eSJayDee

Looking at the stats, we pretty well beat them across the board. We even held them 1-7 on 3rd downs and converted 7-14 ourselves. Watching the game, I felt we dominated until the end. One wonders how you only lead 3-0 at the half after that performance. Anbyway, back to my point - the one stat that is indicative of why we lost. Red Zone efficiency. Bills 0-3, Patsies 2-2.

I remember way back when I saw Halloween at the theater when it came out on Halloween. Good movie, but didn't do a thing for/to me. Went to a friends house & saw Phantasm on cable; scared the excrement outta me. Running home & kept looking over my shoulder afraid some weird tall lanky guy would be chasing me yelling, "Boy".

You've got a point that we really shouldn't be alarmed that we haven't had a 300 yard passes in years. To some extent, it's a good thing. Also, since there's usually only 2 or 3 a week, it probably isn't that much of a statistical aberration. What is VERY disturbing, however is that we haven't had a 200 yard passer in like 11 games. That's gotta be indicative of a bad passing offense, especially since we've lost roughly 1/2 those games.

I believe typically the 'film' that opposing players see of their opponents is only of the actual play (this was why teams way back when were taken by the pace of our no-huddle) not any pre-play. Granted, for example, to some extent a DL who is going to drop back in coverage might be prone to leaning backwards rather than forward (much like OL can tip off run or pass) but I don't think opponents are going to get much of an opportunity to see these things. You might well have a valid point that we've exhausted our playbook (guess LeBeau only left Gray so much) and they've seen all that we can or might throw at them. I tend to think that the problem lies in 2 areas. 1) our defensive plan yields excellent results against poor offenses (we played quite a few last year) but is merely mediocre at best against better teams and 2) several of our key contributors are at a point in their careers where their play is far more likely to decline rather than improve.

I think the theory is that since there's no safety help (they're blitzing &/or covering LBs spots) that if they connect on a pass & the CB is beaten & is playing too close, it's a TD. I surmise that the theory/hope is that the blitz is successful & even if they attempt a short pass, the QB won't have anytime & is therefore likely to be off target. Of course, if the blitz isn't successful...

I don't think I've seen this yet, but what about... Jerry's kids

I think our worse defensive production can be explained largely by 2 things: 1) The design of our overly aggressive defense is such that it can really beat up on poor teams but is susceptable to better offenses. Last years #s were greatly padded by the fact that we played some pretty poor offenses w/ downright lame QBs. 2) I mentioned this in the pre-season as a possible concern & unfortunately, I'm beginning to think it might be true - our dee is in decline due to many contributors being on the wrong side of the career hill. Our 3 starting LBs (meaning Spikes), Fat Sam & our 2 safeties could all be in decline. Not much, but it doesn't take much to make the difference between being successful & failing on a play.

Unfortunately, there's several terms in football that aren't accurate. A reverse is usually an end around; I don't ever recall seeing an actual double reverse (unless what you consider what McGee does on KO returns ) A couple of weeks ago, the announcer referred to a pump-fake followed by a delayed handoff as a Statue of Liberty. For that matter, when did 'defense' ever become a verb? I could probably think of more, this is just what's off the top of my head.

Free kicks after a safety are from the 20, so it's only a gain of about 10 yards. But you do have the advantage that he doesn't need to rush the punt. Also, as I mentioned w/ respect to killing more time, I assume Free kicks are like KOs in that w/ less than 2 minutes left, the clock won't start until after thew receiver has touched the ball, so the question is can Moorman waste more than the 5 or so seconds that he'll lose in hangtime. (I wish my dog hadn't eaten most of my rule book.) I think it (taking the safety) was the prudent move, but not doing so is not what I would consider a blunder, merely an imprudent choice.

Yes. At least once the week after the game & sometimes once during the off-season. I think a lot of people on this board do the same.

Just finished rEWATCHING THE GAME, & I recall wondering this at the time. There was 30 seconds left, Moorman was going to be punting from about his 10 & we were up by 6. Why not take the intentional safety? We'd gain about 10 yards, allow Moorman to not rush his kick & eliminate any chance of a block or other mess up. Additionally, we could have burned a few extra seconds off the clock. (I assume on the ensuing free kick, the clock wouldn't start until Mia fielded the kick so the extra time expended would be minimal as you'd lose the ~5 seconds of hangtime.)

re:5a Chandler was his fav target during the 70s (I see you have him listed below). He wasn't much of an athlete, but he had awesome hands & was very productive. One of my all-time fav players. RIP. Also, Jerry Butler. He was amazingly gifted. Unfortunately, a couple of serious injuries limited him.

I just noticed that I could almost count Moorman's eyelashes. They just switched to HD broadcast (channel 6, WRGB I think? in Albany). I can only assume it was a local station problem.

I'm viewing it via 'digital' cable (TW) & the game isn't wide screen. (I also tried it OTA to no avail). The pic isn't the typically awesome clear pic that one normally gets w/ HD either. Anyone else getting it okay?

LOL. My personal opinion, some of the greatest comedy ever. I think the scene trying to cross the moat is the probably the best physical comedy ever.

As opposed to wrecked on reefer?

Isn't that supposed to be the other way around?

I saw a factoid from years ago which, from what I understand is no longer true, but it gives you an idea of how this arises. An average NFL team has about 10 full time college scouts. At the time, the Bills had 13. The Bungles had 3! Their scouting was done primarily by the asst. coaches. Don't they have other duties that keep them kinda busy? On the opposite side of the coin, 1st I'd like to point out that 'never heard of' might not truly be literal. Even if it is, imagine that a 3rd string QB on a team such as USC is what like maybe their 60th most likely player to make it in the NFL. I think in most cases, it's more beneficial to scout say the 5 most likely players from places such as East Polukaville. Scouts only have so many days to visit campuses and a very limited amount of time at each visit. I could see that in the midst of so many other potential draftees, a guy like this could get overlooked.

FYI : re: Potter & Mitra, looks like they are gone soon. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=584221

Actually, if you attempt to drill an equally hard surface, you'll generate a lot of friction, which of course is dissipated as heat, which will cook the eggs. (You might end up w/ a few metal flakes in yout eggs.) Also, you should never tell a guy his tool is worthless.

In the Rams case, players scores aren't really that relevant 'cuz any correlation between intelligence & performance on the field has to start w/ the Head Coach.

I recall seeing her in the background during a meeting, but don't recall any speaking by her. (But she easily could've; I just don't recall off the top of my head.)

She was a senior 'ASSOCIATE', which is considerably different. Probably like VPs at many banking type institutions. Also, I noticed that Monica Potter & Rhonda Mitra were listed as like 'special guests'. Does that mean they are writing them out? Bummer.

I don't think it does (assuming that he kicks it w/ normal hang time). What I think it does do, is cause more dispersion as to where the ball ends up. W/ a pooch, you're pretty assured that it'll end up betwwen the 20 & the goal line (usually inside the 15). As I haven't seen many coffin corner punts in a long time (& as I mentioned elsewhere, I seem to recall them mostly being softer kicks 'back in the day') but I do know it's difficult to be consistently more accurate than 10 yards. Depending on at what yardage marker you aim, determine your anticipated dispersion from there. As I mentioned, I don't whole-heartedly agree w/ the philosophy either. If you've got an accurate punter, why not take advantage of it, at least occasionally.

I agree w/ you to some extent on this. However, bear in mind, like other things, ST have evolved/improved as well. Back then, there wasn't the emphasis placed on ST that they expend now. Back then, punters were able to 'soft foot' the ball & get away w/ it.