tennesseeboy Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 For some reason I thought Conlan had not played in that game. I was wrong. Reed sure dropped a lot of easy passes. Thomas was a monster, and should have been used more. Gee...Norwood should have kicked that field goal a little more to the left.
SouthernMan Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 For those of us who will go through it... Watched it for the first time since way back when. Thoughts: Amazing group. Today's team doesn't hold a candle to them. I don't know that any of today's watered down teams are anywhere near as good. The shame of it is that we're quite sure the Bills were the better team . In a five game series, the Bills would win at least 3 and probably 4 of those games. The severe beating given to the Raiders the week before may have been the worst thing to happen, making the Bills over confident. The Bills were out-coached and the defense was out-muscled by the Giants O-line. I can't blame Norwood, since he never should have been put in that position, but it occured to me as I watched the endzone view of "the kick", that he was lined up all wrong. The ball was on the right hash mark. He approached the ball straight on and his body was square with the endzone as he kicked the ball. Any golfer knows that if your body is angled wrong, your drive off the tee is not going to go straight. The ball went almost perfectly straight from the point of the kick. The distance was good and had he come in a little from the right, angling it more towards the center of the field, it probably would have been good. Also. I think it's possible that, instead of spiking the ball prior to the kick, Kelly could have used a high percentage pass rip 10 yards down the sideline to try and get a little closer with around 10 seconds still left. Maybe even more than ten yards. Remember, the ball was on the 30. I think he could could have even tried for the endzone. If it fell incomplete, the clock is stopped anyway, if caught and out of bounds, it's closer and the clock is stopped. I suppose the coaching staff had to be concerned about a sack (ending the game) or an interception. But considering Norwood's 20% success rate on grass, over 40 yards, I think the odds were in favor of the Kelly pass.
bluv Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 On the play before the miss, while TT did get good yardage on that run it never should have been called as that run ate up the time it would have taken to run at least 2 pass plays plus the Giants were given us the short yardage passes. That is why I love to watch the games and not just the highlights. I mean if you just watch the highlights or the 30 minute Super Bowl highlight they show every year you would have thought that Jeff Wright made a clutch stop on 3rd down that held the Giants to a FG leaving us only 2 plus odd minutes to go 90 yards...NOT! After WATCHING the game on replay last night you'd see that play by Wright was made on 1st down and that after holding them to a FG there was 7 minutes left in the game and both teams exchange possesions. After we held the Giants and they punted we got the ball on the 10 yard line. I mean this plus other key drops, defensive stops, and penalties aren't realized by highlights alone.
IDBillzFan Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Also. I think it's possible that, instead of spiking the ball prior to the kick, Kelly could have used a high percentage pass rip 10 yards down the sideline to try and get a little closer with around 10 seconds still left. Maybe even more than ten yards. Remember, the ball was on the 30. I think he could could have even tried for the endzone. During the Giants last drive, we let about five seconds tick off the clock before we finally called time out. I may be alone in this, but last night I thought that we really, really could have used that five seconds at the end.
roy875 Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 During the last drive I think Kelly and TT ran 3 times each, and we never stopped the clock with an incomplete or out of bounds pass until the spike before the kick. Alot of time was lost there, but the Giants were playing 2 DL and 9 back in coverage!!! We took our TO after TT had a 20 yard run to the giants 45 on 3rd and 1 with 45 seconds left. They were gassed at that moment, and if we kept pounding insead of taking the TO things may have worked out better. Also with 20 seconds left we ran for 7 to the 30, that was our last play. We may have been able to do better with a few passes, but with 9 in coverage who knows....... I can't help but wonder how many SB's we would have gotten to if we had won that one. Maybe none. I would trade 1 SB victory for our "second place dynasty" any day. I remain proud of our team accolmplishing that however, and do not think it will happen again any time soon. I was actually anxious watching that game last night. TT was awesome----he was much faster than I remember, and hard to bring down. Bennett looked great also, as did our O-line. Oh well.
Ned Flanders Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 During the last drive I think Kelly and TT ran 3 times each, and we never stopped the clock with an incomplete or out of bounds pass until the spike before the kick. Alot of time was lost there, but the Giants were playing 2 DL and 9 back in coverage!!! Couldn't watch 'till the end, for obvious reasons...so I'm going on memory: Wasn't alot of time wasted on the final drive by a limited-gain pass to TE Butch Rolle...where an incomplete would have done more good, i.e. stop the clock? Christ, 16 years after the fact, and this thing still burns a hole in my arse...
Pete Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Worst clock management in history by Jim Kelly. That last 2:16 is so painful. Why didnt Thurman get 40 touches that game? Seems pretty !@#$ing obvious to get Thurman the ball I put that loss on Jim Kelly and on the playcalling
bluv Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 If Art Monk (much more prolific statswise and has a ring) isn't getting in the Hall how can you possibly say Andre Reed deserves in? He self destructed in those first two super bowls, the game's greatest stage, and he was borderline for the Hall otherwise. When Andre Reed was in front of the game's biggest spotlight, time and again he came up so small. How can you say he deserves to be in there before Art Monk? I don't see it. The game is littered with dozens of 1,000 yard receivers out there, especially these days (Laverneus Coles, Santana Moss, take your pick). They don't deserve to be in the hall either. Was Andre Reed a very very good player during his day? Yes. Is he a Hall of Famer? I say no, he's not. It took Lynn Swann forever to get in. He was definitely more worthy. I looked at Reed's stats from that SBXXV year and he wasn't even a 1,000 yard receiver (look it up). I'm a Bills fan but after watching that replay televised last night - I have to say he does NOT get my benefit of the doubt if I'm a writer watching that game. Sorry, he just doesn't. That was just ONE so-so game; at least he showed up and had 8 grabs! I mean Marvin Harrison has been subpar not in SB but in many playoff games! I mean the Lynn Swann comparison is BS for if you ask me just being lucky to have the opportunity to play in a SB and having a few good games shouldn't define a HOF career. Stallworth was way better than Swann year in and year out. But being that those games were played before the technology age before the internet, before Fantasy Football and before the Sunday Ticket he was overglorified because the SB was one of the few times the fans got to see some in action and he played outstanding. For all of our superstars Reed and Cornileus Bennet were the only ones who at least played average in all 4 SB's. In the 1st Super Bowl against the Cowboys Reed was the ONLY Buffalo Bill to show up! And TT, while I love him to death might as well not showed up for the next 3 SBs but should that keep him out the HOF, HELL NO as he as well as Andre had so many big games in the season and playoffs that got us there.
Lurker Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 That game will always come down to 2 things for me: Thurman's ability to blow the game wide open and our (coaching staff's) unwillingness to let him to do so. Or Kelly's competitive juices flowing so hard that he tried to win the game himself via the air, when the proper call would have been to run more.
RJ (not THAT RJ) Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Worst clock management in history by Jim Kelly. That last 2:16 is so painful. Why didnt Thurman get 40 touches that game? Seems pretty !@#$ing obvious to get Thurman the ball I put that loss on Jim Kelly and on the playcalling I know this is the consensus, and I share in the wishing that TT would have gotten the ball more, but he did get ca. 20 touches in a game where his team had the ball for only 19 minutes, so the proportion is not so out of whack. Some other factors limited the Bills running game: 1. TOP of course—they only had the ball for 19 minutes. Granted, had they run more, they may have had the ball longer, but remember, the G-men ran off 9 minutes of the third quarter after receiving the kickoff, and also had a 5-minute drive before the half, as well as a relatively time-consuming 4th quarter drive to the winning FG. That did not leave a lot of time to develop the run. 2. How many drives did the Bills actually have in this game? This is related to the above point. Three drives ended in scores--the first FG, which was a 69 yard drive keyed by a 61-yard pass, did not offer many chances to give TT the ball. The first TD drive was a solid 80-yard effort with mixed pass and run, and the second TD drive capped by Thurman's TD was a classic hurry-up drive. In both of those TT got several touches. So, three scoring drives and one missed FG. How many other times did they have the ball--four, maybe? 3. Third down drops are a big deal here too, related to those first two points. Convert a couple of third downs and there are more chances to run. 4. Overall, the Bills pass/run ratio in this game was ca. 30/20. Not exactly pass-wacky; in fact, very much in line with what they did all year. Not defending Jimbo--even he would agree they should have run more--but if you ask me, consdiering these circumstances, the failure of the defense to tackle properly was at least as significant. Ultimately, though, it is impossible to isolate one factor to explain the loss, beyond the "obvious" missed FG, which is actually not so obvious at all.... P.S. I also think Reed, as great as he was, is a marginal HOFer, not because of the SB, but because of the general inflation of WR stats since 1978.
PromoTheRobot Posted January 26, 2007 Posted January 26, 2007 Worst clock management in history by Jim Kelly. That last 2:16 is so painful. Why didnt Thurman get 40 touches that game? Seems pretty !@#$ing obvious to get Thurman the ball I put that loss on Jim Kelly and on the playcalling I always felt the Jim Kelly was so keen on being SB MVP, he decided to take Parcells challenge head on instead of handing the ball to TT. Arrogance will kill ya' every time. PTR
Recommended Posts