Does Trent Edwards audible out of plays?

[Bill from NYC]

I agree with that in #1 (big time) and #4 (can't let one fumble bring down your entire team) but in #2 and #3 we were the vastly inferior team. (I agree with Hazed)

 

And I absolutely agree with you. As a matter of fact, the cowboys (the first time we played them) were one of the best teams ever imo. I would say easily top 5, perhaps even top 2 or 3.

Their offense was off the charts, and Leon Lett was in his prime. Even Kent Hull was no match for Lett.

[BuffaloWings]

And I absolutely agree with you. As a matter of fact, the cowboys (the first time we played them) were one of the best teams ever imo. I would say easily top 5, perhaps even top 2 or 3.

Their offense was off the charts, and Leon Lett was in his prime. Even Kent Hull was no match for Lett.

Don Beebe was.

[Bill from NYC]

Don Beebe was.

 

Point taken BW.

[murra]

4.Kelly's super bowl performances left a lot to be desired considering the team he had.

The super bowl is where the great ones excel.

 

 

We lost the first superbowl because of our defense. They couldn't get off the field and missed tackles. Reed dropped a clutch ball, and Kelly still managed to march all the way from his ten to the opponents 30 with his 2 minute offense, leaving it up to the kicker and special teams.

 

While I think our team blew a big one, you CAN NOT continue your little logical message board warfare if you think that there was a lot to be desired from Kelly in superbowl 1. He made no mistakes and threw for remarkable yardage despite not being on the field for almost an hour and a half.

 

They called you a troll, and you said they were lame, but you're honestly the first person on the message boards I've seen who is intentionally starting incoherent rambling to the extent of ripping on our franchise face, and possibly one of the greatest ever to play the game.

 

You're saying how you're ahead of the curve and all that nonsense, but you're probably one of the idiots calling for Frank Reich.

[The Dean]

We lost the first superbowl because of our defense. They couldn't get off the field and missed tackles. Reed dropped a clutch ball, and Kelly still managed to march all the way from his ten to the opponents 30 with his 2 minute offense, leaving it up to the kicker and special teams.

 

While I think our team blew a big one, you CAN NOT continue your little logical message board warfare if you think that there was a lot to be desired from Kelly in superbowl 1. He made no mistakes and threw for remarkable yardage despite not being on the field for almost an hour and a half.

 

They called you a troll, and you said they were lame, but you're honestly the first person on the message boards I've seen who is intentionally starting incoherent rambling to the extent of ripping on our franchise face, and possibly one of the greatest ever to play the game.

 

You're saying how you're ahead of the curve and all that nonsense, but you're probably one of the idiots calling for Frank Reich.

 

 

Bingo. The Giants played a great game, and Parcells and Belicheat did a fine job of coaching. But, I thought Marv did a fine coaching job, as well, and the Bills win the game, if they simply tackle Ingram. The breakdown in game #1, was on the field.

[34-78-83]

Bingo. The Giants played a great game, and Parcells and Belicheat did a fine job of coaching. But, I thought Marv did a fine coaching job, as well, and the Bills win the game, if they simply tackle Ingram. The breakdown in game #1, was on the field.

 

You don't feel they could have controlled the clock a little more with Thurman carrying the ball at 7 yards a clip vs. a customized 2-5 front 7 formation the Giants played all night? Thurman getting only 15 carries in the game was a joke that the coaches were responsible for IMO. I think Marv was a very good coach, just not that night.

[Hazed and Amuzed]

Bingo. The Giants played a great game, and Parcells and Belicheat did a fine job of coaching. But, I thought Marv did a fine coaching job, as well, and the Bills win the game, if they simply tackle Ingram. The breakdown in game #1, was on the field.

 

 

You know what? You're right, I never thought of it in those terms...

[The Dean]

You don't feel they could have controlled the clock a little more with Thurman carrying the ball at 7 yards a clip vs. a customized 2-5 front 7 formation the Giants played all night? Thurman getting only 15 carries in the game was a joke that the coaches were responsible for IMO. I think Marv was a very good coach, just not that night.

 

 

Of course, in retrospect, had Marv known ahead of time that every guy on his defense would miss a tackle on 3rd and 30 (yes, I am exaggerating), he might have thought to kill the clock. But, the Bills got to that game by playing aggressively and not worrying about the clock. I'm not sure changing your team's style in the SB is an intelligent approach.

 

Now, I admit I was calling for TT to get the rock more (not because of clock concerns, but more because I thought it would be successful). So, if you are suggesting that Marv didn't coach a perfect game, and Parcells did, then I can agree. But, I don't think this game was poorly coached, by a long shot. Maybe Marv gets an A- or a B+, and Parcells gets an A+.

 

But, in the end, this game was lost by Bills defenders missing tackles, IMO. Even then, the team was in position to win, with a very reliable kicker attempting a very makeable (but, far from automatic) FG,

[34-78-83]

Of course, in retrospect, had Marv known ahead of time that every guy on his defense would miss a tackle on 3rd and 30 (yes, I am exaggerating), he might have thought to kill the clock. But, the Bills got to that game by playing aggressively and not worrying about the clock. I'm not sure changing your team's style in the SB is an intelligent approach.

 

Now, I admit I was calling for TT to get the rock more (not because of clock concerns, but more because I thought it would be successful). So, if you are suggesting that Marv didn't coach a perfect game, and Parcells did, then I can agree. But, I don't think this game was poorly coached, by a long shot. Maybe Marv gets an A- or a B+, and Parcells gets an A+.

 

But, in the end, this game was lost by Bills defenders missing tackles, IMO. Even then, the team was in position to win, with a very reliable kicker attempting a very makeable (but, far from automatic) FG,

 

Thats reasonable and I can understand your outlook on it. I just felt like once that D formation was presented to them, you run , run , run until they stop you or until you get them out of that unbalanced defense. Once you do that, then you can freely pass or run and they are forced to respect both.

 

Good discussion.

[JimmyPage]

We lost the first superbowl because of our defense. They couldn't get off the field and missed tackles. Reed dropped a clutch ball, and Kelly still managed to march all the way from his ten to the opponents 30 with his 2 minute offense, leaving it up to the kicker and special teams.

 

While I think our team blew a big one, you CAN NOT continue your little logical message board warfare if you think that there was a lot to be desired from Kelly in superbowl 1. He made no mistakes and threw for remarkable yardage despite not being on the field for almost an hour and a half.

 

They called you a troll, and you said they were lame, but you're honestly the first person on the message boards I've seen who is intentionally starting incoherent rambling to the extent of ripping on our franchise face, and possibly one of the greatest ever to play the game.

 

You're saying how you're ahead of the curve and all that nonsense, but you're probably one of the idiots calling for Frank Reich.

You're probably just an idiot, period.

You're probably one of these idiots who thinks 0-4 in the superbowl is a good record.

[The Dean]

You're probably just an idiot, period.

You're probably one of these idiots who thinks 0-4 in the superbowl is a good record.

 

 

It's better than 0-0, 0-1, 0-2 and 0-3.

[The Dean]

Thats reasonable and I can understand your outlook on it. I just felt like once that D formation was presented to them, you run , run , run until they stop you or until you get them out of that unbalanced defense. Once you do that, then you can freely pass or run and they are forced to respect both.

 

Good discussion.

 

 

Oh, I understand where you are coming from. I think Jimbo, coming off the 51-3 blowout, wanted to keep pouring it on.

 

Good discussion, indeed.

[Cotton Fitzsimmons]

Who are those guys?

 

They are Ye Ole Cotton's roommates from the el colegio de universidad.

[rockpile]

It was primarily Norwoods fault?

What is the conversion % of 47 yard FGs in the NFL?

That is no chip shot.

 

It shouldn't have come down to a 47 yard FG.

The Tuna and Billicheck(sp) beat the Bills with a lesser team.

They held the Bills to 19 points.

 

So how many points would Kelly have put up without a team loaded with all pros?

9 or 10 points maybe?

Not much that's for sure.

 

Norwood was at best, a flip of the coin outside 40 yards. I do not blame him for SB XXV.

 

The Bills were held to 19 points because the second half game plan was to keep the K-Gun offense sitting on the bench and run time off the clock. Blame the defense if that is your argument.

 

I do not understand why you are so bitter towards Kelly. I also do not understand why running a K-Gun would be bad for Edwards.

 

I do not mind that I do not agree with you. You COULD disagree in a way that was not encouraging an argument, and still get your point across. Kelly had MANY weaknesses.

 

Example: Once against the Raiders the Bills were down 24-10 with ten minutes left in the game. They finished winning 38-24 because they had a great offense, disruptive defense, and superb special teams. Without a TEAM and a great backup when he got his bell wrung, Kelly would have been a Vinnie Testaverde - 400 yards passing and losing a lot.

 

You need to chill a bit, grasshopper.

[murra]

You're probably just an idiot, period.

You're probably one of these idiots who thinks 0-4 in the superbowl is a good record.

 

That's it? that's how you respond to my post? Wow. I'm upset, and insulted. I really thought you'd have more in you. Guess you really are just a stupid troll.

[Peace Frog]

Enough with the Kelly worship.

 

Edwards CANNOT be like Kelly if we want to win a super bowl.

He needs to be BETTER.

WHY?

Because Edwards isn't likely to ever be surrounded with the all-pros Kelly played with.

Edwards is going to have to do what Kelly could not do and he will have to do it with a lesser team.

 

If Kelly went 0-4 with the offense he had, then he certainly wouldn't come out with a win playing on a lesser team, even if he had ten kicks at the can.

Yeah, Kelly was such a master at audibles that he went 0-4 in superbowls.

Kelly couldn't have asked for a stronger supporting cast, fact is, he simply wasn't a QB capable of winning super bowls.

 

Kelly wasn't good enough, Edwards needs to go to a level beyond Kelly.

I believe I see the point you're trying to make. You could say the same thing by stating "Dan Marino needed to be better than Bob Griese in order to win the superbowl.". Kelly was a great QB but did not win the big game. If I remember correctly, a lot of Bills' player's performances came up short during the superbowl (see Bruce Smith, i.e.) If Kelly had such a great supporting cast and they win and lose as a team, then maybe the Bills as a team and the strength of their superbowl opponent had just as much to do with being 0-4 as Kelly's performance.

 

I say that the Bills, not just Edwards, need to be better than those teams of the '90s.

[billsrcursed]

Geez, I was going to comment on the subject, but I guess that would be a waste at this point. Shouldn't we re-name this thread?? Maybe, I don't know, Jimmy Page or something????

 

How about you start your own thread on why you hate the Bills so much and leave everyone else's threads to the subjects they were supposed to be talked about??

 

And by the way, hating Jim Kelly is not where you want to be when Jesus comes back, trust me.......

[JimmyPage]

Geez, I was going to comment on the subject, but I guess that would be a waste at this point. Shouldn't we re-name this thread?? Maybe, I don't know, Jimmy Page or something????

 

How about you start your own thread on why you hate the Bills so much and leave everyone else's threads to the subjects they were supposed to be talked about??

 

And by the way, hating Jim Kelly is not where you want to be when Jesus comes back, trust me.......

I don't think Jesus worships football players.

[JohninMinn.]

You're probably just an idiot, period.

You're probably one of these idiots who thinks 0-4 in the superbowl is a good record.

 

And I thought I was scarred from the Super Bowl era. Jimmy has taken it to a new level.

[Thurman#1]

Ignoring the nonsense-powered hijacking of the thread,

 

Here's a quote from Chris Brown:

 

"As for Trent, yes he is allowed to make audibles at the line of scrimmage. As for number of times he’s changed the play, I don’t have that figure. I would say it’s not much more than 3-4 times per game."

 

link: http://blogs.buffalobills.com/2008/11/21/fan-friday-11-21/