The reason why we lost...

[PromoTheRobot]

We rushed for 4.5ypc......

 

The turnovers killed us.....

 

Trent was awful....

 

Mcgee was awful...

 

and Royal needs to go

Our O line is what's awful

Our D line is pretty bad too.

As "bad" as you say Edwards, he was throwing darts to Evans all day. Without him we are a 3-13 team.

Our special teams aren't so special anymore.

 

PTR

[Dan]

Our O line is what's awful

Our D line is pretty bad too.

As "bad" as you say Edwards, he was throwing darts to Evans all day. Without him we are a 3-13 team.

Our special teams aren't so special anymore.

 

PTR

I have to completely agree. I'm not sure exactly what we're missing, but it's amazing how average they look.

[Orton's Arm]

1. All those things you listed are reasons we didn't blow them out. In your mind erase each of those events from the game and realistically, do we win? Erase Trent's 3 turnovers, especially the 2 fumbles, and I am pretty certain we win the game. We were moving the ball effectively enough to win.

Somehow those became "Trent's" three turnovers, even though only one of them was his fault. Erasing the one turnover for which Trent could legitimately have been blamed would have helped. Erasing the two turnovers that resulted from poor or nonexistent pass protection would have helped more. Poor offensive line play, especially in pass protection, was a much bigger factor in today's loss than Trent.

 

2. 4 of our last drives we handed the ball to the dolphins. Maybe I overstated that 16 points would win us the game without them, but we definitely would not have to have scored 26. There is no way you can put blame on the defense. They bent a lot, but certainly did not break at any point.

The defense allowed 20 points in a disappointing performance. While the absence of pass protection was the main reason for today's loss, I don't think you can hold the defense completely blameless.

 

3. He is in his own endzone on third down with a blitz coming. HE HAS TO GET RID OF THE BALL.

It was a three man rush! He got almost no pass protection! When you've got eight guys dropping back into coverage, it's typically going to take receivers a little while to get open. The offensive line has to give the QB good pass protection in a situation like that. Instead, Dockery barely even touched Porter as he ran on by. At least Peters got his hands on him, but it didn't seem to slow him down all that much. The bottom line is that, on a three man rush, the Bills' offensive line allowed a Miami defender to rush between the tackles on his way to the QB's blindside, and barely even slowed him down in the process.

 

It would be nice if JP and DD held their end, regardless I think most people would be in agreement with me that Trent's timer needs to speed up in that situation, and it clearly did not.

With all those Miami defenders back in coverage, I think it's reasonable to assume that the Bills' receivers were all covered until Porter arrived. (I invite anyone who saw the game in person to comment on this.) Trent therefore had two choices: 1) assume the offensive line will do its job, and that he'll be able to spend a reasonable amount of time waiting for someone to come open. 2) Assume the offensive line will be made to look like a bunch of practice squad rejects on that play, in which case the logical decision would have been to throw the ball away and let Moorman punt it. He chose option 1 when in hindsight he would have been better off with option 2. But I don't think you can legitimately criticize him for this.

 

If anything, blame needs to go to the playcalling for not running the ball once in that possession.

The Bills' running game typically involves long periods of famine interspersed with a few brief feasts. Most of the time when the Bills call a running play, it's just a waste of a down. During the Dolphins game, the designed running plays produced the following results (listed from worst to best): -1, -1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18. I've bolded the running plays that came on the Marshawn Lynch TD drive. As you can see from the above list of numbers, the Dolphins did a solid job of containing the Bills' running game on most plays. However, a few big running plays here and there--especially on the Lynch TD drive--helped drive up the overall average. Had Schonert called run, run, pass on the drive in question, the offense would have had only one realistic chance to get a first down (the 3rd down pass play), instead of three legitimate chances.

 

Royal's fumble is a moot point, we weren't going to win at that point anyways.

Royal fumbled with 1:56 on the clock, with the Bills at the Miami 31. Had he not fumbled, the Bills would have had to drive those 31 yards for a TD, recover the onsides kick, and score a FG. For the Bills to have accomplished all of that would have been a long shot, but certainly not an impossibility. However, for that stuff to have become a possibility, the offensive line would have had to have provided much better pass protection in the final two minutes than it had throughout the course of the game.

 

5.

Think, would you rather keep the fumbles and Ginn gets 4 catches for 50 yds, or erase the fumbles and Ginn has the same day?

I agree that getting rid of the offense's three fumbles would have helped the team more than getting rid of all but 50 of Ginn's 175 receiving yards. Of those three fumbles, one was on Edwards, one was on Royal, and one was on the offensive line.

 

If I could go back and change things about how this team played, I'd do them in the following order:

 

1. Better pass protection from the offensive line

2. Also better pass protection from the offensive line

3. The defense should have kept Ginn from running wild

4. Royal should have had a much better game than the one he had

5. A better pass rush

6. Edwards shouldn't have fumbled after running the ball for a first down

7. Better run blocking by the offensive line

 

To be honest, I think that if we had a healthy Josh Reed, and if the offensive line had provided pass protection, the Bills would have walked away with a win. While the Bills had problems on both sides of the ball, there was more wrong with our offense than our defense. If the Bills want to become a top-tier team, they need to come away from the first day of the 2009 draft with one or more offensive linemen.

[MRW]

The Bills' running game typically involves long periods of famine interspersed with a few brief feasts. Most of the time when the Bills call a running play, it's just a waste of a down. During the Dolphins game, the designed running plays produced the following results (listed from worst to best): -1, -1, 0, 0, 1, 1, 1, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 3, 3, 4, 4, 7, 8, 8, 9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 18. I've bolded the running plays that came on the Marshawn Lynch TD drive. As you can see from the above list of numbers, the Dolphins did a solid job of containing the Bills' running game on most plays. However, a few big running plays here and there--especially on the Lynch TD drive--helped drive up the overall average. Had Schonert called run, run, pass on the drive in question, the offense would have had only one realistic chance to get a first down (the 3rd down pass play), instead of three legitimate chances.

I think you're way off on this one (I don't have any serious disagreement with your other points). The first drive of the second half, the Bills really ran the ball quite well. Then it was abandoned. And in the other games this year, the running game has gotten stronger later. At the very least, they may have picked up enough positive yards to get Trent out of the endzone.

 

I think the way the Bills got away from their running attack was completely inexplicable, and they needed to find a way to keep it in the mix. They were only down 4 at that point!

[Andrew in CA]

I think you're way off on this one (I don't have any serious disagreement with your other points). The first drive of the second half, the Bills really ran the ball quite well. Then it was abandoned. And in the other games this year, the running game has gotten stronger later. At the very least, they may have picked up enough positive yards to get Trent out of the endzone.

 

I think the way the Bills got away from their running attack was completely inexplicable, and they needed to find a way to keep it in the mix. They were only down 4 at that point!

I couldn't agree more. There were only 3 attempted runs (for a net 16 yds) after the Lynch TD drive. Why they abandoned the run is baffling.

[BuffOrange]

I couldn't agree more. There were only 3 attempted runs (for a net 16 yds) after the Lynch TD drive. Why they abandoned the run is baffling.

 

Maybe there's some truth to that, but I don't know if people appreciate how much a play or two can impact the flow of the game. I mean if Trent doesn't fumble the QB sneak who knows how that next series of downs would've played out. Given that he did, we were behind by more and more points on each subsequent possession. It's akin to blaming the playcalling the last few years when if your QB can't convert an occasional 3rd&6, you're not going to have much of a chance to establish anything.

 

I actually thought the worst playcall of the game was the 3rd&5 draw when we were up 16-10. That was a big possession and I'm not sure why they felt it would work given that it went for 1 yard against a prevent defense at the end of the 1st half.

[reddogblitz]

I thought Trent looked uncomfortable most of the day and just sorta off. The o line had some trouble blocking too that didnt help

 

He looked totally gassed and in serious need of a blow on the last two drives.

[billfan63]

Somehow those became "Trent's" three turnovers, even though only one of them was his fault. Erasing the one turnover for which Trent could legitimately have been blamed would have helped. Erasing the two turnovers that resulted from poor or nonexistent pass protection would have helped more. Poor offensive line play, especially in pass protection, was a much bigger factor in today's loss than Trent.

 

please expand these excuses

[reddogblitz]

3) You blame both Edwards' fumbles on him, and him alone. I'm with you on the first fumble, but you don't have a leg to stand on with respect to the second. It was a pass play. Between the two of them, Derrick Dockery and Jason Peters barely slowed Joey Porter down on his way to Edwards. Porter barely even broke stride. Edwards got hit from his blind side and fumbled as a result. Why do you place 100% of the blame for this on the quarterback? Don't you think that, just maybe, it would have been nice for Edwards to have received even a little blind-side protection on that play? Or do you think that even a minimal level of pass protection is just gravy, and that a real quarterback doesn't need any pass protection at all to make plays?

 

If we give Trent credit for all the great wins and his stellar performance, even though he had help from his other 39 team mates, then when he we lose and he fumbles twice and throws a pick, he gets credit for that too. That's the way QBing in the No Fun League works. You're a hero or a goat. In all the game up until now except Arizona, he was the hero. Today he was the goat. He's a big boy. I think he can take it.

[Orton's Arm]

please expand these excuses

In claiming that these are "excuses" for Trent, it sounds to me like you're making excuses for the pathetic state of pass protection we saw yesterday. Please explain why you feel that ridiculously bad pass protection needs to be excused.

[drg2021]

Is it just me, or do our defensive coaches seem to come in to most games with no game plan. Not literally, but if you're going to cover Ginn the way we did (protecting against the deep ball, letting him catch underneath) when they have Chad "i can't throw more than 25 yards in the air" Pennington, that means you have no idea what you're doing. We had like deep zone coverage, and had McGee in man playing way off...It seems like a no brainier to me to cover him tight, and we had no pressure.

 

 

We lost the game on our lack of offensive production, but our defense did not play this game the way they should have, and that scares me. A lot.

Might seem like a dumb question,but why didnt they put Greer on Ginn as it was painfully obvious that Magee wasnt up to the task? Hes the reason we lost the game period.He beat Magee allday long.He should have been benched.It was remenisent of the Dallas game last season when we were playing off coverage and they just kept throwing under the coverage.I blame this game soully on Magee

[Orton's Arm]

I think you're way off on this one (I don't have any serious disagreement with your other points). The first drive of the second half, the Bills really ran the ball quite well. Then it was abandoned. And in the other games this year, the running game has gotten stronger later. At the very least, they may have picked up enough positive yards to get Trent out of the endzone.

 

I think the way the Bills got away from their running attack was completely inexplicable, and they needed to find a way to keep it in the mix. They were only down 4 at that point!

Of the points I made, the one about the run/pass mix is the one about which I feel the least strongly. So I won't really try to argue in its favor very much. I guess the main thing is that I'm used to seeing a lot of first down running plays, between the tackles, that result in 1 yard gains. Against San Diego, Schonert called run, run, pass twice. IIRC, those two playcalls resulted in 3rd and 6 and 3rd and 7. Trent bailed the Bills out of both those third and long situations.

 

If you're placing almost the entire burden of picking up first downs on the QB's shoulders, why not give him three chances to get that first down, instead of just one chance in an obvious passing situation? At least, that's how I've felt about the playcalling in past games. This time around though, the offensive line just didn't pass protect at all during the game. At least in the past it's pass protected in the fourth quarter, after nearly 3 solid quarters of total ineptitude and non-performance. In addition to the lack of pass protection, the absence of Josh Reed and the terrible performance by Royal (3 drops, 1 catch + fumble), really hurt the passing game.

 

Maybe when Schonert called those three pass plays, he expected the offensive line to start providing pass protection late in the game, much like it had in most previous contests. Unfortunately he guessed wrong: the offensive line turned in four quarters of absolutely pathetic pass protection, instead of its usual three quarters.

[MRW]

Of the points I made, the one about the run/pass mix is the one about which I feel the least strongly. So I won't really try to argue in its favor very much. I guess the main thing is that I'm used to seeing a lot of first down running plays, between the tackles, that result in 1 yard gains. Against San Diego, Schonert called run, run, pass twice. IIRC, those two playcalls resulted in 3rd and 6 and 3rd and 7. Trent bailed the Bills out of both those third and long situations.

 

If you're placing almost the entire burden of picking up first downs on the QB's shoulders, why not give him three chances to get that first down, instead of just one chance in an obvious passing situation? At least, that's how I've felt about the playcalling in past games. This time around though, the offensive line just didn't pass protect at all during the game. At least in the past it's pass protected in the fourth quarter, after nearly 3 solid quarters of total ineptitude and non-performance. In addition to the lack of pass protection, the absence of Josh Reed and the terrible performance by Royal (3 drops, 1 catch + fumble), really hurt the passing game.

 

Maybe when Schonert called those three pass plays, he expected the offensive line to start providing pass protection late in the game, much like it had in most previous contests. Unfortunately he guessed wrong: the offensive line turned in four quarters of absolutely pathetic pass protection, instead of its usual three quarters.

I am not a fan of run-run-pass, but I'm also not a fan of pass-pass-pass. A run on first or second down at least mixes things up a bit.

 

Even if they did do run-run-pass and ended up with 3rd and 6 or 3rd and 7, at the very minimum Trent would not have been dropping back into the end zone to pass and the safety could've been avoided. Sometimes that's really the best you can ask when you're pinned back deep.

 

You're right on about Reed and Royal. Reed has been clutch and he's probably the guy I would like to see them go to in that situation. Royal is just a huge disappointment; if he were halfway reliable that would be an area I'd expect him to contribute as well. But that just adds to my thinking that running should've been in the mix in that area of the field. I like Parrish and Evans a lot, but they're not the best when you need 10 or even just 5 yards from your 2.

[Guest dog14787]

We played a bad game full of mistakes, it happens. Maybe because I've been dealing with a life and death situation with my Mom over the last few days it has helped allow me to get a good perspective of the game and not get to upset over one loss.

 

I'm sure everyone remembers how the Buffalo Bills developed through the Jim kelly Era, it took a little while for the team to fully develop and we didn't go out and win every weekend. What we did do though is come back the next week after a loss and play well just like our new Era Buffalo Bills will next weekend. This will only make squishing the fish allot more fun in the future so learn something from the loss its no big deal, if you expect to play a big tuna built team and come away with an easy win stop kidding yourself, its just not happening.

 

I watched our new young QB, TE, even on one of his worst days show me the heart of a champion, TE will never give up, never give in and that is what this team is all about. I firmly billieve we are watching growing pains of a championship caliber team and I also billieve that when TE and our new Buffalo Bills make it to the big dance this time nothing will stop TE and our Buffalo Bills.

[Gary M]

is, we can't run the ball. Discuss.

 

Same sh-- different year.

 

TE=JP

[Thoner7]

Somehow those became "Trent's" three turnovers, even though only one of them was his fault. Erasing the one turnover for which Trent could legitimately have been blamed would have helped. Erasing the two turnovers that resulted from poor or nonexistent pass protection would have helped more. Poor offensive line play, especially in pass protection, was a much bigger factor in today's loss than Trent.

 

please expand these excuses

 

Expand How? The pick was not his problem as the rushing d-lineman hit Trent's arm while he was trying to throw. The only reason he was there is because of the "O Sh*t" block by whoever was playign RG at that point. The Safety fumble is on Peters/Dockery. Those 2 didnt block Porter at all. Royal Fumble- Def not Trent. Which one's do you blame on him??? I'll assume you watched the game

 

EDIT: On a side note, maybe we can invent an offense that completely eliminates the tight end position, as we will seemingly never get one worth their weight in fecal mater.

[Orton's Arm]

I am not a fan of run-run-pass, but I'm also not a fan of pass-pass-pass. A run on first or second down at least mixes things up a bit.

One could use a bit of game theory to look at this in more detail. First, mixing it up a bit, as you put it, is generally a better strategy than being predictable. You need to force the other team to defend all your viable options, rather than just one option in particular. The following actions are consistent with becoming unpredictable:

• First down: Call a healthy percentage of running plays, and a healthy percentage of passing plays. The Nash equilibrium will depend on the expected gain from a running play versus passing play. By that I mean that if one aspect of your game--for example your passing attack--works better than the other aspect, you should call a higher percentage of passing plays than running plays. However, both types of plays should be called to force the defense to respect both.
   
  
• Second down: Regardless of whether you called a pass or a run on first down, you should consider calling either a pass or run on second down. The alternative is to say, "every time I call a pass play on first down, I call a running play on second down to mix it up." If an offensive coordinator embraced this alternative, the other team's defensive coordinator would simply stack the box on second down whenever a pass play had been called on first down.
   
  
• Third down: Regardless of whatever had been called on first or second down, the offensive coordinator should still should still select between running plays and passing plays, instead of firmly committing himself to one or the other. What you want to avoid is a decision to always pass whenever you've run on first and second down, or to always run whenever you've passed on first and second down. Any kind of "always" rule makes the defensive coordinator's job a lot easier.
  

An offensive coordinator who follows the above rules will, sometimes, call run, run, run, or pass, pass, pass. In fact, an offensive coordinator who never calls run, run, run or pass, pass, pass isn't following these rules, and is doing something to make himself predictable. However, a good offensive coordinator will recognize when one aspect of his game--either passing or running--is stronger than the other, or is working better on a particular day, and will tend to emphasize that aspect in his play calling.

[Orton's Arm]

Expand How? The pick was not his problem as the rushing d-lineman hit Trent's arm while he was trying to throw. The only reason he was there is because of the "O Sh*t" block by whoever was playign RG at that point. The Safety fumble is on Peters/Dockery. Those 2 didnt block Porter at all. Royal Fumble- Def not Trent. Which one's do you blame on him??? I'll assume you watched the game

I agree with everything you wrote here. But please make it clear that it was Billfan63, and not me, who is the source of the original "please expand these excuses" remark.

[Guest dog14787]

One could use a bit of game theory to look at this in more detail. First, mixing it up a bit, as you put it, is generally a better strategy than being predictable. You need to force the other team to defend all your viable options, rather than just one option in particular. The following actions are consistent with becoming unpredictable:

• First down: Call a healthy percentage of running plays, and a healthy percentage of passing plays. The Nash equilibrium will depend on the expected gain from a running play versus passing play. By that I mean that if one aspect of your game--for example your passing attack--works better than the other aspect, you should call a higher percentage of passing plays than running plays. However, both types of plays should be called to force the defense to respect both.
   
  
• Second down: Regardless of whether you called a pass or a run on first down, you should consider calling either a pass or run on second down. The alternative is to say, "every time I call a pass play on first down, I call a running play on second down to mix it up." If an offensive coordinator embraced this alternative, the other team's defensive coordinator would simply stack the box on second down whenever a pass play had been called on first down.
   
  
• Third down: Regardless of whatever had been called on first or second down, the offensive coordinator should still should still select between running plays and passing plays, instead of firmly committing himself to one or the other. What you want to avoid is a decision to always pass whenever you've run on first and second down, or to always run whenever you've passed on first and second down. Any kind of "always" rule makes the defensive coordinator's job a lot easier.
  

An offensive coordinator who follows the above rules will, sometimes, call run, run, run, or pass, pass, pass. In fact, an offensive coordinator who never calls run, run, run or pass, pass, pass isn't following these rules, and is doing something to make himself predictable. However, a good offensive coordinator will recognize when one aspect of his game--either passing or running--is stronger than the other, or is working better on a particular day, and will tend to emphasize that aspect in his play calling.

 

I agree with what you say, 2nd down and nine after running the ball run the ball again and maybe even again on third down. Don't let the down and distance dictate the play calling, we ran the ball pretty well against Miami and should have called more running plays. Also as much as I like Marshawn's play I believe action Jackson is deserving of more carries and if he keeps it up should get the start because he seems to be running the ball better than Lynch.

[sweetwilliamadjuster]

is, we can't run the ball. Discuss.

 

Part of the reason was our running game was sub par. I would really like to know why Mcgee played so much of the game when it was obvious to anyone watching the game he was not playing well. To me the whole team looked like they were out in South Beach until four in the morning partying and were hungover, there was no excitement on that bench no sense of urgency just blah. We need some key players to heal up quick and enforce a curfew.