First-drive scoring as leading indicator

[Dr. K]

I just want to suggest a possibility.

 

Last season the Bills performed better on their first drives of the game than then ever did in their history (I believe they scored 11 times on their opening drive). We all know that this did not mean the offense played well for the rest of the game; in fact, they stank.

 

However, it does suggest to me that the team was not lacking offensive talent. When prepped well enough for those first quarters, they could carry out a game plan initially. Perhaps this is an indicator of two things:

 

1) The game coaching was not up to snuff (surprise). Once the other team made adjustments, the Bills could not counter.

 

2) There is enough talent on this team (even with the loss of Moulds) for them to score much more consistently than they did last season--with the right game plan and proper coaching.

 

Anyway, I raise this possbility to suggest maybe the O won't be as bad as it was last year. We may be surprised, assuming Fairchild and Jauron can install an offense that makes best use of the players' abilities, and can adjust to adversity within the game.

 

One more possibility that I am sure will warrant rebuttal (this is not my main point, it's just a footnote that I'm not sure I believe but will throw out there):

 

3) Mularkey (aka "Meathead") was not a total loss as an offensive coach. He took a team that started 0-4 in 2004 and led them to a 9-7 finish, and got Bledsoe to more or less play within himself. He could script an opening drive (or at least someone on the team could). But, given a defense that slumped badly, he was not a good enough game coach to provide an offense that would compensate.

[AJ1]

I just want to suggest a possibility.

 

Last season the Bills performed better on their first drives of the game than then ever did in their history (I believe they scored 11 times on their opening drive).  We all know that this did not mean the offense played well for the rest of the game; in fact, they stank.

 

However, it does suggest to me that the team was not lacking offensive talent. When prepped well enough for those first quarters, they could carry out a game plan initially. Perhaps this is an indicator of two things:

 

1) The game coaching was not up to snuff (surprise). Once the other team made adjustments, the Bills could not counter.

 

2) There is enough talent on this team (even with the loss of Moulds) for them to score much more consistently than they did last season--with the right game plan and proper coaching.

 

Anyway, I raise this possbility to suggest maybe the O won't be as bad as it was last year. We may be surprised, assuming Fairchild and Jauron can install an offense that makes best use of the players' abilities, and can adjust to adversity within the game.

 

One more possibility that I am sure will warrant rebuttal (this is not my main point, it's just a footnote that I'm not sure I believe but will throw out there):

 

3) Mularkey (aka "Meathead") was not a total loss as an offensive coach.  He took a team that started 0-4 in 2004 and led them to a 9-7 finish, and got Bledsoe to more or less play within himself. He could script an opening drive (or at least someone on the team could). But, given a defense that slumped badly, he was not a good enough game coach to provide an offense that would compensate.

729685[/snapback]

 

Depends on what you define as a 'total loss'. Yes, he could script an opening drive. For 5 minutes he seemed to know what he was doing. The other 55 minutes could have been scripted by a chimp( Bonzo are you still available?). Anyone who can convince himself that taking out his best offensive player on 3rd downs gives the team a better chance to win is a class A idiot in my book. So I disagree with your premise. I believe MM could coach for a lifetime and not get the picture. He demostrated no ability to think on his feet. That's not a learnable skill in my view. And one does not suddenly see the light in that regard past age 35.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

I just want to suggest a possibility.

 

Last season the Bills performed better on their first drives of the game than then ever did in their history (I believe they scored 11 times on their opening drive).  We all know that this did not mean the offense played well for the rest of the game; in fact, they stank.

 

However, it does suggest to me that the team was not lacking offensive talent. When prepped well enough for those first quarters, they could carry out a game plan initially. Perhaps this is an indicator of two things:

 

1) The game coaching was not up to snuff (surprise). Once the other team made adjustments, the Bills could not counter.

 

2) There is enough talent on this team (even with the loss of Moulds) for them to score much more consistently than they did last season--with the right game plan and proper coaching.

 

Anyway, I raise this possbility to suggest maybe the O won't be as bad as it was last year. We may be surprised, assuming Fairchild and Jauron can install an offense that makes best use of the players' abilities, and can adjust to adversity within the game.

 

One more possibility that I am sure will warrant rebuttal (this is not my main point, it's just a footnote that I'm not sure I believe but will throw out there):

 

3) Mularkey (aka "Meathead") was not a total loss as an offensive coach.  He took a team that started 0-4 in 2004 and led them to a 9-7 finish, and got Bledsoe to more or less play within himself. He could script an opening drive (or at least someone on the team could). But, given a defense that slumped badly, he was not a good enough game coach to provide an offense that would compensate.

729685[/snapback]

 

Interesting premise, especially considering the source...

 

 

Seriously, that's a possibility. Is it a probability? We won't know that until the season begins.

[scribo]

Last year's coaching staff was undoubtedly the worst at mid-game adjustments I had every seen. On the other hand, they were among the best at writing opening scripts. But the game is obviously much more than the first three to four minutes of a game. In all, the lack of any ability to make changes to counter the opposing team's changes was the Bills biggest weakness last year.

[UConn James]

Last year's coaching staff was undoubtedly the worst at mid-game adjustments I had every seen. On the other hand, they were among the best at writing opening scripts. But the game is obviously much more than the first three to four minutes of a game. In all, the lack of any ability to make changes to counter the opposing team's changes was the Bills biggest weakness last year.

729841[/snapback]

 

Wade Phillips was really good at adjustments (defensive moreso than offensive). And he didn't even wear a headset.

 

"You don't know what you got 'til it's gone..."

[TC in St. Louis]

I've been arguing this for months. We led the league in first drive ef

ficiency, and then plummetted after that.

 

Bon voyage, Mularkey.

 

And because the offense stunk so bad, the defense was on the field an extra 5 minutes a game, which made their stats even worse than they should've been.

 

There are at least 3 games we flat out should've won....which we lost. Go back to 2004....we should've beat Pittsburgh in the final game of the season. Mularkey couldn't get the team over the hump.

 

We could have easily gone 8-8 last year. Had that happened, I think they would've kept Donahoe and Mularkey.

 

We have added a lot of talent (return of Spikes, Everett, full season with Parrish, Peerless, new OL, and what looks like a pretty good draft) to an underachieving team. We've got solid, if unspectacular leadership with Levy and Jauron. They are trying to put together a team with talent and character.

 

I think we will surprise a lot of people this year. It's nice to be in the role of underdog.

[MadBuffaloDisease]

I think the success on the opening drive says something about the effectiveness of scripting and I hope the Bills continue to do that. However I also hope they have a clue about what to do AFTER the 1st drive.