BuffaloBob

Yeah, the shame is Reese didn't score himself off of the INT! The defense will know better next time!

I wouldn't exactly call a 51 yard field-goal perfectly makeable. Even Vanderjagt misses one occasionally beyond 46 yards.

Ahhhh, OK. Now I see your point! It's not that Drew can directly control the mistakes made by his teammates, but that he actually has, indirectly, psychologically produced these mistakes in them. So Travis was so preoccupied with whether Drew can actually lead them to victory, he doesn't remember for which side of the field the current play has been called. Moulds is so burdened with Drew's lack of ability that he can't hold onto the ball even when Drew throws a perfect pass to him. The O-line is so traumatized by Drew's poor play over the past year and a half, they just can't muster the strength to get our RBs more than a yard at a time inside the opponent's three yard line, or is that the RBs are so depressed with Drew's rather uninspired play and leadership that even though the holes are there, they just can't muster the strength to run through them and score a TD? Perhaps the whole team is need of antidepressants and it's all Drew's fault?

KOK, I realize my viewpoint is optimistic and it may be that they do struggle all year on offense (although I simply do not believe that is true). But to make the statement that this team is made up of a bunch of losers with no heart is just too much for me to ignore. THey may have struggled on offense, and the defense may have run out of magic by that last drive, but it wasn't for lack of effort or a winning desire. I do believe that this offense will improve, and I also beleive that any time you install a new offense, that it is going to take beyond 3.5 quarters over four preseason games to get things wired completely between QB, O-line, skill positions and play-calling from the OC. The key will be how quickly this coaching staff can get itself and this team confident and comfortable in the offense. I mean, crap like Travis setting up on the wrong side for the screen really hurts a team's rhythm. The key will be getting this offense to a point that it can overcome the occasional penalty or loss of yardage that will happen and still keep drives going. Also, an understanding of the scheme to the point of taking advantage of the defense. I think we started to see that some in the second half.

They had the two safeties, inlcuding Wire, standing at about the 10 yard line as that play was lined up and run! I don't know how many DB's they had on that play, but where they had Coy lined up would have made it a bit difficult for him to be a major factor on tha play.

Damn straight! I'm sick and tired of blaming the actual players who's mistakes caused these arrested drives. From now on, its all Drew's fault no matter what. For example, when Moulds fumbles inside the five yard line, it will be Drew's fault! After all, why wasn't he down there after delivering the ball to Moulds to block for Eric and recover that damn fumble? Or when Nuefeld (or Shaw or Campbell) fails to hang onto a third down pass that would have sustained a drive, it will be Drew's fault for not stickying up the ball first! Or when Villarial holds on a first down run at a crucial time, blame Chris?? Hell no! Blame Drew. Why wasn't he helping out on the block so Villarial didn't have to hold? Or when our kicker misses an 41 yard field goal, it was Drew's fault for not kicking it himself (or maybe he should have said a prayer first?). And the next time we run on 3rd and 12, which happened twice in the game and we don't make it, that is definitley going to be Drew's fault for handing the damn ball off to begin with. And the next time Drew listens to Clements when he calls a reverse when Villarial has once again let his man into the backfield before the hand-off is barely made, I am going to personally go out there and kick Drew in the nuts. Oh, and the next time we have first and goal at the three, and we can only gain one yard on first and second down, I want Shane Mathews in there on third down just out of principle! And btw, that turnover credited to Drew was actually a lateral pass that Moulds only made the most half-assed attempt to catch and no attempt to cover. But once again, that should be all on Drew. And finally, the next time Travis Henry sets up the wrong way on a screen pass, Drew needs to be taken out back and shot in the head for being too stupid to live.

BIDD, If you listen to some of these people, it's already too late!

Thank you! Give this man a harrrumph! I cannot believe all this bullshiet about this team being populated with losers and having no heart. The effort was definitely there throughout this game. The offense will improve. For crissake, this is a brand new offense with a brand new OC and a brand new philosophy. I am as unhappy as anyone over the mistakes by the offense and the seeming inability to recover from them. But like it or not, this is one of the hazards of a new HC and a new offensive coaching staff. It is going to take some time for Clements to get comfortable with what this offense can do in what situations. It is going to take Bledsoe time to know which options are likely going to be there under what circumstances. It is going to take time for the individuals on the offense to become comfortable with what these plays look like against unpredictable live defenses as opposed to our defense. It will take some on-field trial and error to work out kinks and adjust blocking when a defense does something unpredictable. etc. etc. The problem with any offense is to find a rhythm of plays that are complementary and are particularly effective against defensive alignments. In the second half, there was a definite opening up of the offense as time went on, but I still felt they lacked confidence when something went wrong from which they had to recover, such as Villarial's holding penalty. Drew has clearly bought into this philosophy and offense, even though he is still not totally comfortable in it. But I find it incredibly encouraging that he is getting that damn ball out of there quickly. When the plays and their options become more second nature to him and the receivers, look out!

This of course presumes that they weren't good in the clutch, which I think they were actually. Clearly, the Bills were playing a very two-deep zone that was designed not to give up the big play early on. It is difficult to say whether the first 4th down conversion was preventable even had Clements had just tried to knock it down. Leftwhich underthrew the ball in a great location, permitting Smith to manhandle Clements and get into the better position. This is an advantage of the offense. So in that case, they made one in four plays. Fletcher kicking the ball was stupidity, as he then gave them four downs to make 5 yards. Again, not an impossible to task to stop, but which is damn tough for even a clutch defense. Again, 3 out of four plays stopped and a short two yard play to make a first down. Nevertheless, the coverage was there and it is damn hard to stop any offense for passing for two yards if they execute properly. Finally, four shots to the end zone, 3 of 4 stopped cold and one very good play made by the Jags. Except for the long lob play which was well-executed and Fletcher's idiocy, I thought they played well on the last drive. You cannot let even a not-so-good team hang around that close that long and not expect them to make a few plays.

And as I pointed out above, this presumes that the only outcome is a shot at a field goal or adding twenty yards of field position. There are other possibilities as well, such as adding 30 plus yards if Moorman hits a good punt, or a blocked field goal or blown snap that leads to an even shorter field than the missed field goal does.

OK, here is the first bit of hindsight you use to support your position. The fact that we only got a measley 15 yards is because Moorman punted poorly. This should have been a more substantial 30 plus yards of field position had Moorman done his job correctly, but this is NOT something you could have known. Also, although you do not come out and state it, it is implied in your position that the outcome of the game also supports your position, which again is hindsight. Also, let's make sure we are correct in that you believe that a CHANCE at the three points is far more important than field position, as the points were by no means guaranteed, especially after he already missed from almost ten yards closer earlier in the game. Moreover, let's also point out that it is not JUST field position that's at issue here. There is also the possibility for a blocked kick or a blown snap, etc. that could lead to an even worse position. It is my opinion that Mularkey made the better decision, but my point is not that he was right, but that it is all a matter of probabilities, and that just because you choose what appear to be (and perhpas are in actuality) the better probabilities based on the circumstances of the game doesn't mean you are playing "Not to Lose" as you describe it. Playing the better probabilites would be in fact playing to win. That would be like saying that while playing Black Jack, if the probabilities say not to hit, that by not hitting that you are merely playing not to lose, which is somehow different than playing to win. Logically, this makes no sense. Actually, bizarre to you perhaps, but not necessarily to an objective observer. You take the position that you thought he failed a test by making an incorrect choice. This necessitates that there is a correct answer and an incorrect answer to this test. But when it comes to outcome probabilites, there is no correct and incorrect decision. Take the Black Jack example. Even if the probabilites say not to hit, and you hit anyway, is that decision the incorrect one? Aren't you actually playing to lose rather than to win if you defy the better odds? Perhaps not if you are aware of other issues that might mitigate those probabilites (like how many face cards are still in the deck and whether the dealer will bust with a face card). The analogy would be that MM saw Lindell kicking this week and he was consistently missing (or making) kicks longer than 45 yards out. My point is simply that there is no failure here on his part unless you can prove that he miscalculated the probabilities or correectly calculated them and went against the better odds. And because that would be incredibly arduous, there is no way for you to assess whether he failed some test with a correct and incorrect choice. As for your hindsight support of your position, please see above. My point was not to claim that he was correct in his decision, although I do think he was in my opinion. I have demonstrated that he could not have failed a test that necessitates a correct and incorrect answer, because you cannot prove that one decision was correct over another without assessing the cumulative probabilities under the circumstances at the time of the decision; I have demonstrated that playing the best odds is not necessarily "playing not to lose," and in fact by logic is playing to win; and I have demonstrated that you were using hindsight to support your position that his decision was incorrect, rather than to assess the cumulative outcome probabilities at the time of the decision. I'll take that under advisement.......NOT!

But playing the percentages is not playing scared, it is playing intelligently. I mean, the same argument could be made for going for it on 4th down and less than a yard every time, no matter where you are on the field. After all, if you don't think you're going to make it, you're a kitty coach and you're admitting your team is an impotent bunch of pussies, right? Come on, it's less than yard for crissake! Are you playing scared? What's the matter? Going to punt and play field position and rely on your defense Fraidy Cats? If you weren't playing not to loose, you'd just go for it wouldn't you?

I think it is you! Under the same circumstances, with an iffy kicker who already missed from 10 yards closer, and a defense that has dominated for nearly the entire game, I think Parcells and possibly most other coaches in the league do the same: punt the ball close to the endzone and you make them have to drive a very long field against the strength of your game. Any number of things could go wrong with a field goal kick besides the miss, including the obvious block or bad snap which could lead to an immediate score if not significantly better field position. Sorry, but there is no way you can prove your opinion to be the correct decision. Again, if one could actually calculate the odds for all of the different scenarios, it is my suspiscion that the best scenario is not to risk the kick from that far away under all of the circumstances that existed at the time of the decision, and if that is the case, regardless of how you spin it, that would be by defintion playing to win!

No I'm not! Only two were slightly behind, and one slightly in front. None of the three could make a play because the ball was perfectly thrown where they couldn't reach it. How else do you define a perfectly thrown ball? You can't say, the ball was not perfectly thrown because our defenders should have had some kind of different position, and only if they had actually had that position that we would have preferred, then they would have defended it. LOL! No wait, the ball was actually a lousy throw and it was just that the defenders were in the perfect postion for a perfect throw but because it was so lousy, they couldn't make the play. The bottom line is that had that ball been anywehre except where it had been thrown, either the WR would not have made the catch or one of our three converging defenders would have made the play.

He was touched, but I also thought his momentum would have taken him out. The problem is, there was no way they were going to reverse that call unless it was clealry obvious he was going out on his own. He was hit as he was coming down, and as far as the replay was concerned, they were going to use that uphold the ruling on the field.

This is completely irrelevant. Even Byron Leftwich and a rookie wide receiver are capable of making perfect plays in this league occasionally. Like it or not, the ball was perfectly thrown where not one of three closel defenders can get their hands on it but that rookie, and he made a great catch even after getting hit. I was a damn good play. The Bills let them hang around too long. It was the offensive that failed to put this game away.

That was three 4th down conversions, not four. And given that those 3 were virtually the only successful plays they made out of their last 12 attempts, I would say that the persentages were damn good. Hey the Jags made 4 good plays that drive out of 15 total. Normally they wouldn't get those extra shots except in desparation time. The defense played great, and they were let down by their offense.

When they made ALL THOSE (= 3) completeions is irrelevant. What if they had made them on first or second or third down. The reality is that when you can play 4 down football, it places that much more pressure on the defense because whether you like it or not, the more chances you have to make a play, the more likely it is you will make one. The offense has the major advantage in these situations. They KNOW what they are going to do, and if they have 12 shots at it rather than 9, that makes their advantage even bigger. Sure, I would have liked to see the D finish this win, but I am not going to blame them for the loss because they couldn't stop 3 out of 12 plays after shutting them down virtually the entire game. Those three plays were good plays by some good players, It wasn't like they blew the coverage, or didn't try, or were out of position. That TD throw was perfectly thrown between three defenders and that was a great catch. The defense should have never been in a positon where holding them to a 25% success rate still meant a loss for the team.

Sorry, the analogy still doesn't work. A single player making a single bad play that he has complete control over making or not without regard to what the defense is doing is NOT the same thing as forcing a defense to defend a desparate offense that can now play with four downs running plays it has no control over. A defense gives up plays over the course of an entire game and there is only so much you can expect of them as a team. Sometimes the offense hasn't done squat the whole game and finally makes a few good plays because they have extra downs to work with. Had the defense given up this exact sequence of plays at the end of the first half instead of the second, and the score remained the same, we wouldn't be even having this conversation. The offense blew this game and wasted a fantastic defensive effort.

Maybe Nate should have tried to knock the ball down instead, but there is still no guarantee that Smith would not have caught that. Any defense that holds a team to six points until they are playing 4 down desperation football and 13 overall and still loses is a defense that got screwed by their offense big time.

I think there is a huge difference between a QB making a bad decision and throwing a pick he shouldn't have, and a defense giving up just 3 well-made plays out of 12 by the other team when they had nothing to lose and could play 4 downs without consequence. The reality is, the defesne never made an error in that drive. They were always in position, and a few players made huge plays for the Jags that were otherwise about as well-defensed as they could have been. Nope, sorry. That analogy just doesn't work. The offense lost this game, not the defense.

You may have held the position prior to the play, but your justification of it based on the yardage traded and the ultimate result is in hindsight. The problem here is that while you may be convinced that you are right, there is no way to prove that, and thus no way to support your claim that Mularkey was wrong in his decision. And your claim that you would have been right even had he followed your opinion and the same result had occurred only helps to demonstrate that! CYA Thus, it is not an error on Mularkey's part

Ummm, I don't think I gave the Jag's offensive hardly any credit at all. Jimmy Smith just made a great play on that ball. I thought he jostled Clements to get into position, but the fact is he made a great jump and catch. Secondly, as I said before, it is not easy for a defense to defend against a team that has nothing to lose except to throw the thing up for four downs. This ain't sugar coating. It is fact. Christ, they had four chances from the like 8 yard line to put the ball in the end zone. You don't think the advantage is with the offense there? I sure do! Even the Bills' offense could have completed one out of those four! The defense played great all game and were put in a lousy position at the end. When you think about it, the Jags made like 3 plays out of at least 12 that they ran. At that rate, you don't get much dones during the normal part of the game. When youy have nothing to lose, sometimes hitting only 25% of your plays is enough.

Ummm, sometimes when trying to win actually may reduce your chances of winning over trying to not lose, then perhaps trying to win is really trying to lose.

The problem with this position is that it takes advantage of hindsight. Had Moorman done even a decent job, the Jags should have pinned back close to the 10 yardline. Had he made a good kick, inside the 10. That is far more advantageous than taking a 50-50 shot that a guy who can't make a 41 yarder will make one from 50. The problem was that the field position trade=off should have been 30-plus yards, not 15 as it turned out. And to those few posters who said that the real confounding play was the holding penalty on Villarial, they were right. That was the critical play of the game. Like it or not, those run the football even if it doesn't succeed advocates have their men in a HC and OC this year, and that philosohy is part of a broader offensive conservatism that we are going to have to live with. As for whether Mularkey blew this decision, I think maybe only in hindsight. If Lindell misses and the result ends up the same, people would have been screaming for his head for having made the dumb decision to let the guy kicj when the defense had stopped them all game.