The Play Call - Unbelievable!

[thewildrabbit]

the sad thing is that that pass was just about the safest pass play you could call. Should they have called it? no way. But as Collinsworth just said, it was the incompetence by Losman that made that play a disaster.

Of course Cris Collinsworth is going to blame Losman,he and Turd "shotgun" Schonert are golfing buds and played together for years on the bungals

[truth on hold]

I agree with where I think you're going.

 

Most fans excoriated Jauron and the staff for sitting on the ball at the end of the Cleveland game. Today, he made a mildly gutsy call to try to WIN THE GAME and he's getting killed for it.

 

Look at it this way: we had two or three nice runs before the ill-fated waggle. DJ tried to put the ball in the hands of a QB with wheels to get him outside, take the cheap flick to the TE if it's there, and if not pick up a yard or two (while staying in bounds and rolling the clock) to set up a 3rd and 3-ish. If he completes that pass for a first down, it's basically lights out, and the time to call the waggle was perfect. We just had an idiot QB run the play, and I think DJ said as much in the post-game by stating something like "I can't put [A FIFTH-YEAR, FORMER FIRST ROUND QUARTERBACK] in that position."

 

I'm still on the fire DJ team, but I understand the play call and credit him for being a stand up guy and refusing to publicly put JP in his rightful place beneath the tires of the bus. If you don't like the series at the end of the Cleveland game (I'm one of those people), you can't bash DJ for showing some nuts and trust in the waste from Tulane and trying to win the game.

I blasted them for the play calling at end against Cleveland but was OK with the call today. Corny as it may sound "you play to win the game" versus "playing not to lose." The Cleveland game was playing not to lose / Marty-ball type stuff, but at least today they called a play that if successful wins it for them. That it didn't turn out was a matter of poor execution, the call was ok.

[BuffOrange]

I blasted them for the play calling at end against Cleveland but was OK with the call today. Corny as it may sound "you play to win the game" versus "playing not to lose." The Cleveland game was playing not to lose / Marty-ball type stuff, but at least today they called a play that if successful wins it for them. That it didn't turn out was a matter of poor execution, the call was ok.

 

Couldn't agree more.

[AJ1]

I blasted them for the play calling at end against Cleveland but was OK with the call today. Corny as it may sound "you play to win the game" versus "playing not to lose." The Cleveland game was playing not to lose / Marty-ball type stuff, but at least today they called a play that if successful wins it for them. That it didn't turn out was a matter of poor execution, the call was ok.

 

 

The call was not ok. 2 more runs and a first down and the game was over. Most stupid call of Jauron era and that's saying something.

[The Dean]

the sad thing is that that pass was just about the safest pass play you could call. Should they have called it? no way. But as Collinsworth just said, it was the incompetence by Losman that made that play a disaster.

 

 

I guarantee you that Collinsworth:

 

didn't watch the game

 

didn't know that JP has fumbled the ball FIVE times in the past two games (previous to that fumble)

 

didn't know the Bills simply don't run the play they called, on any regular basis

 

that the Titans defensive line was giving the Bills 4-5 yards a run, even when the D was stacked against the run

 

...and whole bunch of other pertinent info.

[Bleed Bills Blue]

It was just a dumb Call...Those who think differently don't understand that one VERY important aspect of Coaching and Play Calling is never out-think yourself

 

Your comparison to the Cleveland does illustrate a point, though. Jauron plays it conservative at the worst times and takes chances at the worst times. He does not appear to have any sense of the game.

 

I swear, our coaches have no situational awareness whatsoever. In so many situations a roll out after 2 or 3 runs is a decent idea. With 2 minutes left, deep in your own end, protecting the lead... it's one of the worst calls to make.

 

So why not go "idiot proof" and just RUN! Thats what I hate about our coaches in recent years and those who defend them. We have no sense of the "flow" of the game and always seem to try and go cute in the worst situations and go completely predictable when we could use a little "safe" creativity.

 

See, this is the crux of the matter.

 

No play call is 100% right or wrong in every situation, but when the game is on the line, a good coach knows the right call because he feels it in his gut. He is into the flow of the game and does not arrive at his decision analytically. Year after year now we've seen Jauron the Yale boy stuck in his head and tripping over himself, making the wrong decision at crunch time. Hey, nobody gets all those calls right, but have you ever seen ANYONE so consistently get them WRONG at the most critical times as Jauron?

[truth on hold]

The call was not ok. 2 more runs and a first down and the game was over. Most stupid call of Jauron era and that's saying something.

If they dont get the 1st with 2 runs (which was could easily have happened given Jets run blitzes), then with 2 min warning and timeout, Jets would get the ball with nearly 2 mins left and probably good field position. All they'd need is a FG to tie, and their kicker has been clutch. Also a punt was risky because of the big play ability of Washington. There is an argument for 2 runs ... don't get me wrong, but it wasn't a "no brainer" either. Play action if successful probably wins it for us.

 

Look at it this way: as much as I don't care for Mike Shanahan, he puts the onus on his players to execute plays that they'll need to if they want to win it all. Even if he thinks they may not be up to it, doesn't matter, it's sink or swim. If you want to win it all best to know if your players can make the plays when it counts, and if not better to show them the door sooner rather than later (i.e. as in benching jake the fake for the rookie cutler.) It's also Parcells and Bellichek's style. And between them they have 7 rings.

[Dan]

If they dont get the 1st with 2 runs (which was could easily have happened given Jets run blitzes), then with 2 min warning and timeout, Jets would get the ball with nearly 2 mins left and probably good field position. All they'd need is a FG to tie, and their kicker has been clutch. Also a punt was risky because of the big play ability of Washington. There is an argument for 2 runs ... don't get me wrong, but it wasn't a "no brainer" either. Play action if successful probably wins it for us.

 

Look at it this way: as much as I don't care for Mike Shanahan, he puts the onus on his players to execute plays that they'll need to if they want to win it all. Even if he thinks they may not be up to it, doesn't matter, it's sink or swim. If you want to win it all best to know if your players can make the plays when it counts, and if not better to show them the door sooner rather than later (i.e. as in benching jake the fake for the rookie cutler.) It's also Parcells and Bellichek's style. And between them they have 7 rings.

Incorrect.

 

You forget that we would have forced them to use all their timeouts. And why assume a bad punt? Moorman likely puts them around their 30yard line. So in a best case scenario for the Jets, they get the ball at about their 35, with 1:50 on the clock, no timeouts. Certainly not impossible for Favre but not easy either considering they hadn't had 1st down in the 4th quarter. But, worst case scenario for the Jets is Lynch gets the first down and game is over. Why take the ball out of your only playmaker's hands?

[Kelso_Helmet]

I blasted them for the play calling at end against Cleveland but was OK with the call today. Corny as it may sound "you play to win the game" versus "playing not to lose." The Cleveland game was playing not to lose / Marty-ball type stuff, but at least today they called a play that if successful wins it for them. That it didn't turn out was a matter of poor execution, the call was ok.

 

I've found that "playing to win vs. playing not to lose" is one of the most overused turns of phrase used in discussing football...what does that even mean anymore? Looking to stick with "safer" or conventional plays vs. taking chances?

 

I wouldn't characterize the Cleveland game nor today's game as either playing to win or lose. I would characterize them both as simply playing stupid.

 

I would characterize the Cleveland game as the Bills being one-dimensional because TE was playing badly, but I wouldn't call the long kick DJ settled for over trying to move the ball a little closer in the air a higher-percentage play, and as such "playing not to lose." The roll-out by JP today, again, while it bucked the trend of conventional wisdom given the success on the ground and the imperative to run out the clock, was dumb given the circumstances. Maybe if you've got a decent, starting quality QB and some success with having run those type of plays....ok...it's maybe conceivable. But given the personnel on the field, it wasn't "playing to win." It was playing stupid.

[The Dean]

If they dont get the 1st with 2 runs (which was could easily have happened given Jets run blitzes), then with 2 min warning and timeout, Jets would get the ball with nearly 2 mins left

 

 

Here is where you are wrong. There was 2:06 on the clock. One run brings the clock to the 2:00 mark, unless the Jets kill another time out. Assuming the Bills don't make the first down:

 

The next (3rd down) run brings the clock down to under 1:30...the Bills probably even take the 5 yard delay penalty...unless the Jets use another time out. The Jets either get the ball with a little over a minute and 2 TOs OR a 1:30, or so, and 1TO OR a 1:50, or so and NO timeouts.

 

If the pass is incomplete with less than 2 minutes to go (a likely scenario, as it was a dump-off to the FB), the clock stops at, say, 2:01. Again, assuming the Bills don't get the first down:

 

The Jets get the ball, with BOTH timeouts and almost 2 minutes (maybe 1:50 or so) left in the game.

[Bill from NYC]

If they dont get the 1st with 2 runs (which was could easily have happened given Jets run blitzes), then with 2 min warning and timeout, Jets would get the ball with nearly 2 mins left and probably good field position. All they'd need is a FG to tie, and their kicker has been clutch. Also a punt was risky because of the big play ability of Washington. There is an argument for 2 runs ... don't get me wrong, but it wasn't a "no brainer" either. Play action if successful probably wins it for us.

 

Joe, post #26 says it all.

[BuffOrange]

Here is where you are wrong. There was 2:06 on the clock. One run brings the clock to the 2:00 mark, unless the Jets kill another time out. Assuming the Bills don't make the first down:

 

The next (3rd down) run brings the clock down to under 1:30...the Bills probably even take the 5 yard delay penalty...unless the Jets use another time out. The Jets either get the ball with a little over a minute and 2 TOs OR a 1:30, or so, and 1TO OR a 1:50, or so and NO timeouts.

 

If the pass is incomplete with less than 2 minutes to go (a likely scenario, as it was a dump-off to the FB), the clock stops at, say, 2:01. Again, assuming the Bills don't get the first down:

 

The Jets get the ball, with BOTH timeouts and almost 2 minutes (maybe 1:50 or so) left in the game.

 

This isn't a lot of time for an NFL team that needs a FG?

[Gary M]

Here is where you are wrong. There was 2:06 on the clock. One run brings the clock to the 2:00 mark, unless the Jets kill another time out. Assuming the Bills don't make the first down:

 

The next (3rd down) run brings the clock down to under 1:30...the Bills probably even take the 5 yard delay penalty...unless the Jets use another time out. The Jets either get the ball with a little over a minute and 2 TOs OR a 1:30, or so, and 1TO OR a 1:50, or so and NO timeouts.

 

If the pass is incomplete with less than 2 minutes to go (a likely scenario, as it was a dump-off to the FB), the clock stops at, say, 2:01. Again, assuming the Bills don't get the first down:

 

The Jets get the ball, with BOTH timeouts and almost 2 minutes (maybe 1:50 or so) left in the game.

You left out the part about Jason Peters actually making a block.

[The Dean]

This isn't a lot of time for an NFL team that needs a FG?

 

 

It's likely more time if the pass fails, than if the run fails...that's the point. And, the run was effective, the d-line was toast...it's what you wish for, when you plan the game. To simply not take advantage of all the work you have done, and use two runs, if necessary to get the first down (they hadn't shown they can stop the run)...and instead going to a cute screen to your fullback (a play you do NOT run well and hasn't been working) is simply making life difficult when it doesn't need to be.

 

Honestly, by calling that play, Jauron DESERVED to lose, it is that stupid of a play, given the context.

[The Dean]

You left out the part about Jason Peters actually making a block.

 

 

Sorry.

 

And, you ask Jason Peters, who has been BLOWING the defensive lineman off the line on pass plays, to change what he is doing (for no good reason) and ask him to pass block, on a poorly conceived screen.

 

That better?

[truth on hold]

Here is where you are wrong. There was 2:06 on the clock. One run brings the clock to the 2:00 mark, unless the Jets kill another time out. Assuming the Bills don't make the first down:

 

The next (3rd down) run brings the clock down to under 1:30...the Bills probably even take the 5 yard delay penalty...unless the Jets use another time out. The Jets either get the ball with a little over a minute and 2 TOs OR a 1:30, or so, and 1TO OR a 1:50, or so and NO timeouts.

 

If the pass is incomplete with less than 2 minutes to go (a likely scenario, as it was a dump-off to the FB), the clock stops at, say, 2:01. Again, assuming the Bills don't get the first down:

 

The Jets get the ball, with BOTH timeouts and almost 2 minutes (maybe 1:50 or so) left in the game.

i agree one of the risks of the call was JP dumps it so quick it doesn't even use 6 seconds. But then again you have to call on your line and JP's mobility to at least get it done. They may not, but at least give them the chance. And given Jets had 2 TOs, even 2 runs means they likely get the ball with nearly 2 mins left, and probably 1 TO left (2nd down run 2 min warning, 3rd down run, Jets TO at around 1:55. Punt may use less than 10 seconds if it's out of bounds or faircaught, and if it's not faircaught that's probably worse because Washington sees a lane.) But again, I see the points made in favor of 2 runs too. My point is it's close to an indifferent point between running and play action in that situation, and I am in favor of playing to win by requiring your players to do things they'll need to if they want to be champs someday.

[Kelso_Helmet]

It's likely more time if the pass fails, than if the run fails...that's the point. And, the run was effective, the d-line was toast...it's what you wish for, when you plan the game. To simply not take advantage of all the work you have done, and use two runs, if necessary to get the first down (they hadn't shown they can stop the run)...and instead going to a cute screen to your fullback (a play you do NOT run well and hasn't been working) is simply making life difficult when it doesn't need to be.

 

Honestly, by calling that play, Jauron DESERVED to lose, it is that stupid of a play, given the context.

 

exactamundo!

[ExiledInIllinois]

Okay... I am over it... It was lose-lose situation for me like I said...

 

Chadwick and the Dolfelons must be really pissed!

[timba]

Well, yes there is, in fact.

 

There was no clock to eat. The two minute warning was coming in 6 seconds. The play was going to end in a stoppage of time, regardless. To say we needed to run there to eat up the clock is, fundamentally, wrong.

 

 

Because there is simply no fathomable way that the defense breaks through the line (like it did) and force an early throw.

 

There is more downside to this call than upside. There could be that early incomplete pass. There could be an interception. There could be a fumble. If we just run the ball, there is only the fumble option.

 

It was the smarter, safer option as far as just play calling goes. Then when you take into account the personnel involved, this should be a no brainer.

 

I said it earlier, but I think people need a refresher... to say that it is a good play call because JPL did good on the last drive is foolish. We've watched this player develop for 5 years and he has NEVER shown any consistency.... actually i take that back. He is quite consistent in taking sacks, fumbling, and throwing interceptions when the game is on the line. Today was simply more evidence of that.

[BuffaloRebound]

How can any card-carrying Bills fan believe that the Jets would not have at least tied the game if the Bills don't get a 1st down? Questioning run or pass is legitimate, but I believe even Jauron knew we were losing that game if we don't get another 1st down.