't think it was the wrong plan to stop them kicking a FG. There was no right plan to stop Houston kicking a FG if the Bills didn't convert.

While Terry is the owner this is what we have.

Joe is right. It was a mistake because they needed a first down and the three plays they ran were not conducive to achieving that aim. The time is a red herring. They needed a first down. This isn't an opinion. It's a fact. McDermott does not report to Beane. They both report to Terry. It is also true to say that is increasingly becoming the most common structure in the NFL.

Teams are running lots of pressure packages, blitzes and overloads because they don't fear the Bills ability to make them pay downfield. Until the Bills have guys who can threaten to make you pay down the football field on the outside we will continue to see defenses teeing off. Oh I think Brady is sending messages. Its why he keeps sending running backs deep to the outside in fringe redzone scenarios. He is saying to his bosses "I'm using my backs out here cos my outside receivers suck."

Josh had a bad first half today. He was better 2nd half. Was not his best game but he got zero help on offense. His D gave him a couple of takeaways but on offense he got no help in playcalling, protection or particularly receivers. That group of 5 (including Shavers) receivers to play for Buffalo today might be the worst they have fielded in my fandom.

If he was cleared you should have him in.

I thought I heard CD say Josh was still in the tent when the Bills went onto the field. Maybe I heard him wrong or maybe he was wrong but that was what I thought he said.

Agree. Its the combination for me. If they were thinking they might draft a tight end in the 1st round it was a stupid extension. Personally I'd have extended Knox and found a way to trade up for Jordan Addison. And I said that at the time too. We can barely use one tight end let alone two.

I don't think they kick from 65. I think they run a play as long as they have 12 seconds or more. That is how it is coached up and down the league. And I don't see how they wouldn't have 12 seconds or more. The Bills had to get a 1st down on offense or stop their one play from scrimmage to stop them having a kick for the game. Going bombs away from the 2 was not the percentage way to get the 1st down. But whether they did that and didn't get it or ran into the pile three times and didn't get it the calculation for Houston on the other side woulda been very similar.

Why not? What is the risk for them? That it goes to overtime? It wouldn't have been risky. They'd have had the 12 seconds they needed as long as they completed a pass they'd have been kicking from a makeable spot.

Allen was still in the tent. You can't pop in the tent and say "how long will he be?"

The other half of that I don't dispute. It is the clock bit I take issue with. That is a red herring IMO.

I still don't buy we'd have got them to 11 seconds. That is where this disagreement is. Not that they should have run - I agree. The point is only that even if they had run all 3 plays unless they made the first down timewise the result was unlikely significantly different. They'd have had the time for a short pass, a spike and a kick. The only way we could prevent that was making a 1st down.

Romo ALWAYS says 12 seconds is the cut off. I'm not sure there was a way to get them under 12. I'm more willing to listen to the argument that pass, pass, pass was not the most effective way of trying to convert a 1st down. I agree with that. I think its obsessing about the time thats a red herring.

I repeat, I'd have run the ball too but not cos of the clock. I'd have run it because the risk of a safety would have made me reluctant to drop back from the 2. But unless we converted the 1st down I don't think the timing element would have made much difference. They were gonna get 1 play plus a kick unless we converted IMO.

If they get the first the time is irrelevant. That was the only way to assure that they didnt get a kick at it.