BuffaloBob

Keep trying Obie, you might make some headway at some point. I didn't blame anybody, though I know you are dying to blame Drew. There are obviously many factors as to why that particular play didn't work, including that the Jags defensed it well. I never cited a specific explanation for the failure of this particular play, but nice try anyway! Of course there were many alternatives to the formation used, the play run etc. I'm pretty sure even those wise former OC's were at least semi aware of that fact, although apparently they could have really used your expertise on the sideline Sunday. As I said, they called a play they hadn't run before against live bullets and it didn't work. But just because it didn't work doesn't mean they are inept, or that the players are inept. It might just mean they needed to see it run under certain circumstances where they thought it should work and didn't, work out the kinks or even abandon it. And as for my serious delusion (one which I certainly never manifested in any thing I posted)), how much time do you think these guys have to confer on the sideline before sending in the play? I think you're seriously deluded if you think there was a three person meeting before that play got called. I'm sure that they were all involved with choosing plays as possibilties for various scenarios in gameplanning. I seriously doubt there was much of that going on in the 10-20 seconds they have between plays. As for the time it is going to take for that maturation to take place, what am I, psychic or something? All I said is that it needs to happen and it is understandable. I also certainly stated that it sucks but that's the way it is. Obviously, the sooner the better. How quickly will be some measure of the efficacy of this coaching staff and the quality the players.

Just how crazy is a shithouse rat anyway and why is he crazy?? You know, it always easy to second-guess people who are paid for their expereince and expertise in a particular field. The fact is, we ran the first two plays and ended up witrh two yards. If we are so damn good running the ball, I would think we should have scored on one of those plays. On third down, they expected us to run it again, as evidenced by the fact that had the line completely stacked. In hindsight, they had a couple of guys in the right place at the right time. They also had nine others stacked to stuff another off-tackle running play. A pitch to the outside might have been a decent alternative, but Jax played the few pitches we tried during the game really well. I have said this before and I'll say it again, it will take a little time for this offense, and I include the rookie OC who is play-calling for the first time, to recognize the best plays, formations and personnel for this team in different situations. I hate seeing the Bills take losses while this offense matures, especially when they had it won, but that is just the reality of a new OC who is calling plays for the first time and a brand new offense.

ROTFLMAO! That's some funny stevestojan, stevestojan!!

I agree, players have to take the high rode. Unfortunately, these players are human and could be already in a fragile mood for some other reason in their personal life. Who knows what this guy said? But I agree, it wasn't just "who was going to win and who would take the loss and stuff like that." I wonder if there was anyone in the crowd nearby that was as annoyed as I would have been and heard what he said? I doubt that person or those people will make real good witnesses for the prosecution. My problem primarily is with the fact that once he saw how irate Brocail had become, he could have backed off. But I am sure based on how bad Brocail wanted up in the stands that he didn't. Similar to what Chris Rock said regarding the OJ murders: I'm not saying he should have thrown the chair, but I understand!

The offense didn't change much? Do you have a link for this quote? All I have read all off-season is how the terminology is new, the pass patterns are new (they are no longer using the read and react system of Gilbride), the blocking schemes are new (McNally has been quoted as saying several times that the blocking schemes were too complex and did not use athletic skills of the lineman) etc. etc. Of course, there is nothing new in the NFL. Everyone runs similar plays and calls them different names, but what constitues an entire system is new from one coach to another. Moreover, how long was it again that Clements has been calling plays? Have they been playing against live competition for the last 8 months and I missed the damn games? Let's see, as part of this absurd exaggeration, you are including the player evaluation and acquisition period that occurs before all of the players even meet the coaches for the first time and actualy see the new offense. Yes, I'm sure those 4 months got alot done in installing the offense. Then the OTRs when they didn't even wear pads. And then the month in camp when they primarily ran the new offense against themselves. Ahh, but then there was the whole quarter or so average in each of four preseason games where they didn't gameplan and ran a fraction of the plays. Yes, I see what you mean! No excuses! This offense should have been a well-honed machine by the time they played against Jax! LOL! Ahhh, well said! Except the only problem is that it is gratuitous at best and unsupportable in the least. And this is the one statement that you make that actually has some merit. I believe that is what I said as well.

If this is the case, then I hope we do just what we did against the Jags as far as sending blitzers from all over the field so that the Raiders never know where the blitz is coming from. We have to pressure Gannon big-time and not give him the time to throw anything long.

I realize that there is absolutely no excuse for a player throwing a chair up into the stands at a fan, regardless of the siutation, but am I the only one that wishes it was the HIS nose that was broken instead of his wife's, and that is sickened by the thought that he might recover money in civil damages? I will never understand the "fan" who thinks just because he has ponied up some cash for tix that he is now entitled to behave like an assclown and heckle players to the point of rage. Even if he was't using profanity or even if the players were a bit too thin-skinned, once you see that you have a player that incensed (or anybody you might be insulting, teasing, ribbing taunting), you ought to just back off and apologize and let things calm down. Obviously, this so-called fan figured he could continue to engage this player even while his teammates were using great force to restrain him. No doubt, he smugly assumed because he was a fan, because his teammates were restraining him, that he could continue to escalate things anyway and that there would be no repercussions. The bottom line: while I believe the guy who threw the chair needs to be dealt with seriously by MLB and perhaps the state of California, if I am sitting on his jury in the civil trial he ain't gettin' dime one if I have anything to say about. I would hold him contributorily negligent for having continued to escalate matters when any reasonable person could see he had egged the one player into an angry rage and should have known that could lead to injury. And if the stadium security had been called by the players to handle this guy, and they had not taken appropriate steps to intervene, then they get a share of the laibility as well. And while I'm sorry for the wife's injury (assuming that she had no role in this incident), if she wants compensation, perhaps she can sue her assclown of a husband.

I new as soon as I saw the title of this post that you were really setting yourself up to take one more shot at Mularkey for not going for the 50+ yard field goal. LOL! It may be that Lindell has improved over the offseason and we may have just seen a statistical aberration in him missing his first medium-long field goal of the season. He may make his next 15 in a row for all we know. And I agree that he has struck the ball much better so far this year. But this position that our head coach didn't have the guts to make what you believe was the right decision (i.e. the one to win and not the one not to lose) is simply illogical. Once again I use the black jack example. If you have a hand that, in view of what the dealer has showing, dictates standing pat and not taking a hit because the odds are in your favor of winning by doing so, how is that going against the odds and taking the hit anyway is the gutsy call and playing to win? Logically, playing the odds correctly is playing to win, even if that means not making the aggressive play. In this game, the Bills defense had shut down the Jags so completely for 58 minutes, why would you not want to play the odds in your favor, pin the Jags deep (or maybe even get a TO on the punt) to stack the odds against them as much as possible and rely on your defense to win the game? Why is it that instead you would have your kicker make an attempt that the odds dicated he would NOT make (given his earlier miss, given his historical record from the distance), and further risk some other potential catostrophic events such as a block, bad snap and fumble etc. instead? In hindsight, the change in field position was not as good as it should have been (due to what was frankly a lousy punt by Moorman), and was obvioulsy not enough for the Bills to stop them, but hell, sometimes the dealer hits and wins even though the odds were greatly in favor her busting. Regardless, playing the odds is playing to win, regardless of whether one hits or stands pat. Not playing the odds is playing to lose, even if one hits because its gutsy. Now you can argue over whether in fact MM's assessment of the odds was incorrect, but frankly I'm not sure how you could support that. Regardless, to label MM as not having the guts to hit when the odds to him and many other observers said stand pat is just not supportable in any objective manner. And it is no more supportable just because the dealer was forced to hit and still won against the odds.

I like to see him where he believes he is most effective. If he thinks he can afford to be in the booth doing the technical analysis while he relies on his coaches to do the firing up and the reminding of siutational issues, then I'm cool with that.

Foxboro Mike is to Drew just as Sullivan is to Tom Donahoe!

ROTFLMAO!

Ironically, the Steelers and Bills had virtually the identical stats except for ONE major area. The Bus scored three times for them down in the red zone. Oh yeah, and their kicker made his 42 yarder. Steelers Bills 1st Downs 17 16 Rushing 9 5 Passing 7 10 Penalty 1 1 3rd-Down Conversions 6-12 7-14 Fumbles/Lost 2-1 3-2 Time Of Pos. 29:17 33:53 Total Net Yards 237 242 Total Plays 57 63 Average Gain 4.2 3.8 Net Yards Rushing 107 95 Rushes 33 36 Avg. Per Rush 3.2 2.6 Net Yards Passing 130 147 Comp.-Att. 13-22 17-26 Yards Per Pass 5.4 5.4 Sacked-Yards Lost 2-12 1-6 Had Intercepted 0 0 Touchdowns 3 1 Rushing 3 0 Passing 0 1 Extra Points 3-3 1-1 Field Goals 1-1 1-2 Red Zone Efficiency 3-3-100% 1-3-33% Goal To Go Efficiency 3-3-100% 0-1- 0% So the Stillers won even though the Raiders rolled up 358 yards of offense on their D, just by making their chances in the red zone count.

Here's a good analogy: A call is by definition either made or not, and that is the judgment. If pass interference is not called on a play on the field, by definition the judgment is that there was no interference. So if they are reviewing a catch as to whether it was in bounds on the sideline, and the replay shows his feet were not both in, then there is no catch. Even if upon reviewing the play, it looks as if that prior to the catch, he was interfered with, they can't call interference because it was already judged there was no intereference and that judgment is not reviewable. Same with the force out situation. If a force out is not called on the field, then the judgment is that there was no force out. If it turns out that both feet aren't down in reviewing the play but that there was some momentum imparted which looks like a force out its too late because the judgment was already made that he was NOT forced out. That judgement call also cannot be reviewed by definition. This is true for either case, even if the ref did not actually consider whether there was initerefernce or a force out. No call implies no foul.

BTW, the correct quote is: "If I can change, yoose can change......!!! LOL

In this entire post, as well as others you have started along this line, I see nothing here for which one can fault Drew. Of course, it was Foxy Mikey who suggested this was really Drew's fault because he forced them to not not ask more of him because they simply can't without exposing his weaknesses. If your beef is with the coaches, the gameplan, the offensive scheme that's fine. Although as I have said countless times, and as was pointed out by another poster in this thread, we've been playing this offense for all of about a month now, and only yesterday when it really mattered. I guarantee you we hadn't run probably half of those plays before yesterday against a real opponent. Perhaps we ought to give the new OC who is calling plays for the first time the opportunity to bring this brand new offense up somewhat conservatively at first. It helps build confidence all the way around and will give players like Travis Henry the chance to figure out which is his left and which is his right in this new offense. What is of course extremely ironic about this position is that there is a huge contingent on this board that would prefer we never threw the ball again unless it is 3rd and more than 20 yards to go. Maybe we ought to just give this offense a few weeks to mature and expand itself before we start worrying that 153 yards of passing offense is all we are going to expect from Drew this year. I know it sucks, but that's what happens when you bring in a new HC, a new OC who has never called plays, you install a completely new offense and go about changing your starting QBs entire approach to the game, one that he has followed for well over a decade. If in three or four games, Drew is still not taking occasional shots downfield or some more medium range passes, then you might have something to fear.

That's a really great question!! I did a bunch of searches, and the only thing that I am sure of is that judgment calls are not reviewable, including whether he was forced out. So I would assume that is why he made the call immediately that he was forced out, regardless of his feet. That way, the judgment has been made up front one way or the other. By that logic, I would say no to your question. I would say that the force out judgment is made up front. If it is not called, then it cannt be later called based on the replay. The absence of the call up front is the same as saying, in my judgment he was not forced out.

You are correct. Once the ref made the juidgment call that he was forced out, it is not reviewable. The only thing left was the maintaining possession issue.

You've got it Bill. Your wife is going to be just fine.

Ref said he didn't, and I agree. When you look at the replay, his heel never makes it all the way down before his upper body hits out.

The ref said the receiver did not get both feet in bounds, but that he was forced out and therefore it was a TD. No one on the network said that the force out part is not reviewable. My feeling was that it was reviewable, but there was no way, as long as there was some contact, that they were going to overrule that judgment on the field. As with any review, there would have to be incontrovertable evidence to overturn, and as long as there is contact, how do you determine incontrovertibly from the replay that it wan't enough to force him out? But the reality of that play is he jumped up vertically, possibly a little backwards at the end line. One must assume that if he then ends up coming down without contact that he gets his feet down. It is physics. I don't think the ball is enough to take him out, and one has to assume that he was jumping pretty much vertically.

You mean, make this self-imposed exile a TBD imposed one? Good idea!

Actually, he is not blaming Bledsoe for the loss, at least not directly. It is merely another attempt from another angle by which he tries to satisfy his Bledsoe obsession. His position in this latest attempt is that Bledsoe is such a crappy QB with such crappy skills, that the Bills have designed an offense that is protecting itself against his crappiness and therefore has ironically robbed itself of the only redeeming quality Bledose has. The offense is new and maturing. That includes the OC, who is calling plays for the first time and who is learning what works best when and against what. Players are still not second nature in their assignments (see TravisH). But this becomes yet another opporutnity for Mike to satisfy his obsession. Another angle by which he can ply his need for self-justification. Its old.

LAB, ROTFLMAO! FM, why are you so obsessed with telling us all how bad Drew is? So yeah, the whole offense is designed to turn Drew into a mindless robot who can't hurt the team as is his proclivity, just another indication that the guy sucks and NE was lucky to be rid of him. OR It just might be that that the offense is new, the OC is new AND a rookie one at that, and that it might just take more than a few quarters of some meaningless preseason games to get all of the kinks worked out, including the OC having a full command of the play-calling given defensive alignments, down and distance situations, etc. MAYBE, it was the OC that was being reigned in for the first game. MAYBE, Mularkey didn't want him going much beyond a conservative set of play-calling because of the newness of the offense (after all, Travis Henry still hasn't figured out which side is which). Now why don't you just head on back to your own board and talk about how great your team is and give up your crusade to explain to us all how Drew is the worst QB we could have possibly signed? This "Drew is a sham, always has been always will be let me try to find as many angles by which to convince you of this" drivel is so old it's making you look like a fool.

Not only that, but it madeanother 4th down conversion much easier. When you have first and five, it makes it so much tougher on the D to make a stop of 4 downs. Even the Jags can make 5 yards in 4 downs! Kelly, as always I appreciate your reasoned posts. I am a little less angry with Nate than you are however. I am not sure that it was so much ego as plain stupidity. There are certain times where an INT makes sense, but NOT on a 4th down play that will end the game obviously. I am going to give him the benefit of the doubt that it was his lack of clear thinking given the situtation rather than the need to feed his ego.

I know it must chap you a bit, not being able to blame Drew directly for this loss. Instead, you have to do it indirectly by saying that he was overpaid for his production and conceding in a backhanded sort of way that perhaps it was the offensive scheme such as it was on Sunday and the play-calling that failed to get Ralph's money's worth out of Drew. But there is some merit to the post in the sense in that it recognizes symptomatically that this offense is still in its infancy. It will take some time for a rookie OC to get the grasp of this offense and its capabilities. It will take some time for the players to get comfortable and completely in synch. After all, it is tough to blame Drew (although not impossible as this thread demonstrates) for Travis setting up for a screen on the wrong side of the field, let alone for the play's failure to succeed. The reality is that it takes a bit longer than slightly more than 4 quarters of a preseason game for this to happen. It is the unfortunate result of changing HCs and OCs. The question is whether the offense continues to mature and make progress, and how many games we have to lose before it gets to a competent level of point production.