buffalo mike Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 A must on Sunday. If it goes nowhere I will never ask for it again..... until next week. This guy has got to bust one open. Speed kills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 Probably a bad idea. If they do it we'll have 50 people screaming about Mularkey's "gadgetry" and his refusal to call 34 straight blasts over guard...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MadBuffaloDisease Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 A screen pass is "gadgetry?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 Screen pass? Never heard of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 A screen pass is "gadgetry?" Depends on whether it works or not. If it doesn't work, it's another of Mularkey's stupid gadgets that he constantly relies on instead of calling a good game. If it works, it's innovative coaching and nobody will give him hell; until he uses it again and gets nothing for it. Then it's stupid again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 Depends on whether it works or not.If it doesn't work, it's another of Mularkey's stupid gadgets that he constantly relies on instead of calling a good game. If it works, it's innovative coaching and nobody will give him hell; until he uses it again and gets nothing for it. Then it's stupid again. 507164[/snapback] Honestly tho, can you think of ONE gadget play that has actually worked this year? I can't think of a single one - every single reverse, fake-QB-sneak, fullback handoff, flea flicker, etc. that they have tried to run this year has ended in utter disaster. EVERY ONE! I mean, come on already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 I say screen pass to Daimon Shelton, Fumble recovered by jammer. On a side note I am in this madden online league and I have the bills, to tie the game it was 4th and 1 at the goal line, Willis had been stuffed on previous play. I decide to go for the fake HB handoff - to FB, guess what happens FUMBLE!! i pulled a mularkey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 Honestly tho, can you think of ONE gadget play that has actually worked this year? I can't think of a single one - every single reverse, fake-QB-sneak, fullback handoff, flea flicker, etc. that they have tried to run this year has ended in utter disaster. EVERY ONE! I mean, come on already. 507166[/snapback] Let's take a little closer look: First off, how many of these so-called gadget plays have the Bills run this year? Are they running 2-3 every week or are they trying one every 2-3 weeks? I don't think they've run anywhere near enough of them to fairly elicit the extensive complaining about them that we hear on a regular basis. Now look at some of the plyas you listed: A reverse? Not exactly a "gadget" play as every single team in the league runs it and you can see a bunch of them on any given weekend. The Bills don't call it up that often and the last time I remember seeing it, it was one missed block away from going for a big gainer. A FB running a dive is a gadget play? Joe Paterno has only scored about 1000 TD's with his FB's near the goalline and he's not exactly Mr Gimmick. Sorry but a short yardage powerrun with a big back can hardly be considered a gadget play. That fleaflicker they ran would have been a long TD to a wide-open receiver had Willis actually given the ball back to the QB. That fake QB sneak is a well-designed play that hit huge for us the only other time we ever ran it. The problem with it last week wasn't the play itself, but the fact that Mularkey went for it on 4thdown in his own end early. Give him hell for "when" he used it, not "that" he used it. I'm glad that teh Bills staff shows some willingness to try new things occasionally; I'd rather be an innovator than an imitator. And when we're #7 in the NFL in rushing attempts, I find the incessant caterwauling about the occasional gadget to be excessive, misplaced and bordering on annoying. Cya Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 Give him hell for "when" he used it, not "that" he used it. 507177[/snapback] I'm not complaining that they use them. I'm complaining that they don't work, for whatever the reason - lack of practice, execution, improper timing/personnel. Fact is, they just haven't worked a single fuggin time this season, whereas runs up the gut have tended to work. How about, on 4th and 1, you run Willis? How about, on 4th and goal from the 1, you run Willis? And I don't know which reverse you're talking about - the last one I remember was in the NE game to Parrish, and I don't recall it being 1 block away from success - if I remember correctly, it was blown up by 2-3 Pats defenders. How many trick plays do you see Parcells' teams run? Just run the goddamn ball - the fact that we do so successfully so often, as you point out, makes it even more frustrating in my opinion. This team can run the ball well when it wants to, so why even bother with the drive-killing trickery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 No that is not a gadget play. However, when the runner involved in the aforementioned play has played in the NFL for 6 years without having a single carry, that is a gadget play. Nobody expects it, and to a certain extent the player doesn't even expect it. If you don't have the confidence in your franchise back to get a yard on 4th and goal, kick the field goal. But I know... had they "made" it, then fans would be calling him a genius. Perhaps true, but such titles are only short-lived. These types of plays speak more to an approach than anything else. All too often when it's 4th and short and you want to make a statement, you do that by employing what you do best. You don't pull out tricks and hope they work. Case in point: Last season against NE at home: Mularkey calls for a Drew Bledsoe QB run. Ridiculous (you might call it innovative) This year at OAK: 4th and goal, we give Shelton his first carry in 6 years. Ridiculous (you might call it innovative) This year vs KC: 4th and short we call some gimmic fake QB sneak... it was blown up for a huge loss. Ridiculous (you might call it innovative). Using the argument that fans would love it if it worked is a futile one. Why? Simple: they don't work. A FB running a dive is a gadget play? Joe Paterno has only scored about 1000 TD's with his FB's near the goalline and he's not exactly Mr Gimmick. Sorry but a short yardage powerrun with a big back can hardly be considered a gadget play. 507177[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted November 19, 2005 Share Posted November 19, 2005 runs up the gut have tended to work. How about, on 4th and 1, you run Willis? How about, on 4th and goal from the 1, you run Willis? Like they did on 1st/goal from the 1 and then did again on 2nd/goal from the 1 and both times got less than nothing? You really want them to keep banging their heads against a wall by running a play that everybody in the stadium is keying on? I had no problem with the call to Shelton and found the change-up preferable to predictably running Willis into traffic yet again. It didn't work, oh well. when the runner involved in the aforementioned play has played in the NFL for 6 years without having a single carry, that is a gadget play. Nobody expects it, and to a certain extent the player doesn't even expect it.....This year at OAK: 4th and goal, we give Shelton his first carry in 6 years. Ridiculous (you might call it innovative) He's a FB. If he can't carry the ball he shouldn't be a FB or shouldn't be on the team. No matter how much of a smart-ass you are or what kind of spin you put on it, handing the ball to your FB on a short-yardage down is not anything remotely resembling a gadget. We've tried about 3 unconventional things in 9 games that haven't worked. That accounts for a grand total of about .006% of our offensive plays so let's all have a big crying stink about it, crawl into a deep hole, whip ourselves with some switches and refuse to ever try anything innovative again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SACTOBILLSFAN Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Depends on whether it works or not.If it doesn't work, it's another of Mularkey's stupid gadgets that he constantly relies on instead of calling a good game. If it works, it's innovative coaching and nobody will give him hell; until he uses it again and gets nothing for it. Then it's stupid again. 507164[/snapback] The fake-qb sneak play worked last year in a game where it was used to kick an already battered and frustrated Seattle team in the head. I think we were up 14 when we used it last year after we had beat the piss out of their interior o-line on a few drives, as opposed to this season where we had done sh-- against their defense and the gimmick just compounded an already anemic start to the game. I don't mind gimmick plays it just seems this year they are not setup by previous plays making them poorly timed. Last weeks fake qb sneak = gilbride's Travis Henry dive right HB pass from the 8 yard line against the Patsies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corp000085 Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 i'd like a screen to moulds. Roscoe is damaged goods by the non tackle (Hit 1, for you fantasy football guys) that bruschi layed on him a couple weeks ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colin Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 i like play action. i just learned about it in a seminar (because as a bills fan i had no idea it existed). what you do is fake a run, but then pass the ball. it is particularly good for teams with 1 a run game 2 some pass pro problems 3 fast wrs who can get away for a big pass 4 a qb with a big arm who can hit a wide open wr deep now, i'm no coach, but i think plays that can work, and when they do go for big yards are good for a football team. i'm probably wrong tho, let's see more of swift footed kelly holcomb running those fake qb sneek option laterals to willis on 4th and 1!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rockpile Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 He's a FB. If he can't carry the ball he shouldn't be a FB or shouldn't be on the team. 507247[/snapback] Lord knows he can't block....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawgg Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Yes, from an absolute percentage standpoint, this represents a very small percentage of our plays and I fully support trying trick plays for a small percentage of the plays. However, you seem to imply that all plays are created equal. I tend to disagree. A fourth down play in a must-convert situation, in my opinion, is not the time to execute these "tricks." I really don't see this on any other team... I have seen my share of trick plays, but not in the most critical of situations. We've tried about 3 unconventional things in 9 games that haven't worked. That accounts for a grand total of about .006% of our offensive plays so let's all have a big crying stink about it, crawl into a deep hole, whip ourselves with some switches and refuse to ever try anything innovative again. 507247[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
daquixers_is_back Posted November 20, 2005 Share Posted November 20, 2005 Honestly tho, can you think of ONE gadget play that has actually worked this year? I can't think of a single one - every single reverse, fake-QB-sneak, fullback handoff, flea flicker, etc. that they have tried to run this year has ended in utter disaster. EVERY ONE! I mean, come on already. 507166[/snapback] Good point! No really - good point. In fact it is such a good point I bet there is someone from the Buffalo Bills organization who will read your post and send the link immediatly to Mike Mularkey to consider. Same thing with your signature --- except to Donahoe .... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts