Kelly the Dog Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 Did anyone think it would be a lot harder for the Patriots to score two TDs instead of one in the fourth quarter? That alone, to me, is justification for Jauron going for it on 4th down. Sorry if this has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. If we were up 13 instead of 10 we likely still would have lost in this particular game. Yeah, we likely would not have gotten the safety, but it didn't matter. In the second half, The Patriots, the Bills, and the refs all were pointing to the Patriots scoring when they needed to. If the Bills were up by 17 it would have been in question. I still think it was the good move.
oregonmark Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 Did anyone think it would be a lot harder for the Patriots to score two TDs instead of one in the fourth quarter? That alone, to me, is justification for Jauron going for it on 4th down. Sorry if this has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. If we were up 13 instead of 10 we likely still would have lost in this particular game. Yeah, we likely would not have gotten the safety, but it didn't matter. In the second half, The Patriots, the Bills, and the refs all were pointing to the Patriots scoring when they needed to. If the Bills were up by 17 it would have been in question. I still think it was the good move. 768259[/snapback] I agree going for it was the right move. I question the play. Why not just man up and pound it for a yard instead of jitterbug in the backfield going nowhere? Notice the 4th and 1 plays the Pats used. Stuck it right down our throats.
jarthur31 Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 Did anyone think it would be a lot harder for the Patriots to score two TDs instead of one in the fourth quarter? That alone, to me, is justification for Jauron going for it on 4th down. Sorry if this has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. If we were up 13 instead of 10 we likely still would have lost in this particular game. Yeah, we likely would not have gotten the safety, but it didn't matter. In the second half, The Patriots, the Bills, and the refs all were pointing to the Patriots scoring when they needed to. If the Bills were up by 17 it would have been in question. I still think it was the good move. 768259[/snapback] Agreed. Let's say we did kick that FG and got it, I don't know why everyone thinks we would've won. They would've gone for the TD in the end anyways. Our lines just gave up in the 2nd half which led to the loss.
East Brady Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 Agreed. Let's say we did kick that FG and got it, I don't know why everyone thinks we would've won. They would've gone for the TD in the end anyways. Our lines just gave up in the 2nd half which led to the loss. 768384[/snapback] I don't think the lines gave up as much as they were worn down.........it's never been the same since rusty jones was canned by TD and the meathead..........conditioning?????
D_House Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 I liked the call on the 4th down too. It was Belichick-like. Which is a good thing.
mead107 Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 Did anyone think it would be a lot harder for the Patriots to score two TDs instead of one in the fourth quarter? That alone, to me, is justification for Jauron going for it on 4th down. Sorry if this has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. If we were up 13 instead of 10 we likely still would have lost in this particular game. Yeah, we likely would not have gotten the safety, but it didn't matter. In the second half, The Patriots, the Bills, and the refs all were pointing to the Patriots scoring when they needed to. If the Bills were up by 17 it would have been in question. I still think it was the good move. 768259[/snapback] play to put the game away . i like the call
true_blue_bill Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 play to put the game away . i like the call 768487[/snapback] Me too!
JAMIEBUF12 Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 hey jp threw for 164 yards and marcia brady threw for 163.....yes i know marcia also threw 2 tds and a int and jp had no tds or ints but i am trying to find a positive spin on jps stats.
MDH Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 Why not just man up and pound it for a yard instead of jitterbug in the backfield going nowhere? Notice the 4th and 1 plays the Pats used. Stuck it right down our throats. 768268[/snapback] I wouldn't mind seeing A Train as the short yardage back. There are some players that just aren't good at putting their head down and moving the pile. Willis obviously doesn't want to be this type of player so let someone else handle the chore.
Lurker Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 I wouldn't mind seeing A Train as the short yardage back. There are some players that just aren't good at putting their head down and moving the pile. Willis obviously doesn't want to be this type of player so let someone else handle the chore. 768569[/snapback] I gotta love all the A-Train luv'n. A week ago, the TSW consensus was that Gates should have made the team and the 'Train was a nepotistic retread. Blow wind blow.... That said, WM could lean a few things about hitting the hole hard from Thomas...
YOOOOOO Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 I liked the call to go for it.... hated the playcall half yard Losman behind the Center
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 I liked the call to go for it.... hated the playcall half yard Losman behind the Center 768601[/snapback] I yelled for playaction on that. They didn't have anyone away from the line.
dave mcbride Posted September 10, 2006 Posted September 10, 2006 Did anyone think it would be a lot harder for the Patriots to score two TDs instead of one in the fourth quarter? That alone, to me, is justification for Jauron going for it on 4th down. Sorry if this has been discussed ad nauseum in other threads. If we were up 13 instead of 10 we likely still would have lost in this particular game. Yeah, we likely would not have gotten the safety, but it didn't matter. In the second half, The Patriots, the Bills, and the refs all were pointing to the Patriots scoring when they needed to. If the Bills were up by 17 it would have been in question. I still think it was the good move. 768259[/snapback] i'm not saying it was a bad move -- it was a 50/50 call, really -- but i would have gone for the FG. i disagreed with the choice, but understand it. the one thing i don't agree with is the notion that the bills had to impose their will on the pats by going for it. that stuff's schoolyard bs, and 3-time SB champs are above it. however, if the reasoning was based on a point calculus, then i can see the logic (again, even if i disagree with it).
Kelly the Dog Posted September 11, 2006 Author Posted September 11, 2006 i'm not saying it was a bad move -- it was a 50/50 call, really -- but i would have gone for the FG. i disagreed with the choice, but understand it. the one thing i don't agree with is the notion that the bills had to impose their will on the pats by going for it. that stuff's schoolyard bs, and 3-time SB champs are above it. however, if the reasoning was based on a point calculus, then i can see the logic (again, even if i disagree with it). 768611[/snapback] It's the same thing. It's not a beat your own chest and taunt your opponent thing. It's a we are going to dictate the game and not play scared or not play to lose thing. First and goal at the seven with that momentum IMO could have won the game being up 17 points. A FG is solid, and there is a difference in a 10 point lead vs. a 13 point lead. But again, there is no doubt in my mind that if the Pats needed to sore two TDs with 9:24 left in that game that they could have and would have done it. 17 points is a lot more difficult in that time period especially just after the Bills had run it down your throats and showed no fear. If it was a choice of a 14 point lead vs. a 13 point lead, I surely would have kicked the FG.
stuckincincy Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 You have to play the game for the moment. Nobody could predict the 2nd half. With a lead on the road late in the half, take the three. "Momentum" dries up over halftime. Leave chest puffing and psycology in the locker room.
jarthur31 Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 I don't think the lines gave up as much as they were worn down.........it's never been the same since rusty jones was canned by TD and the meathead..........conditioning????? 768470[/snapback] That doesn't make sense. Do we keep hiring conditioning people who suck? Remember, we're rotating people on the line to keep them fresh.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 You have to play the game for the moment. Nobody could predict the 2nd half. With a lead on the road late in the half, take the three. "Momentum" dries up over halftime. Leave chest puffing and psycology in the locker room. 768653[/snapback] I'm calling bull sh--! You have a chance to go up 17. You take that chance. GW was the MASTER of the useless FG. I'd rather go down swinging than kicking.
dave mcbride Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 It's the same thing. It's not a beat your own chest and taunt your opponent thing. It's a we are going to dictate the game and not play scared or not play to lose thing. First and goal at the seven with that momentum IMO could have won the game being up 17 points. A FG is solid, and there is a difference in a 10 point lead vs. a 13 point lead. But again, there is no doubt in my mind that if the Pats needed to sore two TDs with 9:24 left in that game that they could have and would have done it. 17 points is a lot more difficult in that time period especially just after the Bills had run it down your throats and showed no fear. If it was a choice of a 14 point lead vs. a 13 point lead, I surely would have kicked the FG. 768632[/snapback] you're presuming the bills wouldn't have had a chance to score at all. my logic is based upon the notion that the bills would have made their way inside the pats' 33 at least one more time before the end of the game, giving them a chance to put another 3 on the board. i didn't have a great deal of confidence that they could put another 7 on the board.
Bill from NYC Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 I'm calling bull sh--! You have a chance to go up 17. You take that chance. GW was the MASTER of the useless FG. I'd rather go down swinging than kicking. 768656[/snapback] No Joe, it WAS a bad call, but it was also a bad call to attempt the long FG imo. I am thinking that it evened out, no?
Offside Number 76 Posted September 11, 2006 Posted September 11, 2006 play to put the game away . i like the call 768487[/snapback] So happy to see these responses on this thread--it WAS the right call.
.thumb.jpg.529869a0a9afd197241cad0932282c97.jpg)
Recommended Posts