Alphadawg7 Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 So what were they going to save that time out for? the first time that the defence can force the Cards to turn the ball over without scoring to give the offence some extra time? That was a critical time and one that they should have asked for a replay for, even if they didn't think it would have been overturned. It wouldn't be a wasted Time Out. If the refs saw something and overturned it, the offence is back on the field and you just may have saved the game. If it is ruled the call stands, then they let the defence rest for a little bit longer and bought some time after the turnover to prepare for trying to stop the Cards and getting the ball back Huh? Really? A time out is meaningless in a game like this? To win this game at that point would be a late 4th quarter lead change given the time of the game and how far behind we are. That time out is very valuable...see Oakland win... So by your logic, lets just challenge every non winnable call just for the heck of it. Maybe we should have challenged the Fitz TD too? I mean it was 100% a TD, just like Royal was 100% a fumble...they had about the same odds of being overturned. I love how people always talk about giving our team a rest as if the other teams opposite squad isnt as fatigued or doesnt get the same rest. Giving our D a rest there is a wash as it gave there Offense the same rest. So how exactly does that make wasting a timeout in a game we are behind in a good move. Not to mention, after we lose the challenge and timeout, AZ is still about to score barring a T.O. given they were in FG range already, meaning thats more points we have to overcome making the late Timeout even more important if we can get the game close again.
Dan Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 Huh? Really? A time out is meaningless in a game like this? To win this game at that point would be a late 4th quarter lead change given the time of the game and how far behind we are. That time out is very valuable...see Oakland win... So by your logic, lets just challenge every non winnable call just for the heck of it. Maybe we should have challenged the Fitz TD too? I mean it was 100% a TD, just like Royal was 100% a fumble...they had about the same odds of being overturned. I love how people always talk about giving our team a rest as if the other teams opposite squad isnt as fatigued or doesnt get the same rest. Giving our D a rest there is a wash as it gave there Offense the same rest. So how exactly does that make wasting a timeout in a game we are behind in a good move. Not to mention, after we lose the challenge and timeout, AZ is still about to score barring a T.O. given they were in FG range already, meaning thats more points we have to overcome making the late Timeout even more important if we can get the game close again. I would disagree. Losing a timeout in that situation is a relatively small price to pay. That was an absolutely critical juncture of the game. We needed to keep the ball. You say no way it could have been overturned. And you may be right; however, based on the limited angle showed on the TV is was very close to being down - very close. I'm not sure how anyone can be so sure baseed on the one replay they showed. And even if you lose the challenge, its a very valid point that you give the defense some time to rest and regroup. Plus you make a statement to the team that you're trying to do something, as opposed to standing on the sideline looking confused. This was without a doubt the worst non-decision of Jauron's season.
apuszczalowski Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 I would disagree. Losing a timeout in that situation is a relatively small price to pay. That was an absolutely critical juncture of the game. We needed to keep the ball. You say no way it could have been overturned. And you may be right; however, based on the limited angle showed on the TV is was very close to being down - very close. I'm not sure how anyone can be so sure baseed on the one replay they showed. And even if you lose the challenge, its a very valid point that you give the defense some time to rest and regroup. Plus you make a statement to the team that you're trying to do something, as opposed to standing on the sideline looking confused. This was without a doubt the worst non-decision of Jauron's season. Exactly What were the Bills going to save the time out for? The defence was not stopping anyone at that point in the game, so its not like DJ could let the call slide and just let his D go out and get a 3 and out and save the time out for when his offence gets the ball back and catches up. The raiders game was different, at times the bills defence was stopping the Raiders and not letting them score on every drive. Yesterday they were not doing that. It was almost 100% certain that giving the ball back to Arizona at that point was going to lead to Arizona increasing their lead. So why not take a chance and maybe have a very close call that even the football guys on the TV doing the analysists said was close enough to be reviewed, and just maybe luck goes your way and it gets reversed giving the ball back to your offence. At worst, you lose a TO and your defence has to come up with a big stop, but they are a little more rested, and you gave you D co-ordinator a few more moments to set something up to stop them, instead of saving the TO for the end so that maybe they could delay the end of the game and stay on the field longer
Dan Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 Exactly What were the Bills going to save the time out for? The defence was not stopping anyone at that point in the game, so its not like DJ could let the call slide and just let his D go out and get a 3 and out and save the time out for when his offence gets the ball back and catches up. The raiders game was different, at times the bills defence was stopping the Raiders and not letting them score on every drive. Yesterday they were not doing that. It was almost 100% certain that giving the ball back to Arizona at that point was going to lead to Arizona increasing their lead. So why not take a chance and maybe have a very close call that even the football guys on the TV doing the analysists said was close enough to be reviewed, and just maybe luck goes your way and it gets reversed giving the ball back to your offence. At worst, you lose a TO and your defence has to come up with a big stop, but they are a little more rested, and you gave you D co-ordinator a few more moments to set something up to stop them, instead of saving the TO for the end so that maybe they could delay the end of the game and stay on the field longer Seems like a no brainer. That moment was about as mad as I've been during a Bills game in years. Perhaps it's the fact that the Bills are actually contending again, perhaps it was just that obvious to me that it should be challenged, perhaps I just had years of frustration to let out; but damn that topped it off for me and I pretty well lost it. I can honestly say I can't remember a single play from the 4th quarter, I was so pissed.
BB2004 Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 If you disagree, maybe go look at it again. Nothing ever hits the ground: the shin/knee amazingly never find turf, and then he's completely on top of the defender afterward, which is NOT down by contact. Then he swings his arm around and drops the ball before the arm hits the ground. There's plenty to complain about this week, but the absence of the red flag there is not one of them. I think you are correct, there were other things to worry about at that time, however, it was close and it probably wouldn't have been overturned. Either way, it would have slowed down the game a little and a challenge there wouldn't have hurt, in my opinion.
Alphadawg7 Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 I think you are correct, there were other things to worry about at that time, however, it was close and it probably wouldn't have been overturned. Either way, it would have slowed down the game a little and a challenge there wouldn't have hurt, in my opinion. I live in CA and maybe I get a different feed or something, but they had several PERFECT shots and showed the replay several times...at no point did it ever even look close on the 60" flat screen we were watching it on. There were 11 Bills fans there and not one of them wanted a challenge, it was pretty decisive and had no shot of being overturned. Have you ever seen the end of a game where teams NEEDED a timeout? What if another player gets hurt and we have to lose a timeout because of that and end up with one or no time outs in the fourth? From a coaching point of view, not a fans point of view, time outs are very important at the end of games, especially when we are playing catch up 2/3 of the way through a game. If it has a shot of being overturned, even a 10% chance, then fine throw the flag, but not when there is no possible way and there are close up and very difinitive camera shots. Trust me, they pay the people in the booths to know more than us, if they thought they had any chance of winning it would have been challenged. Do you think DJ didnt know that was a critical moment in the game? I mean come on now...
apuszczalowski Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 I live in CA and maybe I get a different feed or something, but they had several PERFECT shots and showed the replay several times...at no point did it ever even look close on the 60" flat screen we were watching it on. There were 11 Bills fans there and not one of them wanted a challenge, it was pretty decisive and had no shot of being overturned. Have you ever seen the end of a game where teams NEEDED a timeout? What if another player gets hurt and we have to lose a timeout because of that and end up with one or no time outs in the fourth? From a coaching point of view, not a fans point of view, time outs are very important at the end of games, especially when we are playing catch up 2/3 of the way through a game. If it has a shot of being overturned, even a 10% chance, then fine throw the flag, but not when there is no possible way and there are close up and very difinitive camera shots. Trust me, they pay the people in the booths to know more than us, if they thought they had any chance of winning it would have been challenged. Do you think DJ didnt know that was a critical moment in the game? I mean come on now... No one is saying they aren't, but at that point in the game yesterday, it was the end of the game cause without a Buffalo score, or letting Arizona put more points on the board, the game was going to get too far out of hand. You have to know when the right time is to use timeouts in a game, and they aren't always just for the end of the game/half. Sometimes there are situations during the game that a timeout could be helpful. In that case, taking one then would be better then saving them for later in a game that was about to get blown out of hand.
Dan Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 I live in CA and maybe I get a different feed or something, but they had several PERFECT shots and showed the replay several times...at no point did it ever even look close on the 60" flat screen we were watching it on. There were 11 Bills fans there and not one of them wanted a challenge, it was pretty decisive and had no shot of being overturned. Have you ever seen the end of a game where teams NEEDED a timeout? What if another player gets hurt and we have to lose a timeout because of that and end up with one or no time outs in the fourth? From a coaching point of view, not a fans point of view, time outs are very important at the end of games, especially when we are playing catch up 2/3 of the way through a game. If it has a shot of being overturned, even a 10% chance, then fine throw the flag, but not when there is no possible way and there are close up and very difinitive camera shots. Trust me, they pay the people in the booths to know more than us, if they thought they had any chance of winning it would have been challenged. Do you think DJ didnt know that was a critical moment in the game? I mean come on now... You definitely have a different feed if you saw several replays. I DVR'd the game and watched that play last night (my take is earlier in this thread). In live action we got one angle - not a very good one (from the side and elevated). They showed one replay, from a straight on angle (probably from the far endzone) - so a pretty good look. But, that was it. They only showed the replay once; then they switched to Jauron on the sideline looking confused; then they switched to the Cards at the LOS; snap -too late. So if you had several perfect shots that were showed several times, you definitely had a different feed than I did.
Alphadawg7 Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 You definitely have a different feed if you saw several replays. I DVR'd the game and watched that play last night (my take is earlier in this thread). In live action we got one angle - not a very good one (from the side and elevated). They showed one replay, from a straight on angle (probably from the far endzone) - so a pretty good look. But, that was it. They only showed the replay once; then they switched to Jauron on the sideline looking confused; then they switched to the Cards at the LOS; snap -too late. So if you had several perfect shots that were showed several times, you definitely had a different feed than I did. Yup, they showed the replay several times and had zoomed in shots that were crystal clear of his leg not getting any closer than an inch from the ground and the ball coming out a foot or two above the ground. They were unquestionable shots. Maybe it was because it was a 60" HDTV, but it was clear as day on ours.
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted October 6, 2008 Author Posted October 6, 2008 Like I said, you can always tell a Yale man, but you can't tell him much... Mortimer's an idiot for not throwing the red flag - little-ref-guy would have loved a few more moments in front of the camera to overturn the call. Royal never fumbled. Ball came out when R2 was already down and slammed it into the carpet. Incontrovertible statement of fact. Four pages, and you're the only one to claim Royal was down without a doubt. Since you didn't say when Royal was down, I'll backtrack a bit. "Nothing ever hits the ground: the shin/knee amazingly never find turf, and then he's completely on top of the defender afterward, which is NOT down by contact. Then he swings his arm around and drops the ball before the arm hits the ground." Which part of that do you dispute? Because after watching the play far more times than I should have, I'm absolutely convinced that sentence is 100% accurate.
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted October 6, 2008 Author Posted October 6, 2008 No one is saying they aren't, but at that point in the game yesterday, it was the end of the game cause without a Buffalo score, or letting Arizona put more points on the board, the game was going to get too far out of hand. You have to know when the right time is to use timeouts in a game, and they aren't always just for the end of the game/half. Sometimes there are situations during the game that a timeout could be helpful. In that case, taking one then would be better then saving them for later in a game that was about to get blown out of hand. I am THRILLED you're not in that locker room.
Dan Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 Yup, they showed the replay several times and had zoomed in shots that were crystal clear of his leg not getting any closer than an inch from the ground and the ball coming out a foot or two above the ground. They were unquestionable shots. Maybe it was because it was a 60" HDTV, but it was clear as day on ours. So what you sayin my little 30"er ain't big enough? Well, it's not the size of the screen, its the mixin of the pixel that counts. Regardless, I still say challenge it. Not so much about being right as much as it is about making an effort.
apuszczalowski Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 I am THRILLED you're not in that locker room. Why? because at that point in the game it was going to take a pretty big miracle, or atleast the teams defence a complete turn around and have them do stuff that they haven't been able to do all day to even have a chance to come back? The game was quickly getting out of hand, and time was quickly clicking down.
cfbillsfan Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 That's what I saw. The moment the ball hits the ground (while in his hand) the play is over. He was being tackled, there was contact, the ball is dead right there. I thought it was clear as day. Count me in on this. He was holding the ball when it hit the ground.
thebug Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 Count me in on this. He was holding the ball when it hit the ground. You should watch it again then.....
2020 Our Year For Sure Posted October 6, 2008 Author Posted October 6, 2008 Why? because at that point in the game it was going to take a pretty big miracle, or atleast the teams defence a complete turn around and have them do stuff that they haven't been able to do all day to even have a chance to come back? The game was quickly getting out of hand, and time was quickly clicking down. No. Because I don't want my team to ever say they're out of a game when there's more than a quarter left to play.
thebug Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 No. Because I don't want my team to ever say they're out of a game when there's more than a quarter left to play. Yah, example: Colts game....
Recommended Posts