notwoz Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 the hurry up doesnt work if you cant run the ball you can say the same for any offense but its even moreso with the hurry up That pretty much sums it up.
The Big Cat Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 The Shotgun hand off to the left. How many times did we run that yesterday?? You tell me. You're the one with the burden of proof. And while you gather evidence, show me how many times it worked, how many times it didn't. Also, please demonstrate that it didn't work for both CJ and Freddy. Also, specific to that play, please show all post-game analysis that's contrary to all reports that our LG stunk up the place.
Punch Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Well for one the Eagles aren't running the same offensive set EVERY single down. As I've said before, the offensive play calling was BAD yesterday. The allegedly vanilla game plan is hopefully due to protecting Manuel. If they never evolve past what we saw yesterday, then I'd be concerned we are running Jauron's "pop gun" attack. Russell Wilson was protected for more than half the season. I'm willing to believe that's what we saw against NE.
The Big Cat Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Whats your point? You disagree that the play calling sucked? Or you just feel like being a wise ass? I disagree with a lot of fans standing up, slamming their fists and declaring "play calling!" when a.) they don't know wtf they're talking about and b.) it's clear that execution of those plays, more often than not, was atrocious.
FireChan Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 I disagree with a lot of fans standing up, slamming their fists and declaring "play calling!" when a.) they don't know wtf they're talking about and b.) it's clear that execution of those plays, more often than not, was atrocious. So when I say Spiller sucked and Freddy was playing great, and that the coaches blew it by going back to plays that didn't work with players that didn't work, you agreed?
John in Jax Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) Eagles now "milking the clock" with 6 mins left in game and they're up by 13.....of course they are, it is basic, fundamental football tactics. And logically, if you have a smaller lead, you should really be milking it for every second. And in this case, the Eagles hurry up is WAY better than the Bills hurry up, so if they wanted, they could "afford" to keep pressing on. But they have a good....SMART.... coach though. LOL Edited September 10, 2013 by John in Jax
Punch Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Eagles now "milking the clock" with 6 mins left in game and they're up by 13.....of course they are, it is basic, fundamental football tactics. You're right. But you don't see the problem with the bolded?
John in Jax Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 You're right. But you don't see the problem with the bolded? Not really. I guess it's a glass half empty, glass half full type thing. One thought is if you're up comfortably, then there's no reason to worry about the other team getting the ball back, so why not keep pressing on (running hurry up & seeking more points)? Another thought is if you're only up by one, you damn well either better get more points OR just run out the clock. IN ANY CASE though, the most common situation is to run out the clock (if able).
BRH Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 When we ran the K-Gun back in the day, Kelly was still one of the best in the business at chewing up clock at the end of a game. We'd get the ball with 7 minutes left and the game was over. I honestly do not remember if we huddled more in that situation, but as someone pointed out earlier, huddling isn't the issue. It's using the play clock. Get to the line of scrimmage, then wind the play clock down. Not to one second every time, though. Snap it at five, one, three, whatever. That allows you to reach into your bag of tricks from time to time to get the defense to jump offside, the way Kelly used to do and the way Brady did yesterday. It wasn't the lack of huddling. It was the lack of both execution and experience. EJ will get there.
Punch Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Eagles now "milking the clock" with 6 mins left in game and they're up by 13.....of course they are, it is basic, fundamental football tactics. And logically, if you have a smaller lead, you should really be milking it for every second. And in this case, the Eagles hurry up is WAY better than the Bills hurry up, so if they wanted, they could "afford" to keep pressing on. But they have a good....SMART.... coach though. LOL Not really. I guess it's a glass half empty, glass half full type thing. One thought is if you're up comfortably, then there's no reason to worry about the other team getting the ball back, so why not keep pressing on (running hurry up & seeking more points)? Another thought is if you're only up by one, you damn well either better get more points OR just run out the clock. IN ANY CASE though, the most common situation is to run out the clock (if able). It's only logical if you want to play Dick Jauron style football.
CardinalScotts Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 I love this place, For years people here have eben screaming about how important time of possession is and how you can't win when the other teams offence is on the field way more then your own offence. Now TOP doesn't matter cause they want to play with an 'Up tempo/no huddle Offence' For almost his entire career, theres one thing that everyone around the NFL knows about the Pats and Brady, the best way to beat them is to keep Brady off the field. Now that doesn't matter, everyone thinks the key is to try and just outscore them. Even on TV the announcers were astonished that the Bills would continue to waste no time on offence and the last thing you want to do is give the Pats plenty of time with the ball again to score. The sole reaon they lost wasn't because of the 'Up Tempo/no huddle offence', but the decision to not try and take more time off the clock was a big part of the reason. Even if they had executed things perfectly and scored on that drive, with the time this offence was taking on the field it still would have given the Pats plenty of time to come down the field and score. The Pats had the ball on offence for 38 minutes in the game. The Pats were almost handing the game to the Bills on multiple occasions, but the Bills offence just seemed to want to give the game back to them. I'm not saying "Fire Marrone/Hackett" or "Dump the 'Up Tempo/No Huddle' Offence", but this coaching staff will need to learn to adjust during the game and not be so stubborn about what they are going to run all the time if they want to make the step up and play with the big boys. This game is all about adjustments, and its not like the offence was playing spectacular all day and were moving the ball at will against the Pats. Theres a time where its appropriate to slow things down and take some time off the clock, its what BB and the Pats did on that last drive to ensure they would put themselves in line for a chance to win the game and give the bills little to no time left when they get the ball back. time of possession hasn't mattered in 10 years You're right. But you don't see the problem with the bolded? yes up two scores not up a point
The Big Cat Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 You don't think running the same running play out of the shotgun becomes predictable? Still camped out on that unproven hypothesis.
Alphadawg7 Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) There is a big difference in time management at the end of the 4th quarter, playing with a lead (albeit, one point) and throughout the rest of the game - we needed to run the clock down and still execute - I dont think anyone is saying we should have went for three plays of running inside and then punted... it all comes down to execution for sure, but that does not mean you cant milk the clock while executing - every offense should be able to slow the clock down, no huddle or not - as some one posted above, if the offense can only operate out of a one-trick no huddle offense then something needs to change Starting from 8 minutes left, the players did not execute and the coaching staff could have reacted differently and slowed the game down....this was one we should have won, but even after decompressing I still cannot see the argument for staying no huddle with 4 minutes left, yes we needed to score, as well as leave the Pats with as little time left as possible (big difference operating an offensive possession with 4 minutes left or 2) Where did this lie/myth of 4 minutes come from? Are people choosing 4 min to help validate their argument? There was almost six minutes left in the game which is an eternity still. Milking the clock has ZERO value there. We needed to run what the coached felt was the MOST effective offense for us, and they felt our regular offense was at that point. The PLAYERS poorly executed. Reality check to you clock experts...the ONLY extra time we would have taken off the clock totals about 26 seconds. Brady had more than a minute left when they decided to run the clock to zero and kick the FG rather than risk a turnover again. And that is also after NE wasn't even running a 2 min offense and they still had way more time than we could have ran off by waiting longer to hike the ball. And they were already in FG range before that spot, so they could have kicked it with around 2 min on clock yet taking more time would have only eaten about 26 extra seconds and bad no impact. So A) 4 minutes is incorrect by almost 50% And B) your comment and others about how was a big reason why we lost is also 100% inaccurate as it wouldn't have taken enough time off based on the amount if time it took NE to get into FG range. The correct move was made by our staff. Run the offense you feel the team has the best chance with as a 1 point lead is nothing against Brady with over 5 min left in the game. We needed a first down or two before working the clock had any value. If we are up by more then we slow it down...not up only 1 versus one of the greatest comeback QBs in history with so much time left. You people are 100% wrong about this...sorry but it's true. Edited September 10, 2013 by Alphadawg7
Boatdrinks Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Tonight's Eagles game situation is a terrible comparison of a situation vs Bills game. A 13 point lead w/ 6 minutes left. Yes you use the clock. It is your friend there. In our case the scoreboard was the enemy, as a 1 point lead w/ 5 and change to go and Brady on the other sideline is a loss in this universe. We needed points. A few seconds of the clock between plays was irrelevant as NE had all their time outs and Brady only needed a FG. A few first downs and yes, you may want to slow it down a bit and make NE take their time outs in case the drive does not produce points. It was way too early for that, as we went run on 1st for no yards, 2nd down incomplete, 3rd down incomplete. Time made no difference in the outcome because we didn't advance the ball. Anyone who thinks we were going on a 6 minute march vs that defense, largely on the ground to boot, is crazy. We had little success all day running on them. The time remaining was inconsequential as Brady didn't even need it. If anything, we preserved a little time for ourselves if we could have gotten a stop on defense and forced a FG try earlier. Put the time issue to rest, running our regular offense was the right thing to do.
simpleman Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Your ability to dance around a point is stupifying. Oh I get the point now. You got the point, you just like being a criticizing troll to other honest posters, not to add anything substantial to the conversation. I have you on the troll list now.!
Donald Duck Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Tonight's Eagles game situation is a terrible comparison of a situation vs Bills game. A 13 point lead w/ 6 minutes left. Yes you use the clock. It is your friend there. In our case the scoreboard was the enemy, as a 1 point lead w/ 5 and change to go and Brady on the other sideline is a loss in this universe. We needed points. A few seconds of the clock between plays was irrelevant as NE had all their time outs and Brady only needed a FG. A few first downs and yes, you may want to slow it down a bit and make NE take their time outs in case the drive does not produce points. It was way too early for that, as we went run on 1st for no yards, 2nd down incomplete, 3rd down incomplete. Time made no difference in the outcome because we didn't advance the ball. Anyone who thinks we were going on a 6 minute march vs that defense, largely on the ground to boot, is crazy. We had little success all day running on them. The time remaining was inconsequential as Brady didn't even need it. If anything, we preserved a little time for ourselves if we could have gotten a stop on defense and forced a FG try earlier. Put the time issue to rest, running our regular offense was the right thing to do. well spoken Boatdrinks...
John in Jax Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 (edited) The correct move was made by our staff. Run the offense you feel the team has the best chance with as a 1 point lead is nothing against Brady with over 5 min left in the game. We needed a first down or two before working the clock had any value. If we are up by more then we slow it down...not up only 1 versus one of the greatest comeback QBs in history with so much time left. You people are 100% wrong about this...sorry but it's true. No, it's not true. Like I said last night, it's not brain surgery out there. LOL The absolute BEST situation would have been for the Bills to hold on to the ball with a long sustained drive TIL THE END OF THE GAME (and score no points) when they got it with 5:51 to go. There can be NO argument on this; hold the ball and walk away with a win. It doesn't matter if the offense was going like gangbusters and firing on all cylinders.....oh btw, IT WASN'T.....just hold the ball, kill the clock, AND WIN. Thinking along those same lines, hold the ball as long as possible before you kick a FG to ensure that the Pats need to counter with a TD. The latter would leave the Pats little time to come back & win. OK, so let's assume that the Bills offense was cookin' it, and the hurry up was working, and they could have walked down the field and scored a TD (I know, CRAZY assumption), WHY would they want to do that? All that would do is put'em by 8 (maybe 7 or 9 if they go for the 2-pt conversion), and then Brady & Co still would have the 4+ mins left to come back. The only reason to run the no huddle/hurry up offense is if it gives the offense an advantage, right? I mean I know this is basic stuff, but people in here are missing it. IF the defense is tiring out, or IF the defense is confused, or IF the play is moving so fast the defense can't make substitutions, or IF the offense is clicking like a well-oiled machine & moving down the field, then go with it TO GET MORE POINTS. Of course, NONE of the advantages I just listed were happening to the Bills and their hurry up offense in the 4th quarter on Sunday. And as already mentioned, THEY DID NOT NEED ANY MORE POINTS. Just kill the clock & win, period. Edited September 10, 2013 by John in Jax
K-9 Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 No, it's not true. Like I said last night, it's not brain surgery out there. LOL The absolute BEST situation would have been for the Bills to hold on to the ball with a long sustained drive TIL THE END OF THE GAME (and score no points) when they got it with 5:51 to go. There can be NO argument on this; hold the ball and walk away with a win. It doesn't matter if the offense was going like gangbusters and firing on all cylinders.....oh btw, IT WASN'T.....just hold the ball, kill the clock, AND WIN. Thinking along those same lines, hold the ball as long as possible before you kick a FG to ensure that the Pats need to counter with a TD. The latter would leave the Pats little time to come back & win. OK, so let's assume that the Bills offense was cookin' it, and the hurry up was working, and they could have walked down the field and scored a TD (I know, CRAZY assumption), WHY would they want to do that? All that would do is put'em by 8 (maybe 7 or 9 if they go for the 2-pt conversion), and then Brady & Co still would have the 4+ mins left to come back. The only reason to run the no huddle/hurry up offense is if it gives the offense an advantage, right? I mean I know this is basic stuff, but people in here are missing it. IF the defense is tiring out, or IF the defense is confused, or IF the play is moving so fast the defense can't make substitutions, or IF the offense is clicking like a well-oiled machine & moving down the field, then go with it TO GET MORE POINTS. Of course, NONE of the advantages I just listed were happening to the Bills and their hurry up offense in the 4th quarter on Sunday. And as already mentioned, THEY DID NOT NEED ANY MORE POINTS. Just kill the clock & win, period. What does any of this have to do with the reality of the last 5:51 of the game? Are you dealing in hypothetical events here or what actually happened on that possession? Hypothetically, I would have gotten 4 consecutive first downs and then milked the clock for all it was worth while forcing NE to burn timeouts. And then I would have run my favorite play: take a knee. But, AGAIN, the reality that transpired on that series was that the Bills, based on the plays they actually ran (you can't change history), and the results of those plays showed we COULD have burned only another 26 seconds off the clock which would have given Brady the ball back with 4:05 vs. 4:31 with a full contingent of timeouts and the 2 minute warning. Just kill the clock and win period? I think EVERY coach and player in the world would prefer that outcome. GO BILLS!!!
Tiberius Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Why not line up and stay at line till clock runs, isn't that what the Colts use to do with Manning in that situation? I understand you have to execute, but the idea that 6 minutes left if too early to try and run out the game is absurd if you ask me. Ferguson once had an 11 minute drive in the fourth o kill Cincinnati. What does any of this have to do with the reality of the last 5:51 of the game? Are you dealing in hypothetical events here or what actually happened on that possession? Hypothetically, I would have gotten 4 consecutive first downs and then milked the clock for all it was worth while forcing NE to burn timeouts. And then I would have run my favorite play: take a knee. But, AGAIN, the reality that transpired on that series was that the Bills, based on the plays they actually ran (you can't change history), and the results of those plays showed we COULD have burned only another 26 seconds off the clock which would have given Brady the ball back with 4:05 vs. 4:31 with a full contingent of timeouts and the 2 minute warning. Just kill the clock and win period? I think EVERY coach and player in the world would prefer that outcome. GO BILLS!!! how do people not get this?
K-9 Posted September 10, 2013 Posted September 10, 2013 Why not line up and stay at line till clock runs, isn't that what the Colts use to do with Manning in that situation? I understand you have to execute, but the idea that 6 minutes left if too early to try and run out the game is absurd if you ask me. Ferguson once had an 11 minute drive in the fourth o kill Cincinnati. how do people not get this? It's not absurd when you are only up by one point. They needed a FG at minimum to make NE* have to score a TD to win. Trying to score again at that point was paramount. GO BILLS!!!
Recommended Posts