Orton's Arm Posted December 16, 2010 Posted December 16, 2010 Your response was very thoughtful and illuminating. One of the better cogent responses I have read in a long time. In general, I prefer a balanced run/pass offense. But your citing of a NY Times analysis favoring a good passing game is best embodied by the Pats' reliance on the passing game at the expense of the running game. They have mastered the art of the short passing game and spreadining the ball to a variety of receivers and locations on the field. It certainly helps having a HOF qb in Brady to execute the game plan. I agree with the above. Passing has become progressively more important, especially in key situations. A good passing game allows an offense to bail itself out if first or second down failed to generate as many yards as planned. You can't really rely on your running game to bail you out of third-and-ten situations, at least not with any degree of consistency. Since you're going to face a number of third-and-long situations over the course of the game, you need a good passing attack to deal with them. Once you have that attack, there's no sense in using it only on third down. You may as well use it all the time, just as the Patriots do. You can even use short passes to partially take the place of running plays, just as the 49ers did back in the '80s and the Patriots do today. But you'll almost never be able to use running plays to take the place of 10+ yard passing plays. This is completely true. Now, toss in the factor of where the Bills play. I don't know where you live, but I just came inside. It is freezing and the wind is high. Unless you have a Ryan Mallett/Drew Bledsoe arm, passing is less of an option late in the year in Buffalo. I doubt that that the Times article you spoke of takes this into account. The Bills play in an environment where they need to run and stop the run more than most other teams. Imo, they need to make a huge move for Kevin Boss, who is scheduled to be a ufa. He was made to play in WNY. He is a TE who blocks like an OT and is a huge target with good hands. He would help the passing and running game. Seriously, they should offer him a 5 year deal for much more than his market value if that is what it would take to bring him in. Good points. A QB needs a certain minimum level of arm strength to succeed in the NFL. Having more strength than just the minimum is nice, but not nearly as important as accuracy or mental acuity. That said, I agree that the minimum level of arm strength required is higher in Buffalo than in a warm-weather city or a domed stadium. I also agree that when the weather is terrible the running game becomes more important. I like your idea of getting Boss to upgrade the offense. Weather-related game planning adjustments are also key. A year or two ago, the Bills played Cleveland (I think), in a game late in the year. There was considerable snow on the ground and guys kept slipping. The Bills' offensive coordinator called a lot of timing routes, and the snow interfered with the receivers' timing. Conversely, the Cleveland OC called plays in which the receivers were supposed to stop and catch the ball. The weather didn't affect those routes nearly as much. Fortunately, I have every confidence in the current Bills' coaching staff's ability to adjust its offensive playcalling to the weather!
Doc Posted December 16, 2010 Posted December 16, 2010 How do you know what arrangements the owner has made for the franchise upon his death? So far he has steadfastly refused to publicly state his estate plans with respect to the franchise. If you have a link on that topic I would appreciate it. If it is a figment of your vivid imagination then that is okay also. Conjecturing is allowed on bulletin boards as long as they are labeled as such. We've been over this John. I don't know Ralph's exact succession plans. The thing is, neither does Sullivan. The difference is, he's passing-off his conjecture as fact. It's not as simple as "the team will be sold to the highest bidder."
JohnC Posted December 16, 2010 Posted December 16, 2010 Mr. Edwards'Arm, I commented that your comments were thoughtful and illuminating. Your response was highlighed below. Tell me you're not one of those self-inflated, self-important irritating egotists? I would be so disappointed. LOL I agree with the above.
Orton's Arm Posted December 16, 2010 Posted December 16, 2010 Mr. Edwards'Arm, I commented that your comments were thoughtful and illuminating. Your response was highlighed below. Tell me you're not one of those self-inflated, self-important irritating egotists? I would be so disappointed. LOL Our conversation went something like this: Edwards'_Arm: [various football-related observations] JohnC: "your comments are thoughtful and illuminating," + various football-related observations. Edwards'_Arm: "I agree with the above." Obviously--obviously--my "I agree with the above" comment was directed at your football-related observations, not your statement that my comments were thoughtful and illuminating. I didn't need to agree with your "thoughtful and illuminating" comment, because it was self-evident!
Recommended Posts