MRM33064

There's nothing quite as entertaining as watching a 320 pound monster (Urbik) pull off the line, rumble around the edge to to block for a screen, dive at the feet of a defender who gives up about 100 pounds to him, and whiff. Somewhat like elephant ballet. That said, it's the QB. It's always the QB. A great QB will make the league talk about how great our line looks.

Remember when the "deal with it America" banner waved defiantly at the stadium as we were on our way to our 4th straight SuperBowl? Those were the days, back when everyone complained about being sick of US ...

The 80s style philosophy - force an inside running game, bemoan the risk of turnovers, punt, play field position - is just brutal. There's no question it hurts us, it costs us marginal wins, and especially hurts us when playing against teams with superior talent. The entire game now is: make big plays, go for big plays, eat some turnovers as a cost of doing business (so to speak), maximize # of offensive plays, get the downfield flags, etc. Even so, what kills us is the QB play. Keep the great defense, keep the great O-line ... my kingdom for a great QB. These days, it's the great QB that makes everyone else look good, not vice-versa.

I heard Coach needs Jerry's roster spot for some other type of kicker. One that's really good at onside kicks. Or tiddlywinks. Or something like that.

Fred Jackson has enough heart to power those legs a little longer. That guy belonged with the Polian/Levy/Kelly teams.

Hopefully the charming Mr. Schlereth made a hefty bet on his Broncos to cover.

Well said ... and the "not your Dad's NFL" extends beyond just the parity. Marrone coaches as though it's 1980 - the emphasis on defense, field position, turnover avoidance, risk aversion is amplified by his oddball roster decisions: carrying 3 kickers, a FB, and 3 TEs, 2 of which are of the blocking variety. When asked about his decisions, he spouts off assertions about "the percentages" without seeming to have any real clue of what they are. He uses the terminology almost in cliche fashion. He just does everything that a modern, consistently good NFL team does NOT do. This is a league about big plays, big scoring - even the rules are in place to promote these things. Interceptions? Meh - acceptable costs of "doing business" in an offense that can score big points. It's not about obsessing over mistake minimization, it's about maximizing the # of offensive chances (read: plays) and taking smart risks - like 4th-and-short (particularly in opponent territory), running kickoffs out of the endzone instead of downing them (because it's a free "big play" opportunity at the likely cost/downside of a giving up few yards inside of the 20 if it doesn't bust it). We have our Dad's - in some cases probably Grandpa's - NFL head coach.

"Heh heh .... great to met you Terry. But no, there isn't enough money in the universe."

14 years. We have a meager chance of staying alive for the playoffs. The entire season hangs in the balance. We're down 2 scores, on the opponents 46 yard line. Late in the 4th quarter. 4th and 6. Marrone does the math and concludes: "the percentages don't favor us here." And PUNTS. It's laughable. Sad. Tragic. But laughable. This man is not solving Rubik's cubes on the plane rides home.

Terry: What's that smell? Kim: OMG the office is on fire! Terry: Damned microwave pizza rolls. I told them not to let Doug manage the clock.

Amen, eh? At some point during this decade+ dry spell even George Costanza would've invoked the "opposite day" rule. How about ... everyone just go home and rest. Maybe this is really just really a football game coming up and not, say, a multi-force landing at Normandy. I don't really think our staff is comprised of a lot of record-speed Rubik's cube solvers anyway.

And, at coach's request, mining NFL rosters for a few more punters. Speciality guys. I mean, how can we possibly even think of traveling down to South Florida without a punter trained to handle the humidity. Or the rain. And what if one gets hurt. We only have 3 kickers as it is.

More bogus old-school behavior ... working all night (because ... um ... we're tough?), "let's play field position", complaining about turnovers (yet punting like there's no tomorrow), carrying 3 kickers, a FB and 2 blocking TEs. All as though we're trying to win the Super Bowl in, say, 1980. Listing 20+ coaches on the webpage is also a prize, because nothing improves the efficiency and tactical prowess of an organization more than adding several additional middle managers. I mean, what would we do without an Adjunct Assistant VP of Backup Linebacker Conditioning working all through the night. But that's still NFL-wide. Sometimes I wonder if someday some NFL franchise - maybe like one that hasn't won anything in 14 years or so - will just question a lot of the "old ways" and do things a little differently. Fewer managers, working smarter not longer, simplifying, maybe some <gasp> analytics types, game theory folks ... nah, they're nerds. Not tough guys.

There's an objective (or very close to objective) answer to this that one of the analytics sites will likely post at some point soon. My sense is that it actually was the correct move to pursue a TD there instead of attempting a FG, kicking off, relying on another defensive stop, counting on the offense to get into FG position again and then successfully executing another FG. The caveat would be in the "pursuit" of the TD; that is, it didn't have to be 4 stabs at the endzone when getting another 1st down was possible, but the play was in fact there had the pass been on target.

In many ways, Marrone seems to share a lot of the old Jauron-ish philosophies ... run, punt, put it on the defense, play field position, mangle clock management in the last 2 minutes of the first half... at least insofar as game tactics go. I wonder how much that directly influences, or limits, the offensive coordinator. On one hand, we have shown that willingness to "go for the throat" that we all like (ex: go for the endzone on the first play after a turnover), but it doesn't seem to happen as often as we'd like. It's tough to throw-in with the anti-Hackett crowd without knowing if it's all coming from the head coach or not. That, and the fact that yes ... results matter ... and I'm liking this season a lot more than the last several.

We've got a head coach who sure seems to value a lot of the old Dick Jauron-ish priorities, things that generally worked well in the 80s: punt, play field position, focus on stingy defense, protect against turnovers at all costs ... unless the turnover is a punt, a "voluntary turnover" that is somehow viewed as conservative and acceptable. He's trying to fit that kind of mentality into a modern NFL where the majority of consistently great teams are those that rely heavily upon great QB play, high-scoring offenses, special teams that are designed to produce big plays that yield big chunks of yardage (as opposed to kneeling on it every time in the endzone), etc. Simply put, in today's NFL, it's more important to have a high-powered scoring offense - the league itself has designed all sorts of rules to promote that. Without inside info, it seems tough say whether Hackett is being confined by his head coach's philosophy, or if he too is caught in a different era despite his age.

Ralph says: "Not yet, Jim" Pegulaville needs you there Still want my trophy! It's Miami Day One Empty Seat At The Ralph Fish Fry in Heaven

Sal just seems like a decent guy, he's a real fan of the Bills and Sabres, he's friendly, he's polite, he likes to reminisce (Al Bundy-like) about his high-school football credentials and above all else: he always says nice things about Buffalo. This is essentially the recipe for a being a well-liked anything in Buffalo. Doctor, lawyer, teacher, radio host .... maybe he ought run for Mayor.

There's simultaneously one thread about the relative benefits of one (aging, fungible) punter over a different (younger, fungible) punter and another thread about how we have too many (!?) QBs. Yes, we are Bills fans indeed.

That's a partially good thought. In short, spreading the field and running an up-tempo offense is the way to go - which also makes CJ far, far more effective - but that approach relies heavily upon good, quick decision-making by the QB. Combine that with some forward-thinking tactics (e.g. understanding when we should be going-for-it on 4th down instead of <cringe> punting, when we should be running it out of the endzone on kickoffs and taking advantage of the upside opportunity for breaking a huge play instead of the 1940s "play it safe and take it on the 20" approach) and we'll get somewhere. EJ just doesn't quite have the chops yet to run that offense successfully. Dare I say some of Chan's ideas in this regard were pretty good, but we lacked the right personnel to run it then too.

BuffOrrange, Silvermike, eball ... please submit resumes to Russ when the (eagerly awaited) "Analytics Department" opens. A few game theory and/or statistics PhDs in place of another Adjunct Assistant Backup Linebackers Coach could pay off quite nicely, particularly in games decided by 7 points or fewer - of which there is no shortage.

The nerds (or I should probably say "we nerds") will take over the tactical decision-making in this sport at some point, but alas it's not likely to happen for awhile. BuffOrrange is dead-on perfect with his analysis of the media tendency to analyze these things from an "after-the-fact" perspective. The decision needs to be assessed prior to the play, using score, time remaining, time-outs left, down and distance, etc. I'll put it this way: as a Bills fan, I was praying that Rivera would kick the FG there, instead of going for it on 4th-and-1 and either: (a) winning the game (or, I should say, having probably a 99.99% to win the game by kneeling); or (b) giving us the ball back at the 20, with our likely goal at that point being an attempt to tie the game with a FG and go into OT. Sure, a TD to win the game would've been possible - but highly unlikely BUF would've forced the issue to go for the TD when a FG would've kept them alive. Smart coaches (and it pains me to say this) like Darth Belichick have, and routinely do, go for it in that position. Of course, no matter what CAR did ... at that point in the game they still had a very good chance to win. But their win probability actually went DOWN by making the FG and then kicking back off to BUF with 1:30 remaining - though it went down from about 80% to about 72-78%. It was still likely they'd win.

Note the decision making. About as "spot on" as CAR's decision to attempt to go up by 6 points (and kickoff to BUF with 1:30 left in the game) rather than go for 1 yard to effectively end the game. Great idea - go up by 6 - give the ball back to BUF with only 2 clear possibilities: win the game with a TD and XP or lose the game. The alternative: win the game by gaining 1 yard, or don't gain the 1 yard and give BUF the ball back at their own 20 with a chance to win OR (more likely) tie and send it to OT. Brutal. The decision-making in the NFL is frequently abysmal. (For anyone who is interested, there is a piece on Schiano's bungled decision on Advanced NFL Stats.)

I'm not a big Buddy fan, but this is just gross. Congrats to whoever got pseudo-famous for 24 hours at the expense of a secretary, who is probably upset beyond belief. All over a "story" that broke no significant news and will likely disappear in the next news cycle unless the NFL and/or the Feds decide to pursue the media group, in one way or the other.