msw2112

As mentioned above, the most egregious error was on 3rd down. Hausch has not been good this year and wasn't good in this game, but he has certainly made many from 50+ in his career and he has made several clutch kicks. We have not been effective on 4th down, so statistics aside, I think our chances of making the FG were about as good as getting the 1st down (and then working for a FG or TD). But the play call and clock management on 3rd and 4, and then the ensuing chaos was terrible. Did you see the camera shot of Hausch on the sidelines trying to trot onto the field, but he was held back, then they decided to go for the FG after all? That chaotic sequence may have messed with his mind a little bit. Also, did anyone else notice the so-so hold? I'm not an expert, but I think the laces are supposed to be 180 degrees from the kicker's foot when spun correctly. In this case, the spin only put the laces 90 degrees from the kicker's foot.

This isn't the first we have seen this. I hate to give anyone nightmares, but remember Vlad....This staff does seem to be stubborn when it comes to making personnel moves with veteran players who are not carrying their weight. I'm still a supporter of the staff, but this does frustrate me (as does the "strategy" at the end of yesterday's game, but that was addressed in another thread). Lee Smith is known as a great run blocker. If there was evidence of our great run game with him leading the charge, you can put up with a penalty or two. There is no such evidence (that I have seen) and the penalties are horrible. Smith is a class act and a great locker room/sideline guy, and that's where he needs to show his influence - in the locker room and on the sideline. Not on the field.

The problem with Fitz is that he comes in everywhere, the starter struggles or gets hurt, Fitz comes in and lights it up for a few games (Fitzmagic), you have a QB controversy and it screws up the team chemistry and/or a young guy isn't getting the reps he needs to develop. It's not Fitz's fault, but that's just how it plays out, time and time (and time) again. I am a huge Fitzpatrick fan, but I don't see this plan working out for the Bills.

I have/had the same thoughts. I couldn't figure out what they were trying to do. I'm not sure they could either. What I do know is that they had plenty of time, were in a decent rhythm and the Browns were on their heels (as mentioned above). You go for the win, and if you can't get in the end zone, you at least get closer in for a high percentage field goal. You use all of the clock available to you to attempt this. Were they trying to bleed the clock so that they didn't leave time for the Browns to get the ball back? You do that when you are inside the 20, perhaps, although arguably you still go for the win. With where they were on the field, the time remaining, the possession of a TO, a struggling kicker, etc., what they did made no sense. I'm not as pessimistic as many here about the future of the team, as it's just one game and they have a lot of growing yet to do, but I'm certainly disappointed in the loss yesterday. If you lose you lose, but you should lose after taking your best (and smartest) shot and go down swinging. Sometimes players make plays and sometimes they don't, but the coaching staff's job is to make the right decisions to give the team the best shot at the best possible outcome. What they did (or didn't do) was terrible.

I agree. Kicking aside, the clock management in those last 2 or 3 plays was terrible. As to kicking, Hausch hasn't been good, but we are probably in the middle of the pack as far as kicking woes. Many teams have had kicking issues this year - to me, it seems like a lot more than usual. The Bears finally seemed to solve their kicking situation, until their new "reliable" guy missed a kick and lost them a game. The Jests probably would have beaten us in Week 1 but for kicking woes. The Vikings have had terrible kicking this year. Those are the few that come to mind, but it seems to be an issue in most of the games I have watched this year. Some if it is the longer PAT, but it's happening on FGs too.

I have no idea, but perhaps the Raiders found other options when he was rehabbing from his injury and decided to release him. It's a good signing for the Bills. We clearly need help on the DL and this guy has been a really good player in the past (and has a 1st round pedigree). The deal is only for 1 year, so if he doesn't pan out, we can move on from him without future cap implications and if he does pan out, we've improved the team.

I like it. Perhaps the "disrespect" from Vegas will serve as a motivating factor for the Bills. Records aside, this game is no gimme. The Bills will have to play well to win. It's one they are more than capable of winning, but also quite capable of losing. Lowly Miami, NY Jets, Cincinnati and the Redskins played us competitively for the majority of the games, and I believe that Cleveland is better than all of those teams. They are also at home and are potentially looking to make a statement after losing to lowly Denver.

A few thoughts related to this post: 1. As the OP mentioned, for many years, the Bills had one of the most difficult schedules in the league. We've had some decent, competitive teams that were a game or two out of the playoff hunt due (in part) to the difficulty of our schedule. Teams in weaker division like the AFC South had a better opportunity to make the playoffs. 2. The Jests and Dolphins are playing essentially the same schedule. They are each 1-6. The Pats are playing essentially the same schedule, and other than the close game in which they beat us, we have the same record. 3. We have a young, developing QB who came from a smaller college program and a lot of new players integrated into the system. It would be great if we could be more dominant and/or play more consistently, but we have still won 6 out of 8 NFL games. No need to complain or apologize. Let's hope we can continue to improve and can step up and win one against one of the teams with better records. Even if we don't, and we continue to beat "who we are supposed to beat," we will still likely be 10-6 and get a wild card berth. Bills fans should be allowed to enjoy the team's success!

I have no doubt that Dick Jauron is a very smart man. That doesn't make him a good motivator and doesn't mean that he's a good football coach.

I agree with the above. We have a weak schedule and enough talent and coaching that we should be able to get to 10 wins and a wild card spot (and not implode like in those seasons). We still get to play Washington this weekend (in Buffalo), the Jests again (in Buffalo), Miami again, a lesser than usual Pittsburgh team with no Big Ben, Denver and Cleveland (who has played a tough schedule and is probably better than their record, but isn't great). Tougher games against Dallas, Baltimore, New England again are also on the schedule. I think we should easily win 4 out of these remaining games, should squeeze out 5, and perhaps (but not likely) 6, if the defensive lapse against Philly was an anomaly and not a trend. That puts us between 9-7 and 11-5.

The reasoning by everyone in this post makes sense. But with Practice Squad guys like Taylor, I wonder: if Taylor is such a dominant run stopper, which most (if not all) teams need, why is he sitting on the Bills' Practice Squad? Why hasn't another team that knows of his run-stuffing prowess added him to their 53? If folks here were saying "he's not that great, but he's the best option that we have," I would understand it better. That's not what most of the above posts are saying.

I think that Gordon is well past his prime. His recent track record on the field is nothing impressive. His off the field track record is not good and he just doesn't seem like a guy that would fit with the current team chemistry. Of course, I didn't think Antonio Brown fit our chemistry/culture either and we kicked the tires there, but he has proven to be far worse of a character than was known at the time. Back to Gordon, I would take a pass and I think that the Bills will too.

I think it's a combination of playing more conservatively early in games and also an increased intensity in the 4th quarter. There's the old addage "take what the defense gives you" which is what they tend to do for the first 3 quarters, then in the 4th, they take what they need to, regardless of what the defense is giving them. It would be great if they could dictate more throughout the game. My guess is that because we have been playing mostly lesser opponents, the conservative strategy has been a winning formula. As we play some more difficult opponents, that may not be good enough.

I'd go with a B+. For the first time in years, we are running a real, modern NFL offense. Think of what we saw in the past with Dennison and Hackett - Daboll is a major step up. There is good, but not great talent and he utilizes it pretty well. We rarely go 3 and out, and we are pretty effective in short yardage situations. We rarely come out of the red zone without points. We move the ball effectively, which helps with field position, even when we don't score. The one thing I would eliminate are the designed QB runs early in the game. I am fine with Allen running when a) he's in the pocket and a huge running lane opens up; b) on a broken play where he has space to run; c) running a sneak on short yardage like 3rd or 4th and 1; and d) in the 4th quarter, when the game is on the line. I am not OK with him on a designed running play in the first 3 quarters of the game. First, these runs haven't been any more effective than simply giving the ball to the RB. Second, why expose your QB to injury? It just makes no sense to me. As others have mentioned, if Allen connects on a long ball here or there (which he did more of last year, particularly with Foster), things will look a whole lot better. If Allen overthrows a wide open WR, or a WR drops a pass, that isn't entirely on the OC.

During the game, I was extremely frustrated. I was expecting a blowout and a game to pad the stats. Looking back with some perspective, here are my Monday morning thoughts: 1. They won the game. 2. How many times has a poor Bills team been on the other side of a game like this? Played their hearts out, had a lead, kept it close, had a chance a the end, and ultimately lost to the stronger opponent. 3. Fitzpatrick is a gamer. While his talent isn't the greatest, he plays with a lot of passion and intelligence and can keep a team in a game. (As we know, he usually falls short in the end, but I still love the guy.) 4. Even the best teams are not at their best every week. The good teams find a way to win, even on off days. 5. They won the game.

I thought it was a terrible move to sign Gore. I was wrong. He's been terrific and it's incredible that he's able to play at this level at age 36. He's also a great locker room guy and allowed us to cut Shady, which helps on the financial side.

I went with B+, but could have just as well gone with A-. Our Special Teams have been suspect and I question some of the conservative moves he's made (although he went for it twice on 4th down in the last game). If you have all of your timeouts, more than a minute on the clock and the ball past the 30 yard line at the end of a half, try to get into FG range! We didn't do that against the Giants and let them back into the game. That said, the defense has been great, the offense is improving and he has created a fantastic culture that bodes well for the future. And he got a team with very little talent to the playoffs two years ago, got a team with very little offensive talent to 6 wins last year and has the current squad at 4-1.

I agree with this. I have no problem with his kneeling or his desire to draw attention to a real issue, although the thing with the socks was definitely in poor taste and not an action that sets the stage for productive dialogue. While his best playing days are likely behind him, he is still more talented than many QBs on NFL rosters today. Teams simply don't want the media circus and alienation of a certain percentage of its fan base.

And it happens in other sports too. In last night's Sabres game, Dahlin took an obvious boarding penalty against Foligno that was not called. The referee must have realized his mistake, because less than a minute later, he called Dahlin for a penalty on Foligno in front of the net that didn't look like much, and was certainly nowhere near the penalty that the first one was. Refs are human. We all have events that happen quickly and we wish we had reacted differently. Same with the zebras - and they have the ability to quickly atone for their mistakes.

They are great owners and we, as Buffalo fans, are lucky to have them. Our teams are staying in WNY for the foreseeable future. They also have both the resources and the desire to be successful. They have made some mistakes in management hires (both in retention of the old and hiring of the new), but I believe they have learned from their mistakes and righted the ship. Beane and McDermott are doing a fantastic job and Botterill and Krueger appear to be competent at their jobs and have things moving in the right direction.

Gronk actually did a comedy special on Showtime or HBO (I don't remember which). He was the host and did a few jokes between acts, as he introduced a series of comedians. While he wasn't stellar, he was good enough to pull it off, which leads me to believe he might have enough to pull off this gig. He won't be as polished as a guy like Howie Long, who comes across very well, but he might be as good as some of the former players who have done this. Terry Bradshaw has somehow made a living out of it and guys like Michael Irvin and Shannon Sharpe are still a part of the sports media....Love him or hate him, Gronk is a Hall of Famer with high football IQ and he's a charismatic personality.

I also over-reacted to the pick. He bounced back nicely. Then again, most of his picks were against good defenses like the Pats, the Titans, and the Jests (back when they were still good....?)

While he makes some big mistakes, Allen is a gamer. He elevates his game in the 4th quarter when we need it the most. It's the "it" factor that many other Bills QBs have lacked. Fitz, for example, had many huge games with big passing numbers and multiple TDs. When the game was on the line, however, he usually threw a pick or fumbled the ball. Tyrod was a little different. He didn't have the big passing numbers that Fitz had, but he similarly lacked the ability to get it done when the game was on the line. Rather than a pick or fumble, Tyrod meekly turned it over on downs. ☹️

It's a combination of a very good defense and a very easy schedule to date. For what it's worth, the same can be said for the Bills. The best offense each has played was when they played each other and the defenses ruled the day. I think both defenses are very good and will prove it over the course of the season, but the performances and statistics of each will decline a little bit as the opponents get better. The '85 Bears and the best Ravens' defenses were better. Statistics aside, they dominated everyone they played and did it over the course of a full season and playoffs, all the way to Super Bowl titles.

Foster had such a huge impact the latter part of last season, so it would be a boost to have him return to form. I agree that with Duke in the lineup and playing well, Roberts returning and getting a few snaps and McKenzie getting his sweeps, there doesn't look to be much of a role for Zay other than depth.