Big Turk Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 They were? Marrone was lying then then saying he took guys out after 2 series. SJ and Chandler weren't playing on offense either
BuffaloRebound Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 I'm no d-line expert, but Troupe gets no movement or penetration. Not sure if he's coached to stay stationary, but looks like he couldn't run around an orange cone. Think it was the Hasselback-Hilton TD, where Hughes ran a nice inside stunt opening up a lane to the QB for Troupe, but Troupe couldn't dis-engage from his blocker.
Joe Miner Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 What qualifies as a "pure starter"? I said "starters", to me that means anyone who would be playing in a regular season game on a regular basis. Luck being replaced? That's not a "starter" situation. CJ, Williams, Williams rotating out? That's a normal regular season situation, and to me, still qualifies as "starter time". But ok. I'm the troll. I'll remove my offending opinions on the matter. My deepest apologies to you and all those that I've hurt. If people have to explain the term starter to you, perhaps you shouldn't be declaring things about said starters and then defending them until you learn what the term means. You were wrong, plain and simple. I know it's tough on the internet to admit, so your best move is just to withdraw quietly and resurface in another thread.
JPS Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 Please show me where I'm trolling? Is it because I used the word "lost" rather liberally? I thought putting it into quotes would have been a good indication that I wasn't making any strong statements about it. Dude, don't try to argue with optimism. I saw the game exactly the way you did. Our starters on offense looked OK. It looked Luck did anything he wanted to do out there. A timely fumble saved it for starters. Our starters on offense looked good late in the 2nd quarter against some of the other team's real players. But as good as Indy is on offense, their defense is in transition. As far as I'm concerned, Dorkington nailed it.
Dorkington Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 If people have to explain the term starter to you, perhaps you shouldn't be declaring things about said starters and then defending them until you learn what the term means. You were wrong, plain and simple. I know it's tough on the internet to admit, so your best move is just to withdraw quietly and resurface in another thread. Ok. I am wrong. My opinions are wrong. And I will stop posting. My apologies. Dude, don't try to argue with optimism. I saw the game exactly the way you did. Our starters on offense looked OK. It looked Luck did anything he wanted to do out there. A timely fumble saved it for starters. Our starters on offense looked good late in the 2nd quarter against some of the other team's real players. But as good as Indy is on offense, their defense is in transition. As far as I'm concerned, Dorkington nailed it. You saw the game wrong, too.
metzelaars_lives Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 I was so impressed with Tuel, even though he was going against backups, I actually think Kolb may have been hurt. If they only go with two QB's, not sure if they would do what Washington did and go with two rookies, but if Tuel and EJ just continue to get better, why keep Kolb. Helped: Other than Tuel helping himself, would be McKelvin. As mentioned earlier Luck and Hasselbeck didn't have too many problems moving the ball. Didn't Washington keep Grossman as their 3rd stringer last year? I think the Bills will do exactly what Washington did last year and keep Kolb as their 3rd stringer.
thebandit27 Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 Dude, don't try to argue with optimism. I saw the game exactly the way you did. Our starters on offense looked OK. It looked Luck did anything he wanted to do out there. A timely fumble saved it for starters. Our starters on offense looked good late in the 2nd quarter against some of the other team's real players. But as good as Indy is on offense, their defense is in transition. As far as I'm concerned, Dorkington nailed it. He had 2 drives and put up zero points. One first down on his first drive followed by a 1-2-3 punt. Second drive halted by a turnover...that's not exactly having his way with our defense. Rest of your post I agree with for the most part.
JPS Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 He had 2 drives and put up zero points. One first down on his first drive followed by a 1-2-3 punt. Second drive halted by a turnover...that's not exactly having his way with our defense. Rest of your post I agree with for the most part. I give us credit for the 1st series. The 2nd...Luck seemed to be very comfortable. I can't hold the turnover on Luck. To me, Luck on that 2nd series looked like Tuel in the entire 2nd half (save the "fumble"). He saw what he wanted to see, then got out. For the most part, the Bills did not dictate the plays against Luck and looked just OK against Hasslebeck. Now, if we could play against Chandler Harnish for 16 weeks, we'd be in business.
Big Turk Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 He had 2 drives and put up zero points. One first down on his first drive followed by a 1-2-3 punt. Second drive halted by a turnover...that's not exactly having his way with our defense. Rest of your post I agree with for the most part. And almost getting killed by Super Mario
YoloinOhio Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 Didn't Washington keep Grossman as their 3rd stringer last year? I think the Bills will do exactly what Washington did last year and keep Kolb as their 3rd stringer. I hope they do. Nothing against the rookies, but I think you need a vet on the roster.
Joe Miner Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 Dude, don't try to argue with optimism. I saw the game exactly the way you did. Our starters on offense looked OK. It looked Luck did anything he wanted to do out there. A timely fumble saved it for starters. Our starters on offense looked good late in the 2nd quarter against some of the other team's real players. But as good as Indy is on offense, their defense is in transition. As far as I'm concerned, Dorkington nailed it. The problem is chalking up a "loss" for the starters in the first quarter when it's been pointed out that the starters didn't play the whole first quarter. I'm not arguing that the starters looked great. His opinion that the starters didn't look awesome isn't wrong. His statement that they lost the first quarter is.
Cmscully Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 SJ and Chandler weren't playing on offense either This ^ Seriously, are you really going to argue starters vs. non-starters in a pre-season exhibition? Offense didn't have the above mentioned players. Defense didn't play McKelvin or Byrd (who will most likely be there at the beginning of the season). I am sure the Colts probably didn't have all their starters in on Offense and Defense either. Based on score, Luck and the Colts players on the field were unsuccessful. Based on statistics, they were more successful. Read into it what you want....but if you want to be pessimistic because the Colts players on the field with Luck were statistically better against a defense which probably wasn't running its full scheme and may have been experimenting, then go crazy! I don't think you can read too deep into the particular units in preseason as you aren't going to have all your players in and generally the units will be more vanilla. I think you need to look at the individual accomplishments during these games and I think we have a lot of reason to be optimistic.
eball Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 I wouldn't exactly say Luck "did what he wanted" out there. He was sacked once, hit hard another time, and led one turnover-created FG drive of about 10 yards.
Joe Miner Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 I wouldn't exactly say Luck "did what he wanted" out there. He was sacked once, hit hard another time, and led one turnover-created FG drive of about 10 yards. Out of the two series or whatever he was in, I thought we got a decent amount of pressure on Luck. Had they played a whole game, the Colts would have likely have had to make some adjustments to keep Luck from getting hurt. And on the two series he was in KW was a monster.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 Perhaps I am not as optimistic as others, but I think Manual did not do any harm to Kolb. While with more zip, his passing was reminiscent of Capt Checkdown....let's see how he looks after 3 preseason games before we go cutting the only proven vet on the roster. That 20 yard seam pass to Dickerson for 6 reminded you of capt checkdown?
Homey D. Clown Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 I'll toss in just one: Helped: Marcus Easley Hurt: Da'rick Rogers Easley looked every bit a starter in this league, where as Rogers looked lost at times, and overwhelmed.
mountainwampus Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 Kolb is finished competing with EJ. He now has to compete with Tuel, and he'll likely lose. Tuel is too good to even bother with Kolb at this point, IMO. Kiko vs Kelvin Sheppard. How is it possible that Kiko showed more skill and made more plays in 1 preseason quarter than Sheppard did over 32 games with the Bills? Kiko's TD break-up was textbook. Lawson. Unbelievable how well he played. I'm calling him the best LB of the bunch based on that game. Summers (FB). He provided the lead block on both of Goodwin's big returns. Deserves some credit.
JPS Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 The problem is chalking up a "loss" for the starters in the first quarter when it's been pointed out that the starters didn't play the whole first quarter. I'm not arguing that the starters looked great. His opinion that the starters didn't look awesome isn't wrong. His statement that they lost the first quarter is. If you ONLY saw the 1st quarter, who do you think won the game? To me, it was the Colts. I saw more "uh-oh", than "damn right". Regardless of who was in the game. In that view of the 1st Q, I agree with Dork....and I don't think he's being negative. The yards and T.O.P. heavily favored the Colts when the expected NFLers were in the game.
Jauronimo Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 He had 2 drives and put up zero points. One first down on his first drive followed by a 1-2-3 punt. Second drive halted by a turnover...that's not exactly having his way with our defense. Rest of your post I agree with for the most part. Maybe he didn't want to score, smart guy.
Joe Miner Posted August 12, 2013 Posted August 12, 2013 If you ONLY saw the 1st quarter, who do you think won the game? To me, it was the Colts. I saw more "uh-oh", than "damn right". Regardless of who was in the game. In that view of the 1st Q, I agree with Dork....and I don't think he's being negative. The yards and T.O.P. heavily favored the Colts when the expected NFLers were in the game. How many NFL games can you pull stats or video from two series (or hell even a whole quarter) and determine who won the game? How many NFL games does a team win on the stat sheet but still lose the game? Why would I judge who "won" a preseason game from 2 series or even 1 quarter? I have several concerns from what I saw from the Bills starters. I don't think they played great. I think they did some things well, and need to work on some other things. Hopefully by the third preseason game where we are seeing almost a half of football by the starters I will see a lot of these things corrected. I would expect the Bills to lose the time of possession stat in most of their games this year due to the semi-hurry up they seem to want to play. I didn't like the number of penalties either. The screen play to Jackson that ended the drive looked like a total cluster !@#$. But there were some good things out there as well.
Recommended Posts