fairweather fan Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Buffalo endured its third consecutive "Monday Night Football" loss in the final minute. The killer mistake didn't come when Leodis McKelvin ran a kickoff out of the end zone with the Bills ahead by five at the two-minute warning. Sure, the Buffalo "hands""team was in, so McKelvin had no wedge, but he's a good return man. The killer mistake was when McKelvin struggled to try to gain an extra yard after he was under tackle by two Patriots. Get on the ground! He'd brought the ball back to the 31-yard line -- reaching the 32 was completely irrelevant. He's a super-highly-paid first-round-drafted NFL player -- doesn't he know the desperate Patriots will try to strip the ball? Get on the ground! Often all a football team needs to do is the obvious, and things will be fine. Had McKelvin simply gone to the ground once he was hemmed in, Buffalo's chances of victory would have been good. Instead, it's yet another humiliation for a squad that once operated in the NFL's elite. Buffalo lacks the football IQ necessary to win. Easterbrook in his TMQ column in ESPN page 2 The Bills' no-huddle offense only resulted in the Patriots running 29 more offensive plays and holding a 14-minute edge in time of possession. Predictably, this caused the Buffalo defense to tire at the end; Buffalo's defenders played well for the first 55 minutes, then in the final five minutes they surrendered 112 yards and 12 points. The no-huddle is supposed to make the opposing defense tired -- but often it makes your own defense tired, because quick three-and-outs send the defense back onto the field. To compensate for tired pass rushers, Buffalo began blitzing in the final five minutes, and of course you know how that worked out. After a shaky start, the New England offensive line returned to normal form in the second half. After a shaky start, Tom Brady returned to his 2007 form in the fourth quarter and did what smart quarterbacks do -- he took what the defense offered. Buffalo was blitzing linebackers but keeping its safeties deep to prevent a long strike to Randy Moss. That meant the short throws had to be open, and here are the completions by Brady on the Flying Elvii's final two drives: 18 yards, 16, 13, 10, 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 6, 5 and 4. You don't see many dramatic comebacks based on 8-yard flare passes to the tailback. But Brady has football IQ, so he took what worked. And when he recognized that Buffalo blitzing meant tight end Ben Watson was covered by a linebacker, he looked to Watson for both last-minute touchdowns. Every NFL quarterback has a strong arm -- seeing the field and knowing where to put the ball is the greater skill. Brady sure has that.
MRW Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 You know, I see the no huddle get blamed a lot for the TOP disparity. But if the Bills went out, huddled up, and had the same three and outs they had early in the game, how much of a difference would it make? It's fashionable to say that the no huddle is at fault but if Owens/Evans hang on to those passes in the first half, drives stay alive, and TOP is a lot closer. That's not a question of huddling or not.
cliffordhicks Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 You know, I see the no huddle get blamed a lot for the TOP disparity. But if the Bills went out, huddled up, and had the same three and outs they had early in the game, how much of a difference would it make? It's fashionable to say that the no huddle is at fault but if Owens/Evans hang on to those passes in the first half, drives stay alive, and TOP is a lot closer. That's not a question of huddling or not. I think it was the Evans drop... but we punted and then Schobel got the int and td? I think the Evans dropped worked out for us.
MRW Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 I think it was the Evans drop... but we punted and then Schobel got the int and td? I think the Evans dropped worked out for us. Good point, although that also tends to skew things from a TOP perspective.
Tortured Soul Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 It's really lazy on TMQ's part. All he has to do is look at the gamebook to see the Bills were taking up about as much time as they could between plays (if that wasn't obvious from watching the game).
MRW Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 It's really lazy on TMQ's part. All he has to do is look at the gamebook to see the Bills were taking up about as much time as they could between plays (if that wasn't obvious from watching the game). It's not just TMQ (although this sort of off-the-cuff superficial analysis is par for the course for him). I've seen an awful lot of conflation of no-huddle and hurry-up going on.
bruceisloose78 Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 It's really lazy on TMQ's part. All he has to do is look at the gamebook to see the Bills were taking up about as much time as they could between plays (if that wasn't obvious from watching the game). Exactly, The bills ran the play clock as much as the pats did for the most part on offense it had nothing to do with the no huddle. It seems to be the sexy thing to say that the no huddle is the problem.
nucci Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 You know, I see the no huddle get blamed a lot for the TOP disparity. But if the Bills went out, huddled up, and had the same three and outs they had early in the game, how much of a difference would it make? It's fashionable to say that the no huddle is at fault but if Owens/Evans hang on to those passes in the first half, drives stay alive, and TOP is a lot closer. That's not a question of huddling or not. Absolutely correct.
rstencel Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 It's not just TMQ (although this sort of off-the-cuff superficial analysis is par for the course for him). I've seen an awful lot of conflation of no-huddle and hurry-up going on. Its constantly caused time of possession disparity, not sure why that is so confusing to you. Hate the offense, the defense was exhausted by end of 3rd quarter, and No-Huddle has allot to do with that IMO.
Dan Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 If the defense could stop a 3rd down play, they'd be a lot less tired in the 4th quarter. How many long drives did the Pats* have, that the Bills' defense let them have because they can't breakup a 3rd down pass when everyone knows its a pass?
rstencel Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 It's not just TMQ (although this sort of off-the-cuff superficial analysis is par for the course for him). I've seen an awful lot of conflation of no-huddle and hurry-up going on. Its not confusion, the No-Huddle and hurry up are not the same offense. Only similarities are that they run plays faster, and they get your defense on field faster. The Hurry up doesn't stand over the ball as long as hurry up, and ignores the running game, so its different in those regards for sure. If you cant constantly move the ball and run a no-huddle, this is what games look like time of possession wise. Actually think this will be one of higher time of possessions bills with have this year against the better teams, and think the Bills defense played way over their heads most of the game to keep them in it with that pop gun attack.
billsfaningeneseo Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Someone tell me why the no-huddle hurts our time of possession if the Bills don't actually snap the ball until 2-6 seconds before they must (like they did many times last night)...just like they would if they huddled? Isn't one of the major points of the no-huddle to give Trent time to get a read on the defense and be able to change into the play he wants. If the bills line up but don't actually snap the ball until say 4 seconds left, how is that different than coming out of the huddle and snapping with 4 seconds left??
rstencel Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 If the defense could stop a 3rd down play, they'd be a lot less tired in the 4th quarter. How many long drives did the Pats* have, that the Bills' defense let them have because they can't breakup a 3rd down pass when everyone knows its a pass? They did stop them most of first half. The 3rd quarter started waring down, and were dead by 4th. Cant completely blame them not being able to get off the field on them. There's only so long you can expect an undersized defense to keep a pass rush going if leave them on the field most of game.
MRW Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Its not confusion, the No-Huddle and hurry up are not the same offense. Only similarities are that they run plays faster, and they get your defense on field faster. The Hurry up doesn't stand over the ball as long as hurry up, and ignores the running game, so its different in those regards for sure. If you cant constantly move the ball and run a no-huddle, this is what games look like time of possession wise. Actually think this will be one of higher time of possessions bills with have this year against the better teams, and think the Bills defense played way over their heads most of the game to keep them in it with that pop gun attack. I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying here (or in your previous post). I stand by my original comments, most people I see commenting on the offense seem to use no-huddle when what they really mean is hurry-up (which the Bills were not running). The potential problems with a no-huddle are not the same as the problems with a hurry-up and do not inherently cause TOP problems.
rstencel Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Someone tell me why the no-huddle hurts our time of possession if the Bills don't actually snap the ball until 2-6 seconds before they must (like they did many times last night)...just like they would if they huddled? Isn't one of the major points of the no-huddle to give Trent time to get a read on the defense and be able to change into the play he wants. If the bills line up but don't actually snap the ball until say 4 seconds left, how is that different than coming out of the huddle and snapping with 4 seconds left?? Its true that on a hand full of plays they let clock run down, but was rare that they let clock run very long. Its not just this offense, on average teams that run No-Huddle, and I don't mean hurry up dang it, run plays 10 seconds quicker than teams that huddle approximately, and their opponents run 10 more plays on offense. If your running an undersized defense, that adds up over course of year. If you compair a minute portion of plays, can make it look any way you want, but if look at bottom line, will see time of possession skewed to other teams advantage most of the time.
rstencel Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 I'm sorry, I can't make heads or tails of what you're saying here (or in your previous post). I stand by my original comments, most people I see commenting on the offense seem to use no-huddle when what they really mean is hurry-up (which the Bills were not running). The potential problems with a no-huddle are not the same as the problems with a hurry-up and do not inherently cause TOP problems. Not sure why your so focused on Hurry up. No I am not looking at hurry up. Not looking at hurry up, and still not looking at hurry up. Does that help? Yes they're are inherent problems with running plays quick, and No not thinking hurry up. You hike the ball quicker on average, and tend to get more 3 and outs, and not I am not thinking hurry up, since that actually tends to get less 3 and outs, since defenses play that differently. There are very few teams that run the No-Huddle only, but just looking at cases where no huddle was run by teams over 70 percent of time, doesn't look good for time of possession. My calculations have them at 25.4 minutes on average on games that were close, 23.1 minutes on games they lost, and 28 minutes on games they won. Colts had most of the victories on this list, but even with their consistent offense, the time of possession isn't great when run No-Huddle most of game.
Dan Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 They did stop them most of first half. The 3rd quarter started waring down, and were dead by 4th. Cant completely blame them not being able to get off the field on them. There's only so long you can expect an undersized defense to keep a pass rush going if leave them on the field most of game. 1st quarter. Pats* 2nd drive was 13 plays, 6 mins, resulted in missed field goal. 2nd quarter. Pats* 4th drive was 14 plays, 7 mins, resulted in touchdown. Pats* 6th drive (5th one was Schobel's pick 6) was 10 plays, 3.5 mins, resulted in fieldgoal (and halftime). So, half of their 1st half drives were long. And their 1st and 3rd drive was stopped on 4th down. Pretty much bad 3rd down play. My point, being if they could have stopped 2 of those drives short, the TOP is vastly improved for Buffalo. They've got to improve their 3rd down defense. The defense can do a lot to help with their late game fatigue all on their own if they could just stop the other offense once in a while. It's just that simple.
rstencel Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 1st quarter. Pats* 2nd drive was 13 plays, 6 mins, resulted in missed field goal. 2nd quarter. Pats* 4th drive was 14 plays, 7 mins, resulted in touchdown. Pats* 6th drive (5th one was Schobel's pick 6) was 10 plays, 3.5 mins, resulted in fieldgoal (and halftime). So, half of their 1st half drives were long. And their 1st and 3rd drive was stopped on 4th down. Pretty much bad 3rd down play. My point, being if they could have stopped 2 of those drives short, the TOP is vastly improved for Buffalo. They've got to improve their 3rd down defense. The defense can do a lot to help with their late game fatigue all on their own if they could just stop the other offense once in a while. It's just that simple. True they need to improve, 10 of 16 isn't where they want to be. But they were 50 percent in first half from what I remember, and 75 percent in 2nd, so they weren't bad in first overall, although weren't great. But they stunk in 2nd half. The type of defense they play is going to allow allot of short passes though, so that contributes to time of possession woes just as much as offense does. If Bills can run allot of 6-9 play drives more often on their non scoring drives to go along with scoring drives, things even out however, that is of course if they take 35 seconds between plays on average, rather than 25ish, like a normal offense. Basically that is why I don't like this type of offense. Bills need to keep their defenses exposure to a minimum to be successful IMO, because they are so undersized.
Wraith Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Its true that on a hand full of plays they let clock run down, but was rare that they let clock run very long. You are very wrong about this. The Bill's routinely let the clock get under 5 seconds, just as if they had huddled.
rstencel Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 You are very wrong about this. The Bill's routinely let the clock get under 5 seconds, just as if they had huddled. In 4th quarter I believe you, but early in game that's not what I was seeing. There was 16-24 seconds on the play clock quite frequently when they snapped the ball, but they usually didn't overlay the clock on the field until it dropped under 10 seconds usually, so unless was watching for it, wasn't necessarily evident. Course since I was focused on it, is possible memory isn't right on that. Until the Bills show they can win the time of possession battle however, going to have a tough time convincing me that No-Huddle doesn't affect that stat, since everything I have been able to gather stat wise seems to back that theory. It is a theory however, so take it for what its worth.
Recommended Posts