Hurry Up Offense at the End of a Game

[notwoz]

the hurry up doesnt work if you cant run the ball

 

you can say the same for any offense but its even moreso with the hurry up

That pretty much sums it up.

[The Big Cat]

The Shotgun hand off to the left. How many times did we run that yesterday??

 

You tell me. You're the one with the burden of proof. And while you gather evidence, show me how many times it worked, how many times it didn't. Also, please demonstrate that it didn't work for both CJ and Freddy. Also, specific to that play, please show all post-game analysis that's contrary to all reports that our LG stunk up the place.

[Punch]

Well for one the Eagles aren't running the same offensive set EVERY single down. As I've said before, the offensive play calling was BAD yesterday.

 

The allegedly vanilla game plan is hopefully due to protecting Manuel. If they never evolve past what we saw yesterday, then I'd be concerned we are running Jauron's "pop gun" attack.

 

Russell Wilson was protected for more than half the season. I'm willing to believe that's what we saw against NE.

[The Big Cat]

Whats your point? You disagree that the play calling sucked? Or you just feel like being a wise ass?

 

I disagree with a lot of fans standing up, slamming their fists and declaring "play calling!" when a.) they don't know wtf they're talking about and b.) it's clear that execution of those plays, more often than not, was atrocious.

[FireChan]

I disagree with a lot of fans standing up, slamming their fists and declaring "play calling!" when a.) they don't know wtf they're talking about and b.) it's clear that execution of those plays, more often than not, was atrocious.

 

So when I say Spiller sucked and Freddy was playing great, and that the coaches blew it by going back to plays that didn't work with players that didn't work, you agreed?

[John in Jax]

Eagles now "milking the clock" with 6 mins left in game and they're up by 13.....of course they are, it is basic, fundamental football tactics.

 

And logically, if you have a smaller lead, you should really be milking it for every second.

 

And in this case, the Eagles hurry up is WAY better than the Bills hurry up, so if they wanted, they could "afford" to keep pressing on.

 

But they have a good....SMART.... coach though. LOL

Edited September 10, 2013 by John in Jax

[Punch]

Eagles now "milking the clock" with 6 mins left in game and they're up by 13.....of course they are, it is basic, fundamental football tactics.

 

You're right. But you don't see the problem with the bolded?

[John in Jax]

You're right. But you don't see the problem with the bolded?

 

Not really. I guess it's a glass half empty, glass half full type thing. One thought is if you're up comfortably, then there's no reason to worry about the other team getting the ball back, so why not keep pressing on (running hurry up & seeking more points)? Another thought is if you're only up by one, you damn well either better get more points OR just run out the clock.

 

IN ANY CASE though, the most common situation is to run out the clock (if able).

[BRH]

When we ran the K-Gun back in the day, Kelly was still one of the best in the business at chewing up clock at the end of a game. We'd get the ball with 7 minutes left and the game was over. I honestly do not remember if we huddled more in that situation, but as someone pointed out earlier, huddling isn't the issue. It's using the play clock. Get to the line of scrimmage, then wind the play clock down. Not to one second every time, though. Snap it at five, one, three, whatever. That allows you to reach into your bag of tricks from time to time to get the defense to jump offside, the way Kelly used to do and the way Brady did yesterday.

 

It wasn't the lack of huddling. It was the lack of both execution and experience. EJ will get there.

[Punch]

Eagles now "milking the clock" with 6 mins left in game and they're up by 13.....of course they are, it is basic, fundamental football tactics.

 

And logically, if you have a smaller lead, you should really be milking it for every second.

 

And in this case, the Eagles hurry up is WAY better than the Bills hurry up, so if they wanted, they could "afford" to keep pressing on.

 

But they have a good....SMART.... coach though. LOL

Not really. I guess it's a glass half empty, glass half full type thing. One thought is if you're up comfortably, then there's no reason to worry about the other team getting the ball back, so why not keep pressing on (running hurry up & seeking more points)? Another thought is if you're only up by one, you damn well either better get more points OR just run out the clock.

 

IN ANY CASE though, the most common situation is to run out the clock (if able).

 

It's only logical if you want to play Dick Jauron style football.

[CardinalScotts]

I love this place, For years people here have eben screaming about how important time of possession is and how you can't win when the other teams offence is on the field way more then your own offence. Now TOP doesn't matter cause they want to play with an 'Up tempo/no huddle Offence'

 

For almost his entire career, theres one thing that everyone around the NFL knows about the Pats and Brady, the best way to beat them is to keep Brady off the field. Now that doesn't matter, everyone thinks the key is to try and just outscore them.

Even on TV the announcers were astonished that the Bills would continue to waste no time on offence and the last thing you want to do is give the Pats plenty of time with the ball again to score.

 

The sole reaon they lost wasn't because of the 'Up Tempo/no huddle offence', but the decision to not try and take more time off the clock was a big part of the reason. Even if they had executed things perfectly and scored on that drive, with the time this offence was taking on the field it still would have given the Pats plenty of time to come down the field and score. The Pats had the ball on offence for 38 minutes in the game. The Pats were almost handing the game to the Bills on multiple occasions, but the Bills offence just seemed to want to give the game back to them.

 

I'm not saying "Fire Marrone/Hackett" or "Dump the 'Up Tempo/No Huddle' Offence", but this coaching staff will need to learn to adjust during the game and not be so stubborn about what they are going to run all the time if they want to make the step up and play with the big boys. This game is all about adjustments, and its not like the offence was playing spectacular all day and were moving the ball at will against the Pats. Theres a time where its appropriate to slow things down and take some time off the clock, its what BB and the Pats did on that last drive to ensure they would put themselves in line for a chance to win the game and give the bills little to no time left when they get the ball back.

 

time of possession hasn't mattered in 10 years

 

You're right. But you don't see the problem with the bolded?

yes up two scores not up a point

[The Big Cat]

You don't think running the same running play out of the shotgun becomes predictable?

 

Still camped out on that unproven hypothesis.

[Alphadawg7]

There is a big difference in time management at the end of the 4th quarter, playing with a lead (albeit, one point) and throughout the rest of the game - we needed to run the clock down and still execute - I dont think anyone is saying we should have went for three plays of running inside and then punted...

 

it all comes down to execution for sure, but that does not mean you cant milk the clock while executing - every offense should be able to slow the clock down, no huddle or not - as some one posted above, if the offense can only operate out of a one-trick no huddle offense then something needs to change

 

Starting from 8 minutes left, the players did not execute and the coaching staff could have reacted differently and slowed the game down....this was one we should have won, but even after decompressing I still cannot see the argument for staying no huddle with 4 minutes left, yes we needed to score, as well as leave the Pats with as little time left as possible (big difference operating an offensive possession with 4 minutes left or 2)

 

Where did this lie/myth of 4 minutes come from? Are people choosing 4 min to help validate their argument? There was almost six minutes left in the game which is an eternity still. Milking the clock has ZERO value there. We needed to run what the coached felt was the MOST effective offense for us, and they felt our regular offense was at that point. The PLAYERS poorly executed.

 

Reality check to you clock experts...the ONLY extra time we would have taken off the clock totals about 26 seconds. Brady had more than a minute left when they decided to run the clock to zero and kick the FG rather than risk a turnover again. And that is also after NE wasn't even running a 2 min offense and they still had way more time than we could have ran off by waiting longer to hike the ball. And they were already in FG range before that spot, so they could have kicked it with around 2 min on clock yet taking more time would have only eaten about 26 extra seconds and bad no impact.

 

So A) 4 minutes is incorrect by almost 50%

And B) your comment and others about how was a big reason why we lost is also 100% inaccurate as it wouldn't have taken enough time off based on the amount if time it took NE to get into FG range.

 

The correct move was made by our staff. Run the offense you feel the team has the best chance with as a 1 point lead is nothing against Brady with over 5 min left in the game. We needed a first down or two before working the clock had any value. If we are up by more then we slow it down...not up only 1 versus one of the greatest comeback QBs in history with so much time left.

 

You people are 100% wrong about this...sorry but it's true.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Alphadawg7

[Boatdrinks]

Tonight's Eagles game situation is a terrible comparison of a situation vs Bills game. A 13 point lead w/ 6 minutes left. Yes you use the clock. It is your friend there. In our case the scoreboard was the enemy, as a 1 point lead w/ 5 and change to go and Brady on the other sideline is a loss in this universe. We needed points. A few seconds of the clock between plays was irrelevant as NE had all their time outs and Brady only needed a FG. A few first downs and yes, you may want to slow it down a bit and make NE take their time outs in case the drive does not produce points. It was way too early for that, as we went run on 1st for no yards, 2nd down incomplete, 3rd down incomplete. Time made no difference in the outcome because we didn't advance the ball. Anyone who thinks we were going on a 6 minute march vs that defense, largely on the ground to boot, is crazy. We had little success all day running on them. The time remaining was inconsequential as Brady didn't even need it. If anything, we preserved a little time for ourselves if we could have gotten a stop on defense and forced a FG try earlier. Put the time issue to rest, running our regular offense was the right thing to do.

[simpleman]

Your ability to dance around a point is stupifying.

Oh I get the point now. You got the point, you just like being a criticizing troll to other honest posters, not to add anything substantial to the conversation. I have you on the troll list now.!

[Donald Duck]

Tonight's Eagles game situation is a terrible comparison of a situation vs Bills game. A 13 point lead w/ 6 minutes left. Yes you use the clock. It is your friend there. In our case the scoreboard was the enemy, as a 1 point lead w/ 5 and change to go and Brady on the other sideline is a loss in this universe. We needed points. A few seconds of the clock between plays was irrelevant as NE had all their time outs and Brady only needed a FG. A few first downs and yes, you may want to slow it down a bit and make NE take their time outs in case the drive does not produce points. It was way too early for that, as we went run on 1st for no yards, 2nd down incomplete, 3rd down incomplete. Time made no difference in the outcome because we didn't advance the ball. Anyone who thinks we were going on a 6 minute march vs that defense, largely on the ground to boot, is crazy. We had little success all day running on them. The time remaining was inconsequential as Brady didn't even need it. If anything, we preserved a little time for ourselves if we could have gotten a stop on defense and forced a FG try earlier. Put the time issue to rest, running our regular offense was the right thing to do.

 

well spoken Boatdrinks...

[John in Jax]

The correct move was made by our staff. Run the offense you feel the team has the best chance with as a 1 point lead is nothing against Brady with over 5 min left in the game. We needed a first down or two before working the clock had any value. If we are up by more then we slow it down...not up only 1 versus one of the greatest comeback QBs in history with so much time left.

 

You people are 100% wrong about this...sorry but it's true.

 

No, it's not true. Like I said last night, it's not brain surgery out there. LOL

 

The absolute BEST situation would have been for the Bills to hold on to the ball with a long sustained drive TIL THE END OF THE GAME (and score no points) when they got it with 5:51 to go. There can be NO argument on this; hold the ball and walk away with a win. It doesn't matter if the offense was going like gangbusters and firing on all cylinders.....oh btw, IT WASN'T.....just hold the ball, kill the clock, AND WIN. Thinking along those same lines, hold the ball as long as possible before you kick a FG to ensure that the Pats need to counter with a TD. The latter would leave the Pats little time to come back & win.

 

OK, so let's assume that the Bills offense was cookin' it, and the hurry up was working, and they could have walked down the field and scored a TD (I know, CRAZY assumption), WHY would they want to do that? All that would do is put'em by 8 (maybe 7 or 9 if they go for the 2-pt conversion), and then Brady & Co still would have the 4+ mins left to come back.

 

The only reason to run the no huddle/hurry up offense is if it gives the offense an advantage, right? I mean I know this is basic stuff, but people in here are missing it. IF the defense is tiring out, or IF the defense is confused, or IF the play is moving so fast the defense can't make substitutions, or IF the offense is clicking like a well-oiled machine & moving down the field, then go with it TO GET MORE POINTS. Of course, NONE of the advantages I just listed were happening to the Bills and their hurry up offense in the 4th quarter on Sunday. And as already mentioned, THEY DID NOT NEED ANY MORE POINTS. Just kill the clock & win, period.

Edited September 10, 2013 by John in Jax

[K-9]

No, it's not true. Like I said last night, it's not brain surgery out there. LOL

 

The absolute BEST situation would have been for the Bills to hold on to the ball with a long sustained drive TIL THE END OF THE GAME (and score no points) when they got it with 5:51 to go. There can be NO argument on this; hold the ball and walk away with a win. It doesn't matter if the offense was going like gangbusters and firing on all cylinders.....oh btw, IT WASN'T.....just hold the ball, kill the clock, AND WIN. Thinking along those same lines, hold the ball as long as possible before you kick a FG to ensure that the Pats need to counter with a TD. The latter would leave the Pats little time to come back & win.

 

OK, so let's assume that the Bills offense was cookin' it, and the hurry up was working, and they could have walked down the field and scored a TD (I know, CRAZY assumption), WHY would they want to do that? All that would do is put'em by 8 (maybe 7 or 9 if they go for the 2-pt conversion), and then Brady & Co still would have the 4+ mins left to come back.

 

The only reason to run the no huddle/hurry up offense is if it gives the offense an advantage, right? I mean I know this is basic stuff, but people in here are missing it. IF the defense is tiring out, or IF the defense is confused, or IF the play is moving so fast the defense can't make substitutions, or IF the offense is clicking like a well-oiled machine & moving down the field, then go with it TO GET MORE POINTS. Of course, NONE of the advantages I just listed were happening to the Bills and their hurry up offense in the 4th quarter on Sunday. And as already mentioned, THEY DID NOT NEED ANY MORE POINTS. Just kill the clock & win, period.

 

What does any of this have to do with the reality of the last 5:51 of the game? Are you dealing in hypothetical events here or what actually happened on that possession? Hypothetically, I would have gotten 4 consecutive first downs and then milked the clock for all it was worth while forcing NE to burn timeouts. And then I would have run my favorite play: take a knee.

 

But, AGAIN, the reality that transpired on that series was that the Bills, based on the plays they actually ran (you can't change history), and the results of those plays showed we COULD have burned only another 26 seconds off the clock which would have given Brady the ball back with 4:05 vs. 4:31 with a full contingent of timeouts and the 2 minute warning.

 

Just kill the clock and win period? I think EVERY coach and player in the world would prefer that outcome.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Tiberius]

Why not line up and stay at line till clock runs, isn't that what the Colts use to do with Manning in that situation? I understand you have to execute, but the idea that 6 minutes left if too early to try and run out the game is absurd if you ask me. Ferguson once had an 11 minute drive in the fourth o kill Cincinnati.

 

What does any of this have to do with the reality of the last 5:51 of the game? Are you dealing in hypothetical events here or what actually happened on that possession? Hypothetically, I would have gotten 4 consecutive first downs and then milked the clock for all it was worth while forcing NE to burn timeouts. And then I would have run my favorite play: take a knee.

But, AGAIN, the reality that transpired on that series was that the Bills, based on the plays they actually ran (you can't change history), and the results of those plays showed we COULD have burned only another 26 seconds off the clock which would have given Brady the ball back with 4:05 vs. 4:31 with a full contingent of timeouts and the 2 minute warning.

Just kill the clock and win period? I think EVERY coach and player in the world would prefer that outcome.

 

GO BILLS!!!

how do people not get this?

[K-9]

Why not line up and stay at line till clock runs, isn't that what the Colts use to do with Manning in that situation? I understand you have to execute, but the idea that 6 minutes left if too early to try and run out the game is absurd if you ask me. Ferguson once had an 11 minute drive in the fourth o kill Cincinnati.

 

how do people not get this?

 

It's not absurd when you are only up by one point. They needed a FG at minimum to make NE* have to score a TD to win. Trying to score again at that point was paramount.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[thewildrabbit]

the hurry up doesn't work if you cant run the ball

 

you can say the same for any offense but its even moreso with the hurry up

Not many get this..coaching staffs included.

 

The key to winning games is running the ball, moving the chains and controlling the clock when you need to. Running the ball also makes it immensely easier for the QB to do his job. Keeps the defense fresh, wears the other team out.

 

 

 

Most fans here look at this game and say that FJax was running well with a 5.2 ypc avg, all they needed to do was run him more. Sorta true, but the Patriots were keying on Spiller and determined to stop him, and they did! Spiller had a paltry 2.4 YPC avg. 17 carries for 41 yards. Yet this same player in Gaileys spread offense rushed for over 6 YPC last year.

 

Different scheme this year, different results. And yet...On the 3rd series for Buffalo, first down at the Bills 20. The Bills went 4 wide, and single back with Spiller in the backfield. (shotgun spread) EJ hands off to Spiller who runs for 8 yards. Then the Bills went to FJax.

 

I'll wager Bill Belichick went into that game thinking stop Spiller and make EJ beat us. Reasoning that because EJ had so little opportunity to play in pre season and hadn't faced a 1st string defense for four quarters, that he would make many mistakes. To his credit EJ didn't make that many mistakes and the Bills could have won that game. Save for the stupid mistakes by several other players and the inability to control the clock at the end of the game.

[BobChalmers]

 

The only reason to run the no huddle/hurry up offense is if it gives the offense an advantage, right? I mean I know this is basic stuff, but people in here are missing it. IF the defense is tiring out, or IF the defense is confused, or IF the play is moving so fast the defense can't make substitutions, or IF the offense is clicking like a well-oiled machine & moving down the field, then go with it TO GET MORE POINTS. Of course, NONE of the advantages I just listed were happening to the Bills and their hurry up offense in the 4th quarter on Sunday. And as already mentioned, THEY DID NOT NEED ANY MORE POINTS. Just kill the clock & win, period.

 

A major point of running the no-huddle is to give the offense an advantage by PREVENTING SUBSTITUTIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS.

 

Since you failed to list this, I assume you are unaware.

 

Marrone and Hackett have explained from the beginning that they are opting for a simpler offense run quickly that forces the defense to also stay relatively simple.

 

Sitting around at the line or in a huddle won't add any plays to the Bills' playbook, but it does give the defense time to substitute, etc, IE it makes it LESS LIKELY they will get first downs and points.

 

With almost 6 minutes left they needed first downs and points. The fact that they failed anyway is an execution problem - not a game-day clock management strategy problem.

[turbotype87]

Watching the game Sunday I noticed the offense in the last two drives in the 4th quarter looked to be way to conservative. You need to go for the WIN, Open up the offense. They couldn't get the running game going, So why try to run the ball? EJ Manuel in my opinion looks to be a work in progress. But I believe this kid is going to be a real good QB. But until the coaching staff learns to close out these close games with a win, It will be along season for the Bills players as well as us fans.

[K-9]

Watching the game Sunday I noticed the offense in the last two drives in the 4th quarter looked to be way to conservative. You need to go for the WIN, Open up the offense. They couldn't get the running game going, So why try to run the ball? EJ Manuel in my opinion looks to be a work in progress. But I believe this kid is going to be a real good QB. But until the coaching staff learns to close out these close games with a win, It will be along season for the Bills players as well as us fans.

 

To be fair, on their last possession when they ended up going 3 and out and punting to NE*, they tried a long pass on 2nd down that was incomplete. I think EJ might like to re-do the 3rd down play to Chandler, too. But I gotta believe that his coaches were telling him "don't turn it over here by forcing things." As EJ gets more confidence along with the coaches, that'll change.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Koufax]

I thought Chan Gailey used up all the stupid in the NFL, but it looks like Marrone outdid him with the hurry-up offense on the Bills' last possession of the game. I mean, even Gailey wouldn't use the two-minute drill when he was trying to burn clock with a lead. I hope Marrone isn't as stubborn as the last regime and will re-think this strategy. However, from what I saw from his coaching at SU, I think he will be just as stubborn as Gailey and the Stache were to change. He will die by the hurry-up play calling at the end of games, eventually drawing fans' ire and a firing from the Bills within 2 years.

 

Everyone else has said it, but I want to pile on.

 

We were NOT trying to run out the clock, and weren't in a position to. We were trying to get first downs and points. Our best chance of getting first downs and points is the hurry up. Maybe if they had picked up a few first downs, neared field goal range, and were faced with a DIFFERENT CLOCK MANAGEMENT SITUATION it would have been good to burn the clock. But I am definitely in full understanding and agreement of our offense.

 

We made some penalty mistakes, costly turnovers, and probably were one third down defensive stop or one third down conversion away from winning an important divisional game. Losing sucks, but I don't think it has anything to do with clock management, and New England had plenty of time to spare moving down field. Keeping the ball for more plays and yards, getting more points, or stopping them were our options to win at the end, not stalling for a few more seconds.

[Tiberius]

 

 

It's not absurd when you are only up by one point. They needed a FG at minimum to make NE* have to score a TD to win. Trying to score again at that point was paramount.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I'd of preferred to see them do both, can't they slow that offense down and stay affective? I know this is not my expertise, but it seems reasonable that they could run the "hurry up" while still running clock down, just get to the line and don't snap the ball.

 

A major point of running the no-huddle

Marrone and Hackett have explained from the beginning that they are opting for a simpler offense run quickly that forces the defense to also stay relatively simple.

 

Sitting around at the line or in a huddle won't add any plays to the Bills' playbook, but it does give the defense time to substitute, etc, IE it makes it LESS LIKELY they will get first downs and points.

 

With almost 6 minutes left they needed first downs and points. The fact that they failed anyway is an execution problem - not a game-day clock management strategy problem.

 

If you get to the line quickly the other team can't substitute. That ends arhat reason for not doing it

[K-9]

I'd of preferred to see them do both, can't they slow that offense down and stay affective? I know this is not my expertise, but it seems reasonable that they could run the "hurry up" while still running clock down, just get to the line and don't snap the ball. ...

 

No doubt there comes a time in the game when you do that. The Bills never reached that point in the game, unfortunately.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

I have more of a concern about using the no huddle the entire game rather than the last possesion we had. Why use the no huddle/up-tempo/quick play offense against Tom Brady? The idea is to keep Tom Brady on the bench as much as possible. Not give him more chances to put up points. The whole idea of a up-tempo/quick play offense is asinine in my opinion. Especially with a rookie QB and Tom Brady on the other side.

 

It would be interesting to find out how many times Tom Brady and the Patriots have lost a game while winning TOP. I'm willing to bet not many.

 

John in Jax brings up a good point.

 

No the idea is to score a bunch so the other team passes more so all the pass rush talent is doing what they do and not getting worn down by ground game...

[Tiberius]

 

 

No doubt there comes a time in the game when you do that. The Bills never reached that point in the game, unfortunately.

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

And that time had come. This was obviously a mistake by a rookie coach and the fact that he and his quarterback are not 100% famillure with each other yet. This showed a lack of flexibility and I'd be shocked if this situation arose again that they just slow it down to eat clock while still staying aggressive

[John in Jax]

The only reason to run the no huddle/hurry up offense is if it gives the offense an advantage, right? I mean I know this is basic stuff, but people in here are missing it. IF the defense is tiring out, or IF the defense is confused, or IF the play is moving so fast the defense can't make substitutions, or IF the offense is clicking like a well-oiled machine & moving down the field, then go with it TO GET MORE POINTS. Of course, NONE of the advantages I just listed were happening to the Bills and their hurry up offense in the 4th quarter on Sunday. And as already mentioned, THEY DID NOT NEED ANY MORE POINTS. Just kill the clock & win, period.

 

A major point of running the no-huddle is to give the offense an advantage by PREVENTING SUBSTITUTIONS AND ADJUSTMENTS.

 

Since you failed to list this, I assume you are unaware.

 

Huh? You must have missed what I have bolded above. So no, I am not unaware. As George Costanza would say, "I am Aware, I am Aware!" LOL

[K-9]

And that time had come. This was obviously a mistake by a rookie coach and the fact that he and his quarterback are not 100% famillure with each other yet. This showed a lack of flexibility and I'd be shocked if this situation arose again that they just slow it down to eat clock while still staying aggressive

 

When did that time come? When we were up by 1 with 5:51 to go?

 

GO BILLS!!!

[8-8 Forever?]

Seems like there won't be a concenses on this. It will be interesting to see what Chip Kelly does with his hurry up in a similar situation.

 

On another note, did anyone else think the Bills started using their timeouts too late? Not that our D stopped them anyway, but I was expeting them to use the timeouts right after the 2 minute warning, especially after getting that penalty on NE*.

After what I saw from Philly last night, Marrone's expansion team can run the hurry up all day until they perfect it. That was an awesome display by the eggles last night. OMG.

[3rdand12]

To all the people who were calling for Chans head.I Learned a long time ago careful what you wish for. This guy could be even worse. He won't last 2 years.

i am just reading this intrigue and i already came upon this prediction.

I think it might be a bit early to call . But i am giving a full 3 years to have a go of it .

And that is based solely upon how mini camps OTAs training camp and preseason and the first game of the year under the ole belt after Sunday .

At this point i am smitten with Marrone and company. each coach has really got these guys playing football again.

I think Coach Marrone explained very clearly; he made his decision with conviction and after gathering facts. He spoke about it in the post game i believe. he knew exactly what he was doing .

Sure he could be worse than Chan. I loved Chan . he was screwed to begin with then broke down the last season when he lost the team.

I just cant imagine that happening , when i consider your point

[Tiberius]

 

 

When did that time come? When we were up by 1 with 5:51 to go?

 

GO BILLS!!!

 

I thought so, yes. Two or three first downs and kick a field goal while running clock would have been better than what we ended up with. Still, I'll give you, that either way they had to execute and had they scored a td they way they were going hurry the question would be academic

[FireChan]

i am just reading this intrigue and i already came upon this prediction.

I think it might be a bit early to call . But i am giving a full 3 years to have a go of it .

And that is based solely upon how mini camps OTAs training camp and preseason and the first game of the year under the ole belt after Sunday .

At this point i am smitten with Marrone and company. each coach has really got these guys playing football again.

I think Coach Marrone explained very clearly; he made his decision with conviction and after gathering facts. He spoke about it in the post game i believe. he knew exactly what he was doing .

Sure he could be worse than Chan. I loved Chan . he was screwed to begin with then broke down the last season when he lost the team.

I just cant imagine that happening , when i consider your point

 

You can't imagine Marrone losing the team? After that horrendous challenge and the unimaginative play calls? Players only buy in to the staff when they win. Marrone and co. have 2 bad years back to back, and the team is gone.

[K-9]

I thought so, yes. Two or three first downs and kick a field goal while running clock would have been better than what we ended up with. Still, I'll give you, that either way they had to execute and had they scored a td they way they were going hurry the question would be academic

 

That was the plan. However, the plays they ran and the result of those plays didn't provide that opportunity. So you are dealing in a hypothetical here. The reality, as stated numerous times, was that the Bills only had the potential to run an additional 26 seconds off of the clock based on the results of the plays they actually ran.

 

But being up one point with 5:51 to go is no time to be conservative. Marrone was dead on in what he said about wanting to score. Best way to do that is by running the offense your team is most comfortable running.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Cynical]

That was the plan. However, the plays they ran and the result of those plays didn't provide that opportunity. So you are dealing in a hypothetical here. The reality, as stated numerous times, was that the Bills only had the potential to run an additional 26 seconds off of the clock based on the results of the plays they actually ran.

 

Here's an issue. Everybody that keeps saying that extra 26 seconds would not have made a difference is dealing with a hypothetical.

We do not know what would have happened if those 26 seconds were off the clock.

The reality is the Bills left those 26 seconds on the clock, and made Tom Brady's job even easier.

 

But being up one point with 5:51 to go is no time to be conservative. Marrone was dead on in what he said about wanting to score. Best way to do that is by running the offense your team is most comfortable running.

 

What's that old proverb: Hope for the best, plan for the worst?

The best. Move the ball down the field and score

The worst: Fail to score and/or move the ball down the field. That means the defense, which is gassed at that point, has to go back on the field.

 

Marrone bet the house and farm on the "best" scenario. He had no plan for the worst.

The uptempo offense wasn't working all that well. The Bills defense was the bright spot of the day.

By sticking with the uptempo offense, and failing, Marrone left additional time on the clock.

In the end, he made Tom Brady's job easier and shortchanged his defense.

[Alphadawg7]

No, it's not true. Like I said last night, it's not brain surgery out there. LOL

 

The absolute BEST situation would have been for the Bills to hold on to the ball with a long sustained drive TIL THE END OF THE GAME (and score no points) when they got it with 5:51 to go. There can be NO argument on this; hold the ball and walk away with a win. It doesn't matter if the offense was going like gangbusters and firing on all cylinders.....oh btw, IT WASN'T.....just hold the ball, kill the clock, AND WIN. Thinking along those same lines, hold the ball as long as possible before you kick a FG to ensure that the Pats need to counter with a TD. The latter would leave the Pats little time to come back & win.

 

OK, so let's assume that the Bills offense was cookin' it, and the hurry up was working, and they could have walked down the field and scored a TD (I know, CRAZY assumption), WHY would they want to do that? All that would do is put'em by 8 (maybe 7 or 9 if they go for the 2-pt conversion), and then Brady & Co still would have the 4+ mins left to come back.

 

The only reason to run the no huddle/hurry up offense is if it gives the offense an advantage, right? I mean I know this is basic stuff, but people in here are missing it. IF the defense is tiring out, or IF the defense is confused, or IF the play is moving so fast the defense can't make substitutions, or IF the offense is clicking like a well-oiled machine & moving down the field, then go with it TO GET MORE POINTS. Of course, NONE of the advantages I just listed were happening to the Bills and their hurry up offense in the 4th quarter on Sunday. And as already mentioned, THEY DID NOT NEED ANY MORE POINTS. Just kill the clock & win, period.

 

What are you even talking about? DUH, holding the ball to the end of the game and scoring is the best choice...but the flaw is that IS NOT A CHOICE THE TEAM GETS TO MAKE...I mean what a hilarious statement. Ref to BB: "Hey Bill, Coach Marrone just told the refs he elects to keep the ball til the end of the game and kick a FG for the hell of it, hope thats cool"

 

You see there is this pesky part of football that requires you to run plays. And the Bills and Marrone would have loved nothing more than to continue to hold the ball. You act like they elected not to...I mean your whole post was ridiculous. They ran plays, the offense did NOT execute...ball goes back to NE.

 

All the Bills could have done is run 26 more seconds off than they did...26 seconds DID NOT lose us this game. Brady had more than a minute left when they started kneeling down to run clock down to kick FG. And he wasnt even in his 2 minute offense to get there. Plus they still had timeouts.

 

Marrone 100% made the right call...that call was put your offense in the best position to keep the ball and move the chains. Unfortunately, the players did not execute...and all it cost us was 26 seconds of not being run off a clock that had LITERALLY NO IMPACT ON THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE GAME IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.

 

Why is this so complicated for so many people to get? I mean there is like 97 threads on this

Edited September 11, 2013 by Alphadawg7

[Meatloaf Sandwich]

First down... Nm penalty, first down... Nm penalty, first down... Nm dropped pass

[K-9]

Here's an issue. Everybody that keeps saying that extra 26 seconds would not have made a difference is dealing with a hypothetical.

We do not know what would have happened if those 26 seconds were off the clock.

The reality is the Bills left those 26 seconds on the clock, and made Tom Brady's job even easier.

 

I really think this is a stretch. We've got a pretty good idea, based on what actually DID happen, that those 26 seconds were meaningless. Brady had 4:05 (vs. 4:31) to work with, the 2 minute warning, and all of his timeouts. The only impact I can see, based on what happened, is that the Pats* only take ONE knee to run clock vs. two, before they kicked the FG.

 

No matter how you slice it, sitting on a 1 point lead with 5:51 to go is NOT how you go about it. They needed first downs, a score, and the ability to force NE* to burn timeouts. They failed because they weren't able to execute the plays they ran. Not taking a potential 26 seconds off the clock after Spiller was stopped on first down had nothing to do with the outcome.

 

If you want to argue they should have tried different plays, etc., that's fine. I'm sure Marrone, EJ, and everyone else would like to rethink the plays they ran, too.

 

GO BILLS!!!