Rudyc80 Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 Heres waht he said.....(from another board) I offer this for those who do not have access to Jerry Sullivan on the radio and for discussion. He said Kevin Gilbride once told reporters that the reason he liked to take long shots downfield is that in the NFL today, with the quality of offensive personnel and offensive lines, and facing the sophisticated defenses that are in place today, long time-consuming drives are rare. Someone usually makes a mistake on offense - a penalty, dropped pass, missed pass by the QB, fumble, etc. He said the best chance of scoring is with a long shot downfield. Sullivan says he's beginning to think Gilbride was right, at least as this applies to the Bills (Gilbride was probably really talking about the Bills when he made the comment). He said that if people are looking for long, controlled drives ending in touchdowns with the Bills offense as it looks now, they can keep dreaming. He said short passes to tight ends and backs this year are great, but the Bills offense, especially with the offensive line as it is, isn't going to be able to sustain long drives down the field. Someone will hold on a blitz, jump offsides, or make some other mistake. He said you saw the blueprint and how it worked against Indy in the last game. The drives ended in punts or field goals. Conversely, when the Bills were on defense, he said you saw what offenses will try to do to the Bills this year. He said he thought the Bills defense is very good, but they over pursue and constantly run past plays. Expect teams to take advantage of that on third and short as Manning did when he completed the long pass to Marvin Harrison on third and short. And as good as the defense is, they aren't going to carry the team to the playoffs he said. If you want proof, look at last year, Sullivan said. Did the defense carry the Bills to the playoffs last year? Regarding the defense, he said Donahoe build the defense around a lot of high priced free agents who are playing up to their salaries, but not beyond. He asked whether anyone thought that Lawyer Milloy played better than the 4 million a year he was getting paid? He asked the same regarding Spikes and Vincent. Are they playing better than their salaries? He noted that if you signed people at a little less, you would have money left over for the offensive line. He said this is the same team as last year. Better coaching - perhaps, but he said you can see now that it wasn't all coaching. He said a lot of fans are convinced that this was a playoff team the last two years with bad coaching. He asked what better coaching would have done for us last year. He said you could argue that we were lucky to be 6-10 last year since we caught New England in turmoil, caught Jacksonville early, and caught the Jets when Pennington was banged up. He said coaching was a part of the problem, but that the Bills weren't a playoff team last year and aren't a playoff team this year either.
Bear Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 This guy gets more stupid every time he gets ready to type. Also: Expect teams to take advantage of that on third and short as Manning did when he completed the long pass to Marvin Harrison on third and short. Considering Indy could not convert a 3rd down conversion all night should pretty much tell ya about this guy. The play he was talking about was on 4 and 3, they couldn't convert 3rd and short!
jad1 Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 The fact that Sullivan gives Gilbride any credit at all shows how little Sullivan knows about football. Short, controlled passing games HELP offensive lines, they don't hurt them. NE is the latest example of this. Despite the fact that NE hasn't spent 1st round picks, or huge FA money on their OL, and yet are successfull at implementing a horizontal passing game disproves Gilbride's and Sullivan's idiotic argument. And regarding the defense, the defense moved from a bottom third ranking to a top third ranking in ONE season. Donahoe overpayed? It's more like he got a bargain. If Gilbride was more concerned about controlling the ball on offense, instead of calling high-risk, low reward plays, the defense would have been even more effective. It's hard to sack the QB and intercept the ball when Miami is running Ricky Williams at your defense 50 times a game, meanwhile your moron offensive coordinator keeps trying to complete 50 yard passes against Jason Taylor and Patrick Surtain. Gilbride's lack of faith in his own players is damning to his ability to coach. Sullivan's support of this moronic strategy is damning to his ability to analyze and report on football.
Dan Gross Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 "Wow...Jerry Sullivan very harsh on Bills" That's kinda like "Wow....someone died today!" or "Wow....I still have to pay taxes!"
Mike in Syracuse Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 Jerry Sullivan = RJ of Media This guy has no credibility and has an obvious agenda. Since he has virtually no access to the Bills he uses his position to cheap shot them constantly. If it wasn't for WGR, no one would know who he is.
Ramius Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 Sullivan = Gilbride = RJ right there sullivan... :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: ...
MattyT Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 He said Kevin Gilbride once told reporters that the reason he liked to take long shots downfield is that in the NFL today, with the quality of offensive personnel and offensive lines, and facing the sophisticated defenses that are in place today, long time-consuming drives are rare. Someone usually makes a mistake on offense - a penalty, dropped pass, missed pass by the QB, fumble, etc. He said the best chance of scoring is with a long shot downfield. Sullivan says he's beginning to think Gilbride was right, at least as this applies to the Bills (Gilbride was probably really talking about the Bills when he made the comment). He said that if people are looking for long, controlled drives ending in touchdowns with the Bills offense as it looks now, they can keep dreaming. He said short passes to tight ends and backs this year are great, but the Bills offense, especially with the offensive line as it is, isn't going to be able to sustain long drives down the field. Someone will hold on a blitz, jump offsides, or make some other mistake. He said you saw the blueprint and how it worked against Indy in the last game. The drives ended in punts or field goals. 11707[/snapback] These paragraphs hurt like a hangover. There is so much wrong here that I don't know where to start. Jad1 covers a lot of these inaccuracies but let me add... + Our record last year and the imbalance in performance between the offensive and defensive sqads is proof that Gilbride's ideas were completely wrong for this team. Maybe it will work for the Giants, but more than likely Coughlin will take a stand against Gilbride after a few weeks and will right the ship (unlike GW). + Our offensive line is at a state right now where shorter dump off plays and passes are a necessity. We can't defend our QB well enough to allow him to take those shots downfield. Unfortunately, Drew is a long ball throwin' kind of guy so we need to do one of two things to have any success. 1) Keep a shambles of an Oline but get a QB that can run a short game (ala Brady) or 2) Fortify the Oline and use Drew the way the football gods indended. + The comments completely ignore the running game. With Gilbride is that a suprise? He never got the message that the run sets up the pass and that short sustained drives don't have to consist of mostly passes. Running the ball greatly reduces the likelihood of a bad penalty, sack, or dropped pass (obviously).
Britbillsfan Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 Gilbride's excuse for an offense barely managed to stay on the field for huge chunks of the season. As for his 'theory' it appears that most of the NFL are busily copying what he achieved in the last year.... In any case lots of short plays can open up the long play far better than just continuously giong for the long pass as the opposing D will not be able to key on that as well. This year the Bills have more ability to get the long scores (Moulds not being injured and Evans providing even more speed on occassion) than last, and I feel certain MM will go for the long TD at regular intervals in the season (although not every other play). The thing that let the Bills down against the Colts was having a third stringer play LT and even worse play from the not-so-special teams. The comment on the 'D' seems wildly inaccurate. The Colts have a pretty good offense and but for a 4th down conversion did pretty poorly for the most part (excluding scrubs). The inaccurate example of the 'third down converion' seems indicative of Sullivan's woolly thinking. I do not think there has ever been a 'D' in existance that could have got Gilbride's offense into the play-offs, as this is no longer his offense the comment is not really valid. As for the salaries and big time players - well the 'D' did excellently last year and although more turnovers would have been welcomed it was the 'O' that sucked royally. So the $s paid to the 'D' seem to have been earnt. Besides, without a single regular season down (ie: when it counts) being played (ie: when it counts) how on earth can he tell if Vincent is looking value for money The Bills did sign one of the better FA interior linemen in the off season and appear to be happy enough (mostly) with all but the left guard spot, but had a lot of young linemen on the roster and obviously were looking for someone to step up to be proficient enough to help. It looks as though Smith could do that, especially with decent coahing now in place. The team is largely the same as last year but there are major caveats to that. The interior of the O-line is much improved so far, with the revolving door of Pucillo looking like a bad memory, Villarrial looks solid and Teague stepping up (probably from not having to watch out for Pucillo on his shoulder). There is now speed at the receiver position.
GG Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 What a bunch of stevestojan. Last time I checked, the teams that had great success in the playoffs were not vertically oriented teams. Plus, the idiocy of retaining the vertical repertoire, when the offense was missing Moulds and Price borders on insanity. There must be a reason why Sullivan defends Gilbride. BTW, did Sullivan mention anything about his idiotic column last week advocating trading Travis?
RVJ Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 Sullivan said he's not a fan of the Bills. So he can be objective . To many fans are defensive...while looking through their rose colored glasses .
34-78-83 Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 Jerry Sullivan = RJ of Media This guy has no credibility and has an obvious agenda. Since he has virtually no access to the Bills he uses his position to cheap shot them constantly. If it wasn't for WGR, no one would know who he is. 11743[/snapback] BINGO!!!! WINNER!!!!!
Rubes Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 Consistently relying on the pass, given a team with a proven and successful running back, an offensive line that couldn't pass block for stevestojan, a quarterback that couldn't avoid the rush, and the only high quality wide receiver completely emasculated for the season, pretty much says it all for the Gilbride philosophy.
34-78-83 Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 Sullivan said he's not a fan of the Bills. So he can be objective . To many fans are defensive...while looking through their rose colored glasses . 11793[/snapback] Fan or not, one would first have to understand the game of football, whether on the field or financially speaking, before they would be qualified to be objective. Sullivan fills neither of these requirements as shown by this Gilbride reference and THOUSANDS of other previously incorrect attempts at making a point through the years. This basically reduces him to a human windbag.
Kelly the Dog Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 A couple extra long drives and field goals, instead of 3 and outs, sacks, interceptions, QB fumbles, and punts, keeping the defense off the field every two minutes like last year could EASILY have made this a 10-6 team and not 6-10, stevestojanhead. Miami, Houston, Dallas, Indianapolis...
MattyT Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 A couple extra long drives and field goals, instead of 3 and outs, sacks, interceptions, QB fumbles, and punts, keeping the defense off the field every two minutes like last year could EASILY have made this a 10-6 team and not 6-10, stevestojanhead. Miami, Houston, Dallas, Indianapolis... 11822[/snapback] You forgot botched trick plays.
IndyJay1234 Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 A couple extra long drives and field goals, instead of 3 and outs, sacks, interceptions, QB fumbles, and punts, keeping the defense off the field every two minutes like last year could EASILY have made this a 10-6 team and not 6-10, stevestojanhead. Miami, Houston, Dallas, Indianapolis... 11822[/snapback] Amazing.. Sullivan talks to Gillbride and forgets to ask the million dollar follow up question? Kevin, why during the last 24 games did it not work? Why were you guys ranked near the bottom of the league? Great coverage Sully...
BuffaloBob Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 The biggest problem I have with this analysis is that it is based upon a preseason game. The Bills are not gameplanning and they are running very little of there brand new offense. That we will suffer some from not being totally second-nature with the offense is inevitable. That is the downside to switching coaches. New systems must be learned and honed. Moreover, we haven't had our best O-line in any game playing together yet. As for the defense, yes they are over-pursuing in certain cases, but with that they have also become much more aggressive and have shown the ability to create turnovers. If you look at defenses generally, the ones who create the most turnovers are not often the ones ranked in the top three or so in yardage allowed. They give up more yardage but in exchange for more turnovers. No question that a ball-control offense must be efficient and mistake free to score a lot. BUT, if an offense is flexible and disciplined enough to loosen a defense with the short stuff and pounding the ball, the opportunities to go down field will present themselves. Drew needs to get comfortable with switching from one to the other as appropriate. All of this will take time to come together. The question is, can the Bills get it down quickly enough.
BuffOrange Posted August 30, 2004 Posted August 30, 2004 What a bunch of stevestojan. Last time I checked, the teams that had great success in the playoffs were not vertically oriented teams. 11784[/snapback] That's not entirely true. Tennessee was a vertical passing team. And while Carolina and GB were run-first teams, when they did throw it they chucked the ball downfield. As far as NE, they won in 2001 with a crappy run defense, they won in 2003 with a crappy running offense. It's a phenominon nobody can explain. Any team that copies their style without having Bill Bellicek as their coach won't succeed. I actually agree somewhat with Gilbride's comments. But I also agree that he applied his philosophy horribly to a team that didn't have the personnel last year (no WR's and crappy OL). I mean, they didn't need to put together 4 long sustaining 80 yard drives to win some of those games last year - just ONE 40-50 yard drive would've done the job with the defense we had last year. Gameplan for ONE TD drive during the bye week vs. Dallas; capitalize on the safety/Winfield int vs. Houston; capitalize on the early turnovers the defense got in Miami; design something to score when it matters against a crippled Eagles secondary full of 2nd stringers.....just doing 2 of those 4 things would've made us a .500 team.
Recommended Posts