RevWarRifleman Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 No run plays to close that last drive in regulation either. After the deep ball to Spiller, why not sprinkle a run or two in? The Bills today ran virtually no play action either as they never seemed to be willing to try to run the ball. Sure a run here, a run there, no real effort to establish the run. Maybe they felt they simply couldn't. Sure was a horrible disappointment. Agree a 1000 times. Once we got to the 50 yd. line in last few mins. in regulation and in OT, it was like Chan was intoxicated w/ the pass, one dimensional. All during the game, Fred was getting 3 to 5 yds per crack. I don't understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFITZ1 Posted October 31, 2010 Author Share Posted October 31, 2010 THANK YOU!!!!! I thought I was the only one who felt this way. Chan Gailey's playcalling in these last 2 Overtime periods have been extremely costly. Why did Gailey abandon the running game in both overtime's? Gailey is the person I hold responsible as to why we did not win these last 2 games. I'm not sure about teh Ravens, but CG definitely handed this game over complete with KC Barbecue Sauce. No head coach worthy of the title would have let that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Yeah, but you're making a big assumptions that we're going to gain five yards on a run when we hardly did all day. It wasa tough call. At the time I was also thinking at worst we get out of here with a tie. But while many of uf us fans would have been trille with a tie and counted it as a "moral victory", NFL coaches aren't playing for a tie (even a winless team) they want the win. So you needed 5 to 10 more yards for a field goal so they went for it. They were moving it pretty well with passes on that drive and the drive prior moving through the air, so couldn't totally fault them. I'm sure if they ran three plays or even two plays and gained a total of maybe five yards, and then missed the kick with time running out, people would have been ripping them for not going for the win. While I agree that one run play may have guaranteed at least a tie, considering their lack of sucess with running, can't really fault them too much as they were moving the ball better through the air . For all we know one or two of them maybe should have been a run but Fitz felt he saw something and changed to a pass. If they're five yards farther up the field on the first possession by running the ball instead of throwing incomplete pass after incomplete pass, they don't even have the opportunity to run the Spiller play, because they already win the game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 He called a great game so he went with what was working which the running game was not. BTW what is up with Fred? Has he been hanging around with spiller because he was dancin around all day back there instead making the read and hitting it hard. Box score - facts 33 rushing plays. 4.2 yds/rush, 2 tackles for total loss 2 years. 48 passing plays, 24 completions. 3.7 yds/pass, 3 sacks for loss of 32 (numerous hurries, leading to the low completion %) Jackson ave 3.2 yds/carry. 9 yd long, average not skewed by a couple monster runs. Opinions - Jackson was moving it forward. Neither side of the offense was "lighting it up", a couple of runs would surely have helped the passing be more effective at the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russ 'Em Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Yeah, but you're making a big assumptions that we're going to gain five yards on a run when we hardly did all day. It wasa tough call. At the time I was also thinking at worst we get out of here with a tie. But while many of uf us fans would have been trille with a tie and counted it as a "moral victory", NFL coaches aren't playing for a tie (even a winless team) they want the win. So you needed 5 to 10 more yards for a field goal so they went for it. They were moving it pretty well with passes on that drive and the drive prior moving through the air, so couldn't totally fault them. I'm sure if they ran three plays or even two plays and gained a total of maybe five yards, and then missed the kick with time running out, people would have been ripping them for not going for the win. While I agree that one run play may have guaranteed at least a tie, considering their lack of sucess with running, can't really fault them too much as they were moving the ball better through the air . For all we know one or two of them maybe should have been a run but Fitz felt he saw something and changed to a pass. How did "Fitz" see something and change the play? They ran empty backfield for the most part. They let every one know that they were going to throw the ball. Not even the appearance of a run. And F the guys on WGR. They make me want to puke just listening to how much they hate their jobs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardigital Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 (edited) Yeah, but you're making a big assumptions that we're going to gain five yards on a run when we hardly did all day. It wasa tough call. At the time I was also thinking at worst we get out of here with a tie. But while many of uf us fans would have been trille with a tie and counted it as a "moral victory", NFL coaches aren't playing for a tie (even a winless team) they want the win. So you needed 5 to 10 more yards for a field goal so they went for it. They were moving it pretty well with passes on that drive and the drive prior moving through the air, so couldn't totally fault them. I'm sure if they ran three plays or even two plays and gained a total of maybe five yards, and then missed the kick with time running out, people would have been ripping them for not going for the win. While I agree that one run play may have guaranteed at least a tie, considering their lack of sucess with running, can't really fault them too much as they were moving the ball better through the air . For all we know one or two of them maybe should have been a run but Fitz felt he saw something and changed to a pass. I'm not saying one run, I'm saying three runs. Run the ball three times. Jesus, you can fall forward three times after the snap and get 3 yards, which also would have made a difference. Edited October 31, 2010 by wardigital Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFITZ1 Posted October 31, 2010 Author Share Posted October 31, 2010 It was also obvious that our defense was tiring and not holding back the Chiefs in OT. Heck, if it wasn't for one my 9-iron duck hooks on Succops FG attempt we would have lost sooner. Gailey should have put in the players hands to win the game, and his hands to assure a tie. A tie was nothing more than perhaps one running play. Yeah, but you're making a big assumptions that we're going to gain five yards on a run when we hardly did all day. It wasa tough call. At the time I was also thinking at worst we get out of here with a tie. But while many of uf us fans would have been trille with a tie and counted it as a "moral victory", NFL coaches aren't playing for a tie (even a winless team) they want the win. So you needed 5 to 10 more yards for a field goal so they went for it. They were moving it pretty well with passes on that drive and the drive prior moving through the air, so couldn't totally fault them. I'm sure if they ran three plays or even two plays and gained a total of maybe five yards, and then missed the kick with time running out, people would have been ripping them for not going for the win. While I agree that one run play may have guaranteed at least a tie, considering their lack of sucess with running, can't really fault them too much as they were moving the ball better through the air . For all we know one or two of them maybe should have been a run but Fitz felt he saw something and changed to a pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardigital Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 They also weren't moving the ball that well on passes in overtime. They had one nice throw to Evans when Spiller drew all the underneath coverage. The other big plays were a reverse by Parrish, a scramble by Fitzpatrick for 14 yards. Fitzpatrick threw well in the fourth quarter for the most part, but exactly in overtime. It was also obvious that our defense was tiring and not holding back the Chiefs in OT. Heck, if it wasn't for one my 9-iron duck hooks on Succops FG attempt we would have lost sooner. Gailey should have put in the players hands to win the game, and his hands to assure a tie. A tie was nothing more than perhaps one running play. One running play, taking the sack, etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Yeah, but you're making a big assumptions that we're going to gain five yards on a run when we hardly did all day. <...> While I agree that one run play may have guaranteed at least a tie, considering their lack of sucess with running, can't really fault them too much as they were moving the ball better through the air . For all we know one or two of them maybe should have been a run but Fitz felt he saw something and changed to a pass. Why do you think they were "moving the ball better through the air?" Passing: 50% completion rate, 3 sacks for loss of ~ 10 yds per sack, 3.7 yds/attempt Rushing: 4.2 yd/attempt Check it out: linky to box score Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 How did "Fitz" see something and change the play? They ran empty backfield for the most part. They let every one know that they were going to throw the ball. Not even the appearance of a run. And F the guys on WGR. They make me want to puke just listening to how much they hate their jobs. Exactly... and that just compounded the problem. I could maybe see passing if they lined up in a run formation and threw off a play action. At least try to fool the defense. But lining up with no RB, you're just tipping your hand and making it too easy for a defense that was playing well and too hard for an offense that was struggling. It's just stupid. Also, can we get rid of the WR screen that has zero people out there to block for the WR catching the ball? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 How did "Fitz" see something and change the play? They ran empty backfield for the most part. They let every one know that they were going to throw the ball. Not even the appearance of a run. I was starting to wonder if I was the only one who observed that Fortunately I'm not troubled by the quality of Buffalo media coverage (or lack thereof) I am troubled by the playcalling at the end of the game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 If they're five yards farther up the field on the first possession by running the ball instead of throwing incomplete pass after incomplete pass, they don't even have the opportunity to run the Spiller play, because they already win the game. It must be great living in the universe of what if. The fact is Gailey was trying to go for the jugular by being aggressive through the air when the Chiefs were playing 9 in the box on first and second downs. If we would have run it and gotten nothing against a defensive alignment that screams don't run it, you would be crying about why we ran it 3 straight times against a 9 man front. Don't get me wrong, keep crying if you have to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFITZ1 Posted October 31, 2010 Author Share Posted October 31, 2010 It must be great living in the universe of what if. The fact is Gailey was trying to go for the jugular by being aggressive through the air when the Chiefs were playing 9 in the box on first and second downs. If we would have run it and gotten nothing against a defensive alignment that screams don't run it, you would be crying about why we ran it 3 straight times against a 9 man front. Don't get me wrong, keep crying if you have to. Not only did Gailey whiff on the jugular, he cut his own throat. There was zero clock management from the one person who is most responsible for that aspect of the game. I wouldn't feel as bad if we ran 3 times and tied, than I do now when we passed 3 times and lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardigital Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 It must be great living in the universe of what if. The fact is Gailey was trying to go for the jugular by being aggressive through the air when the Chiefs were playing 9 in the box on first and second downs. If we would have run it and gotten nothing against a defensive alignment that screams don't run it, you would be crying about why we ran it 3 straight times against a 9 man front. Don't get me wrong, keep crying if you have to. This might be the most hypocritical post in the history of the internet, considering you started by lambasting me for living in a universe of "what if", and literally two sentences later proceeded to tell *me* exactly what *I* would have done. I'm also not crying, and I don't know why there is some sort of necessity out of you to make that implication, other than you are compensating for something else (small penis? lack of a valuable point of view in this discussion? something). If you think it is unreasonable to, in the 4 times the Bills had the ball on the KC side of the field with a chance to make a game-winning score, to try running it, for one series, then whatever universe I'm living in is a universe in which you are not invited. Here in the "We're allowed to have different opinions" universe, we don't take kindly to pithy !@#$s. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 Well when I stated moving better through the air I was referring strictly to the OT. I don't count Fitz scramble as a run, so taking that one out I, looking at the play by play I see one handoff to Jackson for 3 yards. That's what my statement was based on. Why do you think they were "moving the ball better through the air?" Passing: 50% completion rate, 3 sacks for loss of ~ 10 yds per sack, 3.7 yds/attempt Rushing: 4.2 yd/attempt Check it out: linky to box score Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Virgil Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 I have no problems with his play call. Look at what the history of this game told us. When the Chiefs knew a run was coming, they shut it down hard. We had converted almost all of our recent 3rd down's on passing plays. The pass to Spiller almost ended the game. Sorry, I can't fault the guy. He's trying to win the game, not win or tie. The team had supported his calls with execution up until that point and there was no reason until then to think otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DFITZ1 Posted October 31, 2010 Author Share Posted October 31, 2010 What about clock management. Poor execution = tie; Poor clock management = loss. C'mon - 2 straight pass plays failed, why would a 3rd be a success? I have no problems with his play call. Look at what the history of this game told us. When the Chiefs knew a run was coming, they shut it down hard. We had converted almost all of our recent 3rd down's on passing plays. The pass to Spiller almost ended the game. Sorry, I can't fault the guy. He's trying to win the game, not win or tie. The team had supported his calls with execution up until that point and there was no reason until then to think otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed_Formerly_of_Roch Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 I could see the argument here either way. But if your solution was fall forward for three yards, then you lose all respect. They ended that drive on the 43 yard line, so based on your solution they would have been on the 40, which leaves a 57 to 58 yard field goal. Not exactly a high percentage kick. Even with +2 yards run on three downs, would have left then with a 55 yarder, still not a high degree of a makable kick. If they were 10 yards further up the field, say on the 33, I'd completely agree with you, but from that distance you needed another 10 yards, a solution of falling forward is laughable. But your point is totally valid falling forward would have given him a 57 yard kick instead of a 60 yarder. Good point!! I'm not saying one run, I'm saying three runs. Run the ball three times. Jesus, you can fall forward three times after the snap and get 3 yards, which also would have made a difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wardigital Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 What about clock management. Poor execution = tie; Poor clock management = loss. C'mon - 2 straight pass plays failed, why would a 3rd be a success? They were dropping seven into coverage on every play on the KC side of the ball the last four possessions too. Daring Gailey to run. They had a pretty good handle on the fact that he wasn't going to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RealityCheck Posted October 31, 2010 Share Posted October 31, 2010 This might be the most hypocritical post in the history of the internet, considering you started by lambasting me for living in a universe of "what if", and literally two sentences later proceeded to tell *me* exactly what *I* would have done. I'm also not crying, and I don't know why there is some sort of necessity out of you to make that implication, other than you are compensating for something else (small penis? lack of a valuable point of view in this discussion? something). If you think it is unreasonable to, in the 4 times the Bills had the ball on the KC side of the field with a chance to make a game-winning score, to try running it, for one series, then whatever universe I'm living in is a universe in which you are not invited. Here in the "We're allowed to have different opinions" universe, we don't take kindly to pithy !@#$s. I didn't realize that you were so sensitive, interesting that you immediately project a small penis issue into the argument. Perhaps you should have a conversation with your wife on what's really bothering you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts