Bills were NOT ahead or tied going into the 4th QTR in 14 of 16 games

[Gabe Northern]

This is so annoying.

 

Dick Jauron played not to lose.

 

Whether factually true or not, these claims about keeping it close in the fourth quarter don't matter because they reflect a failed philosophy.

[K-9]

This is so annoying.

 

Dick Jauron played not to lose.

 

Whether factually true or not, these claims about keeping it close in the fourth quarter don't matter because they reflect a failed philosophy.

 

This is very true. But Dick Jauron wasn't the first nor will he be the last coach to play with this philosophy. What that philosophy reflects more than anything is the recognition by a coach that he just doesn't have the horses to compete and so your best hope is to try to keep it close and give yourself at least a chance to win at the end. We weren't good enough, plain and simple.

 

Surely we as fans recognize the same lack of talent. From the QBs to the Oline it's readily apparent to us. You can imagine how readily apparent it is to the coaches when watching tape. When you're down to Chambers as a starting T in this league you KNOW you're in a world of hurt.

 

I'm not defending DJ. There were times when he played it too close to the vest when he clearly shouldn't have. The Cleveland Monday nighter is a plain example. Instead of getting closer for an easier FG we see three dives into the line and then miss a long FG attempt.

 

But if you know you don't have the talent you've got very limited options. Gailey will have the same limits I feel but I think he's much better at putting his players in positions to succeed and even exploit defenses. DJ was clueless it seems about offenses. Oh, and Gailey has a weapon in Spiller that DJ never had. Not that he would have known how to use him.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Doc]

This is so annoying.

 

Dick Jauron played not to lose.

 

Whether factually true or not, these claims about keeping it close in the fourth quarter don't matter because they reflect a failed philosophy.

Playing not to lose doesn't explain the Bills being tied or ahead going into the 4th quarter 10 times last year. No team looked at the Bills' offense and said "they suck, so we're not going to score until the 4th quarter."

 

I assume Jauron's thinking with the offense is he wanted to score points while controlling the clock and limit the scoring chances of the opponent (then again, this is the thinking behind most offenses, and all I know is that Schonert called it a "Pop Warner" offense while Demeco Ryans said it was easy to figure out). The problem is the offense failed miserably in that respect. The (undersized, Tampa-2) defense deserves a lot of credit for keeping the games close on their own merit, but given the time it was out on the field most games, coupled with the impotence of the offense, the Bills lost a lot of games in the 4th quarter. If the defense can just play to the same level, a better offense should help a lot. If the defense, which will be bigger and looks to be better conditioned/tougher, can avoid last-quarter collapses AND the offense is better, the Bills could be a good team.

[Kelly the Dog]

Playing not to lose doesn't explain the Bills being tied or ahead going into the 4th quarter 10 times last year. No team looked at the Bills' offense and said "they suck, so we're not going to score until the 4th quarter."

Maybe we should play not to lose all the way into the fourth quarter, keep it close, and then pull the old switcheroo in the last period and win all these games by playing to win.

[Doc]

Maybe we should play not to lose all the way into the fourth quarter, keep it close, and then pull the old switcheroo in the last period and win all these games by playing to win.

Hey, I like it!

[John from Riverside]

Playing not to lose doesn't explain the Bills being tied or ahead going into the 4th quarter 10 times last year. No team looked at the Bills' offense and said "they suck, so we're not going to score until the 4th quarter."

 

I assume Jauron's thinking with the offense is he wanted to score points while controlling the clock and limit the scoring chances of the opponent (then again, this is the thinking behind most offenses, and all I know is that Schonert called it a "Pop Warner" offense while Demeco Ryans said it was easy to figure out). The problem is the offense failed miserably in that respect. The (undersized, Tampa-2) defense deserves a lot of credit for keeping the games close on their own merit, but given the time it was out on the field most games, coupled with the impotence of the offense, the Bills lost a lot of games in the 4th quarter. If the defense can just play to the same level, a better offense should help a lot. If the defense, which will be bigger and looks to be better conditioned/tougher, can avoid last-quarter collapses AND the offense is better, the Bills could be a good team.

 

 

I have hopes that this offense will be better if for no other reason a real offensive coordinator (and head coach) will be running the show....which means to me more of a emphasis will be put on scoring touchdowns not field goals......

 

I am ready to see what Gilbride brings.....just the talk in training camp of using lots of motion and making othe offense less predictable gave me wang and wood without using levitre

[K-9]

I have hopes that this offense will be better if for no other reason a real offensive coordinator (and head coach) will be running the show....which means to me more of a emphasis will be put on scoring touchdowns not field goals......

 

I am ready to see what Gilbride brings.....just the talk in training camp of using lots of motion and making othe offense less predictable gave me wang and wood without using levitre

 

Hey, didn't we already see what Gilbride brings?

 

Just messin' with ya, JfH.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[John from Riverside]

Hey, didn't we already see what Gilbride brings?

 

Just messin' with ya, JfH.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Ugh I have not had my coffee yet today......what Gailey brings GAILEY not Gilbride

[mpl6876]

Hey pal, there is a subtle difference between trolling and playing whack-a-mole (thank you Alaska Darin).

 

Picking on mpl6876 may be a little childish, but aren't we entitled to a few guilty pleasures? I don't see Hossage belittling you for listening to Cold Play, so how about returning the favor.

 

Also, it is a bit coincidental that you and mpl6876 joined the board within a week of each other.

 

Interesting choice of words...

[billsfan89]

There are very few NFL teams that aren't within 1 TD in 12-14 games going into the 4th quarter. NFL has a close range of competition.

[Thurman#1]

You have 11 posts, and a crush on Joey from Full House.

 

 

 

He's not the one who chose your avatar.

[Thurman#1]

There are very few NFL teams that aren't within 1 TD in 12-14 games going into the 4th quarter. NFL has a close range of competition.

 

 

Thank you. That's what I believe the Skins data shows. It's what I thought I would find when I did the research.

 

The folks who don't believe this should break down the records of a bunch more bad teams. I suspect they would find that most have records somewhat similar to the Skins and the Bills.

[Thurman#1]

Nice work! It's tough to say what it really means, other than it's not so rare to be still in most of the games. Perhaps it does mean that Skins are close! Of course we ALSO changed our coaches and staff, our GM, our offensive and defensive schemes, etc!

 

I think that it shows the margin for a "strong" winning season like 10 games and losing 10 games isn't that much for a lot of teams. Some of the difference is luck, but some of it is due to a fundamental flaw or set of flaws on the team that get exposed over the course of a grueling 60 minutes of football.

 

Both us and the skins have plenty of flaws that got exposed just enough to let the other team win, but not necessarily walk away with the game.

 

 

I guess it could indeed show that, Mark, that the Skins are close. But I don't think so. I think it shows that the great majority of NFL games are close going into the fourth quarter, simply because the level of competition is so high. In other words, that the fact that the Bills (and Skins) have been so close so often late in games isn't even worthy of comment, that it's simply how most bad teams perform

 

 

Playing not to lose doesn't explain the Bills being tied or ahead going into the 4th quarter 10 times last year. No team looked at the Bills' offense and said "they suck, so we're not going to score until the 4th quarter."

 

I assume Jauron's thinking with the offense is he wanted to score points while controlling the clock and limit the scoring chances of the opponent (then again, this is the thinking behind most offenses, and all I know is that Schonert called it a "Pop Warner" offense while Demeco Ryans said it was easy to figure out). The problem is the offense failed miserably in that respect. The (undersized, Tampa-2) defense deserves a lot of credit for keeping the games close on their own merit, but given the time it was out on the field most games, coupled with the impotence of the offense, the Bills lost a lot of games in the 4th quarter. If the defense can just play to the same level, a better offense should help a lot. If the defense, which will be bigger and looks to be better conditioned/tougher, can avoid last-quarter collapses AND the offense is better, the Bills could be a good team.

 

 

I've gotta agree with your last sentence, but I simply don't think that's all that likely to happen this year.

[Thurman#1]

LINKAGE?

 

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...=113772&hl=

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?...=113877&hl=

In the first you say only his academic motivation was in question while in college.

In the second you say he was "never once accused of football-related motivation questions" while in college.

 

I won't post the link to the Baltimore Sun article quoting his college coach saying he HAD to bench Gaither because he couldn't justify playing him to his other players because Gaither didn't want to work as hard. I've posted the link several times but you simply chose to ignore it. I wonder why that is? Also, there have been other posters who've tried to give you this information as well. Why do you resist helpful information offered in the spirit of clarification?

 

Need I go on?

 

 

 

That's the part of your post that was worth reading.

 

The relevant part of the posts you linked to were these:

 

The May 21st post:

 

"Also, the whole problem of Gaither's attitude was not a problem in the least since Gaither has been a Raven. Not a whisper of a problem, and Gaither was the sixth-best tackle in the league last year, at the much more demanding LT position. " This post concentrated on Gaither's work as a pro. 17 lines in that post were about his pro performance.

 

However, in answer to earlier posts, I also wrote this: "People have talked about his attitude problems in college. But there were none, at least on the field. He had academic issues. You'd have to throw out half the NFL if you felt that was a sign you didn't want a guy on your team." I was wrong when I wrote this, according to your Terp sources. By the way, that is the sum total I wrote about college in that post.

 

So, I wrote seventeen lines about his pro performance and two about his college performance.

 

The May 24th post:

 

"In college, he was never once accused of any football-related motivation questions. He was having major motivation problems in the classroom. If you don't take any players on your team who have had classroom issues, you'd have a hard time putting together a 45 man roster. "

 

I was responding to a poster who said he has " had motivation questions throughout his college and pro career." That has not even slightly been proven, and I was right to attack him, but wrong to say that about never having been "accused of any football-related motivation questions."

 

The second post, in particular, was wrong, and I definitely admit it.

 

 

HOWEVER …

 

This was what you wrote in Post #12 in this thread:

 

 

Right. Nice try. Do you want to go and delete all your previous posts where you did indeed question those of us who referred to his lack of dedication in college? You seemed to care an awful lot about his "college stuff" in those posts. This is the FIRST time you try to deflect that bs by suggesting you don't care about college stuff once a guy gets in the pros.

 

 

"As recently as yesterday or the day before you trotted out your repeated myth about Gaither's lack of work ethic not surfacing until he was in the pros and that the rumor was floated by the Ravens to get him into camp," you wrote? And yet it looks like you had to go all the way back to mid- to late May to find those posts.

 

I'm still waiting for all the links to my posts yesterday and the day before saying that. Or this week. Or this month. Or anytime recently. Where are they? Looks to me like you couldn't find them because they simply weren't there.

 

And yet again, you continued "Yet you want to ignore the facts and continue to post your own myths..."” Again, you said I'm continuing to post this, and yet you can't even remotely back it up.

 

 

Right. Nice try. Do you want to go and delete all your previous posts where you did indeed question those of us who referred to his lack of dedication in college? You seemed to care an awful lot about his "college stuff" in those posts. This is the FIRST time you try to deflect that bs by suggesting you don't care about college stuff once a guy gets in the pros.

 

 

Yet another problem from your posts.

 

"... all my previous posts ..."? I count two.

 

"This is the FIRST time you try to deflect that bs by suggesting you don't care about college stuff once a guy gets in the pros." The first time? Seriously? Because that's a bunch of crap. I've said this a lot. A lot. I post on two boards, so I don't know where I've said it, but you can disprove that by producing any recent posts where I talk about his college experience.

 

 

So, while I admit that I was wrong on two occasions, you seem to be spouting your own myth.

 

Go ahead, prove me wrong. Produce all of my hundreds of posts as recently as yesterday and the day before. I'll wait.

[Thurman#1]

If saying you are naive is "rude" then accept my apologies. Being rude was NOT my intention.

 

Personally, I don't think there is anything left to evaluate. Your posts that I cited are what they are: a focus on Gaither's college career where you clearly state that he only had motivation issues in the classroom. That contradicts your recent posts suggesting you don't care about a player's college "stuff" (as you put it) once he reaches the pros. What's more is that they point to an intractable stance when I and previous posters tried to offer clarification on his (well documented) motivational issues regarding football in the spirit of just offering information to perhaps have you at least entertain a different perspective.

 

I couldn't care less who's right or wrong. I'm not sure those extremes apply anyway. This is just a forum of shared and often differing opinions. No need to get ruffled about right and wrong.

 

But what I find rude isn't the "eat me" comment. It's your seeming refusal to accept clarification on matters that are offered in the spirit of just that, clarification. I've noticed in the past, as have others, that when one offers contradicory material to your own, especially more than once, you seem to digress to that condescending attitude.

 

I realize that black and white, two-dimensional limitations of words on a screen don't always convey context and the spirit of which words are written here so I'll just chalk up those digressions to that aspect of posting in a forum.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

 

 

See now, this post is offered in a reasonable spirit. If this is the way you post in the future, I'll be glad to respond to your posts and will try to maintain the same spirit.

 

 

I don't mind your naivete when it comes to the game of football. Many around here are on a learning curve in that regard. You're still learning obviously. So feel free to ask questions and create posts that show your improving knowledge but please don't try to get away with pure bs. Don't question others and their facts when you leave yourself open for the same scrutiny. There's a word for it but I'm nodding off and can't think of it at the moment.

 

 

This on the other hand was condescending and rude, and denying that is disingenuous.

 

"Feel free to ask questions?" Gosh, w'll you, like be my coach 'n stuff? If you can't see the rudeness here ...

 

 

 

 

 

Get your panties in a wad much?

 

 

This was rude, too.

 

You act like you were taking the high road. Obviously, you weren't. If you act that way, don't be surprised when people act rude in return.

[Thurman#1]

I wanted to see if this kind of thing is unusual, so I did a bit of research. Took about an hour. Last year, nobody else had the same record, so I grabbed one of the 4 - 12 teams, the Skins, to look at a comparable team in a comparable way.

 

Skins 2009:

 

1) At the start of the 4th, the Giants were up by 7, 17 - 10. Skins never got closer than 7

 

2) Skins beat the Rams 9 - 7, with no scoring in the fourth.

 

3) Lions were up by six, 13 - 7 after three. Lions TD and didn't convert the two-point attempt, then Skins TD, game over. Lions 19 - 14. This game was the one where the Lions broke their 19 game losing streak. The Skins look awfully tough so far.

 

4) Skins rally and beat the Bucs 16 - 13. Going into the 4th, the Skins were up by 6, 16 - 10.

 

5) The Panthers came back from 15 points down to win. 17 - 9 Skins at the end of the 3rd. Panthers score 11 to win by three.

 

6) Chiefs get their first win. At the start of the 4th, it was tied 6 - 6. Chiefs go field goal, field goal, safety to win by eight.

 

7) Eagles whup the Skins in a 27 - 17 loss. At the start of the fourth, it was 27 - 10, Eagles. The first game where the Skins were never within a score in the 4th.

 

8) Bye

 

9) Atlanta wins 31 - 17. At the end of the third, it was 24 - 10. The second game where the Skins were never within a score in the 4th.

 

10) Washington beats the Broncos, 27 - 17. Skins down by three entering the 4th and go FG, TD, FG.

 

11) Skins were up 6 - 0 at the beginning of the 4th. They lose 7 - 6.

 

12) Skins ahead 21 - 16 at the start of the 4th. They lose to the Eagles 27 - 24.

 

13) Skins over New Orleans by seven at the end of the 3rd, 27 - 20. Saints pull even and win with an overtime FG, 33 - 30.

 

14) Skins beat the Raiders. Skins up by four, 17 - 13 after three.

 

15) Giants up 38 - 12 after three, and the Skins lose 45 - 12. The third game where the Skins were never within a score in the fourth.

 

16) Cowboys up by 14 at the end of the 3rd. Skins lose 17 - 0. The fourth game where the Skins were never within a score in the fourth.

 

17) Skins up 17 - 13 after three, but lose 23 - 20 to the Chargers.

 

 

Side by side, that looks like this:

 

In 7/16 the Bills were winning entering the 4th quarter.

In 8/16 the Skins were winning entering the 4th quarter

 

In 10/16 the Bills were winning or tied entering the 4th quarter.

In 9/16, the Skins were winning or tied entering the 4th quarter

 

In 11/16 the Bills were winning, tied, or within 3 entering the 4th quarter.

In 10/16, the Skins were winning, tied or within 3 entering the 4th quarter

 

In 13/16 the Bills were winning, tied, or within 7 entering the 4th quarter.

In 12/16, the Skins were winning, tied or within 7 entering the 4th quarter

 

In 14/16, the Bills were ever within one score in the 4th

In 12/16, the Skins were ever within one score in the 4th

 

In other words, the two are very close and this kind of thing isn't rare. The Skins were even a worse team, going 4 - 12 while beating only the Rams, Bucs, Broncos and Raiders and yet they were in most games, like us. Again, that's the way these things usually go. I would guess most teams with comparable records would be somewhat similar in terms of how many games they were competitive in, though there would probably be outliers also.

 

Since many here are saying the Bills were almost good, the Skins must have been almost good too. Gosh, they probably didn't even need to pick up Shanny, McNabb and Jammal Brown. They were just like us, just on the cusp.

 

 

 

This is the football-related thing on here that's still worth talking about, by the way.

[Sisyphean Bills]

This is very true. But Dick Jauron wasn't the first nor will he be the last coach to play with this philosophy. What that philosophy reflects more than anything is the recognition by a coach that he just doesn't have the horses to compete and so your best hope is to try to keep it close and give yourself at least a chance to win at the end. We weren't good enough, plain and simple.

 

Surely we as fans recognize the same lack of talent. From the QBs to the Oline it's readily apparent to us. You can imagine how readily apparent it is to the coaches when watching tape. When you're down to Chambers as a starting T in this league you KNOW you're in a world of hurt.

 

I'm not defending DJ. There were times when he played it too close to the vest when he clearly shouldn't have. The Cleveland Monday nighter is a plain example. Instead of getting closer for an easier FG we see three dives into the line and then miss a long FG attempt.

 

But if you know you don't have the talent you've got very limited options. Gailey will have the same limits I feel but I think he's much better at putting his players in positions to succeed and even exploit defenses. DJ was clueless it seems about offenses. Oh, and Gailey has a weapon in Spiller that DJ never had. Not that he would have known how to use him.

 

GO BILLS!!!

The bolded part is an issue for me. Insidiously, it may even be Jauron's true belief of his team, a team that he had a large hand in putting together. At some point though, you have to take the training wheels off in order to let the kid compete with the others riding their bikes at the X Games. If they never actually attempt the tricks they will never be able to do them. It's like a kid that really wants to learn to play the piano, so he is given a sheet of paper with the keyboard stenciled on it to practice on and told not to touch the piano in the living room because mom thinks he's going to suck at the piano; everyone is just wasting time. If a big component of why this was the strategy is that their coach has no confidence that they can do it, then what does that say? A coach's job is to coach and make his players the best they can be. If he truly thinks those he is coaching are talentless, he is wasting everyone's time. All the moreso at the professional level, where fans pay their hard earned money to watch elite athletes in the sport. And after 4 years of overturning the roster to suit his schemes? Isn't the coach implicitly condemning the job done by his talent evaluators to bring him talent? Isn't he condemning the job of his assistants that they suck as coaches and can't get the most out of their players? (Aside: Tom Brady didn't enter the NFL as a polished, finished perfect QB. He fell to the 6th round precisely because he wasn't developed. After hard work on his part, and great coaching, he became the superstar he is today. How different would his life be now, as well as Patriots fans, if Belichick had looked at him and said to himself, "this skinny kid doesn't have the talent and will never be any good.")

 

I tend to think Jauron overthought the statistical side of the game. He can recite all the stats down to the thousandth of a percent, no doubt. But, sometimes you have to take risks and allow your team to succeed or fail on a chance. The Saints took a chance in the Super Bowl with an unexpected onside kickoff. Can you even imagine Dick Jauron considering a move like that? I can't.

[K-9]

The bolded part is an issue for me. Insidiously, it may even be Jauron's true belief of his team, a team that he had a large hand in putting together. At some point though, you have to take the training wheels off in order to let the kid compete with the others riding their bikes at the X Games. If they never actually attempt the tricks they will never be able to do them. It's like a kid that really wants to learn to play the piano, so he is given a sheet of paper with the keyboard stenciled on it to practice on and told not to touch the piano in the living room because mom thinks he's going to suck at the piano; everyone is just wasting time. If a big component of why this was the strategy is that their coach has no confidence that they can do it, then what does that say? A coach's job is to coach and make his players the best they can be. If he truly thinks those he is coaching are talentless, he is wasting everyone's time. All the moreso at the professional level, where fans pay their hard earned money to watch elite athletes in the sport. And after 4 years of overturning the roster to suit his schemes? Isn't the coach implicitly condemning the job done by his talent evaluators to bring him talent? Isn't he condemning the job of his assistants that they suck as coaches and can't get the most out of their players? (Aside: Tom Brady didn't enter the NFL as a polished, finished perfect QB. He fell to the 6th round precisely because he wasn't developed. After hard work on his part, and great coaching, he became the superstar he is today. How different would his life be now, as well as Patriots fans, if Belichick had looked at him and said to himself, "this skinny kid doesn't have the talent and will never be any good.")

 

I tend to think Jauron overthought the statistical side of the game. He can recite all the stats down to the the thousandth of a percent, no doubt. But, sometimes you have to take risks and allow your team to succeed or fail on a chance. The Saints took a chance in the Super Bowl with an unexpected onside kickoff. Can you even imagine Dick Jauron considering a move like that? I can't.

 

Can't agree more with everything in your post. To say DJ was "risk averse" is an understatement. While I think using a rookie QB, the inordinate amount of injuries, especially to his OLine, contributed to his dumbing down the playbook (and rightfully so), his penchant for conservative play rarely, if ever, put his players in a position to best use their talents.

 

It'll be interesting to see if Gailey starts out with one philosophy and then changes it if he sees he doesn't have the talent to implement his schemes. Now, a rash of injuries is going to force any responsible coach to alter things until the replacements prove capable. It'll be interesting to see how he uses what he has. My sense is that he's far better able to put players in a position to succeed but other than Spiller, Evans, Jackson, and Lynch I don't see any other proven playmakers on offense and three of them play the same position. Gailey will be even more challenged than DJ from an offensive talent perspective but I don't see him being risk averse even under those circumstances. He's not afraid to let his players fail.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[flomoe]

Maybe Im missing the point here.......but I dont think of conditioning when I see that stat I see

 

"play not to lose"

 

DJ's philosphy was to keep the scoring down on both offenses....and find a way to win at the end of the game.

 

 

I hate that philosophy........while i have no problem with a 3 point win.......I hate the fact that we put so much pressure on our defense to keep us in games.....also it keeps them from gambling on defense and giving up first down after first down.......keeping our defense on the field and causing defensive players to get nicked up......

 

For the love of god.....lets play for touchdowns this year not field goals

 

 

This is right on. I don't care about the stats and what the scores were going into the 4th quarter. We know that the Bills had some talent on last years squad. Obviously they didn't have enough because they couldn't fill 19 players on IR with quality but that isn't the point. The problem was coaching. It was coaching 3 years ago and it was the same exact problem last year.

 

Dick Jauron had some very good qualities with motivation and having his players playing hard. His problem was that they weren't properly prepared, weren't properly conditioned and weren't properly coached during the game. Playing not to lose IS and should always be a FAIL when analyzing any coaches philosophy.

 

To steal a thought from the comic book guy on the Simpsons...Worst Coach EVER!!!

[Sisyphean Bills]

Can't agree more with everything in your post. To say DJ was "risk averse" is an understatement. While I think using a rookie QB, the inordinate amount of injuries, especially to his OLine, contributed to his dumbing down the playbook (and rightfully so), his penchant for conservative play rarely, if ever, put his players in a position to best use their talents.

 

It'll be interesting to see if Gailey starts out with one philosophy and then changes it if he sees he doesn't have the talent to implement his schemes. Now, a rash of injuries is going to force any responsible coach to alter things until the replacements prove capable. It'll be interesting to see how he uses what he has. My sense is that he's far better able to put players in a position to succeed but other than Spiller, Evans, Jackson, and Lynch I don't see any other proven playmakers on offense and three of them play the same position. Gailey will be even more challenged than DJ from an offensive talent perspective but I don't see him being risk averse even under those circumstances. He's not afraid to let his players fail.

 

GO BILLS!!!

The painful truth was that he never learned from his mistakes. He just kept doggedly repeating the same blunders.