Rochesterfan

Thanks - right back at ya - I don’t post enough to be a common name - I typically read to see if someone has already expressed my opinion before posting. Keeps my post total low - while still spending time on the site.

I think we need to get a LAMP award - complete with the leg lamp from A Christmas Story. There are a few worthy candidates for that.

I think it depends - the FA bust you see sooner and if the team can adapt - it is a waste of money, but as we have seen - money can move and you can move on. If you bust in the draft - it is less financial capital, but you hurt the team longer term with the loss of multiple players and typically it is 2+ years of solid playing time to solidify the bust status -so they lose more games. Therfore if a staff is on the hot seat - think Chicago- and you bust on a FA - your Time is done because of the choice. If a staff is new and relatively safe -they survive that mistake with a shot to still draft or acquire another QB. We see it play out both ways with teams like LAR, Ten, and TB drafting guys and then changing coach to try and salvage the QBs. We also see teams like Chicago that busted on a FA. The interesting place is Houston that busted on a big time FA in Brock, but the HC kept his job - I believe it cost the GM his, but they did not see eye to eye. So as I said it mostly lies with how stable the franchise is and how stable the staff is, but a bust either way can cost you.

They also learn through discussion and asking questions. Why did you make a particular read. The reason you bring a vet in is for mentorship - the best mentor will play a similar style to help with the transition. The coaches he’s can show the film and teach that aspect, but having a mentor helps in development - especially in game with what is going on. If your vet does not play within the confines of the offense - you get the coaches either teaching on thing to one guy and something different to another making the film study more difficult and getting less out of it.

Get off Tyrod please - that is not who you want teaching a future pocket passer for a year. If you are going to draft a pocket passer - go get a veteran that throws from the pocket and can read coverage. Someone that will do what the coaches want in the flow of the game. If you are drafting a running QB like Jackson - then you maybe keep TT, but you do not want TT teaching a young QB to be late with throws and not throw to open WRs. If you decide to keep TT as a bridge - you need him to be teaching the rookie how to read defenses and what you are looking at and that is not what TT is about.

Farve was drafted by Atl. It would only be the games Rodgers started.

If you watch it - he starts to move backwards and both arms are still extended. It is not really that inconclusive- the forward progress was correct and the shot goes right down the yard marker and you can easily see the first down marker is right at the front of the white line and the ball gets to and just passed the white. What I do not know is if that is the official sticks or if the official sticks were on the other side. If those were the official sticks - then I can see the first down call without measuring. My only other issue is knowing if we are at a slight angle, but I believe the view from the other side looked just about the same - so I think he put forth amazing effort and got to the mark and I do not think this was any kind of call to help the Pats win - It was a great effort by an individual player.

I agree - as much as I hate it - I thought they got it correct in the game and the video shows it. If he had not been getting tackled and dove and brought it back. - there could be an argument, but he extends and you see him still extended and his body is moving backwards (grasp and control) - then he bring the ball back to him. I think they got it right and because of the view it was easy to see he is passed the line. The WR example given has no bearing because it is a totally different situation and if a guy on his feet breaks control and runs backward they mark where he is down, but if he is controlled and breaks free, but the defenders maintain contact working him backwards-many time they still give him forward progress to the original spot.

He was supposedly the first choice, but he chose to go to Denver and suck the life from their offense. I do not believe he is any choice at this time. Yes, but that was the same QB that Dennison had in Denver last year and under McCoy the offense regressed enough that a 1st year HC fired him half way through the season.

I just don’t know what to think. #1 - I thought it was a TD watching it on TV as it happened. The referee was not in a good position that called it a TD because KB did not catch it clean as it initially looked. Then watching the replays I thought it appeared his foot was off the ground by the time it was controlled and it looked fairly clear it was not a TD. Then they showed the split screen with simultaneously action from both sides and it really depends on when you call it control and on a play that close it should of stayed with the original call. The bigger issue is Clay not catching the one before it. It should not have come down to that difficult play. #2 - This one I would need better understanding. They always give forward progress to where the ball goes unless the player purposely moves backward like running. I have seen calls like that before where guys dive over the pile to get a first down and bring it back to thei bodies and they typically give forward progress to the furthest point the ball went. I know that it was the RB pulling it back that moved it backwards - I just was not surprised it was marked forward with the progress. I would love to see a conclusive rule and how that is written to understand the exact situation, but that did not surprise me at all and was not something unique to NE. #3 - The replay looks worse because Cooks basically hugs Hyde, but again I get the call and you see that all the time. Romo was correct that is why sometimes you underthrow those because Hyde is running one way and any contact as the WR is coming back is going against the DB. If Hyde had been in better position and not been sprinting downfield to catch up - it is not called, but even though Cooks initiated the contact he has a right to go get the ball and Hyde can not interfere with that if he is not making a play and he isn’t when the contact starts. #4 - This was PI all the time and the referee starts reaching for the flag the moment the contact starts. This was a no doubt call and not one we should be complaining about. Was the flag late - yes, but not because someone was deciding if it was a penalty- the flag got stuck as he was monitoring the rest of the play. That happens a lot on the late flags because the referee still has a responsibility to monitor the rest of the play while trying to locate and throw the flag and if their initial grab misses - sometimes they have to wait to be able to look down and locate the flag to throw it. I think it is very difficult and teams need to be darn near perfect and get breaks to beat the Pats and when you have all of the questionable calls go against you - it is infuriating, but much like the call last week in Pittsburgh - just because it is NE does not mean they should ignore the rule - the TE much like Clay - went to the ground and the ball came loose and hit the ground. If your rule states that is not a catch - then it should not be a catch. Every play described caused some kind of momentum switch that hurt the Bills, but the Bills also had chances early to prevent these things f on being factors and they did not make the plays. When the Pats got their opportunities like Gronk (Jerk) he makes an amazing 1 hand catch and stays on his feet and gets 3 feet down. That is the difference between the teams at the moment.

Why is he the favorite? He might have been last year, but he chose Denver. Just think about this - he was fired half way through he season because he was getting less out of the Denver offense than Dennison did the year before. McCoy would be a major step in the wrong direction. How do you figure he is an upgrade - he got less out of Denver than Dennison did and was fired because of his pathetic offense. I do not see how he could be an upgrade at all - nothing suggests that in the least.

Has he really improved since the benching - KC we won and he almost threw for 200 yards and had a TD. The Patriots - once again he did not even hit 75 yards for the game before giving way to Peterman. Then out a game with injury and a good game against Miami. His last 3 starts are his career in a nutshell. 1 terrible game that he did nothing in - that was winnable with even a passable effort, but he did nothing. 1 very average game with no turnovers and 1 above average game. He is so inconsistent it is not funny. TT is what he has been and I will keep saying it. He is a below average QB that benefits from his athletic ability and the fact that he will not take a chance with the ball. There is a time and place for that, but TT has not shown that recognition yet and you still see him struggle late in games when we are down big (see NO or NE) to throw the ball into windows or speed up the progression or even speed up the offense and run something like a hurry up. This is multiple HCs and OCs with the same results - this is a player issue not coaching.

The WRs are fine - just as they have been the last 2 years. It is the QB that does not use the WRs that is the problem. Everyone complained about Watkins, Woods, Goodwin, etc. and yet now people think they were better because they have QBs that get them the ball. Get the QB and the receivers will look so much better.

Why put into context - they continued to throw the ball - including on first and second downs throughout the second half - the difference - they did not make the plays - the execution dried up in the second half. There were guys open that TT missed, their were great passes that were dropped, there were penalties, there was a huge sack on a first down screen pass, etc. the second half was about execution. The play calling and the going for the jugular were there with the 4th down attempts and going for the TD on 4th and goal. In fact although they only scored 3 points - they passed up on multiple long field goals because of where the score was and tried to get a TD rather than settle for the field goal. There are times to complain about conservative calls - this was not one - they were actually over aggressive at times - this is one to lay blame right on the players and execution.

Are you sure you watched the game? The second half - especially the 3rd quarter they ran the ball 7 times - passed the ball 9 times and had 1 TT scramble on a 10th drop back. They even went for it on 4th down once and were set for a 2nd attempt except for a false start. Not really conservative- the difference is the players both TT and the Receivers did not make plays in the second half. The 4th quarter they got a bit more conservative, but they were up by multiple scores and were running clock. They ran 6 times and had 3 pass and 1 scramble on a 4th passing attempt. This included a 4 minute drive to really run clock. So in the conservative 2nd half where they were up by 3 scores - the team ran 13 times, threw 12 times, and had 2 scrambles on additional drop backs. Seems pretty balanced to me. They also went for it on 4th down and were going to try and put the game away with a 4th and 1 on the goal line. The results seem conservative because of a lack of execution, but the team was balanced and they made plays. The running died in the second half with the Dolphins crowding the line and the passing being ineffective - even with throws on early downs.

I think it is unbelievable how good the TV camera coverage looks throughout the game. Being at the game - there were times we could not see the entire field and there was no way to see the other side. Watching the game when we got home - even in fast forward - it was clear and at times barely looked like it was snowing. I see the same thing with rain games - The primary cameras and crew do and amazing job and the angle works to limit reflection and it makes it look nearly clear. Then the show a shot from the roof and it looks like a monsoon.

McDermott said the same thing on WGR - there are parts of the game that are unwatchable from the game film - the cameras could not pick up players and the brightness caused distortion. Most of the film was just unusable, but they are going through to see if they can learn anything for when Miami comes in.

This I do not understand at all. Percentage wise - the Bills for the season have a 16% (1 in 6) chance of converting a 4th down - they are 2/12 on the season. They have been very bad at 3 and short on the season. Additionally on the day the Bills had 50% of their rushing attempts for the entire day end with yardage that may not have yielded a first down (2 yards and less). With all of that adding up I do not see going for it as a low risk/high reward move. I see it as a high risk/potential reward move because even if they get it there is no guarantee they get enough yards to score and if they do manage a field goal - Indy still gets the ball with a shot to win. If they do not get it - Indy is 30 yards closer - still have 4 minutes - so they can run more and if they score the game is over. The punt on the other hand was low risk/low reward - you basically gave them a shot with the ball in a game where there was no offense, but it might mean you have to go further if you stop them. The upside is if Indy wants to win - they probably need to pass - which in that weather gave chances for turn-overs and clock stoppages. I would prefer my coach want to maintain the pressure and go for the jugular, but the other side is acceptable also. In this situation there are multiple outcomes and multiple ways to play it. Defense was winning for the day - so I can accept the decision. If the score had been 30 to 30 like Rex's decision and the offense could not be stopped and the defenses were bad - then you look at the decision and you have to factor all of that in, but this game was unique and I do not consider his decision to be conservative even if I disagree. Coaches need to look at all outcomes and the situation and sometimes do things that we as fans disagree with - in the end - he has to defend his choices and if he felt punting was right and that was his conviction then it was his choice. My biggest issue was the timeout because that hurt and that kind of thing needs to get corrected this offseason.

That is the question though. What is the percentage chance that they get the 1st down in that situation? Using season averages on 4th down we were 2 for 10 on the season and then 0 for 2 in the game. That means at that point we had about a 16% chance based upon just our season average or about a 1 in 6 chance. Additionally - the Bills had 25 runs in the game of 2 yards or less - so nearly 50% of their runs in this game alone may not have gotten a first down just based upon the current conditions. So the Bills struggle on 4th down and had 50% of their runs stopped short throughout the game and in this 4th and 1 we are to assume that they have a suddenly higher percentage to get the first down because a study using all games and weather says it is 2% more likely they win before the punt. I want him to be aggressive and go, but based upon everything that had happened in the game to that point - I understand the decision.

Agreed - it is a common choice for defensive minded coaches and is frustrating. They typically play to their side of the ball and want to rely on defense and I hate that, just do not think it was not a methodical choice - I think he made a choice based upon his experiences throughout the year and the game. I expect a lot more of these questionable choices over the years.

I would disagree - I think this fits right into his methodical approach. If you analyze every potential outcome - you find the punt slightly lessens your chance to win, but it also significantly lessens your chance to lose in that game. Going for it and converting - increased your chance to win over punting, but getting stopped would have greatly increased your chance of losing and would have nearly eliminated a shot at winning. For the season - the Bills were 2 for 10 on 4th downs and were now 0-2 in the game so based upon probability they have been converting at a below 20% clip and they had a bunch of runs for no yardage throughout the game. I think if the game had been 40 to 40 and the Bills were 7 for 10 on the season and 3 for 3 in the game - maybe McDermont makes a different choice - maybe not, but his approach tells me all of those factors matter in the decision.

I don’t know AFL - I was shocked they did not call him for holding. Could not see it at the game, but watching it on the TV when we got home - that call has gone against him all year and probably should have this time also.

Because after the 2 runs - they were at their 25 with 3 minutes left - how many more runs until the game was over - not enough to get a win - so they had to pass. if they had been at the 41 - the 2 runs move them to the Bills 44 with 3 minutes left - plenty of time to continue to run. I do not believe they ever throw the ball in that case. It completely changes the mindset. Additionally - if they had been stopped on 1st and 2nd down - my guess is Indy runs it on third down - they wanted to chew a bit of clock and try to win. You see the same thing on the last drives in the first half. Teams do not get aggressive until they get that first 1st down - then they start to open up the play book.

Rex’s call was wrong because the offenses for both teams had been moving the ball all day. The Bills offense was their strength for season and in the game. For McDermont- the defense has been the strength and the offense has sucked. The game was 7-7 with almost no offense. What I hate about the call is that you are basically playing not to lose and we need the game in both cases, but for Rex you were going away from your strength and playing to your weaker unit. McDermont played to the stronger of his 2 units. Does not make it right - just different.

Sorry, but you are incorrect. - they ran the first 2 plays and got a first down. Then they threw the ball 3 straight times because they had to go 60 yards to win. Give them the ball at the 41 - the 2 runs that netted a first down - now puts them at the Bills 45. Instead of 60 - you now need about 30 with 2 time outs. Running the ball probably nets them enough yards and they do not need to throw it at all. I still hate the punt, but to think it did not impact the offensive mindset of the Colts is just wrong. The difference in field position was massive in the outcome of the game. It does not make the decision right, but it is a major part of the decision and something the goes into the call.