billfan63 Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 They needed to shorten the game. You do that by killing clock. You can't kill the clock when you are getting turnovers because that gives the ball to JP. He can't sustain drives. As I said, it was a risky manuver. It didn't pay off. That is the nature of risk. the irony of this is that when the D was practicing this strategy (just in case they needed it) JP was playingthe roll of Warner
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 effin crayonz... Seriously. Anyone who blames "85%" of the loss yesterday on Losman is either clinically insane, simply doesn't know football, or both. We lost that game yesterday because of a ridiculous defensive scheme that rarely brought blitzes up the middle and played our corners ten yards off of Arizona's wideouts, leaving the underneath stuff wide open for 8-12 yards, almost all game long. The only time we adjusted that type of bs coverage was during their first possession of the 2nd half, and what do you know, a THREE AND OUT. Our defense put our entire offense, with or without Trent, in a near-impossible situation of having to not only score every time they had the ball in their hands, but score a touchdown. IMO, particularly after the Jets exposed Warner's faults with his six turnovers the previous game due to constant pressure, Fewell got completely outcoached and put together an astoundingly bad defensive game plan. This, combined with the fact that our offensive line seems to dislike run-blocking for Marshawn, and a couple bad decisions by JP (Who was thrown into a tough enviroment with the road crowd, our defense playing terribly, and his first regular season action in months), is what cost us this game. The majority of the problem was nowhere near Losman's fault. If Trent plays the whole game, we still lose yesterday, and you cannot convince me otherwise.
ieatcrayonz Posted October 6, 2008 Author Posted October 6, 2008 In any case you always have a "different" perspectiveYou think they lost it on purpose so we can win the tie breaker and make the playoffs? I think that was the shfit you were spilling all over everyones feet two weeks ago. I erased and ignored the vulgar parts of your post and will only respond to the ignorant parts. I did not say the Bills should try to lose, only that we should root for them to lose. Lo and behold, they will be tied with the Pats if the Pats beat SD next week. OOOPS. No they won't be tied. The Bills will be ahead due to tie breaker.
Lt. Dan's Revenge Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 I erased and ignored the vulgar parts of your post and will only respond to the ignorant parts. I did not say the Bills should try to lose, only that we should root for them to lose. Lo and behold, they will be tied with the Pats if the Pats beat SD next week. OOOPS. No they won't be tied. The Bills will be ahead due to tie breaker. Honestly, why do you even waste time posting on this board if you are seriously suggesting "rooting" for the Bills to lose? You've got to be kidding me.
thebug Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 I erased and ignored the vulgar parts of your post and will only respond to the ignorant parts. I did not say the Bills should try to lose, only that we should root for them to lose. Lo and behold, they will be tied with the Pats if the Pats beat SD next week. OOOPS. No they won't be tied. The Bills will be ahead due to tie breaker. Yes but had we won the game, there would be no need for a tie breaker. You are clearly a genyuss.
Dan Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 I erased and ignored the vulgar parts of your post and will only respond to the ignorant parts. I gotta admit... that's gold. Pure gold, Jerry.
Robert Paulson Posted October 6, 2008 Posted October 6, 2008 +6 like shooting fish in a barrell crayonz- this made my day!!!
Recommended Posts