klos63 Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 You've picked an awful, awful target to try to make this point. Pay attention to the discussion. I haven't once said that he should get the ball on every play, or that he should get the target on every pass, or anything that should even remotely hint at an assertion that should evoke such a response from a rational person. What I've said repeatedly is that the guy was open far more often than he was targeted, and that it needs to change if the offense hopes to put up more than 160 passing yards per game. Case-in-point: the only 2 targets he received beyond 20 yards lead directly to TD scores. The other 2 TDs came on a big run by Shady and a big punt return by Tate. The thread topic is Watkins and his utilization, so I'm on topic. If you don't like the topic, then either (a) don't click on it, or (b) take it up with the OP. Sorry, here is a tissue if you need one. You've picked an awful, awful target to try to make this point. Pay attention to the discussion. I haven't once said that he should get the ball on every play, or that he should get the target on every pass, or anything that should even remotely hint at an assertion that should evoke such a response from a rational person. What I've said repeatedly is that the guy was open far more often than he was targeted, and that it needs to change if the offense hopes to put up more than 160 passing yards per game. Case-in-point: the only 2 targets he received beyond 20 yards lead directly to TD scores. The other 2 TDs came on a big run by Shady and a big punt return by Tate. The thread topic is Watkins and his utilization, so I'm on topic. If you don't like the topic, then either (a) don't click on it, or (b) take it up with the OP. or I can write whatever the f@#k i want and watch you blow a gasket over it.
thebandit27 Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 Sorry, here is a tissue if you need one. Oh, so rather than own up to the fact that you read a single post and made a faulty assumption, you'd rather mis-play the "you can't take it" card? Nice work It was a silly post that responded to the wrong person and has no relevance to the discussion...but other than that, it was salient and enlightening! If you want to participate, pay attention. That is all.
klos63 Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 Oh, so rather than own up to the fact that you read a single post and made a faulty assumption, you'd rather mis-play the "you can't take it" card? Nice work It was a silly post that responded to the wrong person and has no relevance to the discussion...but other than that, it was salient and enlightening! If you want to participate, pay attention. That is all. do you make the rules here? Oh, so rather than own up to the fact that you read a single post and made a faulty assumption, you'd rather mis-play the "you can't take it" card? Nice work It was a silly post that responded to the wrong person and has no relevance to the discussion...but other than that, it was salient and enlightening! If you want to participate, pay attention. That is all. Ok, I think it's ridiculous to assume that Waktins was fully in the game plan after missing so much time and may not have been totally healthy still. But I understand that some people just can't help but find something to piss and moan about, even after a victory. I hope he gets more targets and more actual catches next week too, but more than that, I hope the Bills win the game, because that's what is most important.
thebandit27 Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 do you make the rules here? Nope, but here: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules "just use some common sense" I felt that paying attention to what's going on in a thread was common sense. My apologies if that upsets you--feel free to use that tissue that I didn't need.
klos63 Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 Nope, but here: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/index.php?app=forums&module=extras§ion=boardrules "just use some common sense" I felt that paying attention to what's going on in a thread was common sense. My apologies if that upsets you--feel free to use that tissue that I didn't need. I'm not going to read every post before I comment, especially if they are like yours. I saw yours, I made a comment. If you don't like it, you can skip it, or ignore it, or as you did, blow a gasket. Have a wonderful rest of the day.
thebandit27 Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 I'm not going to read every post before I comment, especially if they are like yours. I saw yours, I made a comment. If you don't like it, you can skip it, or ignore it, or as you did, blow a gasket. Have a wonderful rest of the day. No, you made a comment that had literally nothing to do with my post. You apparently decided that my statement about Watkins was a microcosm of TSW's negativity over the last 2 weeks, which is simply an ignorant position to take. If you have no desire to inform yourself before commenting, preferring instead to shoot from the hip, it would be prudent to be prepared to accept correction when you misfire. If you consider my response to you as "blowing a gasket", then I dare suggest that debate simply isn't for you, because it was actually quite calm and measured.
klos63 Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 No, you made a comment that had literally nothing to do with my post. You apparently decided that my statement about Watkins was a microcosm of TSW's negativity over the last 2 weeks, which is simply an ignorant position to take. If you have no desire to inform yourself before commenting, preferring instead to shoot from the hip, it would be prudent to be prepared to accept correction when you misfire. If you consider my response to you as "blowing a gasket", then I dare suggest that debate simply isn't for you, because it was actually quite calm and measured. get off you friggen high horse, will you.
thebandit27 Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 (edited) get off you friggen high horse, will you. they should have thrown to him instead of handing off to McCoy on the first play of the 2nd half. I haven't spend much time on TBD recently until last week, all i've read has been negative and in that time we are 2-0. jesus, come on. Edited November 28, 2016 by thebandit27
dave mcbride Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 (edited) For those opining on his relative participation in the game, I suggest looking at how things actually transpired early on: basically, running on first down for zero to negative yardage every single possession early on, followed by tough pressure/coverage and many sacks because of poor down/distance situations: http://www.espn.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=400874554. Their first six first down plays were ineffective handoffs to McCoy. The Bills only ran 52 plays in total, 10 of which were after they had taken a 28-21 lead and were trying to run out the clock. If you take away the two final passing plays from the game-end clock killing drives, Taylor threw it 18 times (I'm including the 2 PIs). 4 went Watkins' way, and 5 went to Clay (who we all know has to be better integrated into the passing game). 4 went to Goodwin, but a couple of those were desperation passes meant to secure short gains rather than sacks. One went to O'Leary and it should have been a TD with a better throw. A couple went to McCoy. One went to Justin Hunter. The O'Leary and Hunter plays were perfect calls. One worked, and the other one didn't. The bottom line: the Bills didn't run many plays, and just about 1/5 of them were in clock-killing time. And as per usual, they registered more running plays than passing plays (29-23). Edited November 28, 2016 by dave mcbride
Alphadawg7 Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 Quite the offensive game plan. You have your best player back and Bill looked at him 3 times all day (and once back to back). This is pathetic.... Yes it is the old "You have a Ferrari but only take it out in the 25mph school zone. Conversely they did win the game, but yet again a struggle and little in the way of offense as Jacksonville knew what the Bills were running every play. First, it was clear going into the game that Sammy was going to be on a snap count. So not a surprise at all about the limited targets. They are not going to risk losing him again by having him do too much in his first game back when he isnt in game shape. And its not even just about his foot, game shape and being in shape are very different, its very easy to pull a hammy or something when you have been off the field as long as Sammy has. But, the big complaint I had was that if you are going to put Sammy on a snap count, then at least make sure he is in there on 3rd down plays, red zone, etc. Too often they pulled him out on key 3rd down plays, and that was just puzzling to me.
Coach Tuesday Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 For those opining on his relative participation in the game, I suggest looking at how things actually transpired early on: basically, running on first down for zero to negative yardage every single possession early on, followed by tough pressure/coverage and many sacks because of poor down/distance situations: http://www.espn.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=400874554. Their first six first down plays were ineffective handoffs to McCoy. The Bills only ran 52 plays in total, 10 of which were after they had taken a 28-21 lead and were trying to run out the clock. If you take away the two final passing plays from the game-end clock killing drives, Taylor threw it 18 times (I'm including the 2 PIs). 4 went Watkins' way, and 5 went to Clay (who we all know has to be better integrated into the passing game). 4 went to Goodwin, but a couple of those were desperation passes meant to secure short gains rather than sacks. One went to O'Leary and it should have been a TD with a better throw. A couple went to McCoy. One went to Justin Hunter. The O'Leary and Hunter plays were perfect calls. One worked, and the other one didn't. The bottom line: the Bills didn't run many plays, and just about 1/5 of them were in clock-killing time. And as per usual, they registered more running plays than passing plays (29-23). :/thread
Billsfan1972 Posted November 28, 2016 Author Posted November 28, 2016 First, it was clear going into the game that Sammy was going to be on a snap count. So not a surprise at all about the limited targets. They are not going to risk losing him again by having him do too much in his first game back when he isnt in game shape. And its not even just about his foot, game shape and being in shape are very different, its very easy to pull a hammy or something when you have been off the field as long as Sammy has. But, the big complaint I had was that if you are going to put Sammy on a snap count, then at least make sure he is in there on 3rd down plays, red zone, etc. Too often they pulled him out on key 3rd down plays, and that was just puzzling to me. How stupid is that????? If he is healthy you throw to him. Sure I can understand a snap count, but again it was just stupid seeing him not in on third downs and if anything as soon as they got to the LOS you could read that it was stacked and Jax was prepared for runs.
thebandit27 Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 For those opining on his relative participation in the game, I suggest looking at how things actually transpired early on: basically, running on first down for zero to negative yardage every single possession early on, followed by tough pressure/coverage and many sacks because of poor down/distance situations: http://www.espn.com/nfl/playbyplay?gameId=400874554. Their first six first down plays were ineffective handoffs to McCoy. The Bills only ran 52 plays in total, 10 of which were after they had taken a 28-21 lead and were trying to run out the clock. If you take away the two final passing plays from the game-end clock killing drives, Taylor threw it 18 times (I'm including the 2 PIs). 4 went Watkins' way, and 5 went to Clay (who we all know has to be better integrated into the passing game). 4 went to Goodwin, but a couple of those were desperation passes meant to secure short gains rather than sacks. One went to O'Leary and it should have been a TD with a better throw. A couple went to McCoy. One went to Justin Hunter. The O'Leary and Hunter plays were perfect calls. One worked, and the other one didn't. The bottom line: the Bills didn't run many plays, and just about 1/5 of them were in clock-killing time. And as per usual, they registered more running plays than passing plays (29-23). Good context as usual dave. For me, it's less about sheer quantity and more about how much more effective the offense could have been had he been targeted more on the passing plays that they did call. It's tough to see him out there running open and have the QB rarely looking to get him the ball.
hondo in seattle Posted November 28, 2016 Posted November 28, 2016 First, it was clear going into the game that Sammy was going to be on a snap count. So not a surprise at all about the limited targets. They are not going to risk losing him again by having him do too much in his first game back when he isnt in game shape. And its not even just about his foot, game shape and being in shape are very different, its very easy to pull a hammy or something when you have been off the field as long as Sammy has. But, the big complaint I had was that if you are going to put Sammy on a snap count, then at least make sure he is in there on 3rd down plays, red zone, etc. Too often they pulled him out on key 3rd down plays, and that was just puzzling to me. This is a far complaint if true. I didn't pay close enough attention to Sammy during the game to know whether if it's true or not. But it's hard to criticize ALynn when his banged up offense without a franchise QB put up 28 points in a win.
Recommended Posts