To all of the EJ bashers

[Kelly the Dog]

Do you think they were purposefully holding back in their first three red zone trips? Were certain variables influencing the OC to be less aggressive in trying to score a TD on those drives?

No, not at all. They definitely tried to score those first three. But you make statements that are not true, and I answered one with an example of why that wasn't true.

[Talley56]

Don't get me wrong, I am happy we are 2-0, but how in the world can anyone think EJ has done well? He has thrown some awful balls in the first 2 games. Fortunately, we have some really good receivers who have bailed him out by making nice catches. Last week Woods and Williams had to reach for balls where they were wide open and never should have been that off. Today, he threw some more balls to guys who were wide open and yet they had to reach for the ball. That over throw to Sammy in the endzone (think it was just before our third field goal) was inexcusable even for a young QB. The only time he made good throw was when Sammy broke wide open across the middle (so open it was next to impossible to miss him). And then to not be able to get the ball in the endzone after a blocked punt? That was just poor. I certainly don't want to sound like a negative-nelly after a 2-0 start. Again, I am glad we won, don't get me wrong, and I think all around we have a lot of talent to work with, but face it, a lot of it has been our defense, receivers, and as far as today goes, a bad day by Miami's punter.

[Deranged Rhino]

Don't get me wrong, I am happy we are 2-0, but how in the world can anyone think EJ has done well? He has thrown some awful balls in the first 2 games. Fortunately, we have some really good receivers who have bailed him out by making nice catches. Last week Woods and Williams had to reach for balls where they were wide open and never should have been that off. Today, he threw some more balls to guys who were wide open and yet they had to reach for the ball. That over throw to Sammy in the endzone (think it was just before our third field goal) was inexcusable even for a young QB. The only time he made good throw was when Sammy broke wide open across the middle (so open it was next to impossible to miss him). And then to not be able to get the ball in the endzone after a blocked punt? That was just poor. I certainly don't want to sound like a negative-nelly after a 2-0 start. Again, I am glad we won, don't get me wrong, and I think all around we have a lot of talent to work with, but face it, a lot of it has been our defense, receivers, and as far as today goes, a bad day by Miami's punter.

 

That's why football games are won as a team, not by an individual -- no matter his position. 2-0 is all that matters. Thinking EJ played no part in getting us there is folly.

[The Dean]

Do you think they were purposefully holding back in their first three red zone trips? Were certain variables influencing the OC to be less aggressive in trying to score a TD on those drives?

That's not what (I think) you guys are having a difference of opinion over. Yes, those specific three trips into the redzone in the first half they were absolutely, aggressively seeking a TD and came up short. Dean is saying that there are many times, especially when leading, that OC's take certain plays off their redzone lists, specifically ones with a high turnover risk. Why run those plays to try to get 7 when 3 makes it a 3 score game?

 

That's the disconnect.

 

Thanks Greggy, That's the main crux of the biscuit. In his original proclamation, Weo (as he does) failed to consider context in any form.

 

But actually I'm saying something more now. Looking at the play selection, I don't really think the Bills aggressively attacked the end zone on any of those first three red zone possessions. Certainly not in the first one, where they ran into the middle of the line of the first two downs. I'm not suggesting that they weren't trying to score. But they were trying to score in the context of their normal offense. They were going about the red zone the same way they drove down the field. And I think that was pretty much the same for the other 1st half red zone drives. Would they have made those same play calls if they were trailing by 14 points? I doubt it. But the defense is stout. The team was moving the ball well for the most part. I believe they were trying to score a TD, but not to the point of gambling with an INT or sack or big yardage loss. A FG, while not optimal in those situations, was an acceptable outcome. Had they been trailing in the game, they may have felt the necessity to engage in riskier play calling.

 

I have no idea how to convince you that many coaches adjust their play calling (inside and outside the red zone) based on in-game variables. But go ahead and believe the Bills would have run up the middle twice and settled for a short pass on third down, if they were trailing by a couple scores at that point.

[DanInUticaTampa]

EJ definitely looks better than last year. Game is slowing down for him. He has a ways to go if he is going to turn into the player we all hope he will be, but it is looking good for his development. And winning games will help that development. He has to work on his timing and reads more, but he is definently improving. seeing him beat a good team on the road last week really made me think he did take a couple steps forward from last year

[Kelly the Dog]

Thanks Greggy, That's the main crux of the biscuit. In his original proclamation, Weo (as he does) failed to consider context in any form.

 

But actually I'm saying something more now. Looking at the play selection, I don't really think the Bills aggressively attacked the end zone on any of those first three red zone possessions. Certainly not in the first one, where they ran into the middle of the line of the first two downs. I'm not suggesting that they weren't trying to score. But they were trying to score in the context of their normal offense. They were going about the red zone the same way they drove down the field. And I think that was pretty much the same for the other 1st half red zone drives. Would they have made those same play calls if they were trailing by 14 points? I doubt it. But the defense is stout. The team was moving the ball well for the most part. I believe they were trying to score a TD, but not to the point of gambling with an INT or sack or big yardage loss. A FG, while not optimal in those situations, was an acceptable outcome. Had they been trailing in the game, they may have felt the necessity to engage in riskier play calling.

 

I have no idea how to convince you that many coaches adjust their play calling (inside and outside the red zone) based on in-game variables. But go ahead and believe the Bills would have run up the middle twice and settled for a short pass on third down, if they were trailing by a couple scores at that point.

I agree with you a lot but not at all on this one. Of course Hackett was calling the plays that he thought would eventually get the team into the endzone. If they were conservative it was not because they didnt want to score or were happy with a FG, they were just doing whatever they thought, conservative or not, gave them the best chance to score a TD. EJ missed Woods badly on one series and he missed Watkins on another (although IMO it may have been Watkins not running the pattern EJ thought he was versus a bad pass, but I don't know for sure.

 

I agree with youe general premise. But I think for sure on the first three drives they did what they thought gave them the best chance or scoring a TD, not happy with a FG.

[John from Riverside]

Don't get me wrong, I am happy we are 2-0, but how in the world can anyone think EJ has done well? He has thrown some awful balls in the first 2 games. Fortunately, we have some really good receivers who have bailed him out by making nice catches. Last week Woods and Williams had to reach for balls where they were wide open and never should have been that off. Today, he threw some more balls to guys who were wide open and yet they had to reach for the ball. That over throw to Sammy in the endzone (think it was just before our third field goal) was inexcusable even for a young QB. The only time he made good throw was when Sammy broke wide open across the middle (so open it was next to impossible to miss him). And then to not be able to get the ball in the endzone after a blocked punt? That was just poor. I certainly don't want to sound like a negative-nelly after a 2-0 start. Again, I am glad we won, don't get me wrong, and I think all around we have a lot of talent to work with, but face it, a lot of it has been our defense, receivers, and as far as today goes, a bad day by Miami's punter.

 

Christ....where to start with this....should I bother?

[The Dean]

I agree with you a lot but not at all on this one. Of course Hackett was calling the plays that he thought would eventually get the team into the endzone. If they were conservative it was not because they didnt want to score or were happy with a FG, they were just doing whatever they thought, conservative or not, gave them the best chance to score a TD. EJ missed Woods badly on one series and he missed Watkins on another (although IMO it may have been Watkins not running the pattern EJ thought he was versus a bad pass, but I don't know for sure.

 

I agree with youe general premise. But I think for sure on the first three drives they did what they thought gave them the best chance or scoring a TD, not happy with a FG.

 

I believe Watkins was held on that route. I would have liked to see a bit more effort from him on that one, but I realize he isn't 100%.

 

But to the point, I know we typically agree. Do you think if the Bills had been trailing, let's say be 14 points, do they run up the middle on first and second down? What if it's late in the game. In-game variables definately make an impact on play calling--which is really my point here irrespective of what drive we are talking about. I'm just pointing out the possibilities on any given drive. But I don't believe the Bills aggressively attacked the end zone, in the same way they would have had they been trailing, on those first three drives. Neither do I think the play calling, in or out of the red zone, would be the same if they expected to be in a high scoring shootout of a game. Or if they had Tom Brady as a QB. Or if their running backs couldn't be counted on to actually gain much yardage, etc. Play calling, irrespective of if it is or isn't in the red zone, is contextual.

Edited September 15, 2014 by The Dean

[SactoBillFan]

Christ....where to start with this....should I bother?

No it will be the same if we go 3-0 and worse if we don't.

[Kelly the Dog]

I believe Watkins was held on that route. I would have liked to see a bit more effort from him on that one, but I realize he isn't 100%.

 

But to the point, I know we typically agree. Do you think if the Bills had been trailing, let's say be 14 points, do they run up the middle on first and second down? What if it's late in the game. In-game variables definately make an impact on play calling--which is really my point here irrespective of what drive we are talking about. I'm just pointing out the possibilities on any given drive. But I don't believe the Bills aggressively attacked the end zone, in the same way they would have had they been trailing, on those first three drives. Neither do I think the play calling, in or out of the red zone, would be the same if they expected to be in a high scoring shootout of a game. Or if they had Tom Brady as a QB. Or if their running backs couldn't be counted on to actually gain much yardage, etc. Play calling, irrespective of if it is or isn't in the red zone, is contextual.

Of course. But I was talking about the first three drives, which were referenced in this thread. Later in the game, of course the score enters into it. It enters into the play calling the whole game. If you think your defense can shut a team down you may be more conservative in your play calls, knowing those 3 points mean more in this game than in others. But to me, in the first three drives in this particular game, Hackett was calling plays that he thought gave him the best chance to score a Td. That does not at all, of course, mean you throw every play. But they tried to score TDs and I imagine were very disappointed they didn't.

[hondo in seattle]

The EJ led Bills scored more on the Fins than the Brady led Pats.

 

The EJ led Bills scored more on the Bears than the Kaepernick led 46ers.

 

Ej has flaws. He makes mistakes. Just imagine when experience and coaching help him master his game.

[Kelly the Dog]

The EJ led Bills scored more on the Fins than the Brady led Pats.

 

The EJ led Bills scored more on the Bears than the Kaepernick led 46ers.

 

Ej has flaws. He makes mistakes. Just imagine when experience and coaching help him master his game.

If EJ plays the way he has been playing, we win 11-12 games IMO. He doesn't need to be a star.

 

One turnover in two games, are you kidding me? Hackett deserves a lot of credit. As well as Whaley. People don't seem to realize that in the last ten years we did not have WR that consistently got open. Watkins is a stud.

[Dibs]

Ok, then tell me on which trips to the red zone were the Bills, because of the score, were not preferring to aggressively pursue 7 points instead of 3.

 

Three times in the 4th quarter......

When we were 13 pts up(to make it a difficult to beat 16 pt lead)....short pass, run, run.

When we were 16 pts up(to force a 3 score lead)....run, run, run.

When we were 16 pts up still(FG missed first time).....run, run, QB run

 

 

Though a couple of the earlier red zone attempts were similarly conservative, there is some obvious logic for when it is late in the game and a FG will virtually clinch the victory, that one would wisely call plays that have the minimal chance of turning over the ball.

 

I am quite surprised that you are arguing against this concept.

[The Dean]

Of course. But I was talking about the first three drives, which were referenced in this thread. Later in the game, of course the score enters into it. It enters into the play calling the whole game. If you think your defense can shut a team down you may be more conservative in your play calls, knowing those 3 points mean more in this game than in others. But to me, in the first three drives in this particular game, Hackett was calling plays that he thought gave him the best chance to score a Td. That does not at all, of course, mean you throw every play. But they tried to score TDs and I imagine were very disappointed they didn't.

 

Well, I'm sure he was disappointed they didn't get a TD. In that we are in complete agreement. But what was he willing to risk for that TD? Not to make too fine a point on this, but I'll give it one more shot. Do you think, if the game rested in the balance, where only a touchdown mattered. That is a FG would be meaningless because the Bills would lose the game with a only FG. In that circumstance, to you think Hackett calls two runs up the middle? I don't. Because, at that point of the game, in this particular game, a FG, while not ideal, is an acceptable result. There are more aggressive ways to approach the red zone and if the game was on the line, I wouldn't expect that conservative play calling.

 

 

If EJ plays the way he has been playing, we win 11-12 games IMO. He doesn't need to be a star.

 

One turnover in two games, are you kidding me? Hackett deserves a lot of credit. As well as Whaley. People don't seem to realize that in the last ten years we did not have WR that consistently got open. Watkins is a stud.

 

Yup. I'm not complaining about Hackett's play calling so far. Whaley's off season moves have proven to be fantastic so far. Too bad Marrone lost the team.

[MyHorseAteTheKid]

So far good enough to win... Hope he continues to improve...

[MarkAF43]

Christ....where to start with this....should I bother?

 

John,I wouldn't even. It's nothing but a crusade for the people who want a new QB no matter what. I think Dean said it earlier, oh we beat Miami, but NE wasn't that good, oh we beat Chicago and blah blah blah. EJ moves the team down the field, but it's always his receivers bailing him out. Some people here refuse to give credit where it's due. Is he the next coming of # 12 in Buffalo history? Probably not, but lets not throw all the blame on EJ and say his receivers save him time and time again because it's simply not true.

[Solomon Grundy]

Don't get me wrong, I am happy we are 2-0, but how in the world can anyone think EJ has done well? He has thrown some awful balls in the first 2 games. Fortunately, we have some really good receivers who have bailed him out by making nice catches. Last week Woods and Williams had to reach for balls where they were wide open and never should have been that off. Today, he threw some more balls to guys who were wide open and yet they had to reach for the ball. That over throw to Sammy in the endzone (think it was just before our third field goal) was inexcusable even for a young QB. The only time he made good throw was when Sammy broke wide open across the middle (so open it was next to impossible to miss him). And then to not be able to get the ball in the endzone after a blocked punt? That was just poor. I certainly don't want to sound like a negative-nelly after a 2-0 start. Again, I am glad we won, don't get me wrong, and I think all around we have a lot of talent to work with, but face it, a lot of it has been our defense, receivers, and as far as today goes, a bad day by Miami's punter.

 

Every QB throw horrible passes! This week I watched A.Rodgers, Brady, Brees, Romo, Manning, Ryan, Stafford all throw horrible passes. The man played 12 NFL games and in every game he's played you see improvement. Hate if you want to but I'm riding the EJ train!

[GunnerBill]

If EJ keeps playing at this level we will have a winning season and might even compete for the AFC East. If he can play just a little bit better, make those couple of throws he has missed to this point then we are a shoe-in for the play-offs. Our defense appears legit, our running game always has the potential to break a big one, the o-line has played better than some of us feared and our receivers are making plays. EJ isn't dominating games, but this team is built so that he doesn't need to.

 

Alex Smith, the Quarterback that a lot of the EJ haters think we should have traded for before last season led the Chiefs to 11 wins last year, and here is some news for you all, he did so without dominating games. He had a good o-line a stud playmaking running back, and a mean defense. The Bills can be this year's Chiefs in my opinion, and we probably have better receivers.

[Maury Ballstein]

Week 2 nfl performances

 

EJ > Kaepernick

EJ > Brees

EJ > Stafford

EJ > Geno

EJ > Russell Wilson

EJ > Henne

EJ > Cassell, Eli

 

So then there's that.

 

[John in Jax]

Don't get me wrong, I am happy we are 2-0, but how in the world can anyone think EJ has done well? He has thrown some awful balls in the first 2 games. Fortunately, we have some really good receivers who have bailed him out by making nice catches. Last week Woods and Williams had to reach for balls where they were wide open and never should have been that off. Today, he threw some more balls to guys who were wide open and yet they had to reach for the ball. That over throw to Sammy in the endzone (think it was just before our third field goal) was inexcusable even for a young QB. The only time he made good throw was when Sammy broke wide open across the middle (so open it was next to impossible to miss him). And then to not be able to get the ball in the endzone after a blocked punt? That was just poor. I certainly don't want to sound like a negative-nelly after a 2-0 start. Again, I am glad we won, don't get me wrong, and I think all around we have a lot of talent to work with, but face it, a lot of it has been our defense, receivers, and as far as today goes, a bad day by Miami's punter.

 

Another voice of reason enters the fray. Thanks for stepping up and not being afraid to take the insults & attacks from the "I have blinders on" crowd, for just stating the obvious.