Clippers of Nfl 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? Really no one helped you?
macaroni Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 New Englands scoring drives (in order) were; 90 yards in 7 plays (TD) 80 yards in 8 plays (TD) 78 yards in 8 plays (TD) 63 yards in 5 plays (TD) 42 yards in 6 plays (TD) 12 yards in 2 plays (TD) 48 yards in 6 plays (TD) 7 yards 4 plays (FG) It doesn't look to me like we hurt ourself much with the turn overs by giving them points or a "short field" .... granted the turnovers didn't help .... but our "vaunted" D pooped the bed.
nonprophet 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. The Bills still would have lost that game minus the turnovers only not by as much because their defense couldn't stop the Patriots from scoring at will. What if the Patriots had only won by a field goal after scoring 24 points in the second half. Would you feel any better about their chances in SF?
xsoldier54 Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 if my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle This
Wayne Cubed 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!!! What if the Patriots* make both field goals? Those were essentially turnovers. That may have made it 14-13 at the half. 3 of the turnovers didn't effect the first half at all. You could play the what if game till your bluefin the face. I like to stick to facts. And the facts are the defense couldn't stop the run all game and in the second half the Patriots* eliminated their mistakes and were able to make drive down the field and score EVERYTIME.
ChevyVanMiller Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Anytime you turn the ball over more than your opponent you are normally going to lose the game. I thought it was pretty lame when Chan rolled out the same argument in his presser after the game. Turnovers are a huge part of the NFL pecking order - bad teams make them and good teams force them. If the Bills want to win games they need to play better on all levels - period!
Dorkington Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 BS. We couldn't stop them no matter where they started, and we couldn't match.
RkFast Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 "Takeaway the takeaways" and the Bills win SB27. Seriously....go look at the stats. Except for the NINE takeaways, they are almost dead even with the Cowboys!!!!
8-8 Forever? 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. +1. this post is the answer
1B4IDie 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. Incorrect. The Bills were up 21-7 after the first three giveways. And we're already down for the last 3. The ease of rushing by that Patriots when the Bills had the lead and were within a TD is why the Bills lost. Bolden averaged 9.46 yards a carry in the second half. You can overcome the 3 turnovers but you can't overcome getting a first time everytime your oppenent hands the ball off.
TC in St. Louis Posted October 2, 2012 Author Posted October 2, 2012 Hey, I'm the OP on this. I don't think I've ever seen worse defense than the Bills in the second half. It was as if their hearts had been ripped out and they were turnstiles. It was embarrassing. But I believe that had they kept possession and run some successful drives, maybe scored a couple more td's, this game could have been won. doesn't matter what I think, though. they got killed, they looked like idiots out there, and the pats trounced them. no argument there. you can't change any of this. i'm about ready to give up. mario williams is playing like phil dokes.
3rdand12 Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 (edited) 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. This is the answer^ +1. this post is the answer No ^ lost their disclipline and will. Edited October 2, 2012 by 3rdand12
ny33 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. Are you forgetting the fact that we put up 28 points largely because of the great field position we got from Patriots turnovers? If you cancel out the times we and they turned over the ball, we still lose that game. We couldn't run the ball, and in a close game we'd have failed to convert tons of third and short if you pretend that turnovers don't exist. 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!!! Correct. Fumbles are far worse than INTs.
gumby Posted October 2, 2012 Posted October 2, 2012 Yes the Bills defence blew it. But wouldn't it be nice to have a QB who could systematically dismantle an opposing D?
Recommended Posts