AnthonyF Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 I know it is just a number and there are many here who have more interest in winning then enjoyable football, but it is a telling stat for a team that has a losing record. Sure the Giants didn't need to throw for 300 yesterday to beat TB, and some games we really did not big offensive #'s, but wouldn't it be nice to watch a fun exciting offensive team. How much fun would it be to score 34 points a game on offense on a regular basis? I watch football to be entertained and we have not seen many games we truly would call entertaining in a while.
BuffaloBill Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 I know it is just a number and there are many here who have more interest in winning then enjoyable football, but it is a telling stat for a team that has a losing record. Sure the Giants didn't need to throw for 300 yesterday to beat TB, and some games we really did not big offensive #'s, but wouldn't it be nice to watch a fun exciting offensive team. How much fun would it be to score 34 points a game on offense on a regular basis? I watch football to be entertained and we have not seen many games we truly would call entertaining in a while. I don't think that throwing for three hundred is in and of itself meaningful. Sometimes when you have those numbers it is because you are trying to play catch up while the other team is in "prevent" mode. What means more to me is having the ability to throw 300 yards when you need to. Yesterday Trent needed to be able to throw for 300 and clearly could not nor did not.
Brand J Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 That stat is disgusting and should easily be accomplished with the personnel we have on the field. Someone is not gettin it done...
BarkLessWagMore Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Maybe that stat isn't necessarily telling on a game by game basis, but to not accomplish it once in two and a half seasons is just pathetic. It really is evidence, along with Dickie J's sterling 2-23 record against winning teams, of the futility of this franchise. It's all very depressing.
AnthonyF Posted September 28, 2009 Author Posted September 28, 2009 I don't think that throwing for three hundred is in and of itself meaningful. Sometimes when you have those numbers it is because you are trying to play catch up while the other team is in "prevent" mode. What means more to me is having the ability to throw 300 yards when you need to. Yesterday Trent needed to be able to throw for 300 and clearly could not nor did not. We can't do it when the other team is in prevent mode and there have been plenty of teams in prevent mode against buffalo over those 39 games. I have commented that I'd like to see a 300 yard game, and don't think that is asking too much of a decent QB/team. Think if the Bills have gone 39 games without a rusher gaining 100 yards in a game. Yesterday there were 8 300 yard passers and only 4 rushers over 100 yards.
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Just about any team can get 300 yards...even someone like Tyler Thigpen can do that... I guess the one QB that simply can't throw for more yardage than Edwards would be J. Russell in Oakland. that guy is even more mindboggling. J. Russell, 9-35, 42 yds, 2 int.
Paup 1995MVP Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Maybe that stat isn't necessarily telling on a game by game basis, but to not accomplish it once in two and a half seasons is just pathetic. It really is evidence, along with Dickie J's sterling 2-23 record against winning teams, of the futility of this franchise. It's all very depressing. These two stats tell it all about how bad this team has been and continues to be under Dick Jauron. The look on his face at the end of yesterday's game said it all. He looked like he knew he was about to get canned. We can only hope. Why not fire him today? Does anybody really think we can turn this around with DJ? He has had over three seasons. We played about as bad an offensive game as you can play at home against a mediocre defense. Miami's defense is going to be all over us next week. I could see TE going down very hard. At least than we get Fitzpatrick who could possibly give us a spark.
mikey98277 Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Although it is nice to have a running game and not to have the need to throw for 300 yards everygame, once would be nice to show that he is a viable option at QB in the NFL, as the greats do it often, the good do it sometimes, the average do it a few times, and TE = 0, so what does that say.
stuckincincy Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 I know it is just a number and there are many here who have more interest in winning then enjoyable football, but it is a telling stat for a team that has a losing record. Sure the Giants didn't need to throw for 300 yesterday to beat TB, and some games we really did not big offensive #'s, but wouldn't it be nice to watch a fun exciting offensive team. How much fun would it be to score 34 points a game on offense on a regular basis? I watch football to be entertained and we have not seen many games we truly would call entertaining in a while. Wow - I don't know or care to go and hunt - but going that long without a 300 yard pass game is likely unique.
Erik Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 We couldn't even get one 300 yard game with Losman? Maybe it is the staff and not the personnel...
Sisyphean Bills Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 How many 300 yard games does Trent have? How many times has he thrown for multiple touchdowns in a single game?
Brand J Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 We couldn't even get one 300 yard game with Losman? Maybe it is the staff and not the personnel... If I remember correctly, Losman had a few 300 yd games...
Brand J Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 How many 300 yard games does Trent have? How many times has he thrown for multiple touchdowns in a single game? 0 Very few (under 10)
AnthonyF Posted September 28, 2009 Author Posted September 28, 2009 We couldn't even get one 300 yard game with Losman? Maybe it is the staff and not the personnel... No, we got at least 2 with Losman, the last being vs. Houston approximately 340 yards..... Point is that it is ridiculous to go that long. As said I compare it to a 100 yard rusher, which I know the purists on here will expound on over and over....
tonyd19 Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Hey I'm new to the boards, but have been a life long Bills fan on the west coast and thought I could add some perspective from outside Western New York. Last year all anyone talked about is how there was no way T.E could get the ball to Lee Evans because he was double covered every game. This year, after the first game the excuse was "both T.O and L.E were double covered all game." This is Bull ****. Trent is playing scared and so is the coaching staff. The fact that they have not been able to open the offense up for over three seasons on a consistent basis shows a complete lack of ability and trust from the coaching staff. T.E plays like a scared little girl....Tell me Brett Favre, Payton Manning, Jay Cutler, Phillip Rivers, Drew Brees, Carson Plamer, Kurt Warner, etc would have any issues dropping 20 yard pass plays in with the receivers and other play makers we have. The excuses IE: we played against a really good defense this week, or everyone was double covered every play..... are getting old really fast. Good Quarterbacks find a way to make things happen and get their play makers the ball. Good coaches find ways to maximize the talent they have. Unfortunately we have neither.
Tcali Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 I don't think that throwing for three hundred is in and of itself meaningful. Sometimes when you have those numbers it is because you are trying to play catch up while the other team is in "prevent" mode. What means more to me is having the ability to throw 300 yards when you need to. Yesterday Trent needed to be able to throw for 300 and clearly could not nor did not. right on the money BB.
JohnC Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 Maybe that stat isn't necessarily telling on a game by game basis, but to not accomplish it once in two and a half seasons is just pathetic. It really is evidence, along with Dickie J's sterling 2-23 record against winning teams, of the futility of this franchise. It's all very depressing. The backup qb for the Eagles, Kolb, substituting for the injured McNabb, threw for over 300 yds in both of the games he started. The happiest player on the Eagles must be Jason Peters. He signed a lucrative market rate contract and he is playing on a playoff team. Neither of which would have transpired if he stayed with the losing Bills.
Alphadawg7 Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 I know it is just a number and there are many here who have more interest in winning then enjoyable football, but it is a telling stat for a team that has a losing record. Sure the Giants didn't need to throw for 300 yesterday to beat TB, and some games we really did not big offensive #'s, but wouldn't it be nice to watch a fun exciting offensive team. How much fun would it be to score 34 points a game on offense on a regular basis? I watch football to be entertained and we have not seen many games we truly would call entertaining in a while. Do you know how many 300 yard games Trent has passed for in college and pros combined? Answer = ONE, and it was early in his college career at Stanford... This kid hasnt been a playmaker since high school.
Alphadawg7 Posted September 28, 2009 Posted September 28, 2009 0 Very few (under 10) Zero And the correct answer is a whopping 6 times on the TD question...
crazyDingo Posted September 29, 2009 Posted September 29, 2009 Stand back, I am a Mathematical wizard and trained stuntman. 300 yards at 3 yards per completion...carry the one... That would take Dinky 2 seasons.
Recommended Posts