VABills Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 The alternative was a tip-toeing Willis. Tom Clements picked his poison, probably based upon JP's solid performance the week before, but it obviously didn't work out. And as I mentioned before, unless a poster poo-pooed the playcalling after the Texans game, I don't want to hear it. Willis got most of his touches in the 2nd half of that game making the ratio closer but in both games Willis' runs accounted for roughly 1/3 of the offensive plays from scrimmage. 449172[/snapback] I didn't other then the inside the 20 play calling, and the going for it on 4th and 2. That would have put us up 15-7 at that point. I said then it was a bad call even though it worked out and Peters got a TD, that was before the half and too much of a momentum swing if we got stopped on that play. But I was also real cautious as I didn't want folks to think I was criticizing JP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 And I agree to a point. But don't force him into obvious running plays on 2nd and 10 and the need to get 5 yards because of the piss poor play calling. Yes Willis didn't hit the holes hard, but I believe part of it was the need to make up for the bad play calling on 1st down. 449088[/snapback] Since when does 2nd and 10 constitute an obvious running down? Defense should be expecting a pass, which should open up more running room for WM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffan00 Posted September 21, 2005 Author Share Posted September 21, 2005 Since when does 2nd and 10 constitute an obvious running down? Defense should be expecting a pass, which should open up more running room for WM. 449258[/snapback] True. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Since when does 2nd and 10 constitute an obvious running down? Defense should be expecting a pass, which should open up more running room for WM. 449258[/snapback] When you throw on first and need to pick up some yards so it isn't a long 3rd down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kelly the Dog Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 When you throw on first and need to pick up some yards so it isn't a long 3rd down. 449388[/snapback] Do you think more than 50% of 2-10 plays in the NFL are running plays? That OC's or DC's think of 2-10 as a running down more than a passing down? That as soon as it gets 2-10, teams rush in their fat DT's to stop the run because they know a handoff is coming? Granted, I agree with you to a point that the Bills were very predictable in THIS game throwing on first and running on 2nd and 10. But they aren't usually that predictable. And 2-10 is more of a passing down than a running down, although a lot of teams do run on 2-10. Interestingly, just this week Madden, in fact, on MNF went way out of his way a couple times to suggest that Bill Parcells thinks of 2-10 as a running down, with the implication that this was a huge aberration and no one else thought that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Do you think more than 50% of 2-10 plays in the NFL are running plays? That OC's or DC's think of 2-10 as a running down more than a passing down? That as soon as it gets 2-10, teams rush in their fat DT's to stop the run because they know a handoff is coming? Granted, I agree with you to a point that the Bills were very predictable in THIS game throwing on first and running on 2nd and 10. But they aren't usually that predictable. And 2-10 is more of a passing down than a running down, although a lot of teams do run on 2-10. Interestingly, just this week Madden, in fact, on MNF went way out of his way a couple times to suggest that Bill Parcells thinks of 2-10 as a running down, with the implication that this was a huge aberration and no one else thought that way. 449422[/snapback] I agree with you that in normal situations when a run is stopped on 1st that 2nd down becomes a passing down. But I believe as you say, failing to complete a pass on first forced us to have to run on 2nd and thus making us predictable. And I actually agree with Parcells that 2 and 10 should be a running down as it gives you the chance to get 4 yards and a much more makable 3rd down. I guess great minds think alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 When you throw on first and need to pick up some yards so it isn't a long 3rd down. 449388[/snapback] Only pussies think that way. It's a losers mentality. The vast majority of competitive men view 2nd and 10 as a passing play, irregardless if you ran or passed on first down. So you pick up a few yards on 2nd down, big deal, everyone and their brother now knows what's coming on 3rd down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Only pussies think that way. It's a losers mentality. The vast majority of competitive men view 2nd and 10 as a passing play, irregardless if you ran or passed on first down. So you pick up a few yards on 2nd down, big deal, everyone and their brother now knows what's coming on 3rd down. 449553[/snapback] Yup, Bill Parcells and his two Super Bowl rings means he is a kitty and has no clue what he is talking about. Losers don't think about field position, and don't put their players in a position to succeed. 3 and 10 all the time and you will only get a first down 20% of the time. Loser mentality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Yup, Bill Parcells and his two Super Bowl rings means he is a kitty and has no clue what he is talking about. Losers don't think about field position, and don't put their players in a position to succeed. 3 and 10 all the time and you will only get a first down 20% of the time. Loser mentality. 449558[/snapback] That's why an effective play caller will mix it up more so you're not always in 2nd and 10. A lot more options and helps keep the D on their heels when you get at least a few yards on first. But to make a blanket statement that 2nd and 10 is a running down is akin to when teams run up the middle on 3rd and forever. You're giving up. Get some kahunas and show more aggression in your will to win and don't be so willing to roll over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Only pussies think that way. It's a losers mentality. The vast majority of competitive men view 2nd and 10 as a passing play, irregardless if you ran or passed on first down. So you pick up a few yards on 2nd down, big deal, everyone and their brother now knows what's coming on 3rd down. 449553[/snapback] supposably, many coaches think that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Only pussies think that way. It's a losers mentality. The vast majority of competitive men view 2nd and 10 as a passing play, irregardless if you ran or passed on first down. So you pick up a few yards on 2nd down, big deal, everyone and their brother now knows what's coming on 3rd down. 449553[/snapback] Ooooo. Calling VA a kitty AND a loser. Wow. Did you throw in "irregardless" because a word that shouldn't exist would throw him off? Let's be honest. When it comes to butchering words and grammar, you can't handle the truth that is VABills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Only pussies think that way. 449553[/snapback] I appreciate your point, but I've found that calling a US Marine a "kitty" isn't always a wise move. But that's just me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 The alternative was a tip-toeing Willis. Tom Clements picked his poison, probably based upon JP's solid performance the week before, but it obviously didn't work out. And as I mentioned before, unless a poster poo-pooed the playcalling after the Texans game, I don't want to hear it. Willis got most of his touches in the 2nd half of that game making the ratio closer but in both games Willis' runs accounted for roughly 1/3 of the offensive plays from scrimmage. 449172[/snapback] The Texans have a cream-puff secondary, though. And even so, the coaches called 19 passes and 15 runs in the first half against the Texans...but then, against Tampa in the first half, they called 13 passes and 8 runs, which is very roughly the same ratio. And I think what most people are forgetting in the whole "pass vs. establish the run against Tampa" debate is that the Bills achieved ONE first down the entire first half. Every other drive was either a three-and-out, save for one egregious two-and-a-safety. Sure, the play-calling sucked, but you're not going to establish anything if you keep going three-and-out, regardless of whether or not you call a run or a pass on first down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 supposably, many coaches think that way. 449636[/snapback] "Supposably"? If I ever meet you, I'm gonna kick your ass for that imaginary word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 "Supposably"? If I ever meet you, I'm gonna kick your ass for that imaginary word. 449674[/snapback] I think he was countering the imaginary word irregardless (which he highlighted in bold) with another imaginary word....though I could be wrong... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HurlyBurly51 Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I appreciate your point, but I've found that calling a US Marine a "kitty" isn't always a wise move. But that's just me... 449660[/snapback] It was intended more in terms of a general mindset and philosophy than directed at anyone specifically, though if the shoe fits... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 I think he was countering the imaginary word irregardless (which he highlighted in bold) with another imaginary word....though I could be wrong... 449694[/snapback] thanks, dan, for correctly interpreting what i thought was a rather obvious attempt at humor. damn primates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gross Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 thanks, dan, for correctly interpreting what i thought was a rather obvious attempt at humor. damn primates. 449766[/snapback] Oh, it was supposed to be funny, too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted September 21, 2005 Share Posted September 21, 2005 Oh, it was supposed to be funny, too? 449786[/snapback] i said "attempt" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted September 22, 2005 Share Posted September 22, 2005 I'm threw with this thread! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts