THE ROCKPILE REVIEW - Chorus at Westerly

[Shaw66]

The Rockpile Review – by Shaw66

 

Chorus of Westerly

 

Had lunch Sunday with some old friends, and then attended the annual Christmas Pops concert by the Chorus of Westerly (Rhode Island).  It’s a great show, talented performers.  Catch it some time, if you get a chance.  Tickets go fast.

 

Consequently, I didn’t watch the Bills defeat the Dolphins to go 8-6 with the Patriots and the Dolphins (again) standing in the path to the playoffs.

 

Looking at the box score, it looks like another typical Bills win of late.  Just enough offense and just enough defense to win.  A workmanlike game by Tyrod Taylor, with enough good passing and some big runs.

 

What is it with this team?  No one is mistaking the Bills for an NFL powerhouse.  In the second half of this season (the second half being the time when the best teams emerge), the Bills certainly haven’t dominated.  Every game’s an adventure. 

 

So, what is it?  Looks like grit. 

 

This time of year, for teams around .500, the mantra is survive and advance.  It isn’t a beauty contest, there are no style points.  All that matters is winning (or at least not losing) this week’s game.  It’s 100% about this week’s game.  Nothing else matters.  Find a way to survive this week’s game and next week’s game will take care of itself. 

 

These Bills, week after week, have been finding ways to win.  Since their three-game collapse in the middle of the season, the Bills are 3-1, having lost only to the Patriots in a game where the Pats offense couldn’t dominate and where the Bills offense may have been better if Taylor hadn’t gotten injured. 

 

These Bills seem to be focused on the prize.  They may get beaten, and they may not make it, but it won’t be because they quit.  These guys fight to the end, and if at the end the score doesn’t go their way, they will come back fighting next week. 

 

These Bills are playing meaningful games in December.  Survive and advance.

 

The season isn’t over, but we already know some things about the Bills in 2017.  We know that their rookie head coach isn’t a bust – he’s gotten a team with a lot of problems to 8 wins and maybe more.  We know that the 2017 Bills are a team in transition – Beane and McDermott have gotten rid of players most fans thought were part of the Bills’ core, and they’ve gotten performance out of newcomers and no-names.

 

And we know the 2017 Bills don’t quit.  Survive and advance.

 

Bring on the Pats.

 

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

The Rockpile Review is written to share the passion we have for the Buffalo Bills. That passion was born in the Rockpile; its parents were everyday people of western New York who translated their dedication to a full day’s hard work and simple pleasures into love for a pro football team.

[Maine-iac]

First half of the game was the precision that makes you think this team can do it.  Second half was the thing that makes you ask why can't they make these simple plays.  First half Dennison had the running game working which in turn had play action and Taylor looking good.  Second half the offense didn't get their results but I am not going to jump on Dennison here.  Zay dropped a gorgeous deep pass and Clay either couldn't find the pass or just didn't feel like going after a pass that seemed like he had a play on. Running game had way too many negative plays in the second half.  I've really started to predict a drive dying before it happens.  We need to stay on schedule meaning positive runs that leave us in 3rd and 4 or 3rd and 5.  We can't have multiple negative runs and expect to convert 3rd and long over and over again.  Along the the same lines it seems we are just plain horrible and screen plays.  Without watching a replay of the whole game there were at least 4 screen plays that either fooled no one or basically ended up as negative plays.  That needs to change.

[transplantbillsfan]

You missed a game where the offense looked like it found its rhythm and Taylor played some of the best football of his career for the 1st half.

 

Then McDermott/Dennison's offensive approach went typically conservative when they get a 2 score lead.

 

 I just want a foot to the throat 60 minute pounding for once just to prove we can hold a lead. Next week if we miraculously get a lead this offensive approach just won't work.

[Shaw66]

11 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 I just want a foot to the throat 60 minute pounding for once just to prove we can hold a lead. Next week if we miraculously get a lead this offensive approach just won't work.

I know the feeling, but I really wonder if that's the difference between a coach and a fan.  

 

Yes, I want my team to be dominant and look like they're in total control.   But look at what that attitude got the Falcons in the Super Bowl.  They went for the jugular instead of preserving the field goal try and running the clock, and they lost the game.  

 

I really don't know the answer, but I understand the logical.   The question is when you're leading by more than two scores in the second half, is it a better move to keep pounding on their defense or to go more conservative to run the clock.   I think the analysis goes something like this:

 

Aggressive:  If I keep playing a diverse offense with a fair amount of passing, I can another touchdown or two and put the game out of reach by early in the fourth quarter.   Even if I don't score, if I get a couple more first downs than I would get going conservative, I hold the ball longer and run some clock.   What's the downside?   Two or three things:  Passing risks losing field position if I get sacked.  Passing increases the risk of a turnover.   And perhaps most important, if subtle:  each incomplete pass is like a timeout for the other side.  That is, each incomplete pass saves the opponent 30 seconds of playing time, more or less, and which means the opponent gets two or three extra plays that he wouldn't get otherwise. 

 

Conservative:  If I start featuring the run, the clock negative of passing becomes a positive.   Every time I run, I take 30+ seconds off the clock.  So if I run three plays for 9 yards and punt, I'm better off - by a whole minute of running time - than if I go 1 for 3 passing for 9 yards and punt.   If I get three first downs rushing, I can run an extra three minutes off the clock, which essentially ends the game at the time the two minute warning ordinarily would be given.   That's a big plus.   And I'm less likely to turn it over.   And I'm less likely to lose 6 or 7 yards, what I might lose on a sack.   

 

As I said, I don't know if there's a right answer to this problem, but I'm confident that the question is a closer call than following our guts, which are telling us that it should be pedal to the metal all the way.  

[Success]

I questioned the grit thing during that 3 game swoon.  They seemed to quit in each of those games.

 

But that stretch seems to be the anomaly.  This is a tough team - fairly low on talent and experience, but they really fight for everything they get.  I love this years Bills.  A credit to the coaching as well.

[nero1]

3 out of 4 bad things can happen when passing. 1) Pass not completed, 2.) Pass intercepted, or 3.) QB sacked for loss.

Compliments of Woody Hayes (Ohio St). And that hasn't changed in my 70 years of life. If you have a two score lead and a decent defense play it conservatively. JMHO

[Shaw66]

30 minutes ago, nero1 said:

3 out of 4 bad things can happen when passing. 1) Pass not completed, 2.) Pass intercepted, or 3.) QB sacked for loss.

Compliments of Woody Hayes (Ohio St). And that hasn't changed in my 70 years of life. If you have a two score lead and a decent defense play it conservatively. JMHO

As I said, I think it's a close question.  If you put another 7 points on the board, it shortens the game in another way - the number of scores, and therefore the number of possessions, your opponent needs goes up.   With a two-score lead, your defense has to be tighter; with a three-score lead you can go into more of a no-doubles defense and force the opponent to burn clock.  

 

Frankly, I think what decides the question is the nature of the team you have.   In this case, McD has a team where he trusts the D more than the O.   Sohe decides that burning clock and punting is okay because it reduces the possibility of mistakes and puts his better unit on the field.  

[GETTOTHE50]

The bills midseason hiccup started because of a freakin Thursday night game in New Jersey. 

 

Like Richie said after that game, it throws a wrench in your schedule and messes up your routine. The away team really doesn't have much of a chance.

 

Then they follow it up with a tough saints team. A team that was on a winning streak and firing on all cylinders.

 

They then have to fly over all the way across to LA.

 

Imagine how tough that would be for an athlete, mentally and physically. You are 5-2 and have established a routine, a process if you will, and all the sudden have to deal with a short week, a mini bye, and then travel across the country. That is a hectic schedule.

 

That was the toughest part of the schedule, and unfortunately they fell flat. Can't blame them.

 

also, the bills have history of midseason collapses. 5-2 isn't that unfamiliar.

 

These reasons are why I think McDermott decided to make the QB switch. To wake and shake up the team. He has a good pulse of the locker room. 

 

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, GETTOTHE50 said:

 

 

These reasons are why I think McDermott decided to make the QB switch. To wake and shake up the team. He has a good pulse of the locker room. 

 

That's an interesting theory.  McD doesn't do much with a reason, and that's a better rationale than most we heard when that craziness was going on.   

[Sweats]

I've often questioned McD's 2nd half adjustments and made no secret about how pathetic they usually are, but this past week, we shut down Drake in the 2nd half and forced Cutler into a one dimensional passing attack offense. Clearly, Cutler was off his game with the pressure up front and turned into an INT machine.

 

If we can have a clean game next week and force pressure up front, we have a fighting chance.

[transplantbillsfan]

12 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I know the feeling, but I really wonder if that's the difference between a coach and a fan.  

 

Yes, I want my team to be dominant and look like they're in total control.   But look at what that attitude got the Falcons in the Super Bowl.  They went for the jugular instead of preserving the field goal try and running the clock, and they lost the game.  

 

I really don't know the answer, but I understand the logical.   The question is when you're leading by more than two scores in the second half, is it a better move to keep pounding on their defense or to go more conservative to run the clock.   I think the analysis goes something like this:

 

Aggressive:  If I keep playing a diverse offense with a fair amount of passing, I can another touchdown or two and put the game out of reach by early in the fourth quarter.   Even if I don't score, if I get a couple more first downs than I would get going conservative, I hold the ball longer and run some clock.   What's the downside?   Two or three things:  Passing risks losing field position if I get sacked.  Passing increases the risk of a turnover.   And perhaps most important, if subtle:  each incomplete pass is like a timeout for the other side.  That is, each incomplete pass saves the opponent 30 seconds of playing time, more or less, and which means the opponent gets two or three extra plays that he wouldn't get otherwise. 

 

Conservative:  If I start featuring the run, the clock negative of passing becomes a positive.   Every time I run, I take 30+ seconds off the clock.  So if I run three plays for 9 yards and punt, I'm better off - by a whole minute of running time - than if I go 1 for 3 passing for 9 yards and punt.   If I get three first downs rushing, I can run an extra three minutes off the clock, which essentially ends the game at the time the two minute warning ordinarily would be given.   That's a big plus.   And I'm less likely to turn it over.   And I'm less likely to lose 6 or 7 yards, what I might lose on a sack.   

 

As I said, I don't know if there's a right answer to this problem, but I'm confident that the question is a closer call than following our guts, which are telling us that it should be pedal to the metal all the way.  

 

Brady and the Patriots have always gone for the jugular.

 

 The Rams did it the other day against the Seahawks.

 

 I think this is a case of overthinking for coaches who take this approach. If your team is in a groove on offense, moving the ball and scoring generally at ease, why mess up that rhythm?

 

If we manage to go up 2+ scores on Sunday, I'll be terrified all the way until the clock strikes zero because of this approach.

[Bring it]

IMO I have always wanted an offense to go for the jugular and put the game out of reach.  But Shaw brings up a good point about taking time off the clock and the risks and rewards of running the ball. Teams that have an experienced Qb like the Pats, Steelers, Packers, etc imo have a much better chance of running their normal offense including passes. If they don’t get points out of a drive they at least can sustain enough of a drive to waste some clock and keep the advantage in field position. Not a 3 and out!

     Taylor doesn’t have the experience at this nor does he have the accuracy to consistently put a pass where only the receiver will catch it. He also is prone to taking a sack instead of getting rid of the ball. I will say in his defense that he doesn’t try to force many passes. Not sure if he is just overly  cautious or lacks confidence in his accuracy.

[RoyBatty is alive]

Shaw i think what you missed is that the Bills tried real hard in the end to give the game away, like so many times they have in the past, this time was different, good ole Jay Cutler "out Billed the Bills", he was atrocious. I look at this game more that Jay Cutler lost the game than the Bills won it.

 

What you also missed was a team that played scared with a huge lead, some of the playcalling was tragic.  Many Shady running plays that were destined for failure pre-snap and TT and the OC were unwilling and/or unable to change the play or audible out of it.  One glorious sequence we were down to the 31 in relatively easy field goal range, a Shady run off left tackle were the Dolphins were stacked, result, a loss of five. Instead of an easy field goal it is now more difficult so we elect to punt from the 36.  3 wasted points.

 

I am not sure the best team won last Sunday.  At one point they had a first and 35 and got to to a 3rd and 5, fortunately Cutler held on too long and got sacked or they would have converted on a 1 and 35, and the 25 yards in penalties were pretty much a gift.

 

 

On 12/18/2017 at 12:41 AM, transplantbillsfan said:

You missed a game where the offense looked like it found its rhythm and Taylor played some of the best football of his career for the 1st half.

 

Then McDermott/Dennison's offensive approach went typically conservative when they get a 2 score lead.

 

 I just want a foot to the throat 60 minute pounding for once just to prove we can hold a lead. Next week if we miraculously get a lead this offensive approach just won't work.

All true except I think it was up to a 3 score lead..  The fourth quarter we played scared, just hoping and praying the defense could hang on.  I dont think we looked like any type of playoff team in the fourth quarter.

[berg1029]

20 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Aggressive:  If I keep playing a diverse offense with a fair amount of passing, I can another touchdown or two and put the game out of reach by early in the fourth quarter.   Even if I don't score, if I get a couple more first downs than I would get going conservative, I hold the ball longer and run some clock.   What's the downside?   Two or three things:  Passing risks losing field position if I get sacked.  Passing increases the risk of a turnover.   And perhaps most important, if subtle:  each incomplete pass is like a timeout for the other side.  That is, each incomplete pass saves the opponent 30 seconds of playing time, more or less, and which means the opponent gets two or three extra plays that he wouldn't get otherwise. 

 

The thing is that Taylor is so conservative with throwing the ball that even the Bill's "aggressive" offense style is conservative.  Their offense, when playing "conservative" is more like ultra conservative. 

[SoCal Deek]

This Team still hasn't realized the weapon they have in Tyrod. As soon as he gets outside he is virtually impossible to tackle. He's simply faster than everyone on the opposing defense!  And...watching the Dolphins game, I think TT has finally recognized it.  I'd love to see a steady diet of designed roll outs with safety valves and run options galore. It won't be pretty but the Patriots will die of a thousand cuts.

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, berg1029 said:

 

The thing is that Taylor is so conservative with throwing the ball that even the Bill's "aggressive" offense style is conservative.  Their offense, when playing "conservative" is more like ultra conservative. 

To you and RoyBatty:

 

I get it.   Drives me nuts, too.   My point is that I think McD has crunched the numbers, the probabilities, in his head, and where he comes out is that his chances of winning, and therefore not losing, are better playing conservatively.  And my real point is that we all can have our opinions about whether his number crunching is correct, but I'm sure he has more data about this than we do.  Still doesn't mean he's right, but he knows some things about the probabilities that we don't know.  

 

I also agree about Taylor being a conservative QB, which makes the offense ultra-conservative.   That's another reason why the move from Taylor to Peterman befuddled be - we hear that the mantra in the position rooms and on the practice field is "no turnovers," the Bills have a QB who is for sure a no-turnover guy, for some reason they're in a hurry to replace him.   Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.   

[Royale with Cheese]

9 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Brady and the Patriots have always gone for the jugular.

 

 The Rams did it the other day against the Seahawks.

 

 I think this is a case of overthinking for coaches who take this approach. If your team is in a groove on offense, moving the ball and scoring generally at ease, why mess up that rhythm?

 

If we manage to go up 2+ scores on Sunday, I'll be terrified all the way until the clock strikes zero because of this approach.

 

The Pats and Rams have the benefit of QB’s playing at an MVP level.

[CommonCents]

1 hour ago, SoCal Deek said:

This Team still hasn't realized the weapon they have in Tyrod. As soon as he gets outside he is virtually impossible to tackle. He's simply faster than everyone on the opposing defense!  And...watching the Dolphins game, I think TT has finally recognized it.  I'd love to see a steady diet of designed roll outs with safety valves and run options galore. It won't be pretty but the Patriots will die of a thousand cuts.

The Pats are disciplined, they will do the same thing they did a few weeks ago. Taylor will bounce around blindly in the pocket and make the Eric Lees of the world look like stars. The Bills should stick with the run this time and make the Patriots stop it.

[PaattMaann]

4 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

The Pats and Rams have the benefit of QB’s playing at an MVP level.

 

so did the Falcons in the Super Bowl with Matt Ryan...

 

the point is, sometimes going for the jugular wins, sometimes it loses...

 

Players need to execute. If the Bills o-line executed on their blocking assignments all second half against the dolphins, or if Zay Jones makes a contested catch in the second half, or if TT makes a better throw to Clay in the second half, our second half offensive performance is MUCH MUCH different and the outcome of the game would have been as lopsided as it was in the second half 

 

More on players for not executing than on coaches for bad play calling or "taking their foot off the pedal" IMO 

[buffalobloodfloridahome]

I'll never understand the ultra conservative offense where we run three times and punt when we have a lead, occasionally someone is undisciplined and we pick up a first down or two.  I really feel like it is old school 3 yards and a cloud of dust type football. We have two very dynamic players on this roster that are capable of making jaw dropping plays with their legs. Shady and Tyrod can take over a game with their running ability and still we try to shove this vanilla bs offense down their throats. In the first half against the dolphins they called the rollouts and qb runs and made a team with a pretty solid defense look flat footed. The same team that stifled the Patriots only one week before. We could of continued to play that style offense and taking shots knowing that Tyrod takes very few chances anyways and run away with that game and kept the defense fresh. Instead we reverted back to the conservative low risk play calling and had Cutler not been so careless with the ball we would of surely lost. If we try to be conservative against the Patriots it will get ugly real fast.