complain all you want about the coaching, but

[GG]

The presumption that running the ball is better, because there's a lower probability that McGahee doesn't fumble and that Lindell makes the chip shot kick. To me that averages out to the chance of Losman throwing a pick.

 

This is not a smashmouth offense that can impose it's will on people. This offense cannot pick up a yard, when the D knows that it is going to run. At any point during that series, there was going to be a chance that Bills would have to throw, because the Bills have been unable to punch it in on the ground from inside the 5 on a consistent basis.

 

For everyone who says that 1st down was not the time to throw the ball, what is the likelihood that Bills get the TD on the first run? On the second? Is the risk of the INT minimized if Losman throws on 3rd down?

 

It was a boneheaded throw on a very good playcall, where the fake was actually executed nicely.

[colin]

the problem i have with that play call is WE ALWAYS DO THIS SCHIT IN THE REDZONE!!!

 

we have thrown to offensive and defensive tackles and run shelton or draws to shaud MORE than we have pounded willis.

 

we just have bad bad coaches. sure that play was not a horrible never ever ever do it call, but taken in the context of the rest of the game and our team mularky clements and grey need to eat glass

[Dawgg]

False.

 

Before that play, Willis McGahee was averaging 3.6 yards per carry. That's 10.8 yards every 3 carries.

 

Given 3 chances, what are the odds of a TD? Very good.

 

It was a boneheaded throw on a very good playcall, where the fake was actually executed nicely.

521638[/snapback]

[The Dean]

The presumption that running the ball is better, because there's a lower probability that McGahee doesn't fumble and that Lindell makes the chip shot kick.  To me that averages out to the chance of Losman throwing a pick.

 

This is not a smashmouth offense that can impose it's will on people.  This offense cannot pick up a yard, when the D knows that it is going to run.  At any point during that series, there was going to be a chance that Bills would have to throw, because the Bills have been unable to punch it in on the ground from inside the 5 on a consistent basis. 

 

For everyone who says that 1st down was not the time to throw the ball, what is the likelihood that Bills get the TD on the first run?  On the second?  Is the risk of the INT minimized if Losman throws on 3rd down? 

 

It was a boneheaded throw on a very good playcall, where the fake was actually executed nicely.

521638[/snapback]

 

 

Where I disagree with you and the grisly-bearded Simon, is I believe the opposition knows we will pass in that situation. I think the Bills running 3 straight (if it took 3 times) would be so totally uncharacteristic of this coaching staff that it would be a surprise. It's as if Gilbride is coaching the O again. The opposing coaches knew the ball would be in the air...and they were ready for it. Not much has changed, IMO...at least not enough.

 

EDIT: You are correct re:the fake. JP sure can ball-handle.

[GG]

we have thrown to offensive and defensive tackles and run shelton or draws to shaud MORE than we have pounded willis.

 

521644[/snapback]

 

You sure about that one? I mean really sure, to dig up the stats to prove it?

[Kelly the Dog]

The real problem with that call was that if you have been following the Bills during the season, they have called that play or plays like it alot at the goalline. I'm sure the Fins had all the Bills tendencies down there, and IIRC the Bills have NOT once tried to slam the ball in at the goal line 3 or 4 plays in a row in the entire season. That would have been the UNEXPECTED thing to do, and the right thing to do. There have been 4-5 times at least this season on the goalline I have wanted them to run McGahee 4 times in a row if we had to. Then and only then does the playaction work easy. The Fins were probably looking for that play more than a run up the middle.

[Orton's Arm]

It's funny. I've been hearing how the season is over, the playoffs are impossible, and it's time to get JP experience. Well, Mularkey gave JP experience throwing the ball in a red zone situation. Now people from the "give JP experience" crowd are calling for Mularkey's head.

[ChasBB]

I would have liked to see a run, but I don't think it was a terrible call, either. If Losman throws that ball away, we get to try again on 2nd down. It's basically just Losman making a rookie-type of mistake. He also threw 3 nice touchdown passes. Wasn't the idea that our great defense was supposed to help bail Losman out of his own mistakes? Seems that if Losman put 3 TD's on the board, that the defense shouldn't have had to do that much to help out, but instead, they do a complete meltdown.

 

Has Buffalo ever won a game in which they scored a safety? A safety almost seems like a bad omen for this team.

[Dawgg]

I know you are passionate about the QB issue and I agree with many of your points. However, in this case, your point is irrelevant. I don't care who the QB is, you simply don't make that call in that situation.

 

It's funny. I've been hearing how the season is over, the playoffs are impossible, and it's time to get JP experience. Well, Mularkey gave JP experience throwing the ball in a red zone situation. Now people from the "give JP experience" crowd are calling for Mularkey's head.

521824[/snapback]

[KOKBILLS]

The real problem with that call was that if you have been following the Bills during the season, they have called that play or plays like it alot at the goalline. I'm sure the Fins had all the Bills tendencies down there, and IIRC the Bills have NOT once tried to slam the ball in at the goal line 3 or 4 plays in a row in the entire season. That would have been the UNEXPECTED thing to do, and the right thing to do. There have been 4-5 times at least this season on the goalline I have wanted them to run McGahee 4 times in a row if we had to. Then and only then does the playaction work easy. The Fins were probably looking for that play more than a run up the middle.

521813[/snapback]

 

This is an interesting observation on the Play (by you and The Dean) because to be honest I did not even think about the tendency factor of the play. I just thought in that situation due to the need for a FG (to go up by 23), and knowing how poorly The Bills Pass Block at times, Running Willis 3 times and getting the FG minimum was the right thing to do...I did notice after the INT one of the Miami Players yelling "I told you..." or something like that... And someone else here at TSW said yesterday the Miami Player was yelling that he knew The Bills would Run that Play...Anyway...

 

Just further fuel to My fire on that one...BTW, Mularkey's quote on the play... "It's easy to look back now after the turnover. We felt like we had a key on them and we could stick one in for a touchdown. We were trying to go for the jugular on one play and it cost us. I wish I could take it back but it was a lesson learned. If it's not there cleanly we need to throw it out of bounds and run it on second down."

 

"I wish I could take it back and it was a lesson learned..."

 

TY MM, enough said...

[Guest BackInDaDay]

Down and distance tendencies vary in the red-zone as score and time left take on more weight in what level of risk you're willing to take.

 

If you've got the ball close, up by a three TDs in the second half of a game where you're opponent is reeling, you call whatever you think has a chance of working. You're playing with house money, so you can play it conservative and settle for 3 - or go for the throat and 6. I have no problem with either of these choices.

 

There's only one unacceptable outcome from this situation. A turnover.

You don't let your QB paint himself into a corner when the play you called, breaks down. Yoiu give him an out. You make damn sure he's aware of this out before breaking the huddle. Football 101!

 

It's wasn't a bad call. If Saban had his D-line playing a 2-gap containment with his LBs biting on the inside hand-offs, the play-action in that situation is as good a play as any. But why didn't our coaches consider that an aggressive D-minded coach like Saban might not sit back and react? Didn't they think he might be attacking? What were their instructions to the kid? He should have had a read that tipped this off and thrown it out of the end-zone. Maybe he was given the read, but didn't make it. Or maybe he was given the wrong read. Or maybe this play had no read and no back-door for JP to take.

 

Either way it wasn't executed properly and that's either JP's fault or Mularkey's.

To hear Mike tell it, it was Mularkey's. You da man, Mike.

[Guest BackInDaDay]

Just further fuel to My fire on that one...BTW, Mularkey's quote on the play... "It's easy to look back now after the turnover. We felt like we had a key on them and we could stick one in for a touchdown. We were trying to go for the jugular on one play and it cost us. I wish I could take it back but it was a lesson learned. If it's not there cleanly we need to throw it out of bounds and run it on second down."

521939[/snapback]

 

Well, there you go... There was a read and JP missed it.

I shouldn't kill Mularkey for that one - my bad.

[tbonehawaii]

look around the league -- good teams with good offenses regularly call play action passes on first and goal. it's a very safe play at least in theory, and 1st down is the time to do it.  the point of the game is to score as many points as possible, which is what the bills were trying to do. it's not a "trick" play and isn't unsound. 

 

moreover, if the play had succeeded, would anyone here have complained about it as bad playcalling? not likely. i had certain problems with the actual pass play called, but part of that was a function of the lack of a capable tight end on the roster.  you can't blame mularkey for that.  but in any event, the receiver was open and it should have been a td. all the complainers also seem to be forgetting the problems the bills have had moving the ball on the ground inside the 20 because of the crappy run blocking. 

 

geez - i feel like this board is haunted by the ghost of woody hayes, who said this immortal line many moons ago: "only three things can happen with the forward pass, and two of them are bad."

521378[/snapback]

 

 

give me a break. run the ball fall down three times for minus two yards each time and kick a field goal and we would have a hthree touch down lead. or willis would have scored. it was aterrible call. word is out on mularkey and clemenst thatghey like to be tricky, and fool nobody. just because you run doesnt mean they know where you are goin g to run. !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[KOKBILLS]

Down and distance tendencies vary in the red-zone as score and time left take on more weight in what level of risk you're willing to take. 

 

If you've got the ball close, up by a three TDs in the second half of a game where you're opponent is reeling, you call whatever you think has a chance of working.  You're playing with house money, so you can play it conservative and settle for 3 - or go for the throat and 6.  I have no problem with either of these choices.

 

There's only one unacceptable outcome from this situation.  A turnover.

You don't let your QB paint himself into a corner when the play you called, breaks down.  Yoiu give him an out.  You make damn sure he's aware of this out before breaking the huddle.  Football 101! 

 

It's wasn't a bad call.  If Saban had his D-line playing a 2-gap containment with his LBs biting on the inside hand-offs,  the play-action in that situation is as good a play as any.  But why didn't our coaches consider that an aggressive D-minded coach like Saban might not sit back and react?  Didn't they think he might be attacking?  What were their instructions to the kid?  He should have had a read that tipped this off and thrown it out of the end-zone.  Maybe he was given the read, but didn't make it.  Or maybe he was given the wrong read.  Or maybe this play had no read and no back-door for JP to take. 

 

Either way it wasn't executed properly and that's either JP's fault or Mularkey's.

To hear Mike tell it, it was Mularkey's.  You da man, Mike. 

521942[/snapback]

 

Agreed...And part of My argument against the Play Call I have admittedly done a poor Job of explaining...My feeling is in that situation with a Young QB, and again with the absolute need for the 3 minimum, a good Coach knows how to put his Players in situations where success is all but guaranteed...Sure if JP makes a better throw it's definitely not an INT, but it's not a definite TD either cause Josh Reed was on the other side of the Pass...And any Pass Play is a risk with this Offense the way they protect...A great deal of my arguement has to do with the intangables of being a good HC that all the game Prep in the world is not going to help...How many times now has MM called Plays he wished he could take back on Offense? This guy is supposed to be a REAL good Offensive Coach...I just don't think the Guy has a feel for the Game and what his Team can and can't do under the pressures of Sunday...I know that is not X's and O's, and it sure as heck is not scientific...It's just an intangible edge that great HC's have...I simply don't think MM has that edge...I mean, I know JP is a Pro and he should have executed no question, but the great HC's know when to gamble and when the risk does not equal the reward...I still say in that situation there is far less difference between a 23 and a 27 point Lead, then there is between a 20 and a 23 point lead...Maybe it's nitpicking...I don't know...And it is just my opinion, I certainly could be wrong about it...But I don't think I am wrong about MM based on what I have seen from the guy thusfar...I just dont think he's got IT, whatever IT is...

[dave mcbride]

Agreed...And part of My argument against the Play Call I have admittedly done a poor Job of explaining...My feeling is in that situation with a Young QB, and again with the absolute need for the 3 minimum, a good Coach knows how to put his Players in situations where success is all but guaranteed...Sure if JP makes a better throw it's definitely not an INT, but it's not a definite TD either cause Josh Reed was on the other side of the Pass...And any Pass Play is a risk with this Offense the way they protect...A great deal of my arguement has to do with the intangables of being a good HC that all the game Prep in the world is not going to help...How many times now has MM called Plays he wished he could take back on Offense? This guy is supposed to be a REAL good Offensive Coach...I just don't think the Guy has a feel for the Game and what his Team can and can't do under the pressures of Sunday...I know that is not X's and O's, and it sure as heck is not scientific...It's just an intangible edge that great HC's have...I simply don't think MM has that edge...I mean, I know JP is a Pro and he should have executed no question, but the great HC's know when to gamble and when the risk does not equal the reward...I still say in that situation there is far less difference between a 23 and a 27 point Lead, then there is between a 20 and a 23 point lead...Maybe it's nitpicking...I don't know...And it is just my opinion, I certainly could be wrong about it...But I don't think I am wrong about MM based on what I have seen from the guy thusfar...I just dont think he's got IT, whatever IT is...

521951[/snapback]

 

one last point - there *is* a difference between 23 and 27. 23 means that the dolphins could tie it up with 3 tds and a couple of 2 point conversions, and 27 points means that they'd need 4 scores. a td really would have put locked up the game far more definitively than a fg.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

one last point - there *is* a difference between 23 and 27. 23 means that the dolphins could tie it up with 3 tds and a couple of 2 point conversions, and 27 points means that they'd need 4 scores. a td really would have put locked up the game far more definitively than a fg.

522152[/snapback]

 

 

Um, it woulda been 26.

 

Which means that it would have taken three touchdowns and two fgs.

[dave mcbride]

Um, it woulda been 26.

 

Which means that it would have taken three touchdowns and two fgs.

522154[/snapback]

no. it would have been 26-3. that works out to a 23 point differential.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

no. it would have been 26-3. that works out to a 23 point differential.

522210[/snapback]

 

Ah gotcha, misread.

 

Still it would have taken three TDs and three two-pointers...OR three tds and a field goal.

 

Both of which would have been very hard to do with the time remaining.

 

So you're still wrong