Chandler#81 Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 This Buffalo Bills team is a a true Super Bowl contender, IMO. We have amassed excellent talent on the OL, DL, LB's, DB's, RB stable, WR's, P, PK and kick coverage. EVERYTHING! Except QB. Everyone here knows this. We just differ on how much 'learning' we have to tolerate. Through an equal number of Coaching regimes, we believed in Blesoe. We tried to grow Holcomb. We tried to grow Losman. We tried to grow Edwards. We tried to grow Fitzpatrick. We failed. We failed. We failed. We failed. Undaunted, we're at it again with Manuel. I'm completely positive we were the much better team in our 1st 2 games, whether national pundits can see it or not. While our QB hasn't screwed it up, he's still no threat to take over a game by himself -which is a born necessity of the position. In one full hour of offensive possession through 2 games, our PK is 8 of 9 with his one miss doinking off the upright. If that doesn't speak to a RedZone larnyx-gripping QB, then we went to different football schools. Of course I can see progress in his play from last season. The 2 1st half passes talked about here ad nausea were Pro. IMO, We absolutely HAVE to witness progress in him. I simply HATE that we have to -yet again- try to 'grow' a QB who didn't bring much to the table to begin with. I hate it more now than ever -given the splendid talent we have currently in this ever-changing League. My big fear is that we'll begin losing more of the fine pieces we have in place, before Manuel or 'Next Up' finally strikes fear in our opponents from that position. IMO, our talent level is on par with Denver, Frisco, NE, NO and the Champs. Except...
John from Riverside Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Wrong about what?? lol That teams want TD's when in the red zone? Come on Hemet! Look EJ played well. But this is significant. You don't think Marrone is wondering why his team has only scored 3 TDs this season on offense? You think this is...by design? That's nuts. It's not a cut on EJ only. You need to relax I thinm Marrone knows the touchdowns are going to come and is extremely happy we are 2 and 0 and just beat two quality teams.......I dont think a HC does handwringing over how we won....only that we won. He will go into the office tomorrow and look at the tape........but I think Marrone is feeling pretty good right now. This Buffalo Bills team is a a true Super Bowl contender, IMO. We have amassed excellent talent on the OL, DL, LB's, DB's, RB stable, WR's, P, PK and kick coverage. EVERYTHING! Except QB. Everyone here knows this. We just differ on how much 'learning' we have to tolerate. Through an equal number of Coaching regimes, we believed in Blesoe. We tried to grow Holcomb. We tried to grow Losman. We tried to grow Edwards. We tried to grow Fitzpatrick. We failed. We failed. We failed. We failed. Undaunted, we're at it again with Manuel. I'm completely positive we were the much better team in our 1st 2 games, whether national pundits can see it or not. While our QB hasn't screwed it up, he's still no threat to take over a game by himself -which is a born necessity of the position. In one full hour of offensive possession through 2 games, our PK is 8 of 9 with his one miss doinking off the upright. If that doesn't speak to a RedZone larnyx-gripping QB, then we went to different football schools. Of course I can see progress in his play from last season. The 2 1st half passes talked about here ad nausea were Pro. IMO, We absolutely HAVE to witness progress in him. I simply HATE that we have to -yet again- try to 'grow' a QB who didn't bring much to the table to begin with. I hate it more now than ever -given the splendid talent we have currently in this ever-changing League. My big fear is that we'll begin losing more of the fine pieces we have in place, before Manuel or 'Next Up' finally strikes fear in our opponents from that position. IMO, our talent level is on par with Denver, Frisco, NE, NO and the Champs. Except... Alternatives?
Mr. WEO Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Really? You can't figure this one out yourself? 4th Quarter. 1st down at the Miami 23. Short pass, Run,. Run. 4th Quarter after the sack of Tannehill on 4th down. Three runs in row. Last one by EJ, not risking a thing. The Bills got to or within the 20 twice in the 4rth. The first time in the beginning of the Q. They ended up with a FG. Plenty of time to play. The second time they got in the red zone, they missed the FG. I don't think that when they were going up by 3,6,9 that they preferred the FG. The play calling was part of the problem.
RuntheDamnBall Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 This Buffalo Bills team is a a true Super Bowl contender, IMO. We have amassed excellent talent on the OL, DL, LB's, DB's, RB stable, WR's, P, PK and kick coverage. EVERYTHING! Except QB. Everyone here knows this. We just differ on how much 'learning' we have to tolerate. Through an equal number of Coaching regimes, we believed in Blesoe. We tried to grow Holcomb. We tried to grow Losman. We tried to grow Edwards. We tried to grow Fitzpatrick. We failed. We failed. We failed. We failed. Undaunted, we're at it again with Manuel. I'm completely positive we were the much better team in our 1st 2 games, whether national pundits can see it or not. While our QB hasn't screwed it up, he's still no threat to take over a game by himself -which is a born necessity of the position. In one full hour of offensive possession through 2 games, our PK is 8 of 9 with his one miss doinking off the upright. If that doesn't speak to a RedZone larnyx-gripping QB, then we went to different football schools. Of course I can see progress in his play from last season. The 2 1st half passes talked about here ad nausea were Pro. IMO, We absolutely HAVE to witness progress in him. I simply HATE that we have to -yet again- try to 'grow' a QB who didn't bring much to the table to begin with. I hate it more now than ever -given the splendid talent we have currently in this ever-changing League. My big fear is that we'll begin losing more of the fine pieces we have in place, before Manuel or 'Next Up' finally strikes fear in our opponents from that position. IMO, our talent level is on par with Denver, Frisco, NE, NO and the Champs. Except... Dr. Strangefan, or: How I Learned To Stop Whining and Love the Wins.
The Dean Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 The Bills got to or within the 20 twice in the 4rth. The first time in the beginning of the Q. They ended up with a FG. Plenty of time to play. The second time they got in the red zone, they missed the FG. I don't think that when they were going up by 3,6,9 that they preferred the FG. The play calling was part of the problem. But just so I have this straight: You think every time, no matter what the circumstances, teams make no adjustments on how to attack in the red zone? Do I have that right? Because based on your posts, and your reluctance, and/or inability, to consider context, that's what I'm getting. You don't ever seem to weigh the pros and cons, the positives and negatives, of situations. You make pronouncements devoid of context. I was a bit disturbed when the Bills had to kick their third field goal. With that said, I understood Hackett knows the defense is playing well, he has a young QB and a FG is better than a sack or an INT. Later on, the Bills managed to put the ball in the end zone. In the fourth quarter, the reluctance to go all out for a score made sense, even though I'd prefer they play more aggressively. I hope the offense makes different decisions as the year progresses, and when the situation calls for it. But quite honestly, if playing it safe and taking FGs continues to result in wins, then I really don't give a damn.
3rdand12 Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 You have to admit, it takes a special kind of hubris to come into this thread, hours after going 2-0, admit you didn't watch the game and only listened to it AND then say you're not convinced EJ's good enough to get the team over the hump. Takes a lot of something . Ej played just fine . those two passes were fairly impressive I must acknowledge. Chandler was playing out of his head on the challenged call. Announcers called him very athletic lol. but it was sweet to see
Mr. WEO Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 (edited) But just so I have this straight: You think every time, no matter what the circumstances, teams make no adjustments on how to attack in the red zone? Do I have that right? Because based on your posts, and your reluctance, and/or inability, to consider context, that's what I'm getting. You don't ever seem to weigh the pros and cons, the positives and negatives, of situations. You make pronouncements devoid of context. I was a bit disturbed when the Bills had to kick their third field goal. With that said, I understood Hackett knows the defense is playing well, he has a young QB and a FG is better than a sack or an INT. Later on, the Bills managed to put the ball in the end zone. In the fourth quarter, the reluctance to go all out for a score made sense, even though I'd prefer they play more aggressively. I hope the offense makes different decisions as the year progresses, and when the situation calls for it. But quite honestly, if playing it safe and taking FGs continues to result in wins, then I really don't give a damn. If you are running out the clock at the end of a game you are sure to win--yeah, a FG. Superfluous at that point. But the first half, the Bills had 3 straight trips and came away with 3 FGs. In what context would FGs be preferable to TDs there? Edited September 15, 2014 by Mr. WEO
jumbalaya Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 He is Trent Edwards to me until he can throw it down-field or into the EZ in the redzone.
The Dean Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 (edited) If you are running out the clock at the end of a game you are sure to win--yeah, a FG. Superfluous at that point. But in the first half, the Bills had 3 straight trips and came away with 3 FGs. In what context would FGs be preferable to TDs there? None, TDs are preferable. But to think that's the end of the thought process is overly simplistic. How much are you willing to gamble to get those 4 extra points? Depending on many variables, some coaches decide to go about trying to get the TD in more conservative, or more aggressive, manner. I think that's pretty obvious and can't quite figure out why you are still confused by it. Edited September 15, 2014 by The Dean
Mr. WEO Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 He is Trent Edwards to me until he can throw it down-field or into the EZ in the redzone. In 2008, Edwards went 4-0, then 5-1, yet had only thrown 5 TDs in those 6 games. How did that end? None, TDs are preferable. But to think that's the end of the thought process is overly simplistic. How much are you willing to gamble to get those 4 extra points? Depending on many variables, some coaches decide to go about trying to get the TD in more conservative, or more aggressive, manner. I think that's pretty obvious and can't quite figure out why you are still confused by it. I guess we agree that TDs are always preferable in those situations, which was my point. Poor play calling and/or execution can't be rationalized as good judgement by the staff. We will disagree on the concept of "aggression" in regards to coming up with scoring plays. Those drives all called for 7 points--no "variables" change this fact.
The Dean Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 In 2008, Edwards went 4-0, then 5-1, yet had only thrown 5 TDs in those 6 games. How did that end? I guess we agree that TDs are always preferable in those situations, which was my point. Poor play calling and/or execution can't be rationalized as good judgement by the staff. We will disagree on the concept of "aggression" in regards to coming up with scoring plays. Those drives all called for 7 points--no "variables" change this fact. Well we can disagree about aggression if you like, But if you honestly believe many coaches don't adjust their red zone play selection based on in-game variables, you are sticking your head in the sand, my friend.
John from Riverside Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Dont look now....but a QB named Colin is imploding on Sunday night football..... That QB has a very good OL.....great RB's....recievers....a defense backing him up...... He is losing at home to a team we beat on the road.....and EJ looks way better
Mr. WEO Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Well we can disagree about aggression if you like, But if you honestly believe many coaches don't adjust their red zone play selection based on in-game variables, you are sticking your head in the sand, my friend. i've conceded that in situations of sudden death in overtime (your example), yes, the "in-game variables" (next game wins), you kick the FG. Also, when the game is terminating ion regulation and out of reach of your opponent. But in the first half, on three consecutive trips inside the 20, there is no "variable" you have (or even could) mentioned that describes why an OC would not "aggressively" pursue a TD (exactly what that means you also leave poorly explained. Dont look now....but a QB named Colin is imploding on Sunday night football..... That QB has a very good OL.....great RB's....recievers....a defense backing him up...... He is losing at home to a team we beat on the road.....and EJ looks way better Gotta hand it to you Hemet--you can really play the drum.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 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. When they kicked the FG to go up 16.
Mr. WEO Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 When they kicked the FG to go up 16. Carpenter had missed an even shorter FG the previous drive.
Kelly the Dog Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Carpenter had missed an even shorter FG the previous drive. It didn't matter, they were very conservative at that point when they were in FG range and if the score was different they would have went for it on 4th and 1.
IronyAbounds Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 Skeptical is fine, no one knows what kind of QB EJ is going to end up being. Saying definitely one way or the other is just a fool's errand. Right now all that matters is the record. 2-0 with a really good chance to go 3-0 against the Bolts next Sunday... I'll take it. Ding Ding Ding Ding Ding - We have a winner!
The Dean Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 It didn't matter, they were very conservative at that point when they were in FG range and if the score was different they would have went for it on 4th and 1. He either simply doesn't understand or refuses to admit he was mistaken in his initial evaluation. I can't explain it to him again.
Mr. WEO Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 It didn't matter, they were very conservative at that point when they were in FG range and if the score was different they would have went for it on 4th and 1. 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?
Deranged Rhino Posted September 15, 2014 Posted September 15, 2014 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.
Recommended Posts