Jump to content

How the Pats exploited the Bills Special Teams


Protocal69

Recommended Posts

A dead horse? Move on?

 

This article makes it crystal clear the Bills have had this issue come up twice in the 3 weeks prior to the NE game. Twice. And  3rd time was the charm... in only the 4th week. You guys think it's acceptable? It cost a touchdown and ultimately, the game! Not Brady or whatever, but a blocked punt. Hey, I'm all for giving rookie coaches a chance but this was the 3rd time in 4 weeks! McD and staff are to blame as well.

 

Interesting too that the article mentions that since Bojorquez tried out with the Pats* that they likely knew he wasn't enough good as a passer to take advantage of a guy no one was covering! 

 

 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Protocal69 said:

 

This does NOT give me a good feeling that we have fixed our league bottom ST play or even have someone paying enough attention to it.

 

And not to excuse Allen's problems - but at the end of the day, that blocked punt for 6 was the difference in the final score.

10 hours ago, Gugny said:

Image result for dead horse gif

 

Bad take here, Gugny.  This article makes it clear that the Bills showed a ST coverage weakness 3 weeks in a row that the Pats successfully exploited.

It shouldn't have happened twice, let alone still have been there for the Pats to exploit with a blocked punt and a pick-6

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

6 points is an exploitation? 

 

In the context of that game where the Pats had just scored a TD and were leading by 6 points, then exploited a weakness seen on prev. game film to collect 7 more, yes.

 

In the context of any game, if your team puts a weakness on film and you don't fix it, you're not a professional outfit.  Harsh but real.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, wvbillsfan said:

So we (bills) adjusted to it in the previous weeks but for some reason chose not to do it against the pats. Based off 15 years of mind numbing stupidity against the pats I’d say that checks out. 

 

ST outside of Moorman have not been even a tertiary concern of the Bills for 20 years now.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, SlimShady'sGhost said:

6 points is an exploitation?  

 

had McD gone for the FG it would / Could have been a 3 point game. 

 

 

Indeed

 

And everyone would feel so much better that they lost 16-13?   :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jerome007 said:

A dead horse? Move on?

 

This article makes it crystal clear the Bills have had this issue come up twice in the 3 weeks prior to the NE game. Twice. And  3rd time was the charm... in only the 4th week. You guys think it's acceptable? It cost a touchdown and ultimately, the game! Not Brady or whatever, but a blocked punt. Hey, I'm all for giving rookie coaches a chance but this was the 3rd time in 4 weeks! McD and staff are to blame as well.

 

Interesting too that the article mentions that since Bojorquez tried out with the Pats* that they likely knew he wasn't enough good as a passer to take advantage of a guy no one was covering! 

 

 

 

Even if that was the play - the snap was basically on the ground.  

 

I imagine the teams guys are getting drilled pretty hard this week on what to do in those situations.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...