colin Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 wood was just god awful this week, and hanggartner was prolly too hurt to be out there really
EC-Bills Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 It's an ambiguous call. With the defense and offense playing the way they were to that point (well and poorly, respectively)...it's the call I would have made. Put the ball at midfield, same down-and-distance...that's another story. Bingo. Besides you know with the folks here that if the 4th and 1 attempt failed in our area they would bitching about that as well.
Fan in Chicago Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 What do you see when you watch football games? Did you or did you not watch the OTs get slaughtered on passing downs? I am NOT trying to be a wiseass. Did you notice this at all? Yes the tackles are not very good at this point but I thought Scott did an adequate job. We were running double tight end sets to give additional help. What about the times when when Trent did have adequate time to throw ? What about attempting to stretch the field especially when on those last few drives ? last year we kept complaining that there are not adequate receivers to take pressure off of Evans. This year we added TO so we really do have a good receiving corps with Evans and TO for the medium to deep stuff and Reed as a slot receiver. Yet we cannot get the ball to them. All the passing action happens in a 5-10 yard part from the line of scrimmage. teams are going to stack the box when there is such a low probability of us challenging them deep. Then the inexperienced tackles are going to look even more inadequate.
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Bingo. Besides you know with the folks here that if the 4th and 1 attempt failed in our area they would bitching about that as well. NO. There was one obvious decision to make. Down by 10 with 7:41 to go, YOU GO FOR 4th and 1!!! Even my wife was going ballistic. That was a no-brainer and a perfect illustration of why Dick is a career LOSER!
Dan Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 NO. There was one obvious decision to make. Down by 10 with 7:41 to go, YOU GO FOR 4th and 1!!! Even my wife was going ballistic. That was a no-brainer and a perfect illustration of why Dick is a career LOSER! Exactly. Even if you consider your defense does their job and forces a 3 and out. That gives you the ball back with under 6minutes (more or less). So now you're essentially putting yourself in a position to drive the field and score - something they hadn't done all day. On side kick, get it, and then score again. Bottomline, we needed that drive at that point. It was critical to move the ball and get some points. But, we punted the game away in hopes we could play the final 5-6 minutes to perfection.
jtl3302 Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 don't know what happened to our ST's. bad special teams(penalties) = poor field position. That killed us today!
Fan in Chicago Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Exactly. Even if you consider your defense does their job and forces a 3 and out. That gives you the ball back with under 6minutes (more or less). So now you're essentially putting yourself in a position to drive the field and score - something they hadn't done all day. On side kick, get it, and then score again. Bottomline, we needed that drive at that point. It was critical to move the ball and get some points. But, we punted the game away in hopes we could play the final 5-6 minutes to perfection. Considering the way the O was playing, going for it on 4th and 1 ran the high risk of losing the possession and allowing the Saints (who were hot by now) to cover the short field, score and put the game away. It was a safer choice to try allowing the D to get the ball back for the O with respectable field position. The O was sucking so badly that it totally limited the choices at that point of the game. I am no fan of DJ but I can't fault him for that call.
Pilsner Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 The 4th qtr punt is about making the opponent have to drive down the field and earn a score opposed to hading them a gimme with great field position. While I don't like the end result of NO scoring, it was the right call. I respectfully disagree. It was the wrong call. Punting is appropriate on some occasions. But due to the facts that we didn't have much time left on the clock And NO's Offense being able to move the ball, it was not an advisable call to punt. NO would have milked the clock while they moved down the field on our TIRED worn out defense. Our D showed their courage but they were well worn out by this point. If we had more time on the clock then yes, punting might have been ok. But considering all the factors, no, wrong choice in my opinion. I cannot express this point enough. I've seen it first hand...and i've seen it too many times in games.
Bill from NYC Posted September 28, 2009 Author Posted September 28, 2009 Yes the tackles are not very good at this point but I thought Scott did an adequate job. You seem like a very good guy, and i consider you an asset to this board. That said, the above was just so outrageous that there really is not much I can say in response. GO BILLS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Dan Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Considering the way the O was playing, going for it on 4th and 1 ran the high risk of losing the possession and allowing the Saints (who were hot by now) to cover the short field, score and put the game away. It was a safer choice to try allowing the D to get the ball back for the O with respectable field position. The O was sucking so badly that it totally limited the choices at that point of the game. I am no fan of DJ but I can't fault him for that call. Agreed it was a risky call. No doubt about it. But, it was the only way you could take control of the game. Giving the ball back to a high powered offense late in the 4th quarter more often than not gives them the game. If all we needed was 1 score, I'd agree.. punt it. But we needed 2 scores and time was running out. IMO, you're left with a bad choice and a worse choice. Take the bad one and go for it.
Pilsner Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Bingo. Besides you know with the folks here that if the 4th and 1 attempt failed in our area they would bitching about that as well. If 4th and 1 failed, it would still be the right call. Cause any other call would have been putting up the white flag. At least if we went for it we would know our HC had balls and our O would have rallied behind him if we made it or not. At least we would have tried.
truth on hold Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Considering the way the O was playing, going for it on 4th and 1 ran the high risk of losing the possession and allowing the Saints (who were hot by now) to cover the short field, score and put the game away. It was a safer choice to try allowing the D to get the ball back for the O with respectable field position. The O was sucking so badly that it totally limited the choices at that point of the game. I am no fan of DJ but I can't fault him for that call. WRONG. the Saints were starting to move the ball more effectively on the Bills defense and it was clear they couldnt withstand another 3 and out from the offense. it doesnt matter where the Saints get the ball at that point, anywhere on the field and the Bills lose. AND THATS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
EC-Bills Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 I respectfully disagree. It was the wrong call. Punting is appropriate on some occasions. But due to the facts that we didn't have much time left on the clock And NO's Offense being able to move the ball, it was not an advisable call to punt. NO would have milked the clock while they moved down the field on our TIRED worn out defense. Our D showed their courage but they were well worn out by this point. If we had more time on the clock then yes, punting might have been ok. But considering all the factors, no, wrong choice in my opinion. I cannot express this point enough. I've seen it first hand...and i've seen it too many times in games. We had 7 minutes left with 2-3 timeouts left. That was plenty of time.
Pilsner Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Considering the way the O was playing, going for it on 4th and 1 ran the high risk of losing the possession and allowing the Saints (who were hot by now) to cover the short field, score and put the game away. It was a safer choice to try allowing the D to get the ball back for the O with respectable field position. The O was sucking so badly that it totally limited the choices at that point of the game. I am no fan of DJ but I can't fault him for that call. NO offense would have milked down the clock. Even if we got the ball back, we wouldn't have enough time to score enough points to win. It's a game of calculated risks and percentages. Our best bet percentage-wise was to go for it.
Pilsner Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 We had 7 minutes left with 2-3 timeouts left. That was plenty of time. Not plenty of time because the Saints were moving the ball on us. AND our offense was struggling. By the time we got the ball back (either by punt return or after NO scored, we would have much less time to come back). If NO had no offense, and our D was NOT tired, then we might have time. Consider all the factors besides just time left on the clock. There are many things to consider.
truth on hold Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Not plenty of time because the Saints were moving the ball on us. AND our offense was struggling. By the time we got the ball back (either by punt return or after NO scored, we would have much less time to come back). If NO had no offense, and our D was NOT tired, then we might have time. Consider all the factors besides just time left on the clock. There are many things to consider. jauron has a demonstrated inability to think clearly at times like this. he really needs to go. seriously
BillsVet Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Where are the fans who thought DJ would change when he kept his job about 9 months ago? Hmm? He is what he's always been and does anyone want to admit they figured DJ would improve in his 9th NFL season? He has not nor will he change...EVER.
EC-Bills Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Not plenty of time because the Saints were moving the ball on us. AND our offense was struggling. By the time we got the ball back (either by punt return or after NO scored, we would have much less time to come back). If NO had no offense, and our D was NOT tired, then we might have time. Consider all the factors besides just time left on the clock. There are many things to consider. All the factors? Okay, NO could have had a 3 and out, they could have turned the ball over. Did they? No, but I did consider all the factors aside from time.
cåblelady Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 what-the-!@#$-ever. Trent Edwards is Kelly Holcomb, only younger. He sucks on ice. Hell he sucks NOT on ice. He sucks like a porn star in a bukake video. He is a steaming soft pile of crap back there, and that's an insult to steaming soft piles of crap. What other NFL QB would check down on a freaking 4th-and-forever late in the 4th? I know one who does ALL THE TIME! It's Captain "Dinky" Checkdown, that's who. (Thanks to the Dingo for that one.)
BLZFAN4LIFE Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Where are the fans who thought DJ would change when he kept his job about 9 months ago? Hmm? He is what he's always been and does anyone want to admit they figured DJ would improve in his 9th NFL season? He has not nor will he change...EVER. No doubt. I was lambasted and censored for my outrage at Dick's retention. Just another example of the very long list of issues that I end up being right about.
Recommended Posts