rstencel

You go.

Yeah that is a good point. Although if your a marginal free agent looking for a big payday maybe it helps them look at Buffalo. Can sign with them for more money than other teams are offering, and get bonus based on 5 year contract, but only have to play out 2 years of it tops, then get another bonus, sign me up

Doubt next coach will be a former HC, most like will come from the coordinators ranks. Wouldn't be shocked if it was April.

Yeah, missing Pos isn't a small thing, considering lack of depth at LB, including some of starters.

Think stout is a little strong, but did have a good game against the run. He isnt bad in coverage in short zone, but shouldnt be following anybody deep. Wouldn't mind seeing them pick up Chris Draft. He is not all pro, but is not a bad player.

True, that fumble was very damaging, especially do the defense. After they long drive where they gave up a TD they had to come right back out, not only tired, but still probably smarting from last one.

How about no pass rush in 4th quarter when they needed it. They were sucking wind pretty bad by end of 3rd quarter, didn't look like they had much left in 4th. If they would have kept the pressure on Brady, he probably doesn't get so comfortable and they don't have time to run deep plays over the middle like the scores they put on us. No huddle and lack of 3rd down defense both contributed to that, as well as lack of consistent offense throughout game. Other than screen/draw game, the offense dint have many plays that worked very often. 2 fumbles in one game by same return man wasn't pretty either. Do wish they would have pulled out one of those screens after the completion to TO, to slow down the Pats pass rush on that last drive however.

Exactly.

There is some truth to that, that even a team as successful as the Colts loose the time of possession battle more often than not, and they win allot more than they loose when they run it. Would take their record over the year they been doing it over ours any day But they definitely move the ball and had allot of drives, but they still lost time of possession most of the time, so while they prove that the offense can work, and win allot of games, as same time back up my statements of running no huddle hurts your time of possession, but who would care if we had that kind of record.

I don't get what you are basing you theory of No Huddle doesn't have affect on how fast plays are run. Its true that sometime they wait and audible and plays take as long, but is also true that often they don't. I have spent weeks collecting data during the offseason and cant find any data that shows that teams running the no huddle don't run plays faster. The total plays run in game are higher, and their time of possession is more often than not lower. Doesn't mean they loose the games do to it, but does mean more plays are run during the course of game on average. And there are rules that allow them to substitute if you have. So whenever you run someone out, you have to allow them time to run someone out to counter it. So while you are right there are some advantages as far as limiting substitution, the disadvantages of not huddling out way them IMO. Not sure why have to resort to name calling however. Yes I repeated multiple times not talking about hurry up, but that was only because you seem to be hung up on that for some reason. As far as not having ability to understand simple concepts, I hardily disagree. There is a ton of data that goes against your argument, as far as time of possession goes. I am not saying that the No-Huddle cant be affective if run efficiently. I am saying I don't think this team can run it that way. I am of opinion they should shorten the games not lengthen them, due to personnel they have. They have a very undersized defense, and the longer they are out there, the more worn down they get, and more likely that other team will be successful against them.

They did seem to be allot more deliberate on that drive. Did look to me like they were concentrating on taking time off the clock on that drive. If every drive was that deliberate, and they took that much time between snaps, wouldn't be so down on it, most likely. I think they have a better offense than last year, and they won the TOP battle several times last year, even with allot of 3 and outs. If they can show they can do the same with this offense then they will convince me, however I don't see it happening. There will always be specifics can point to as to why, but until they show it on field, I will keep coming back to it most likely. The Patriots weren't great in first half at converting first downs compared to 2nds half if remember it right. I feel if the Bills had been able to give their defense more rest in first 3 quarters, their pass rush in 4th quarter wouldn't have been so non existent, and they wouldn't have marched down the field so easily. I know if they would have converted more 3rd downs wouldn't have had to worry. I feel if they were huddling they would have. Do you think TO would have been catch-less in first half if they were huddling. I think that if they were huddling, the receivers would have been able to make adjustments between plays, due to being able to get on same page with QB, and they would have been more consistent. It is all theory though, and it may have actually been worse.

Agree with what you said, but that play was like the 2nd play of that drive, wasn't it? The fumble at end had more to do with than that, but at start of 3rd quarter was already way off skew.

And that is a good point. I just feel the No-Huddle leads to that type of disparity. Its only a minute or two different per drive in itself, but the extra couple of minute the defense looses in rest between trips to the field adds up over course of game, and leads to defenses tiring out late in games, where the disparity in time of possession gets compounded. Plus feel the No-Huddle isn't type of offense that leads to allot of sustained drives, so that is where think that the offense is at fault mostly.

Well if they cant move the ball either way, there not going to win many games anyway. So if think they are still that bad, doesn't really matter what type of offense they run. I just feel like they have potential to be more consistent now the they actually have 2 good WR's and a capable TE. Last year they had 1 good WR and an extra blocker playing TE.

Right, its not just the offense. I think the defense not getting time to rest between times on field is main cause for time of possession however. There are going to be specific reasons from game to game that offense can use as to why each drive failed, and if they clean them up and keep improving every week, they may be able to make it successful. However I just don't feel like they have the personnel to run this team successfully enough to be able to win time of possession battle, and with it their share of games. Not just talking offense but defense, due to fact they are undersized and rely on speed an penetration so much. As far as the sustained drives that we didn't have. that is problem with this type of offense IMO. There aren't allot of long time consuming drives. Its either quick score of get off the field quick. And no I don't feel that way because comparing it to Hurry Up. More mental thing I think, where players are on the line so much that they get desperation feeling on every play, rather than going to huddle and calming down between plays. I do hope I am wrong, but that what I think.

Tell you what, if the Bills can win one time of position battle with any team that will finish with a winning record, I will conced that the No-Huddle doesn't have much of an affect on it. Till then however I am sticking with my theory on it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Do think they should have had someone else back for that final kick. I know he is a great return man, but he had already had one fumble in the game, and he was already winded from defense being on the field most of the game. They should have put someone fresh to handle that finial kick IMO, but the whole hind site blah blah.

While Bills had the lead for most of game, they weren't consistent on offense except on screens, and they wore out on defense. The Pats had 77 plays and 441 total yards compared to 48 for 276, so its not like the Pats weren't moving the ball most of the game, and the Bills were moving it consistently. Bills played a good game, but I don't think they outplayed the Pats in any area. They just held their own till defense ran out of gas, which is an improvement, but we need to improve in the final score.