JDG
-
Posts
1,351 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by JDG
-
-
Were the visible clocks even working? According to an interview after the game, Trent said they were playing without a clock, on the field.
In my mind it doesn't matter. The Bills had already established that they were in "run the clock" mode (even if you couldn't figure it out on your own) by running down the playclock the play before. Once you get in "run the clock" mode, as a RB, you should be thinking "stay in bounds." There is no way you should be thinking, "oh, we started 'run the clock mode' with more than five minutes left in the half, so the clock will keep running even if I go out of bounds.
JDG
-
According to the NFL play-by-play, Lynch was pushed out of bounds:
I don't really remember the play, though.
By my watch of the play, it looked like it was designed to be an off-tackle type play that Lynch bounced to the outside. Yes, Lynch was pushed out of bounds. However, a slight difference between a great runner and a very good runner, is that in that situation a great runner makes sure to go down in bounds and keep that clock running.
As for the 3rd and 1 @ 10:19 of the 4th quarter, I agree that Lynch probably makes that 1st down. I won't bash Jauron/Turk for that call (and don't think you did, either), but I was surprised when Jackson got that the ball on that play.It certainly was a completely defensible call, although for all of Fred Jackson's numerous abilities, I have not been impressed by his ability to make tough carries in "logjam" type situations like 3rd-and-short. I personally thought that this was a great opportunity to throw a pass (which would surely have gotten Jauron excoriated around here had that failed). The Bills had just taken a 6 point lead, and then stopped the Chargers. I really thought this was a drive to take control of the game - the Bills have not generated good running game push all season, and had not done so today. My second choice would have been to give it to Lynch for a tough yard, and my third choice would have been to give it to Jackson on a toss or stretch type play. Giving it to Jackson for a tough yard would have been my fourth option in that situation, albeit still a defensible one.
The clock no longer stops on OB plays until the last 5:00 of the game. On the play you're referring to there was about 4:50 left when Marshawn ran OB so he probably didn't even realize they'd gone under the 5:00 mark.That being said, yes he should have stayed in and he should have delivered a blow while doing it.
The ball was snapped at 4:57. Again, a great running back needs to know the situation, and how to help his team with little details. That's part of the reason why they study film all week. The Bills had just run down the play clock from the previous play, so Lynch should have known what was going on.
JDG
-
Holy crap, lets get to the playoffs before comparing a second year player to the 7th first ballot hall of fame quarterback ever.
There's no such thing as a "first ballot hall of famer." There are simply "Hall of Famers."
JDG
-
Marshawn apparently rolled his ankle in the drive previous and they went with Jackson as a precautionary measure and because he is a very capable back himself.
As for the "run out of bounds", the clock kept moving so no harm no foul.
Actually not. Lynch's run out-of-bounds at 4:57 in the fourth quarter stopped the clock. Fortunately we won anyways - but again, this has been a reoccurring problem for Lynch in his career.
Or are we now onto running Marshawn out of town now? Can't we as fans just be f#cking happy that we're 5 and 1 and not be b!tching about a guy who our own coach says "has the most heart he's ever seen in a player"?Running out of town? I just criticized Jauron for giving a certain critical carry to Jackson instead of Lynch....
JDG
-
I thought it was very interesting how many carries Fred Jackson got late in the game. Normally you are going to you best back in crunch time and when you need to run out the clock. Clearly the coaches have a ton of faith in Fred Jackson at this point - perhaps even moreso than Marshawn Lynch.
It also ended up not mattering, but Marshawn Lynch *still* needs to learn how to stay inbounds when we are running out the clock. This has been a significant weakness in Lynch's game from Day 1, IMHO.
With that being said, on the 3rd and 1, I wanted to Bills to through the ball in this particular game in the particular situation. Failing that, I absolutely agree that you gotta give the ball to Lynch to try and get the super-tough yard. He's got that "Beast Mode" for a reason...
JDG
-
Yeah Moorman is a great punter---but Lechler is ridiculously great. -May be the best I've seen since Ray Guy.
And Ray Guy wasn't even that good!
-
Yes:
Darick Holmes-122 and Thurman Thomas-107 vs. Was (11/3/96)
Darrick Holmes had an amazing run in that game in which it seemed like he carried half the Washington defense down the field with him.... I hope its on YouTube somewhere...
-
In bad weather, the Bills need to be more effective in running the ball......The Giants were effective running at us in the 2nd half last year....the Browns ran roughshod over us in that snow-blinder.....If the weather is bad, you don't put the game in the hands of your QB.....At this point Marshawn is well ahead of Trent Edwards as the best player on offense and the ball should be in his hands.....
All very true. Marshawn Lynch continues to show flashes of brilliant, but I still feel like our running game is just lacking a little something in the consistency department.
With that being said, I think there is no denying what a night-and-day difference there was between Edwards and Derek Anderson in the Cleveland game last year. I'm willing to dismiss any one gameas a fluke (this is football after all), but at this point I'm starting to see the disturbing beginnings of a trend - which would suggest that that night-and-day difference wasn't at all all fluke.
JDG
-
Some additional thoughts that I haven't seen mentioned yet:
1) For all the great Special Teams plays we had yesterday - we still had a blocked kick. UGH! It reminds me of losing a game to the Jets (who have a pretty good ST coach/consultant of their own in Mike Westhoff) a ways back on a special teams return.
2) Props to Trent Edwards for turning around an ugly start, but what really concerns me is the appearance from the TV feed that his turn-around also coincided with an easing of the severe weather. Based on the end of last season, it is very disconcerting that Edwards might not be able to handle severe weather.
3) A win is a win - but by the middle of the third quarter, Seattle was missing each of its top four WR's. It almost felt like it wasn't a fair fight....
JDG
-
That statement implies, however, that the sole reason you bought tickets in the first place was because you "expected" to see a team that would blow everyone out. If you're really a fan and want to watch your team, the injury is disappointing, of course, but it doesn't mean you now stay away -- particularly when everyone still predicts your team will compete for the playoffs.
Pretty much the spot-on definition of bandwagon jumping.
It depends. I don't think that you have to be a "bandwagon jumper" to admit that it is a hell of a lot more fun to watch your team (particularly in person at the Stadium) playing well and winning than to watch your team playing poorly and losing.
How much money are *you* willing to spend to watch your team, win or lose? Would you really pay $120 per game for Bills Season Tickets? $200 per game?
The truth of the matter is that football tickets are a business - and you may love your team, but we also all have other things to spend our hard-earned money on.
JDG
-
In fairness to all the Pats fans - the *average* ticket price in that Stadium is $118 - up 30% from last year. That figure is also more than twice (130%!) the average ticket for a Bills game and 62% higher than the NFL Average.
I know that if I had spent those kind of bucks and suddenly found out that I was going to be watching Matt Cassell instead of Tom Brady, I know that I'd want to get some of many money back too...
JDG
-
I dunno - how excited can you get about a team that was playing their 5th, 6th, and 7th-string WR's for the last quarter and a half? Heck, and that was starting the game with *Nate Burleson* as their best WR!
Hey, bravo to the Bills and their Special Teams for taking care of business - but it was just one game. If the Bills can send the Jaguars to 2-0 on their homefield, then there'll be plenty of attention....
JDG
-
Just a curious question. Why do you blame the politicians for the mess in WNY ? Is it because they kept raising the taxes ? It seems other places have also raised taxes in the North East and still have a better economy. While raising tax might be a cause, I think it is only one of the many reasons why Buffalo is suffering. Frankly, the world economy is changing day by day and it is the ability of the society of each place to adapt to those changes, I think, keeps a city booming.
A city like Buffalo failed to think forward and did not entice growth in areas other than the mills in the 70s. For example, they did not make SUNY Buffalo a big time university for research. For example, Pittsburgh is in much better shape due to the surrounding UPITT and CMU universities. These universities regularly open up new companies and new jobs aroowund the area in many disciplines.
It seems that the people of the city together should take the blame rather than soley putting it on the politicians.
I have a hard time finding proof for it, but I suspect that a major factor is that Buffalo and New York State in general still has the government bureaucracy established to run the place when it was almost twice the size about 50 years ago. I do know that New York regularly tops the Nation's most-taxed lists, and that makes it hard to entract not just businesses, but entrepreneurs as well.
While politicians don't build the economy - they lay the foundation for it. Keeping taxes competitive with other jurisdictions, and streamlining the bureacracy for entrepreneurs who want to start new businesses. The proof seems to be in the pudding that New York has singularly failed to do that. I refuse to believe that Upstate New Yorkers are somehow naturally less-entrepreneurial than those of other places - they just seem to go elsewhere to do it.
JDG
-
THANK YOU! Someone finally beat me to my usually reply using actual data, not emotion. As an urban planner and demographics junky, you;re on top of your game! Even more, if you look at a lot of the larger MSAs (metropolitan statistical areas) are larger in size than Buffalos because the unfortunate way the US Census Bureau determines the size of the MSA is how connected the outlying areas are to the central city eocnomically, using commuting data.
The other thing about MSA's is that they are tied to County boundaries, which can produce lots of strange results. For example, the Los Angeles MSA extends all the way to Nevada because of the crazy county boundaries in California.
Urbanized Area (UZA) boundaries have their own oddities, but in general, I tend to like them better.
Any way you cut it, though, the Buffalo market has a small core than the Indianpolis market, and a poorer one.
JDG
-
I don't hear any grumbling in Green Bay about needing a "New" Lambeau to compete in the NFL... That facility is ancient...
Beyond the fact that Lambeau was recently rennovated into a year-round tourist detination, the other thing the Packers did decades ago was to start playing half their games in Milwaukee. As such, Milwaukee is wholly part of "Packer Nation" (admittedly it was an easier sell with Green Bay being part of the same State.). Its really the Milwaukee market that drives the Packers - and Milwaukee is a good 33% bigger than Buffalo - and with a good stack of corporations in the Fortune 500 to boot (Eight(!) in Milwaukee, and two others in Wisconsin (Madison & Oshkosh)).
JDG
-
Before getting all huffy, its worth considering that according to the US Census Bureau, the Indianpolis Urbanized Area is 36% larger than the Buffalo Urbanized Area.
The Indianapolis Meto Area is also the headquarters for three companies on the Fortune 500 - that is three more than Buffalo, and includes Wellpoint at #33 overall, Eli Lilly at #133, and Cummins at #206.
Not all small markets are made the same.
Even if you toss in Rochester the combined population only just matches Indianapolis and Ft. Wayne - and obviously, its a lot easier to go to a game the closer you live. And in terms of corporations, while Western New York does have 3 on the Fortune 500, but two (Corning and Constellation Brands) are in the 400-500 range, and Eastman Kodak is only at #238.
Buffalo isn't on the verge of losing the Bills because of a lack of fervor for the Bills. Rather it is because of decades of political decisions that have consistently pushed the area further into economic decline.
JDG
-
And my point is, why would the owners agree to that? The Owners of the clubs with money want to be able to spend, and if a young player walks, they will just go out and buy a better replacement, or pay more for the player to stay.
Anbd why would the players agree to that? That would mean they would all demand a huge rookie salary because it will be their only big one if by the time they are at the end of it they are on the downside of their career.
If you really want to make teams focus more on drafting and building their team that way, the cap should only apply to players acquired through FA and trade. It would be uncapped for signing and re-signing players that were drafted by the team (or signed to their first NFL contract by them, and cap only the offseason FA spending each year.
Many owners recognize that the salary cap creates a levelling of the playing field - and that that levelling of the playing field has contributed significantly to the enormous popularity of the NFL. That popularity is why the NFL TV Contracts are such a gold mine... and at the end of the day, the salary cap may well mean even more money for all teams - including the big market teams - than an uncapped system would.
Indeed, the big market owners like having their labor costs capped as much as any business owner does.
So, its missing a bit of the point to think that the salary cap is the only big issue here. *Revenue*Sharing* is just as big, if not a bigger reason for the upcoming labor troubles than the salary cap is.
JDG
-
I think it would make for a good T-Shirt design, but I don't see it becoming a team logo...
-
Go Gorillas!
<=====
JDG
-
I wonder what lost Grimm the job. He had to be the top guy. Could Tomlin have wowed them that much? I agree, Max, it's not like the Viks' D was the '85 Bears this season.
The real question in my mind is what lost Whisenhunt the job... I always thought that he was going to be the guy there once Cowher left, and he didn't take the Cardinals job because he thought that he was still a candidate in Pittsburgh....
JDG
-
That's the same thing I asked when the Vikings had their worst year under Dennis Green in 1995 (his only playoff miss there ?) because of a lack of defense. Tony Dungy was the coordinater and still got the Tampa Bay job. Quality can be identified.
.
And Lovie Smith was the *Rams* defensive coordinator. The job of the Head Coach is not to be an über-coordinator, its to be a HEAD COACH. Its folly to evaluate a potential Head Coach on the basis of their performance as a coordinator....
JDG
-
That's the same thing I heard about Donahoe when he got here.
And the Rooneys picked Cowher over Donahoe when one of them had to go..... Looks pretty good to me!
-
I will definitly give you credit for taking the time to write out such a detailed plan, but there are something I can't see happening and it revolves around your lines.
Ralph was not happy with our ability to stop the run, and neither was Marv and the coaching staff, soi you have to figure that is the top priority this year, I can see alot of reshuffling of the DT's and atleast one low budget FA pickup and a 1 draft pick being brought in. (if you re-sign Kelsay and hargrove, I think the DE's will remain as they were)
As for the O-line, There is no way it stays as is, and the first player that gets replaced is Preston. Peters is pretty much a lock so LT is fine. JP has already said Gandy is the leader of the o-line and he played much better at Guard, so if peters is happy with him there and JP is happy, I think he gets re-signed. Fowler was not a Pro Bowler, but he is smart and played well, and I don't see the Bills replacing him if it is not absolutly necessary. Preston was mediocre for a first year starter at guard and is probably the first choice for an upgrade. He would provide depth at the o-line position (RG and C) but nothing more. The coaching staff seem to think they have something in Pennington at RT and I think a Vet RG next to him could help him develop into the RT we all want. I think a OG in the Draft and a FA OG are probably the most we get this year (one starter, one for depth) as they hope to develop the young players they have and hope a little more time together will help them Gel into a great o-line.
You have to remember that I'm thinking in terms of the 46 players you bring to a game, not the full 53 man roster.
We agree that it is a reasonable approach to resign Kelsay and to tender Hargrove, which would leave us with the same four DE's - Schobel, Kelsay, Denney and Hargrove.
At DT, if you bring a 4th DT to the game, you need to reduce a player at another position - probably one of the special teams linebackers. I actually kind of agree that we are likely to see a low-budget FA pickup or a late draft pick used at the DT position. I don't see at all, however, one of those players beating out the three guys that Levy and Jauron hand-picked for the position, Triplett, Williams, and McCargo for a gameday roster spot. So then the question is, do one of those guys beat out one of our special teams LB's for a gameday roster spot? Its a tough call, but my thinking here is that the answer would be "no."
The same thing is true on the offensive line. A team typically brings no more than six linemen to a game, five starters, a third tackle, and a backup interior lineman. Thus, your approach is actually very similar to mine, the only difference being that I have a free agent and Preston starting at Guard, and you have a free agent and a re-signed Gandy at guard. Since Gandy played for Jauron in Chicago, I think, the more I think about it, the more I think Jauron will try and sign him. That would leave Preston as the 7th lineman on gameday, and putting Merz back on the inactive list for another season of potential development. Yeah, I could very easily see that happening....
JDG
-
Minor quibble, JDG -- but the Denney that we are sending to NFL Europe is Chris Denney, the small UDFA receiver from camp last year, not Ryan the five-year vet DE. He is certainly in the Bills' plans.
Doh! That's what I get for doing TBD in the morning before coffee.... that would have registered eventually.... thanks for the pickup....
A Few Thoughts About The Game.....
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I have to slightly quibble with this. Its probably not fair to blame the "team" for the Adrian Wilson hit. At worst, it was a matter of 1, maybe 2 players missing their blocking assignment on a single play. I'd argue that Hardy (a member of the team) played pretty well on that play.
Up on the TBD website there is an article that has some extended quotes from Donte Whitner on this subject.
http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/11047927
The relevant nuggets are:
Trent Edwards then added this nugget:
I think Trent's comment is true the other way around as well. When the offense is playing well, the defense may not press as much - and that may produce better results. I think that's only human - and I disagree that its a character flaw in the team.
With that being said, Whitner added this little firstarter:
My own assessment is that while Trent Edwards would have helped during Arizona (I think he would have avoided at least one of those two strip-sacks if nothing else), the way our defense and running game played in that game, the net effect would have been to just make the score a little closer. If Kurt Warner got his hands on the ball with a chance to win in that game, you just had the sense that he would have made it happen on that day against that day's Bills defense - pressing or not pressing.
JDG