Cash

If it had been a much shorter distance to convert (maybe 5 yards or less) I'd have advocated going for it. However, given how unlikely it was to make it, I think the higher percentage play was to send out your kicker for a FG he makes about 85% of the time. Making the FG pretty much wraps up the game, as long as you don't allow a big return on the kickoff. I agree with those who feel that the bootleg on 2nd down was a mistake. However, it is a defensible one, because it did have a reasonable chance of working. And even though it failed as much as possible, it still kept the clock moving and didn't force us out of FG range. As much as I loved the playaction pass to Schouman on the previous series, Jacksonville is probably too good to be fooled by the playfake twice like that. I'd have preferred a handoff. Don't think it would've made a difference, though, because we still wouldn't have gotten the first down. All in all, I just have to say how pleased I am with that last drive in comparison to similar situations last year. I feel like last year, the philosophy was more about not getting embarrassed than winning. Specifically, I'm thinking of the last-second losses against Dallas and Denver. In both of those games (especially Dallas), our coaching staff basically decided to give the opponent a shot at a game-winning FG and hope it missed, rather than risk giving up a touchdown. I was worried that we'd see a similar move yesterday, where the Bills would run 3 straight times, then punt on 4th and short -- hoping that Jacksonville wouldn't be able to get into FG range in time. Instead, the Bills showed a real desire to put the game away, and if the Jags had been fooled by that bootleg, the Bills would have put it away 100%. As it was, they still did a pretty good job.

I got there 5 minutes before kickoff and had no trouble getting in. Were people turned away or something?

I agree. Do the Bills usually have 6 LBs dress on gameday? If not, their whole reasoning for putting Crowell on IR is blown apart. But even if they do, I'd still prefer to waive one of the Inactive 7 instead of losing 8-14 games (probably closer to 14 than 8) of contract-year production from an established starter. This move still strikes me as punitive and somewhat childish. Especially since Crowell is seeking a second opinion. I think the Bills assumed that the timing of Crowell's decision made it an Eff You move, and immediately struck back with an even bigger Eff You move. That will definitely hurt them in the short run, but it could go either way in the long run. I'm still very curious to hear from Crowell on this issue, because no one's gotten a quote from him since he went on IR.

I think most teams don't want that, because that makes your LS much more likely to get injured, and it's not a position you usually have a backup for.

Try again. drafthistory.com FTW: http://drafthistory.com/teams/bills.html Tony Hunter, 12th overall Jim Kelly, 14th overall