PatsFanNH Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 The game plan wouldn't have been the same if other players were available. You're playing "what if," on a game that's already done. I was thoroughly impressed by everything the Bills did yesterday. Seriously. I disagree, I don't think your O game plan changes at all, now your D game plan yes. The O game plan still works even w Brady as you want to limit his touches.
John from Riverside Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 We won To me that is all that matters
Gugny Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 I disagree, I don't think your O game plan changes at all, now your D game plan yes. The O game plan still works even w Brady as you want to limit his touches. Game plan before or after going up 16? You don't think every team in the NFL wouldn't go into ball control mode at that point? But your points are moot, anyway. The game is over. Furthermore, why would the D game plan be different? Everyone knows that the best way to beat Brady is to hit him hard an hit him often. That's what happened to Brissette. He got punished yesterday.
BringBackFergy Posted October 3, 2016 Author Posted October 3, 2016 I guess the point of this thread is that Rex made a pretty important point in a backhanded sort of way. The national media hasn't really picked up on it (i.e. the Pats were down by one player but we brought our "team"). I'd like to see some of the national media take a step back and say "Ohhhhh, I see what he did there"...but they won't.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 I guess the point of this thread is that Rex made a pretty important point in a backhanded sort of way. The national media hasn't really picked up on it (i.e. the Pats were down by one player but we brought our "team"). I'd like to see some of the national media take a step back and say "Ohhhhh, I see what he did there"...but they won't. I know all the focus is on Brady being out, but I don't think Ninkovich being out should be overlooked on the other side of the ball. I still definitely think we earned the win, as we were down some key players as well though.
Maddog69 Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 The o-line was phenomenal. Tyrod Taylor was the best I have ever seen him play - and I mean that. Defense, Offense and Special Teams were all great. It was a great team win. Oh crap ... Looks like I said all of this to begin with. Oh well. No offense, but if the best Tyrod can play only gets us 16 points, I don't know how many games we can win if we are not facing an injured, scout team QB.
Gugny Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 I guess the point of this thread is that Rex made a pretty important point in a backhanded sort of way. The national media hasn't really picked up on it (i.e. the Pats were down by one player but we brought our "team"). I'd like to see some of the national media take a step back and say "Ohhhhh, I see what he did there"...but they won't. But they were down a lot more than just Brady. I'm not saying that the Bills weren't down a bunch, too - nor am I taking away from what I consider a very impressive win. But it's not like the Pats were just "down Brady." They were also down Garappolo. And Gronk. And their third string QB could barely hold the ball, let alone throw it with any consistency.
Maddog69 Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 I guess the point of this thread is that Rex made a pretty important point in a backhanded sort of way. The national media hasn't really picked up on it (i.e. the Pats were down by one player but we brought our "team"). I'd like to see some of the national media take a step back and say "Ohhhhh, I see what he did there"...but they won't.What is the point? They are 3-1 with their player. We are 2-2 with out team. So what?
Gene Frenkle Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 No offense, but if the best Tyrod can play only gets us 16 points, I don't know how many games we can win if we are not facing an injured, scout team QB.Did you consider that they kept it conservative, with the *Pats unable to do anything on offense? No need to take chances yesterday. Smart gameplan.
BringBackFergy Posted October 3, 2016 Author Posted October 3, 2016 But they were down a lot more than just Brady. I'm not saying that the Bills weren't down a bunch, too - nor am I taking away from what I consider a very impressive win. But it's not like the Pats were just "down Brady." They were also down Garappolo. And Gronk. And their third string QB could barely hold the ball, let alone throw it with any consistency. But according to the "experts", the Pats could win with a jugs machine in the backfield....It's BB's system that allows for wins. So, in the end, even though everyone picked the Pats to win, they still have the "No Tom Brady" excuse to fall back on. Buffalo won as a team (without players deemed essential for success) and that's what Rex was getting at (IMO)
Captain Caveman Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) I like that Rex is making the team accountable. That said, NE's team is 3-1 and we are 2-2. Let's see if we can win more than 2 games in a row. Edited October 3, 2016 by Captain Caveman
Gugny Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 (edited) No offense, but if the best Tyrod can play only gets us 16 points, I don't know how many games we can win if we are not facing an injured, scout team QB. No offense taken. The Bills did what they needed to do ... nothing more, nothing less .... in order to win the game. They played ball control and capped off some long drives with scores. Once they were up 16, scoring became a lot less important - as the D was having no problem holding NE - and they continued to eat the clock. I don't think the fact that the Bills only scored 16 indicated that the Bills COULD only score 16. But according to the "experts", the Pats could win with a jugs machine in the backfield....It's BB's system that allows for wins. So, in the end, even though everyone picked the Pats to win, they still have the "No Tom Brady" excuse to fall back on. Buffalo won as a team (without players deemed essential for success) and that's what Rex was getting at (IMO) I'm catching what you're pitching. But the excuse would more accurately be expressed as "no QB and no Gronk," which is a lot different than "No Brady." I do agree that the Bills played very well, though, and deserved the win. Edited October 3, 2016 by Gugny
Pirate Angel Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 We never received mulligan after all the games we had to use a terrible qb to play them. I guess if the awful qb is your starter it's OK lol
Last Guy on the Bench Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 Lol be honest do you believe 16 points be enough had Brady been playing? Your team won because it dominated both Offennse and Defense, but Jacoby missed a lot of wide open throws. That said the Bills Earned that win so enjoy it and stop looking at NE articles whose job is to make NE fans feel better lol. My point is simply with Brady or Jimmy G your game plan wouldn't have worked as well. Brady would have hit the throws Jacoby missed in the second half, and I am 99.9% confident they throw more than 3 passes in the first half. Which in turn would have opened things up more for Blount.. Aka the game be completely different.. You're defeating your own argument. Of course the game would have been different in a lot of ways if Brady had played. Anyone who doesn't think so should be banned from watching football for life. But you seem to be arguing that the Bills would score the same 16 points if Brady played and would therefore lose. Absurd. In a different game, with a different score, rhythm, game plan, etc. the Bills might have scored 3 points, or 30. No way to know. I don't think anyone is arguing that the Bills would definitely beat a Brady-led Pats team. Based on history, it would be pretty hard to make much of a case for that. But there was a lot to like in the way the Bills played yesterday, regardless of the exact outcome. There are at least some things to hint at the possibility that the Bills might be developing into a decent, feisty team. No way to know that either. But let us enjoy the signs while they last. No need to speculate about Brady. We'll see him in a month and find out a little more about both teams then.
bobobonators Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 But they were down a lot more than just Brady. I'm not saying that the Bills weren't down a bunch, too - nor am I taking away from what I consider a very impressive win. But it's not like the Pats were just "down Brady." They were also down Garappolo. And Gronk. And their third string QB could barely hold the ball, let alone throw it with any consistency. With the exact same squad, what did the Pats do the week before to the Texans? Both games last year vs BRADY were decided by 1 score. So lets calm the heck down with the brady-less pats
Gugny Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 With the exact same squad, what did the Pats do the week before to the Texans? Brissette's thumb wasn't injured. And you know every Sunday is different. Again - I'm not taking away from the Bills' win. I loved it and they dominated. But we can't compare what happened last week vs. the Texans to this week vs. the Bills.
OhDozeBills Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 Did you guys catch Rex Ryan's press conference where he said this about three times??? The second time he said it he kind of rubbed the side of his nose and smirked. I think the whole game yesterday was a result of Rex telling his players that the loss of Sammy, or Dareus, or Ragland or Shaq...etc. is not an excuse. The team concept is more important than any one part. The national media has been harping on the Patriots and their winning without Tom Brady. I'm pretty sure Rex was saying this repeatedly to reemphasize the fact that no single player makes up the Bills (not Sammy, or Dareus or our draft picks). I do like the notion of the players gelling together as a team and not relying on any one player to achieve success. When I heard this, it really annoyed me. I took it as Rex diminishing the win because Brady didn't play, and in my mind thinking WTH is he doing. He went out of his way to say this three times. I mean, we're missing a ridiculous amount of players (Dareus, Sammy, Salas, Shaq, Ragland, Henderson, Koundjio, Gragg...the list goes on) and the Pats were pretty healthy with the exception of the QB position. BUT, after reading your post, I think you might be right here. Thanks for the insight.
Big Turk Posted October 3, 2016 Posted October 3, 2016 You scored 16 points, your O dominated the time of possession but scored only 16 points.. As a pats fan you tell me my D will average 16 points a game I say we win all of them... (With Brady or even Jimmy G) We played conservatively because we wanted to shorten the game and because they had no fear of your team doing anything against them offensively. Brissette's thumb wasn't injured. And you know every Sunday is different. Again - I'm not taking away from the Bills' win. I loved it and they dominated. But we can't compare what happened last week vs. the Texans to this week vs. the Bills. Sure it was...he didn't get his thumb injured on the last play of the game. It happened during the 3rd quarter
BringBackFergy Posted October 3, 2016 Author Posted October 3, 2016 Did you guys catch Rex Ryan's press conference where he said this about three times??? The second time he said it he kind of rubbed the side of his nose and smirked. I think the whole game yesterday was a result of Rex telling his players that the loss of Sammy, or Dareus, or Ragland or Shaq...etc. is not an excuse. The team concept is more important than any one part. The national media has been harping on the Patriots and their winning without Tom Brady. I'm pretty sure Rex was saying this repeatedly to reemphasize the fact that no single player makes up the Bills (not Sammy, or Dareus or our draft picks). I do like the notion of the players gelling together as a team and not relying on any one player to achieve success. When I heard this, it really annoyed me. I took it as Rex diminishing the win because Brady didn't play, and in my mind thinking WTH is he doing. He went out of his way to say this three times. I mean, we're missing a ridiculous amount of players (Dareus, Sammy, Salas, Shaq, Ragland, Henderson, Koundjio, Gragg...the list goes on) and the Pats were pretty healthy with the exception of the QB position. BUT, after reading your post, I think you might be right here. Thanks for the insight. It's not often I get complimented on my insight...thanks for the thank you.
Recommended Posts