GregPersons
-
Posts
982 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by GregPersons
-
-
6 minutes ago, Buftex said:
I understand the reason why you would go for 2, but I think you have to go for the kick. Your defense just played too damn good to gamble their effort on one play, by an offense that was not exactly lighting it up.
Not to change the subject:
Forgive me if it is being discussed elsewhere, but did anyone else think it was a bit risky to go for 2, after the Beasley touchdown? They got it, so it looks like a great decision, but the ramifications of not converting, would have likely ended the game right there...
I tuned in to the post-game show on GR (they are twice as bad as Schop and Bulldog, which is saying something). Nate Geary (I think that is the one who made the point) said that going for 1 pt there is just conservative "old thinking" football, and anyone who thinks otherwise just "doesn't understand football". He actually said "if you don't get it, you are down by 9 and you know what you have to do, you have it all in front of you". It was one of the more idiotic things I have heard in a while, and reminded me why I just can't do the GR post-game stuff any more. I am para-phrasing a little.
In my opinion anyone who holds his opinion just doesn't understand math. Again, because they converted the 2 pt play, the point is moot...but if they didn't convert, they would be down by 2 scores, with time running out...they would need to score another td, get the ball back somehow, and then kick a field goal, or get another TD to win. Is this just "old-guy" thinking on my part?
I don't think either choice in that situation is absolutely right or wrong, mathematically... it only looks that way if it works or doesn't work, like you say. I think going for 2 when they did was a way to keep the most amount of options/choices on the table for them, and to help the Defense know what they needed to do.
If you get the 2, as they did, then you are within 7. You're golden. You didn't put the decision off. You just need one TD, one possession. This is the ideal outcome. The defense's job is to simply prevent Baltimore from scoring any more points and get the ball back as soon as possible. If they score again, you have the choice to potentially win the game if you go for 2 again, or go to OT with a PAT. This gives the most opportunity to "win" on your terms.
If you miss the 2, then obviously you now need two possessions. But if you face 4th down in the red zone again, you can take the 3, which now puts you in a position to win on your next possession, rather than tie. The Defense needs to force an immediate 3 and out, or take more chances for a turnover.
If you take the PAT and you get it, you need to go score a TD and then go for 2 -- just to tie. It puts all the pressure on that final play, where the best possible outcome is a tie and going to OT... it's potentially a more devastating loss today if the Bills took a PAT on the TD, then were able to score on the John Brown TD, only to then come up short on the 2 point attempt to get to OT.
There's more potential for frustration on the "PAT first, go for 2 later" path — it keeps "the hope" alive a little longer potentially, but you're less "in control" of the outcome.
That's my guess!
-
1
-
1
-
-
20 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:
this exactly. Activating a guy that can’t get open to throw 50/50 balls to all day seems like not a very realistic formula for sustained offensive success. Yet here we are. Every week. The same people. (These people who, btw, do not see Duke in practice, as the coaches do, who are making the (likely) wise decision to park his butt on the inactive list.)
None of us are seeing Duke in practice, and the media doesn't have access either, so we do not know if he's playing poorly there. He could be catching every ball thrown his way in practice. Both are possible. Duke is Schrodinger's cat. Why he hasn't been active on game day is not definitely "he isn't playing well in practice." We don't know that to be true. All we know for sure is that he must be practicing well enough to not get cut because he's still on the 53 man roster.What we do know are these things:
—In his one game appearance, Duke Williams played very well. Is this debatable, or do we all agree on this point?
—Dawson Knox leads the NFL in drops, and Tyler Kroft has not made any impact as a Bill
—In the 5 games that Tyler Kroft has been healthy enough to play, he's caught 4 passes for 52 yards.
—Duke Williams is 6'2", which is shorter than this team prefers for TE — but it's still within the range of NFL average height for TE (which is 6'3)... Delanie Walker is 6'0.
3 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:
And if Duke can’t crack the active 46 with terrible, below replacement-level receivers like foster ahead of him, what’s that say about Duke chief?
he’s trash. He belongs back in the CFL.
No. You can be as rude about it as you like, but that's not definitely true. Duke obviously has the potential to help the Bills passing game. He already displayed that, with this team, this season. He hasn't had the opportunity to repeat. Asking why he hasn't is a perfectly valid question.
-
2
-
-
14 minutes ago, MDH said:
If only the coaching staff knew as much as the fans when it comes to Duke Williams. ?
The coaching staff is human. They are not infallible. They are capable of making mistakes. Zay Jones. Kelvin Benjamin. NATHAN PETERMAN.
What I like about this staff is that they generally don't hold the attitude that they're beyond reproach... they seem to respond to the data as it presents itself. While they have been stubborn and arrogant at times, there's not a coaching staff on the planet that hasn't.
Duke played very well in his one game appearance. He was the hero of that game. He seemed to be well-liked by his teammates in all of the stories that came out that week. He played well enough to make Zay Jones expendable.
Is Duke incapable of playing well again just because he hasn't yet played again?
13 minutes ago, Nelius said:The fans are seeing at least two receivers that do nothing on a weekly basis. It's a valid argument.
I would love to hear a reporter ask McDermott or Daboll this — why NOT give Duke Williams a shot at TE??? He has the size and the hands to be effective. I don't know how he is as a blocker or on special teams. Even if he's lousy at both, we saw today how crucial it is to have a big-bodied receiver who can HOLD ONTO THE BALL. Could the staff give Duke some opportunity, even just a fraction of the amount of opportunity afforded to Knox or Zay Jones?
I wouldn't sit any of the WRs but I would deactivate Tyler Kroft (or Lee Smith but I know he's needed for his ST play, whereas Kroft isn't).
3 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB — Brown, Beasley, Foster/McKenzie, Duke, Singletary
2 WR, 2 TE, 1 RB — Brown, Beasley, Duke, Knox/Smith, Singletary/Gore
-
1
-
-
26 minutes ago, Bob in STL said:
Why did he run a bad route? Fourth down and game on the line, why would he not do his best? This cannot happen.
What was bad about Brown's route running on the last play? Genuinely asking. That did not appear to be a WR error -- it was just excellent coverage. IMO the problem was that Brown wasn't getting those targets throughout... Peters is a great CB, and I'm sure the separation wasn't ideal, but Brown needed more opportunities. He got fewer targets than Dawson Knox.
Separately — here's a question I'd like to know the answer to — why can't we try Duke Williams at TE??? What is going on there??? I wouldn't sit any of the WRs but I would deactivate Tyler Kroft (or better yet Lee Smith but I know McD loves his ST play).
3 WR, 1 TE, 1 RB — Brown, Beasley, Foster/McKenzie, Duke, Singletary
2 WR, 2 TE, 1 RB — Brown, Beasley, Duke, Knox/Smith, Singletary/Gore
-
13 minutes ago, Richard Noggin said:
Little TBD love nugget: the discussion here, as this thread progresses, is solid. Mostly clear-eyed, objective perspectives. Nice to see after a frustrating loss.
Maybe the knee-jerks have gone to bed?
Not to get in the way of bashing other posters, but there's probably some room for a li'l more love in that nugget. Another explanation is that the team is simply playing more consistently... leading to a more consistent dialogue from the fans. The team has solidified its identity over the last month-plus. There are fewer questions about, say, Allen's abilities than there were in September.
My take on today's game is similar to everyone's — although it hurts that lost today, the team did not look outclassed. They were inches from winning. Obviously there are the drops. For another example, Tremaine Edmunds on the last Baltimore touchdown -- Edmunds had a solid day but he's still improving, and Edmunds a "level up" in his progression is maybe is in a slightly better position to get a hand on that ball or even pick it off.
Edmunds was the one I'd been saying all week would be the key to the game. That proved to be true. He mostly played one of his best games, I thought. He and the rest of the defense effectively contained Jackson-- they held them to 24 when Baltimore is a team capable of scoring 40+ in most weeks. This wasn't the "breakout game" for Edmunds that I hoped for, but it was definitely a "progression" game where you can see his tools getting sharper.
So even in the loss, this looked like a team that should be able to control the game against Pittsburgh, even though it's an away game at night... and they look like a team that's ready to punch New England straight in the mouth.
-
3
-
-
He was barely targeted!
-
I'm a big fan of the guys who aren't "supposed" to be good, but they are, and you can tell it comes from dedicated hard work. In particular my faves right now are
John "Smoke" Brown
Lorenzo Alexander
Frank Gore
and I think I'd also include Josh Allen to fit in this bucket, also.
That type of "blue collar" player just seems to really embody the Buffalo identity, to me. I like the "stars" too, but they're never usually my favorites... for the Sabres, back in the day, I got a Stu Barnes jersey instead of a Dom Hasek or Miro Satan.
-
55 minutes ago, Buftex said:
Justified or not, it is Norwood...all other answers are just an attempt to keep the discussion going. I mean, the missed kick by Norwood in SB 25 was the basis for a cult film, and "Norwood" is a part of the sports lexicon in a way that nobody, or nothing else in Buffalo sports history, save for maybe OJ Simpsons' "slashing style".
Besides Buffalo 66, it's also the plot of the first Ace Ventura movie — they changed it to be the Miami Dolphins so that the more camera-friendly Marino could be part of it, but Ray Finkle is a take on Norwood.
It's just so unearned, though, because it was out of Norwood's range on grass and they knew it, or they should've known it. The blame is on Jim Kelly for that loss, and Marv Levy, for not running the ball more, for not being able to recognize what the defense was giving them. I feel bad for Norwood because he was set up to fail, basically a hail mary FG attempt for him, but I find it hard to hold him responsible, so I can't imagine basking in the glow of the Bills winning a SB and thinking "Yeah, this one goes out to Scotty, wherever you are, Norwood... genie, you're free!" He's just one among many who whiffed for Buffalo.
There are just far too many other examples of Buffalo being cursed — OJ being maybe the biggest punchline — for all of it to go to Norwood, when barely any of it is on Norwood, imo.
Winning a SB would make that team heroes, and it'd exorcise some demons from the fanbase's general spirit, maybe make it easier to appreciate in hindsight aspects of the bum squads of the drought and so forth, but Norwood still missed the kick he was never going to make. I don't think he would appreciate people being like "hey, the Bills finally won one! Took a couple decades but they cleaned up your mess. I now give you permission to stop hating yourself. Congrats!!"
-
13 minutes ago, Sammy Watkins' Rib said:
He's played for Sean McVay and Andy Reid but who would have thought his best years would be in the ground and pound Rex Ryan offense with Bills?
Maybe he reunites with Greg Roman in Baltimore.
Edit — Now that I'm thinking of Roman, I wonder if Tyrod could return to Baltimore as QB2 next season if he doesn't get a shot with LAC or if Lynn is fired. Ravens currently have RG3 at QB2 which, I would not want Griffin to play for any amount of time were Jackson to miss any games. Imagine this, Roman coached Kaep to a Super Bowl... if he were to land with any NFL team, why not Baltimore?
-
3 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:
I've taken some heat for mocking his pass pro lately. It's just been a fact that. He's not good in pass pro.
But two of his worst plays Thursday did lead to TD's.......Allen bolting from the pocket and throwing the TD pass to Beasley and running the other one in for a TD.
As I've said........the good things are that Ford is on Allen's front side so he can keep an eye on his whiffs and that Allen can get away and make big plays out of the pocket.
Good point. Moving him to LG might be a net negative if he doesn't improve his technique.
-
7 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:
Norwood get a hell of an applause and a standing O at the Bills rally at Niagara square
Buffalo forgave him along time ago
Exactly. The Four Falls of Buffalo documentary had the footage of Norwood at the team's rally the morning after the SB — he's already been forgiven. It was never really Norwood's fault, and that missed kick wouldn't make sense as the cause of a "curse." There's no shortage of examples throughout Buffalo sports of gut-wrenching defeats.
I'd love to see the Bills win one while Marv Levy is still with us... and who could forget his more recent tenure as GM during the drought... he's been as involved as anyone besides Ralph or Polian in terms of longevity and connection to trying to get Buffalo to a championship.
-
He'll sign somewhere but it wouldn't be in Buffalo.
I do think that some team has the opportunity to get a good deal on him — a humbled Watkins, if healthy, could be great in the right situation.
-
-
He can rot in Boston, keep playing worse, and he can help the Pats get swept by the Bills.
-
John Brown and Isaiah McKenzie.
-
I'm sure Kyle does feel a bit of FOMO with this year's team, but I bet his knees don't mind. Like my use of FOMO sometimes the timing is just off by a year or two.
-
Bills play well — They were always good, you idiots! Even when they were losing! How could you not see this at the time??
Bills play bad — They were always bad, you idiots! Even when they were winning! How could you not see this at the time??
-
On 11/29/2019 at 12:55 PM, Steptide said:
It's simply bills fans being conditioned to be out coached, out played and losing football games. I lived through all the jauron years, the loss to the steelers 3rd stringers, the Chan Gailey years, the Marone and Rex years. All of it conditioned us to expect loss once the bills show any kind of conservatism or they are losing. Even a part of me knowing the bills are 9-3, still has this slight fear that they'll find a way to screw it up. That's one thing I love about McDermott though, he's willing to swallow his pride when need be and make changes if necessary
Agreed. He's been surprisingly flexible and willing to make adjustments when things aren't working. It does seem like that should be something you could just expect as a standard from a coach but that hasn't been in the case always in the past, in Buffalo or any football coaches. They're generally pretty stubborn people but that's not always a strength, especially not for an organizational leader. Combine that with the ego involved with being a football coach, a job where you tell other people to do things that you could not do yourself, and telling them to do it better, then taking credit and being judged on how well the person-you-told did the thing they do. Like most organizational leaders, football coaches are all basically all dumbasses who are just good at taking credit for things they didn't do. Rex Ryan's accomplishments: My dad had a good job. I had a good job. Give me that job. But I digress.
Anyway in comparing them to each other, McDermott is less like Jauron to me and more of a mix of Marrone & Rex, but younger and healthier. I think it helps that McDermott is athletic himself so he seems to practice what he preaches... hearing about process and the attitude and attention to detail toward rote, repetitive activities ... Rex Ryan doing "trust the process" doesn't work because you're thinking, what process, liposuction? Sandal shopping? I'm not running a lap, you run a lap.
-
7 hours ago, DJB said:
My suggestion is a spy on Lamar. Maybe even both Edmunds and Milano to contain the outside. Lamar loves running to the outside. Keep contain and shut down Lamar.
Their entire offence is Lamar running, then Ingram then a short pass to a TE.
It's not that complicated to me.
I agree, I think you need Edmunds & Milano to stay in zone/spying on Jackson, one safety deep, man on the outsides, 4 rushers, occasional zone blitzes. Pretty straight forward, it's just about the execution.
I think Buffalo's defense is perfectly constructed to give Jackson a sub-par day... provided that Edmunds shows a comparable leap in development as Allen has shown, or Oliver, or Shaq, or Phillips... he's just gotta turn the corner on his anticipation and timing and feel for it to be at the right place at the right time.
On 11/30/2019 at 4:01 PM, Boatdrinks said:Simply put , the Bills will have to win this one on offense. Long drives, milk the clock and score TDs. Their no huddle has been effective, but the downside is using less clock. It will be interesting to see if the 49ers are able to keep the Ravens in check with their defense. Perhaps the Bills can get a few ideas from that.
Niners showed today how an effective running game can do just that. As it so happens, our running game is versatile with Singletary, Gore, and Allen each providing a different style of run play that can be used at any time.
Bills would need to play as good or better than they played on Thanksgiving. We're at home. It could happen.
-
If the Bills play like they did on Thanksgiving, they will win.
-
Allen has played his best in the 4th quarter of games.
We're now in the 4th quarter of the season.
Let's go!
-
1
-
1
-
-
This is a winnable matchup if Edmunds & Milano can avoid getting juked out of their shoes.
-
A month ago, we weren't as good as we are now. That's a good thing.
-
4 hours ago, Mark Vader said:
Yes, and a lot of the Josh Allen haters have disappeared.
Right around the time he started playing really well!
Why wasn't Duke Williams active?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by GregPersons
The coaching staff is human. They are not infallible. They are capable of making mistakes. Zay Jones. Kelvin Benjamin. NATHAN PETERMAN.
They are capable of missing things. Sometimes it's because they're spending all day in practice with these guys. I'm sure Nathan Peterman is the nicest person on the planet. I'm sure he practices hard and is great in the classroom. That doesn't change the fact that ALL OF US -- coaches and fans alike -- are all looking at the same on-field product on Sundays. As fans, we don't need to have the same level of granular knowledge as the coaches do to see things like, Peterman isn't capable of starting in the NFL, or Zay Jones is not helping the offense by dropping half of his targets...
Duke played very well in his one game appearance. He was the hero of that game. He seemed to be well-liked by his teammates in all of the stories that came out that week. He played well enough to make Zay Jones expendable.
So, is Duke incapable of playing well again? What was so special about the Titans game that allowed Duke to play so far beyond his usual abilities then?
Bottom line, here's my take. I'm not suggesting Duke is a secret All Pro being banished to the bench unfairly... I'm saying Duke is a big target who played well, and the Bills need a big target who can play well. The Bills' big targets are playing poorly. Dawson Knox is leading the league in drops. Tyler Kroft has been a complete non-factor. Lee Smith is not going to be the answer as a receiver.
Maybe Duke would not do well as a TE. But have they tried? Would it hurt to try? We've been able to win plenty of games without Tyler Kroft active.