TC in St. Louis Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 We scored 28 points and gave the ball to them 6 times. Let's just speculate on that for a moment. Had Spiller not fumbled, we would have had at least 3 points, if not, 7 just before the half. Things remaining the same, which of course is unlikely, we would have been ahead 28-7 after the td in the 3rd. Add another TD, that puts us at 35. Cancel the turnovers, and take at least three New England scores. Not to mention that our drives would probably have consumed some clock. I'm just saying....any game during which you turn the ball over 6 times, YOU WILL LOSE. It's just a matter of how many points the other team gets. You can't win with that many turnovers.
Mr. WEO Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 We scored 28 points and gave the ball to them 6 times. Let's just speculate on that for a moment. Had Spiller not fumbled, we would have had at least 3 points, if not, 7 just before the half. Things remaining the same, which of course is unlikely, we would have been ahead 28-7 after the td in the 3rd. Add another TD, that puts us at 35. Cancel the turnovers, and take at least three New England scores. Not to mention that our drives would probably have consumed some clock. I'm just saying....any game during which you turn the ball over 6 times, YOU WILL LOSE. It's just a matter of how many points the other team gets. You can't win with that many turnovers. I'm just saying.....I don't know what to say.
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 pleas forgive me No **** sherlock Truthfully I couldn't stomach it any longer. I stopped watching it when the Purtids went up by 14 points.
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 I'm just saying....any game during which you turn the ball over 6 times, YOU WILL LOSE. It's just a matter of how many points the other team gets. You can't win with that many turnovers. Wow. You figured that out all by yourself?
TC in St. Louis Posted October 2, 2012 Author Posted October 2, 2012 Yeah, I figured that out all by myself. It's simple. Anybody remember the 9 turnover super bowl? We lost by 35, and it would have been worse if not for Don Beebe. We scored 28 points against the Patriots and gave them about 4 touchdowns with the turnovers. Just curious. Had we not turned the ball over 6 times, what do you think the score would have been?
Thisistheyear Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 While I don't think there's much to gain by dwelling on what if scenarios, it's notable that our two losses came because we handed the ball to the other team. This is why Fitz is a major liability. He is capable of making some great reads, but there are throws he just cannot make and it leads to bad things. Chan's offense deserves someone who can stretch the defense once in awhile. His play calling creates a ridiculous amount of space for our receivers and running backs. Then Ryan Picksixtrick tries to go deep and ruins it. If I were Harbough this week I'd tell all my cornerbacks, if your man goes deep just stay a few steps behind him and wait for the ball to come to you. Safeties, don't worry about providing deep help. So frustrating.
Captain Hindsight Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Yeah, I figured that out all by myself. It's simple. Anybody remember the 9 turnover super bowl? We lost by 35, and it would have been worse if not for Don Beebe. We scored 28 points against the Patriots and gave them about 4 touchdowns with the turnovers. Just curious. Had we not turned the ball over 6 times, what do you think the score would have been? Wed be talking about good a coach Chan is. You can't win turning the ball over.
eSJayDee Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 I'd like to point out that we gave up 580 (I think that was the #) $%^&ing yards! Sure the turnovers hurt (I've long theorized that a turnover is worth 5 points effect), but I'd say we more lost as a result of a complete inability to stop them over the last part of the game.
Chef Jim Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 What one person calls take aways I call give aways.
K-9 Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 We scored 28 points and gave the ball to them 6 times. Let's just speculate on that for a moment. Had Spiller not fumbled, we would have had at least 3 points, if not, 7 just before the half. Things remaining the same, which of course is unlikely, we would have been ahead 28-7 after the td in the 3rd. Add another TD, that puts us at 35. Cancel the turnovers, and take at least three New England scores. Not to mention that our drives would probably have consumed some clock. I'm just saying....any game during which you turn the ball over 6 times, YOU WILL LOSE. It's just a matter of how many points the other team gets. You can't win with that many turnovers. What if the Pats didn't turn the ball over? For one, Spiller's fumble never happens. I understand your point about turnovers, but when your defense gives up 600 yards with two 100 yard rushers, two 100 yard receivers, and 52 points... Overcoming 6 turnovers is exceedingly difficult, MOST OF THE TIME. But if your defense can't prevent touchdowns on 6 consecutive possessions, you will lose EVERY TIME, whether you turn it over or not. GO BILLS!!!
Rubes Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 We lost that game because we had absolutely no answer for the Pats* offense. Simple as that.
JESSEFEFFER Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 The 4 Fitz picks didn't really hurt that much amazingly enough. Missed field goals resulting from them and the one underthrow was like a net 38 yard punt. When the last two came it was pretty much game over anyways as they were down 35-21 or worse and were not even defending as well as a speed bump. Desperate times call for desperate plays. Now the two fumbles which sandwiched in between the picks and occurred when up 14-7 and down 28-21 were huge point swing, game changers.
Luxy312 Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 No question here. Turnover margin is the single most statistically relevant factor to wins and losses. Teams that are -3 or worse in turnover ratio only win about 3% of games. What does that tell us? Well teams that benefit from turnovers almost always win when they get extra possessions. Regardless of that, the defense for the Bills was downright awful. They allowed 200+ yards rushing AGAIN; 6.2 YPC; 19 first downs on rushing plays. Ridiculous! Their run defense is still one of the worst in the NFL.
HOUSE Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 I would have one the lottery but I had the wrong numbers AGAIN
K-9 Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 The 4 Fitz picks didn't really hurt that much amazingly enough. Missed field goals resulting from them and the one underthrow was like a net 38 yard punt. When the last two came it was pretty much game over anyways as they were down 35-21 or worse and were not even defending as well as a speed bump. Desperate times call for desperate plays. Now the two fumbles which sandwiched in between the picks and occurred when up 14-7 and down 28-21 were huge point swing, game changers. That's true but it will fall on deaf ears of the crusaders around here. Simply put, not all INTs are created equal. And none of them hurt unless they end up hurting you. Now, the crusaders will say, "Yeah but those INTs prevented us from sustaining drives and getting points." Like they can predict the future. I can just as easily say that if he didn't throw those INTs we would have ended up punting or one of our RBs would have fumbled anyway. Fact is, based on what ACTUALLY transpired in the game, NONE of the INTs affected the outcome. GO BILLS!!!
BuffOrange Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 What if the Pats didn't turn the ball over? For one, Spiller's fumble never happens. I understand your point about turnovers, but when your defense gives up 600 yards with two 100 yard rushers, two 100 yard receivers, and 52 points... Overcoming 6 turnovers is exceedingly difficult, MOST OF THE TIME. But if your defense can't prevent touchdowns on 6 consecutive possessions, you will lose EVERY TIME, whether you turn it over or not. GO BILLS!!! Bingo. At 21-7 the turnovers were -1. By the time it was 21-28 the turnovers were still -1. That time in between was where the game was lost - not on two garbage int's at the end when we started pressing.
PaattMaann Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle hahahahaha, yessss!!! post of the day
atlbillsfan1975 Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) The Spiller fumble before the half was the biggest play. Why Chan has him in there and not Choice is beyond me. The interior of our oline is on eof the strengths of the team. Pound it up the middle once. Or fake that and throw to Chandler over the top. But do not run the guy with a bum shoulder into a mass of 300lb guys on the goal line. That was just idiotic on Chans part. I get what the OP is saying. And agree to some extent. i think the coaches and players do what the OP did. Break the game down figure out where it went wrong. If the Bills are up 28-7 then it is a different game all together. Maybe Wanny gets more aggressive. Blitzes some, gets out of his crappy nickel. Who knows really. I see both sides of it. The D not able to stop the Pats for 6 consecutive scores is crazy. I also wonder what was the Pats average yard per play in the second half?? It had to be 9-10yds? Edited October 2, 2012 by atlbillsfan1975
Direhard Fan Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Poor "D" cost us as many have said. No rush. No blitzing. No tackleing. Kyle and Byrd came to play. The rest came to watch. What a shame. All that hype and we blew it again. Two days later and I still can't believe it. I'm trying to use the 24 hour rule and It just doesn't work. Think I'll have another beer.
Recommended Posts