YoloinOhio Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) I don't know. On a day where the running game isn't working, 300 yards with two turnovers is pretty pedestrian against NE. It kept them in the game for sure, but I would bet that that's not enough about 90% of the time against the Pats. NE is the 3rd ranked passing D, allowing 208/game. Turnovers are another story. Actually, most of the story. Edited October 15, 2014 by YoloinOhio Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 NE is the 3rd ranked passing D, allowing 208/game. #14 against the run, looked like #1 against us. Again, not enough if it's the only phase of your game that is working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 #14 against the run, looked like #1 against us. Again, not enough if it's the only phase of your game that is working. Yeah, I agree 100% on the run game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) #14 against the run, looked like #1 against us. Again, not enough if it's the only phase of your game that is working. That's ridiculous. The passing game isn't adequate because our defense can't stop them? Brady had 50 more yards with no run game. Why was he adequate? Edited October 15, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Think about it this way: being one dimensional for some of the game is OK and can actually open things up for the run later on. NE proves this by just f---ing killing people with Gronk until they just have to absolutely sell out to stop the passing game. We are never going to force the issue with this "take what they give us between the 20s" stuff. At some point you need to make the opposition pay by getting the ball into the hands of your least stoppable guys. That's Sammy. And the plays were there. I don't care if Hogan made a few decent plays. That's ridiculous. The passing game isn't adequate because our defense can't stop them? Brady had 50 more yards with no run game. Why was he adequate? *Because he didn't turn the ball over once or twice* Plus my statement had little to do with our D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) Think about it this way: being one dimensional for some of the game is OK and can actually open things up for the run later on. NE proves this by just f---ing killing people with Gronk until they just have to absolutely sell out to stop the passing game. We are never going to force the issue with this "take what they give us between the 20s" stuff. At some point you need to make the opposition pay by getting the ball into the hands of your least stoppable guys. That's Sammy. And the plays were there. I don't care if Hogan made a few decent plays. *Because he didn't turn the ball over once or twice* Even if we hit Sammy every time he was open, we lose that game. I feel like I've warped back to 2012, when Fitz dropped 30 on the Pats and we let up 50 and he got blamed. Edited October 15, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Even if we hit Sammy every time he was open, we lose that game. sure. Because we lost the turnover battle. Fully and completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 sure. Because we lost the turnover battle. Fully and completely. Yes, that insurmountable 6 point lead due to turnovers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dibs Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) I don't have a problem with using Sammy as a decoy in a gameplan if it works....and if it was indeed the plan, it actually did mainly work (mind you, a few thrown to SW early would have made it work better).....but I don't think that it was part of the gameplan. I tend to think that Orton may have become a tad gunshy during the game (perhaps due to the early INT). I say this because I was infuriated when we were down to panic time at the end of the game and he still refused to look for SW Instead he targeted Woods for no yardage (when Watkins was a viable target down the field). I cannot imagine that the coaches were wanting that result from that play. Perhaps the coaches wanted Sammy targeted more throughout the game but Orton consistently chose the safer but lesser play. Then again, this seems to have been a similar issue with EJ at the helm. Perhaps it is the coaching. (?) Edited October 15, 2014 by Dibs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 @TBNSports The weekly X's and O's breakdown from @viccarucci on #bills loss to Pats http://bills.buffalo...posed/ … 1st play of the game. The CJ bounce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Cubed Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) @TBNSports The weekly X's and O's breakdown from @viccarucci on #bills loss to Pats http://bills.buffalo...posed/ … 1st play of the game. The CJ bounce. Would you look at that hole inside... Jesus. The guy has no vision, none. Edited October 15, 2014 by Wayne Cubed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Yes, that insurmountable 6 point lead due to turnovers. Sarcasm is funny but it was 13 points due to turnovers (including CJ's) plus the opportunity cost of not scoring when we had the ball and turned it over - against a team that was not returning the favor. But hell, as long as you're satisfied that they tried very hard with a better QB, that's stupendous. I thought that the objective was to win, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Sarcasm is funny but it was 13 points due to turnovers (including CJ's) plus the opportunity cost of not scoring when we had the ball and turned it over - against a team that was not returning the favor. But hell, as long as you're satisfied that they tried very hard with a better QB, that's stupendous. I thought that the objective was to win, though. I'm satisfied they played well enough to win. I don't expect a Tom Brady/Peyton Manning performance, that will only lead to disappointment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I'm satisfied they played well enough to win. I don't expect a Tom Brady/Peyton Manning performance, that will only lead to disappointment. I just really disagree and I think it's fairer to expect a better offensive showing than it is to expect the D to stop Brady with three extra chances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsVet Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 The Lions have used Calvin Johnson as a decoy to great effect in the first couple games. Also, while Jeremy White isn't wrong about how Gronk vs. McKelvin is a bad match-up, I think he's unfairly critical on the Bills gameplan. We had a 3rd string CB/special teamer playing safety. What exactly are the Bills supposed to do to stop Gronk? Who were the 3 interior OL NE lined up on Sunday? I would imagine most serious Bills fans couldn't even name them, yet the Bills could not put pressure on Brady (what else is new?) The point remains that Buffalo could not take advantage of NE's personnel issues. Meanwhile, NE took full advantage of Buffalo's personnel (the result of injuries) in the secondary. It's coaching combined with bad personnel evaluation above that level. I cannot wait for Accorsi or Wolf or someone with demonstrated success in the NFL to begin their evaluation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 I just really disagree and I think it's fairer to expect a better offensive showing than it is to expect the D to stop Brady with three extra chances. Tombo completed 17 of 19 in the second half. Didn't punt once. And it's unfair to expect more from our D? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Tombo completed 17 of 19 in the second half. Didn't punt once. And it's unfair to expect more from our D? No. Totally not unfair. But unfair to expect that you're not going to pay for giving him extra chances, especially when you have to rely heavily on Duke Williams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 (edited) No. Totally not unfair. But unfair to expect that you're not going to pay for giving him extra chances, especially when you have to rely heavily on Duke Williams. How does giving him an extra chance in the first half explain his domination in the second half? What is the relation? Of course you expect to pay for turnovers. I didn't realize you pay for turnovers 3 quarters later anywhere but the scoreboard. Edited October 15, 2014 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KOKBILLS Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 Using Sammy as a decoy, while bad, would have worked if the defense could have stopped the Patriots* at all in the second half. Or if Duke actually makes a play on a ball he could have intercepted instead of pushing the WR and giving the Pats 7 points...Or if Robey gets a pick 6 on a play he read perfectly...Or if Graham properly plays the post he was in perfect position to defend...etc...etc... While I really like these All-22 reports, and there is no question the Bills coaches are completely failing in many areas including getting Sammy more involved, this game basically came down to the Bills predictable inability to step-up and make plays vs the Pats...Plays that were available to be made...Especially on Defense... Brady is Brady...Gronk is Gronk...they are going to make some plays...It's a given...The Bills are not immune to it...But they had their opportunities to step up and make some big plays in this game and they failed miserably...Like they usually do vs the Pats...And the beat goes on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted October 15, 2014 Share Posted October 15, 2014 How does giving him an extra chance in the first half explain his domination in the second half? What is the relation? Of course you expect to pay for turnovers. I didn't realize you pay for turnovers 3 quarters later anywhere but the scoreboard. 1) Three extra chances, 13 point swing 2) Say that one of those drives that ended in a turnover could have ended in a score. It is now a 16 to 20 point swing. 3) It is a lot easier for Brady to turn the screws on a team when he has the lead. 4) More possessions for Brady and co. further wears out the defense. Not so hard to come up with a list in 90 seconds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts