Dan Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 I keep seeing reference to Trent have 3 - 4th quarter comebacks in as many weeks. But, if memory serves correctly, didsn't Greer's interception at the beginning of the 4th quarter put us ahead? Granted Trent threw a nice score to Lee and got us down for another field goal, but those were while we had the lead. Right? Not that I'm taking away from Trent's game at all. I'm just wondering if I saw something different from the rest of the world.
Justice Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 I keep seeing reference to Trent have 3 - 4th quarter comebacks in as many weeks. But, if memory serves correctly, didsn't Greer's interception at the beginning of the 4th quarter put us ahead? Granted Trent threw a nice score to Lee and got us down for another field goal, but those were while we had the lead. Right? Not that I'm taking away from Trent's game at all. I'm just wondering if I saw something different from the rest of the world. Yes
drnykterstein Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 I'm starting to fear the Bills have the Sabres fever of not trying in the 1st 2 periods and just assuming they can come back and win.
Captain Quint Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 I'm starting to fear the Bills have the Sabres fever of not tryign i nthe 1st 2 periods and just assuming they can come back and win. I think that they are just young and that the teams they've played poorly against early (Raiders & Rams) we're bringing everything they had since, coincidentally, both of their coaches we're on the hot seat. I mean, how many safety blitzes do the Rams usually run per game? It couldn't be as many as we saw yesterday in addition to the reverses, the counter pitch, etc. on offense. Both the Raiders and Rams pulled out all the stops, but we were able to comeback in both of those games.
Dan Posted September 29, 2008 Author Posted September 29, 2008 I think that they are just young and that the teams they've played poorly against early (Raiders & Rams) we're bringing everything they had since, coincidentally, both of their coaches we're on the hot seat. I mean, how many safety blitzes do the Rams usually run per game? It couldn't be as many as we saw yesterday in addition to the reverses, the counter pitch, etc. on offense. Both the Raiders and Rams pulled out all the stops, but we were able to comeback in both of those games. That's pretty much how I see it, as well. It's hard to game plan against a team when they change their roster and throw everything at you but the kitchen sink in an attempt to get a win. Those are tough games. The Bills rode the storm out and came out on top. I particularly liked the fact that they didn't get nervous and abandon the run game in an all out effort to score from behind. The team stayed cool, level-headed and made the plays they needed to win. IT's got to give them a ton of confidence. It's interesting because in some ways they're getting another desperate team next week in the Cards. After falling to 2-2 on the east coast, they're going to do all they can to get a win and stay in the NFC west race. Should be another tough game.
Buftex Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 I'm starting to fear the Bills have the Sabres fever of not tryign i nthe 1st 2 periods and just assuming they can come back and win. I am not really sensing a lack of effort, or lethargy on the part of the Bills, like I do with the Sabres. Thre is a big mental difference in playing a 16 game (or should I say 19 game!) schedule, than there is an 82 game schedule. In an 82 game schedule, it would be impossible to bring your "A" game night in night out, and never let down at all, no matter what the sport. Great teams that play long schedules (like the 80's Celtics, the Lakers from that era, Jordan's Bulls, and the Red Wings to name a few) all had lulls in their play from time to time, but, subconsciously I think, all developed their own inner on/off switch. I really don't think the Bills are taking any thing for granted at this point. I get the sense that they are still enjoying their new found resiliancy, but they are still not a "great" team...they are firnly entrenched in the important "learing how to win" stage of their development.
BRH Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 I believe the criteria for "4th quarter comebacks" where QBs are concerned are that you must have the ball with your team behind at some point in the 4th quarter. Since Greer's INT happened on the first play of the 4th quarter and put us ahead for good, it is not a "4th quarter comeback" for Edwards. It is, however, a 4th quarter comeback for the TEAM.
Dan Posted September 29, 2008 Author Posted September 29, 2008 I believe the criteria for "4th quarter comebacks" where QBs are concerned are that you must have the ball with your team behind at some point in the 4th quarter. Since Greer's INT happened on the first play of the 4th quarter and put us ahead for good, it is not a "4th quarter comeback" for Edwards. It is, however, a 4th quarter comeback for the TEAM. That's how I saw it.
Lori Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 I keep seeing reference to Trent have 3 - 4th quarter comebacks in as many weeks. But, if memory serves correctly, didsn't Greer's interception at the beginning of the 4th quarter put us ahead? Granted Trent threw a nice score to Lee and got us down for another field goal, but those were while we had the lead. Right? Not that I'm taking away from Trent's game at all. I'm just wondering if I saw something different from the rest of the world. Technically, since the Bills were behind at the end of the third quarter, I guess it counts. That said, it's true that the Bills were leading by the time the offense took the field for the first time in the fourth. But 10 years from now, when we're recounting the beginnings of the Trent Edwards legend, nobody will remember that small detail ...
bizell Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 hell, trent edwards is already credited for wins that another Qb ended up winning.. so why not?
BRH Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 That's how I saw it. Funny thing is, if Greer had fallen down or run out of bounds at the 1, and the Bills' O had punched it in from there, it *would* have been a 4th quarter comeback for Edwards. That should be proof enough that not all "4th quarter comebacks" are created equal...
BRH Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 hell, trent edwards is already credited for wins that another Qb ended up winning.. so why not? Must JP be discussed in every got damn thread?
bizell Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 Must JP be discussed in every got damn thread? you brought him up, not me.. :whistles innocently:
Captain Quint Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 hell, trent edwards is already credited for wins that another Qb ended up winning.. so why not?
Dan Posted September 29, 2008 Author Posted September 29, 2008 But 10 years from now, when we're recounting the beginnings of the Trent Edwards legend, nobody will remember that small detail ... I have all the confidence in the world there'll be at least 1 or 2 posters here that will make sure to point it out.
BRH Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 I have all the confidence in the world there'll be at least 1 or 2 posters here that will make sure to point it out. Hell in ten years there will still be people arguing that a certain other quarterback could have done the same thing if he'd just been given the chance.
Dan Posted September 29, 2008 Author Posted September 29, 2008 Hell in ten years there will still be people arguing that a certain other quarterback could have done the same thing if he'd just been given the chance. No doubt. Some people seem to need a reason to complain.
bizell Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 Hell in ten years there will still be people arguing that a certain other quarterback could have done the same thing if he'd just been given the chance. and to my dying day i'll argue that todd collins was never given a chance. :2cents:
The Guy Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 Billy Joe Hobert was never given a chance.
ganesh Posted September 29, 2008 Posted September 29, 2008 That's pretty much how I see it, as well. It's hard to game plan against a team when they change their roster and throw everything at you but the kitchen sink in an attempt to get a win. Those are tough games. The Bills rode the storm out and came out on top. I particularly liked the fact that they didn't get nervous and abandon the run game in an all out effort to score from behind. The team stayed cool, level-headed and made the plays they needed to win. IT's got to give them a ton of confidence. I think that is the most important aspect. The Bills came out running the ball knowing that they were only one score behind after the mauling in the 1st half. They believed in themselves to set the ship straight and they did a good job of protecting the football and controlling the game.
Recommended Posts