BADOLBILZ Posted October 29, 2008 Posted October 29, 2008 While I didn't agree with the call it didn't end up costing them the game. I think it's more like a symptom of that "safe" thinking that I think holds back the Bills from reaching their true potential. We haven't seen much of that safe thinking this year and the team just seemed to play looser and take more chances out there. What happened to the balls on special team after the Seattle game? Following that game teams would have thought they'd have to be prepared for ANYTHING. Lately not so much. I agree, it was kind of a nutless decision but it didn't cost them the game. Your on the road, down 7 and trying to answer a scoring drive against a team who you should be seeking to dispatch early. Go for it and play defense if you don't get in the endzone. Perhaps Jauron thought back to the game in NE early in the 2006 season where they went for it and McGahee got stuffed and they ended up losing. That was a good call at the time and the rewards of aggressive situational football outweigh the risks.
dave mcbride Posted November 1, 2008 Posted November 1, 2008 I agree, it was kind of a nutless decision but it didn't cost them the game. Your on the road, down 7 and trying to answer a scoring drive against a team who you should be seeking to dispatch early. Go for it and play defense if you don't get in the endzone. Perhaps Jauron thought back to the game in NE early in the 2006 season where they went for it and McGahee got stuffed and they ended up losing. That was a good call at the time and the rewards of aggressive situational football outweigh the risks. Disagree - when the Bills went up 16-7, they were up by two scores, which they wouldn't have been if it had been 13-7. Plus going in with a lead at the half is a good thing. When they went up 16-7, I thought they were going to win, but obviously events proved otherwise.
GripnRip Posted November 2, 2008 Posted November 2, 2008 They did go to Hardy once in (or near) the red zone on that drive. I had a bigger problem with them using Jackson on every down instead of Lynch. My thoughts exactly. If Marshawn was built for one thing, its pounding the ball into the endzone from the 1. Giving the ball to Jackson was us trying to get cute with our offense. 4th down, you kick the field goal though.
jarthur31 Posted November 2, 2008 Posted November 2, 2008 Anyone else have a problem with DJ kicking a field goal on 4th and goal at the 1 yard line on the first drive of the game? I have a major problem with it. First, if you can't score from there, you really don't deserve to win anyway. This was not exactly the Steel Curtain we were facing. Second, the failure to go for it there (especially on the road, and especially after the Dolphins marched the length of the field for a TD on their first possession) sends a negative message to your team: "We don't have much confidence in you. We're just trying not to lose here." That seems to be a typical Bills mind-set these past 15 years or so. One thing that I have always admired about Belichick's and Parcells's teams is that they almost always go for it one fourth and short in the other team's end of the field (especially on fourth and goal from inside the 3 yard line), and they almost always succeed. By contrast, the Bills (and most other losing franchises that are more worried about being second-guessed) seldom do. Finally, even if you go for it and don't make it, the other team has to go 99 yards; there is a very good chance you will get the ball back inside mid-field. Oh yeah, and didn't we draft a wide receiver in the second round with the expressed purpose of having him haul in short passes in the red zone in situations like that (not to mention on second or third down)? If you can't punch it in from there, you have serious probs up front and the playoffs are not a possibility for any such team.
SageAgainstTheMachine Posted November 2, 2008 Posted November 2, 2008 If you can't punch it in from there, you have serious probs up front and the playoffs are not a possibility for any such team. I'd argue the playoffs are a possibility, and a probability, for any 5-2 team.
thewildrabbit Posted November 2, 2008 Posted November 2, 2008 You have a problem with that? I have three problems with that. 1. Trent drove us all the way down there, and then they run three straight plays with Fred. Should've been Marshawn. 2. We should have thrown on at least one of the plays. I would have liked to have seen Trent roll out right and toss one to the TE. 3. 4th and 1 on the 1. Should've gone for it. Too conservative on Jauron's part. Because if we get it, 7 points, and if not not Miami's pinned on their 1, possibly a safety which is only one point less than a FG, plus we get the ball back. On #1-Dick Jauron addressed why Marshawn wasn't in the game for those goal line runs, because the trainers were looking at him for some reason not stated. On #2- I agree,why not roll out and throw On #3-again I agree, Go for it on 4th down Is this even the same team we saw in game one against the Seahawks with the gutsy fake FG and throw to Ryan Denny from Moorman Then after the ultra conservative 4th down FG goal series the Bills start going pass happy, Edwards was 21/35 -227. and Jackson 10 carries and Lynch only 13,the combined 23 carries went for 102 yds Last year against the dolphins the bills ran the ball down their throats. Both Lynch and jackson had over 100 yards,combined for 40 carries for 224 yds which the Bills won 38-17 With Josh Reed out I'm hoping the Bills find the power running game that has been missing all year
marauderswr80 Posted November 2, 2008 Posted November 2, 2008 I think taking points off the boards is a bad thing. Take 3 and go from there. Im not a fan of taking points off the board. Granted field goals can be blocked. But those 3 points might play a huge factor late in the game.
Recommended Posts