The Adrian Wilson Cruise missile strike

[K-9]

The Bills actually got the better of the Cards on that play. Trent read the blitz and hit Hardy for the first down. Successful play. An unsuccessful blitz by the cards. 9/10 times, trent takes a shot on that, gets up and the drive continues. We just happened to get unlucky with the dirty helmet-to-helmet shot.

 

Thanks, Dr. Glad to see that new shingle you're hanging hasn't hindered your ability to boil it down. I've tried explaining it seven ways to Sunday and all I get is "Walker should have read the safety blitz."

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Billistic]

Often, tactical success is accompanied by subsequent strategic failure.

 

Example: The early blitzkrieg by Hitler's armies into the Soviet Union.

[thebandit27]

Wow, struck a nerve, I see.

 

There are absolutes in football and in analysis of it, regardless of pro or amateur status. I'm not going to defend the time I've been around football nor the opportunities I've had over the last 35 years to discuss it with professionals on every level (from HS to the pros). Doesn't matter. It's not important to you in the least. But it makes me extremely confident that I'm doing more than just guessing.

 

Of course lineman make line calls. They just don't read safeties. That's the QB's first read. Simple. Line audibles are made to account for the gap coverages relative to the defensive front presented. OLmen ARE NOT looking at safeties. So stop with that BS right now.

 

Royal was releasing on the play to run a route. And didn't even look in Wilson's direction even though he was closest to him at the snap. But Wilson wasn't Royal's responsibility anyway. The Cards faked inside LB blitzes. Wanna bet line calls were made to compensate for the middle threat? Of course they were. Want to know the RTs first responsibility to that threat? A push to the inside. Protect the middle. Shortest distance, AGAIN.

 

It may not matter to you or make a difference that TE was able to make the play but it said A LOT about his ability as a QB. Proper read, proper throw. It wasn't his fault he took a cheap shot that resulted in a 25k fine to Wilson.

 

It's just one of those things that happen in football. QBs get injured. Sometimes it's the blatant missed assignment by an OLman, RB, WR, TE, or the QBs own plain ignorance. Whatever. In this case it was a good call by the Cards, well executed by Wilson, regardless of the cheap shot.

 

Bottom line in this case is that no reasonable football person is going to put ANY blame on Walker to have done ANYTHING other than what he did on the play, which was to play his assignment. It's a LOT like the play against the Jets. Peters made the absolute correct play relative to the blitz threat presented (once again, help to the inside), Elam, like Wilson had a running start, and made a good play. The ONLY difference is that Losman NEVER read the safety like he should have.

 

End of story. Absolutely.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

hang on here, hang on, I have to catch my breath (laughing too hard to respond)...ok, I'm good.

 

no, no nerve struck, i just have to respond when i see an extremely debatable point being stated as an absolute fact.

 

so you're going to tell me, with all of your superior knowlege, that the offensive tackle's job is to block a blitzing inside linebacker? that's beyond ridiculous. if that's true, every offensive coach on the staff should be fired on basic principle. that's literally unbelievable, as in not-able-to-be-believed. i'm struggling right now with whether i should even continue to debate somebody that's functioning on that premise, but hey, it's all in good fun. your shortest distance point completely belies the idea that an offensive tackle, let alone the heaviest, bulkiest player on the field, would have to somehow anticipate which gap the blitzing inside linebacker will pick, get around the engaged right guard (and possibly the center, if the inside linebacker picks the A gap) and engage the blitzer, all before said blitzer gets into the backfield? if blitzing and its subsequent pickup techniques are truly about the shortest distance, how could walker not be assigned to block the only outside rusher on the play? honestly man, read that to yourself and tell me that the notion isn't positively laughable.

 

at no point did i question edwards' performance on that play, but it's nice that you at least tried to be adversarial on the topic. what i said was: what does Edwards getting rid of the ball have to do with whether or not the blitzing safety was blocked effectively?

 

the passive-agressive statement at the end is kind of funny too. apparently, reasonable football people don't expect offensive tackles to block the closest blitzer to them. that's a new one on me, but hey, i'll freely admit i don't know everything, since (again) there are no absolutes in analyzing a play that you don't know the blocking scheme on. just seems to me that it's a horrible way to try to protect your QB.

 

now, onto your next post...wilson was fined because edwards got injured, and for no other reason. plain and simple. what is so dirty about the hit? and don't just repeat that he got fined, that's BS. i'm sure that in your world, in which you are the infallable bastion of football knowlege, no fine was ever rendered that wasn't deserved. however, in the real world, the NFL is careful-to-a-fault in protecting QBs, and plenty of guys get fined every year for clean hits that simply were too hard for the QB to take. you seem to want to bet on unprovable points, so how's this: wanna bet that if edwards gets up and continues playing that wilson doesn't get fined?

 

so i ask you in return: is there no end to what you can pull out of your ass? first you've got offensive tackles unable to block blitzers other than inside linebackers, and then you tell me that wilson's hit was undeniably dirty because he was fined?

 

i personally think that your opinions and your holier-than-thou "superior knowledge" are total BS.

 

End of story. Absolutely.

[billsfan89]

"Often, tactical success is accompanied by subsequent strategic failure.

 

Example: The early blitzkrieg by Hitler's armies into the Soviet Union."

 

Interesting note on that the Blitzkrieg is actually not a real tacit. History commonly refers to the Success of the invasion of Poland by saying Germany invaded Poland using a lighting war but that is just a lazy and inaccurate explanation of what really happened. Germany did not employ any new tacit when invading Poland all they did was benefit from a numerical advantage as well bad decision making and circumstances by Poland.

 

Before the invasion Poland was told not to mobilize their armies by both Britain and France because they thought they could still negotiate a peace with Germany. That combined with the fact that Poland made the mistake of deciding to defend their border fully rather than fight a defensive war all led to a much quicker than expected defeat. Also once Poland had a defensive line drawn by the latter stages of the invasion Russian invaded them and forced the Polish forces to withdraw and surrender just a week and a half later.

 

So it wasn't Germany employing some sort of unheard of military strategy it was Germany's numerical advantages, it was mistakes made by Poland, it was a second invasion by Russia that all led to what was a much shorter than expected take over of Poland. Even Nazi Generals expected to take 6 months to fully take Poland.

 

The invasion of France was a much better tactical war considering that France had Britain backing them up and much more forces than Poland as well as the fact they only had a one front war to fight and they lost in a week longer than Poland. Just a fun history lesson my cousin is a history professor and is a World War 2 buff.

 

As for what that has to do with The hit on Edwards I don't know that hit was just one of those things that happens. QB gets a quick release on a blitz and a player who is usually in coverage gets a hit on the QB and the QB gets hurt. It sucks but it happens.

[K-9]

hang on here, hang on, I have to catch my breath (laughing too hard to respond)...ok, I'm good.

 

no, no nerve struck, i just have to respond when i see an extremely debatable point being stated as an absolute fact.

 

so you're going to tell me, with all of your superior knowlege, that the offensive tackle's job is to block a blitzing inside linebacker? that's beyond ridiculous. if that's true, every offensive coach on the staff should be fired on basic principle. that's literally unbelievable, as in not-able-to-be-believed. i'm struggling right now with whether i should even continue to debate somebody that's functioning on that premise, but hey, it's all in good fun. your shortest distance point completely belies the idea that an offensive tackle, let alone the heaviest, bulkiest player on the field, would have to somehow anticipate which gap the blitzing inside linebacker will pick, get around the engaged right guard (and possibly the center, if the inside linebacker picks the A gap) and engage the blitzer, all before said blitzer gets into the backfield? if blitzing and its subsequent pickup techniques are truly about the shortest distance, how could walker not be assigned to block the only outside rusher on the play? honestly man, read that to yourself and tell me that the notion isn't positively laughable.

 

at no point did i question edwards' performance on that play, but it's nice that you at least tried to be adversarial on the topic. what i said was: what does Edwards getting rid of the ball have to do with whether or not the blitzing safety was blocked effectively?

 

the passive-agressive statement at the end is kind of funny too. apparently, reasonable football people don't expect offensive tackles to block the closest blitzer to them. that's a new one on me, but hey, i'll freely admit i don't know everything, since (again) there are no absolutes in analyzing a play that you don't know the blocking scheme on. just seems to me that it's a horrible way to try to protect your QB.

 

now, onto your next post...wilson was fined because edwards got injured, and for no other reason. plain and simple. what is so dirty about the hit? and don't just repeat that he got fined, that's BS. i'm sure that in your world, in which you are the infallable bastion of football knowlege, no fine was ever rendered that wasn't deserved. however, in the real world, the NFL is careful-to-a-fault in protecting QBs, and plenty of guys get fined every year for clean hits that simply were too hard for the QB to take. you seem to want to bet on unprovable points, so how's this: wanna bet that if edwards gets up and continues playing that wilson doesn't get fined?

 

so i ask you in return: is there no end to what you can pull out of your ass? first you've got offensive tackles unable to block blitzers other than inside linebackers, and then you tell me that wilson's hit was undeniably dirty because he was fined?

 

i personally think that your opinions and your holier-than-thou "superior knowledge" are total BS.

 

End of story. Absolutely.

 

With every post you make you sound less and less credible on the subject. It was you yourself who made the (correct) statement that OLmen make line calls. That would be the center. They make those line calls relative to the defensive fronts presented and the gap coverages required. I DID NOT say an OT has the responsibility to pick up blitzing inside LBs, I said that when the line call is made indicating such, that the OTs need to be aware of inside gap responsibility. That's why you often see them slide protecting to help a guard or pushing their man inside to tighten it up. Nor did I say that OTs aren't responsible for picking up OLBs on blitzes. Let me say it again:

 

The QB is responsible for reading a safety NOT the OT. As an aside, OTs don't even make line calls. But back to the point, Walker DID NOT have responsibility for Wilson on that play. That is an absolute fact. Edwards had responsibility for Wilson on that play and Edwards beat him. Walker WAS the closest OLmen, yes. But he was engaged with his assignment and blocked his man to the INSIDE as was his absolute responsbililty given the threat of the ILB blitz and in response to the line call made by the center when inside blitz was read. If you don't think shortest distance to the QB is relevant in football parlance what can I say?

 

But that's not what we're arguing. What I'm arguing is your absurd notion that OTs read safeties and then make audibles. That is so far from reality it's not surprising your feelings are hurt and you suddenly find your position indefensible.

 

By the way, MANY reasonable people don't expect an OLmen to pick up the blitzer closest to them. Often times that's the responsibility of an RB or TE or even a G that can kick out and get the job done depending on the pre-snap reads. Ironically, on the Wilson play, the Cards also showed Corner blitz from the weakside but our RB picked it up. Had the Cards NOT shown that threat, our RB MAY have been able to pick up Wilson. But lets take your scenario a little further. Suppose it WAS Walker's responsibility to pick up Wilson. What then? Well, let me clue you in: the man Walker was blocking then has a clear and SHORTER distance to Edwards than Wilson who had to go around Royal to get his angle.

 

I wasn't trying to be adversarial to your point about the relevance of Edwards getting rid of the ball vs. someone picking up a blitzer who creamed him. I was just making a point that Edwards made a good play and the right play.

 

As for passive/aggessive, I fail to see it. I was being aggressive. You decided to devolve the debate into 'your a Trent lover' load of crap. So in my best sandbox vernacular: you started it.

 

As for being holier than thou, I doubt it. I'm just putting years of experience out there for you to read or not. If it SOUNDS condescending I don't mean to be. Sometimes the two dimensional aspect of posts on a BB look a certain way. But I can't sit here and let someone try to tell me it's the OTs responsibility to read safeties and call audibles. Have to call BULLSH*T when I see it.

 

As for the other post, many pundits were wondering why Wilson wasn't flagged on the play when it happened. It clearly was in violation of the rules. I'll leave it to you to research why. I wouldn't want to come across as holier than thou.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Billistic]

"Often, tactical success is accompanied by subsequent strategic failure.

 

Example: The early blitzkrieg by Hitler's armies into the Soviet Union."

 

Interesting note on that the Blitzkrieg is actually not a real tacit. History commonly refers to the Success of the invasion of Poland by saying Germany invaded Poland using a lighting war but that is just a lazy and inaccurate explanation of what really happened. Germany did not employ any new tacit when invading Poland all they did was benefit from a numerical advantage as well bad decision making and circumstances by Poland.

 

Before the invasion Poland was told not to mobilize their armies by both Britain and France because they thought they could still negotiate a peace with Germany. That combined with the fact that Poland made the mistake of deciding to defend their border fully rather than fight a defensive war all led to a much quicker than expected defeat. Also once Poland had a defensive line drawn by the latter stages of the invasion Russian invaded them and forced the Polish forces to withdraw and surrender just a week and a half later.

 

So it wasn't Germany employing some sort of unheard of military strategy it was Germany's numerical advantages, it was mistakes made by Poland, it was a second invasion by Russia that all led to what was a much shorter than expected take over of Poland. Even Nazi Generals expected to take 6 months to fully take Poland.

 

The invasion of France was a much better tactical war considering that France had Britain backing them up and much more forces than Poland as well as the fact they only had a one front war to fight and they lost in a week longer than Poland. Just a fun history lesson my cousin is a history professor and is a World War 2 buff.

 

As for what that has to do with The hit on Edwards I don't know that hit was just one of those things that happens. QB gets a quick release on a blitz and a player who is usually in coverage gets a hit on the QB and the QB gets hurt. It sucks but it happens.

 

Ok, first, the Soviet Union was NOT Poland.

 

Second: The Wehrmacht's employment of the Panzer units to achieve a blitzkrieg certainly is an exemplary case of tactics fading into oblivion.

 

Third: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

[billsfan89]

Ok, first, the Soviet Union was NOT Poland.

 

Second: The Wehrmacht's employment of the Panzer units to achieve a blitzkrieg certainly is an exemplary case of tactics fading into oblivion.

 

Third: Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat their mistakes.

 

Its not a tacit that was never used before. What exactly is a Blitzkrieg all it is, is a buzz word used to explain why Germany had military success early on in world war 2. Using heavy units to pave way for lighter ones isn't a lighting war its a military tacit that was commonly used by many nations not just Germany.

 

Like I said most just use Blitzkrieg as a lazy explanation because its quicker to say well Germany used a Blitzkrieg rather than explain the circumstances and other things that led to Germany's early success.

 

And I don't think saying that it was a matter of a good military (numbers wise and technology wise), good circumstances, and good but not revolutionary strategy that led to Germany's success is ignoring history at all, all I am doing is interpreting the history accurately.

[Billistic]

Its not a tacit that was never used before. What exactly is a Blitzkrieg all it is, is a buzz word used to explain why Germany had military success early on in world war 2. Using heavy units to pave way for lighter ones isn't a lighting war its a military tacit that was commonly used by many nations not just Germany.

 

Like I said most just use Blitzkrieg as a lazy explanation because its quicker to say well Germany used a Blitzkrieg rather than explain the circumstances and other things that led to Germany's early success.

 

And I don't think saying that it was a matter of a good military (numbers wise and technology wise), good circumstances, and good but not revolutionary strategy that led to Germany's success is ignoring history at all, all I am doing is interpreting the history accurately.

 

First, the Third Reich, despite its early tactical successes, did not last 1000 years. Some slight hangup regarding lines of re-supply, and fighting simultaneous wars on two fronts or something...

 

Second: Find where I said that the Wehrmacht was the first military organization to use a "blitzkrieg-esque" tactic. BTW, remember Donald Rumsfeld?

 

Third: My point was that the pros/cons ratio for Edwards to complete the first down and take the concussion is about 0.00000001.

[billsfan89]

First, the Third Reich, despite its early tactical successes, did not last 1000 years. Some slight hangup regarding lines of re-supply, and fighting simultaneous wars on two fronts or something...

 

Second: Find where I said that the Wehrmacht was the first military organization to use a "blitzkrieg-esque" tactic. BTW, remember Donald Rumsfeld?

 

Third: My point was that the pros/cons ratio for Edwards to complete the first down and take the concussion is about 0.00000001.

 

Take it easy all I am saying is that there is a lot of common misperceptions about tactics in WW2 and the blitzkrieg. And as far as Edwards goes its football people get injured. Would you trade the completion for Edwards health of course and I don't think anyone here thinks differently.

[K-9]

...Third: My point was that the pros/cons ratio for Edwards to complete the first down and take the concussion is about 0.00000001...

 

You're assuming Edwards should have KNOWN that making the correct read and having a golden opportunity in the form of a safety vacating the middle and throwing for a first down (a SUCCESSFUL play) would have resulted in him getting concussed.

 

You have very sharp hindsight though. That and a death grip on the obvious. Obviously everyone would rather have had to punt than have the starting QB get injured. But this notion that he should have called timeout is absurd. He saw the play, made the play, and got hurt. It happens.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Billistic]

You're assuming Edwards should have KNOWN that making the correct read and having a golden opportunity in the form of a safety vacating the middle and throwing for a first down (a SUCCESSFUL play) would have resulted in him getting concussed.

 

You have very sharp hindsight though. That and a death grip on the obvious. Obviously everyone would rather have had to punt than have the starting QB get injured. But this notion that he should have called timeout is absurd. He saw the play, made the play, and got hurt. It happens.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

OK, then. Let's continue on the path to total scrambling of Edward's brains, and another 2-8 finish to another gloriously successful Bills season!

 

GO BILLS!!!

[billsfan89]

OK, then. Let's continue on the path to total scrambling of Edward's brains, and another 2-8 finish to another gloriously successful Bills season!

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

What the !@#$ are you talking about seriously? The post said Trent was trying to make a play and there was no way he could have known that the play would have resulted in an injury. Its football QB's get hit and I think that you can't play scared and play to avoid getting hit at all costs a QB can never be successful that way.

 

So the path to scrambling Edward's brain is letting him play football?

[Billistic]

What the !@#$ are you talking about seriously? The post said Trent was trying to make a play and there was no way he could have known that the play would have resulted in an injury. Its football QB's get hit and I think that you can't play scared and play to avoid getting hit at all costs a QB can never be successful that way.

 

So the path to scrambling Edward's brain is letting him play football?

 

Edwards had to see that Wilson was coming free. Everybody else did. So he takes a time out, the Bills regroup, and Wilson is neutralized. Maybe the next play is a TD, who knows? Maybe it's a dropped pass? What the eff difference does it make IN THE LONG RUN.

 

To me, it's stupid, not brave, to take a high probability risk on getting your starting QB wrecked.

 

One more time, who didn't see that Wilson was coming untouched?

[K-9]

OK, then. Let's continue on the path to total scrambling of Edward's brains, and another 2-8 finish to another gloriously successful Bills season!

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

Yeah, you're right. He should call timeout everytime he knows he's going to get hurt.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[K-9]

Edwards had to see that Wilson was coming free. Everybody else did. So he takes a time out, the Bills regroup, and Wilson is neutralized. Maybe the next play is a TD, who knows? Maybe it's a dropped pass? What the eff difference does it make IN THE LONG RUN.

 

To me, it's stupid, not brave, to take a high probability risk on getting your starting QB wrecked.

 

One more time, who didn't see that Wilson was coming untouched?

 

One more time: he made the PLAY! Precisely because Wilson WAS COMING! Wilson COMING made the play POSSIBLE! Every good QB in the league PRAYS for that opportunity. He wasn't being brave, he was playing football. Good football. Not the pu**y brand that you want to see. "Oh, I call timeout. Wilson's gonna hurt me. Waah!" Don't work that way. Never has, never will. Get a fricken clue. Or, find an expert that will even CONSIDER your point of view to try and convince me otherwise.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Billistic]

Yeah, you're right. He should call timeout everytime he knows he's going to get hurt.

 

I suppose it never occurred to you that Edwards was one nanosecond away from a Losman type strip/fumble the instant before Adrian whacked him. The Bills were very, very lucky that all they lost was the complete season on that play. Wilson very likely could have pranced into the end zone and made it a 54-whatever game.

[billsfan89]

Edwards had to see that Wilson was coming free. Everybody else did. So he takes a time out, the Bills regroup, and Wilson is neutralized. Maybe the next play is a TD, who knows? Maybe it's a dropped pass? What the eff difference does it make IN THE LONG RUN.

 

To me, it's stupid, not brave, to take a high probability risk on getting your starting QB wrecked.

 

One more time, who didn't see that Wilson was coming untouched?

 

I wasn't there I don't know what Edwards was thinking while he was making the play. Either he thought one of his line men was going to pick him up or that he could get the pass out in time to avoid the hit. I get your thinking but I have a hard time condemning a play that I wasn't on the field for and than speculating what was going on in the head of the players doing it.

 

Its not brave but its not stupid either he didn't know he was going to get hurt or even hit. He made a decision in a split second and it didn't work out because he got hurt. Like I said its football these things happen the moment you start playing to avoid contact and injury the more likely both are to happen. Simply put you would probably be killing Edwards if he played to avoid contact on that play as him playing scared and being a soft QB.

[K-9]

I suppose it never occurred to you that Edwards was one nanosecond away from a Losman type strip/fumble the instant before Adrian whacked him. The Bills were very, very lucky that all they lost was the complete season on that play. Wilson very likely could have pranced into the end zone and made it a 54-whatever game.

 

My God, you love living in a world of what-ifs, don't you?

 

Let me guess, hallucinogens?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Billistic]

I wasn't there I don't know what Edwards was thinking while he was making the play. Either he thought one of his line men was going to pick him up or that he could get the pass out in time to avoid the hit. I get your thinking but I have a hard time condemning a play that I wasn't on the field for and than speculating what was going on in the head of the players doing it.

 

Its not brave but its not stupid either he didn't know he was going to get hurt or even hit. He made a decision in a split second and it didn't work out because he got hurt. Like I said its football these things happen the moment you start playing to avoid contact and injury the more likely both are to happen. Simply put you would probably be killing Edwards if he played to avoid contact on that play as him playing scared and being a soft QB.

 

Well made points.

 

However, who hasn't seen Peyton Manning call a judicious time out when the defense throws him a curve?

[K-9]

Well made points.

 

However, who hasn't seen Peyton Manning call a judicious time out when the defense throws him a curve?

 

What curve did the Cards' defense throw at Edwards? He knew EXACTLY what defense was presented. You keep making the injury some sort of incorrect decision on Edwards' part. Wrong. Just let it go.

 

There was no confusion on his part. No hesitation. He made the read (very Peytonesque, BTW) and made play. By the same token, we've seen Edwards take NUMEROUS timeouts when he sees something he doesn't like. Again, Peytonesque, no? Or are you suggesting that Manning takes timeouts when he 'thinks' he could get hurt?

 

GO BILLS!!!