drinkTHEkoolaid Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 I would be willing to bet 90% of the people complaining about Mckelvin taking the kick out of the endzone are the same people who complain jauron is too conservative. I would be willing to bet had Mckelvin taken a knee like many wish, we would get the ball at our own 20 before the 2min warning, and go 3 and out, punt to the patriots giving them good field position and the fans would flip out complaining about "conservative Jauron playing not to lose again" Well Leodis tried to make something happen, the #1 kick returner, and they went for a win and it didnt work, now all of a sudden he is the most hated guy in town. make up your mind and decide what you want, you can't have it both ways.
bbillsfan87 Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 I would be willing to bet 90% of the people complaining about Mckelvin taking the kick out of the endzone are the same people who complain jauron is too conservative. I would be willing to bet had Mckelvin taken a knee like many wish, we would get the ball at our own 20 before the 2min warning, and go 3 and out, punt to the patriots giving them good field position and the fans would flip out complaining about "conservative Jauron playing not to lose again" Well Leodis tried to make something happen, the #1 kick returner, and they went for a win and it didnt work, now all of a sudden he is the most hated guy in town. make up your mind and decide what you want, you can't have it both ways. well said my friend.
NobesBLO13 Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 I'm just pissed he fumbled, and we lost.
JinWPB Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 I would be willing to bet had Mckelvin taken a knee like many wish, we would get the ball at our own 20 before the 2min warning, and go 3 and out, punt to the patriots giving them good field position and the fans would flip out complaining about "conservative Jauron playing not to lose again" I would have taken a safety and kicked off deep. Worked for Shula.
nucci Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 I'm just pissed he fumbled, and we lost. That pretty much sums it up.
BuckeyeBill Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 I would be willing to bet 90% of the people complaining about Mckelvin taking the kick out of the endzone are the same people who complain jauron is too conservative. I would be willing to bet had Mckelvin taken a knee like many wish, we would get the ball at our own 20 before the 2min warning, and go 3 and out, punt to the patriots giving them good field position and the fans would flip out complaining about "conservative Jauron playing not to lose again" Well Leodis tried to make something happen, the #1 kick returner, and they went for a win and it didnt work, now all of a sudden he is the most hated guy in town. make up your mind and decide what you want, you can't have it both ways. I agree... you play to win. Let him take it out... but Leodis should not have tried for that last yard. Like the announcers said, in that situation, a yard means nothing. As soon as they caught him, and he was being tackled, just fall down and cover the ball with two hands. He had to have known they would try to strip the ball from him. With that said, nobody deserves vandalism. Honestly people... Grow up!
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 Coming out is not the problem, fumbling is....
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 With the hands team in and no wedge to block for him, taking the return back up the middle was not the best course of action either - head for a sideline.
JÂy RÛßeÒ Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 BTW - here's a great pic of Leodis "protecting the ball": http://media.buffalonews.com/smedia/2009/0...ffiliate.50.jpg
Koufax Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 I still think this is a dead horse: Hands team just in case of an onsides....CHECK Running the ball out for field position and clock management....CHECK Protecting the football....FAIL So I think we had good coaching decisions on the play, good decision to run the ball out on the play, bad execution of protecting the football and that killed us. However...for the kneel down crowd: 1) We kneel down and have the ball at the 20 with 2:06 and 3 patriots timeouts 2) 1st and 10, 2:06: We run up the middle, patriots stack the box, we get 2 yards, timeout #1 at 2:01 3) 2nd and 8, 2:01: We run up the middle, pats stack the box, we get 1 yard, two minute warning 4) 3rd and 7, 1:54: We run up the middle, pats stack the box, we get 2 yards, timeout #2 Pats 5) 4th and 4 at our 25, 1:49: We punt the ball 45 yards, 10 return, brady gets the ball at the NE 39 So if we knelt down and couldn't get a first, Brady has the ball with 1:37, one timeout and 60 yards to go instead of 30 and 2:06 and three timeouts. While certainly harder to get a touchdown, we don't have the game locked up without getting a first down. So running it back and not fumbling helps us by using up 6 seconds, gaining 10 yards and costing the Pats their final timeout if we don't get a 1st. Meaning on a three and out they get the ball 10 yards further back, without a timeout, and a few seconds less time. OUR MISTAKE WAS FUMBLING, WHICH IS ALWAYS A MISTAKE!
DC Tom Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 I'm just pissed he fumbled, and we lost. I'm less pissed he fumbled because - as people seem to forget - the tackler made a pretty good play to strip the ball. McKelvin should have protected it better, yes...but it's not like he just dropped the thing in the open field either.
VJ91 Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 I would be willing to bet 90% of the people complaining about Mckelvin taking the kick out of the endzone are the same people who complain jauron is too conservative. I would be willing to bet had Mckelvin taken a knee like many wish, we would get the ball at our own 20 before the 2min warning, and go 3 and out, punt to the patriots giving them good field position and the fans would flip out complaining about "conservative Jauron playing not to lose again" Well Leodis tried to make something happen, the #1 kick returner, and they went for a win and it didnt work, now all of a sudden he is the most hated guy in town. make up your mind and decide what you want, you can't have it both ways. First of all, and this has been beaten to death already, the Bills had zero blocking set up for Leo. They had to have their hands team ready to field an OSK, in case Belicheck chose to go that route. So Bobby April should have screamed specific orders for Leo to down the ball if we were lucky enough for Gosto to kick the ball all the way into the end zone, since there would be zero blocking for Leo if the long kickoff would not have made it that far. Obviously, April forgot to have the quick talk with Leo. Secondly, after deciding against all logic to run the ball out of the end zone, Leo did a nice job making it all the way to the 30. Great. An extra 10 yards to start our "3 and out drive" from, as you say, and an extra 10 yards farther for Moorman's punt to travel. Good job being stupid Leo, you gained an extra 10! But wait, he must have imagined that he had run 101.5 yards instead of just 30, because he was determined to fight for that extra one half yard to make it over the goal line....er...the 30 yard line! Instead of just wrapping both arms around the ball and curling up into the fetus postion to protect the ball and himself the very second a Pat touched him at the 30, the mind boggling idiot was trying to break tackles until of course, one of the Pats ripped the ball out of his stupid arms and forced him to do the one damn thing he could not, fumble the ball away. So your argument falls very lame in this case. Conservative was not only the smart move, but really the only move every one of the 32 head coaches would have gone in the same situation, DJ or no DJ.
NobesBLO13 Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 First of all, and this has been beaten to death already, the Bills had zero blocking set up for Leo. They had to have their hands team ready to field an OSK, in case Belicheck chose to go that route. So Bobby April should have screamed specific orders for Leo to down the ball if we were lucky enough for Gosto to kick the ball all the way into the end zone, since there would be zero blocking for Leo if the long kickoff would not have made it that far. Obviously, April forgot to have the quick talk with Leo. Secondly, after deciding against all logic to run the ball out of the end zone, Leo did a nice job making it all the way to the 30. Great. An extra 10 yards to start our "3 and out drive" from, as you say, and an extra 10 yards farther for Moorman's punt to travel. Good job being stupid Leo, you gained an extra 10! But wait, he must have imagined that he had run 101.5 yards instead of just 30, because he was determined to fight for that extra one half yard to make it over the goal line....er...the 30 yard line! Instead of just wrapping both arms around the ball and curling up into the fetus postion to protect the ball and himself the very second a Pat touched him at the 30, the mind boggling idiot was trying to break tackles until of course, one of the Pats ripped the ball out of his stupid arms and forced him to do the one damn thing he could not, fumble the ball away. So your argument falls very lame in this case. Conservative was not only the smart move, but really the only move every one of the 32 head coaches would have gone in the same situation, DJ or no DJ. Right on!
Cugalabanza Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 BTW - here's a great pic of Leodis "protecting the ball": http://media.buffalonews.com/smedia/2009/0...ffiliate.50.jpg Guilty!
Jerry Jabber Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 Coming out is not the problem, fumbling is....
BuffaloBill Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 First of all, your assertion that McKelvin was trying to "make something happen" to "go for the win" is off base becuase at the time of the play, the Bills were leading the game, with two minutes on the clock. There was ZERO need there to "make a play" or "to make something happen." What was needed in that spot was to protect their lead. Sure...."insurance points" would have been gravy, especially when playing an elite team on the road. But playcalling and attempts at those points that risk losing the lead, such as what McKelvin did, are HIGHLY suspect moves. McKelvin's desire to take it out of the endzone has LITTLE, if ANYTHING to do with the rest of the team playing "aggressively" or not and the coaches applying that mindset. You can be balls-out aggressive while at the same time minimizing the team's risk of something bad like a fumble happenning. At that point of the game, at the "TWM" a whole field to work with and the lead there is ONE GOAL....hold on to the ball and get that clock to show zeros across the baord. And with the team blowing the Pats off the ball the whole second half and the running game going strong, that is not only imperative, but completely realistic. It was NOT thhe time to take risks. You get a chance to score a TD...fine...but you do NOT risk losing that ball in ANY circumstances. Thats football 101 there. And Rosen just NAILED IT...that was something I heard elsewhere, too. Leodis went to make a play with his blocking men OUT of the game and the hand team in, to protect against the onsides kick. So essentially, McKelvin jumped out of the plane without his parachute, to use a metaphor. Thats not "agressive".....thats dumb. Agree entirely ... there is a difference between playing smart and playing conservtive. Ok so he wants to or maybe feels he has to come out of the endzone ... as soon as contact is likely cover the ball with two hands and go down. Then let your offense make an attempt to run the clock out. Conservative might have meant three failed runs up the middle then out (not a good set of calls) less conservative might have been a couple of passes over the middle to TO in order to secure a first down. You can play smart without being "conservative."
Koufax Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 Your entire hypothesis is based on the WROST case scenario, made even less possible by the fact that the Bills did very well running the ball, especially in the second half. No, my explanation is a BREAKDOWN of the worst case scenario and how the runback vs. kneeldown affects that outcome. Anything other than the worst case scenario and we win in either case, and anything other than the worst worst case scenario and there is no fumble in either case. I understand your point, but don't view a three and out as a rare/terrible/unlucky thing that we shouldn't expect. Especially if we commit to the run and not risk an incompletion or sack or int which I think we would have done, and if New England for the first time all game commits to stacking the box instead of double-teaming our receivers. Even with that situation I would try running Freddie three straight times, hoping he can average 3.4 yards and ice it for us, and knowing if that coin comes up tails, we are still in good shape.
reddogblitz Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 Saying that Leodis should have downed it in the EZ is the ultimate in Tuesday Morning QBing. I want a guy returning kicks who is the best in the league to run it out! If he breaks it, game over! I don't know about you, but a 4 point lead with 2:06 to go against Tom Brady makes me very nervous. I've seen him come back from further with less time. I certainly don't want to give them another time out (2:00 warning). We may be able to get a first down maybe not. If he hadn't fumbled would the wiseness or lack thereof of running it out even come up for discussion around here? I think not. You go Leodis. We'll get 'em next time. Go BILLS !!
timba Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 My major beef with both is situational awareness. You HAVE to understand what's going on and how your decisions impact the overall picture.
Armchair GM Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 I would be willing to bet 90% of the people complaining about Mckelvin taking the kick out of the endzone are the same people who complain jauron is too conservative. I would be willing to bet had Mckelvin taken a knee like many wish, we would get the ball at our own 20 before the 2min warning, and go 3 and out, punt to the patriots giving them good field position and the fans would flip out complaining about "conservative Jauron playing not to lose again" Well Leodis tried to make something happen, the #1 kick returner, and they went for a win and it didnt work, now all of a sudden he is the most hated guy in town. make up your mind and decide what you want, you can't have it both ways. YAWN!! This is the kind of crap I can't stand...It's called football sense people!! You have a 5 point lead on the New England mother effing Patriots. 1.) Our previous drive was a nice one...touchdown! 2.) They come back and score to cut that lead to 5. 3.) They decide to kick it deep rather than an onside kick...granted they had all 3 time outs and the 2 min warning, but it's not an obvious passing situation for us. They'll be comming with their ears pinned back, which opens them up to misdirection and screens...which were very successfull all game...we run the clock out, maybe even get into position for a FG & an 8 point lead forcing them to score and go for 2... we ended up stopping twice, plus 2 fourth down stopns earlier...defense came up big on short yardage. Bottom line is, Leodis needs to have much more "common" football sense, instead of his "I'd do it 100 times" lame as comment in the post game! I'm willing to bet we'll be seeing Roscoe back there sooner than later if this keeps up...
Recommended Posts