SDS Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 No, it's smart football. I love when people argue something that just friggin failed in front of you. Brilliant. Seriously. Get a grip. We're discussing strategies here. "Fumbling" is not a strategy. It is a mistake. The choice wasn't between fumbling and taking a knee. Fumbling wasn't the logical conclusion of running it back. It could have easily happened on the 1st handoff to Fred Jackson if we kept the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan714 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 So because event (a) happened then the odds weren't that strong against event (a) happening? That's your argument? Sound logic. Is picking up an extra first down (not just one, but two now apparently) against a defensive mastermind statistically easier than not fumbling the kickoff? Again, I yield to you, sir. Keep in mind, this is a situation in which you have to drain the opponents three remaining timeouts, so your options are either to run the ball or make very safe passes. There's a big difference between Tom Brady having 1 timeout vs. no timeouts. If you don't get it you just don't get it. Your more scared of Brady having a timeout then just thinking lets just go make ONE FIRST DOWN and win this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonidas Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 No, it's smart football. I love when people argue something that just friggin failed in front of you. Brilliant. I'm trying not to call people names here, but you sir are an idiot. McKelvin fumbled; should we not return any more kicks at all? Just because it didn't work didn't mean it was the wrong call. C.Biscuit was right; Bills fans are idiots. People bash Jauron for being too conservative (Browns game '08, Cowboys MNF), but now it's Jauron/April/McKelvin who's too risky. Statistically its way more likely to return a kickoff without fumbling than to get a first down on a Bill Belichick-led defense with under two minutes to go. But don't let those silly facts get in your way. I'm going to bed. This is a waste of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Hindsight. 20/20. It's not hindsight, it's coaching. It's taking away all possibility of making a mistake that could cost you. He made two there. THAT'S WHY YOU COACH AND MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T HAPPEN. 1. Don't bring it out = no mistake can be made. 2. Don't fight for extra yards = no mistake can happen Result, let's line up and play football. If playing offense doens't work, let's see you beat us, with about 1:48 on the clock and one timeout. If there is any instance you play safe, it is right there. However, I'm not real confident the defense would have stopped them had they chosen my way of playing football. What you can gather from that situation, and what is again more disturbing to me is that, McKelvin wasn't coached.....AGAIN. He obviously wasn't instructed to stay in the endzone. And OK, if you go that route, he should have been told 400 times to not fight for anything extra. That obvoiusly never occured. The last mistake on that play, if any of you ever coached football, is for the kick returner to always run toward the sideline so that if you do fumble you have a good chance the ball will go out of bounds. He didn't do that either, he went right up the middle where he can get hit from all angles and by multiple guys. It's dumb, period. No excuse for those three things to happen, and they aren't coached correctly. Just sickening......again. There's a reason this stuff happens to bad teams......it's not all luck, all the time folks. Multiple failures must happen, and they did in this case. Drives me crazy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Seriously. Get a grip. We're discussing strategies here. "Fumbling" is not a strategy. It is a mistake. The choice wasn't between fumbling and taking a knee. Fumbling wasn't the logical conclusion of running it back. It could have easily happened on the 1st handoff to Fred Jackson if we kept the ball. I have a grip. I put my strategy in the thread above. If Freddie would fumble after the KO fighting for extra yardage, then yeah, you can get all over him. McKelvin made flawed decisions that caused an error. The result occured because of his flawed decisions. As stated in my other thread, the mistake occured, because the Bills chose to allow for a play that could have a mistake by taking it out, and it happened. The player then compounded the chance by fighting for extra yardage, which happened. Then, the decision to call a middle return, was the last call by someone (coach or player) that even added more chance for a mistake to happen, and all three things contributed to a fatal play. All could have been avoided. End of story! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share Posted September 15, 2009 He obviously wasn't instructed to stay in the endzone. Thank gawd, cuz that would have been stupid and gutless. If Freddie would fumble after the KO fighting for extra yardage, then yeah, you can get all over him. So you can get all over him for carrying it across the LOS too? I'm going to bed. This is a waste of time. Once again you are correct. But you're still wrong about Clements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDS Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I have a grip. I put my strategy in the thread above. If Freddie would fumble after the KO fighting for extra yardage, then yeah, you can get all over him. McKelvin made flawed decisions that caused an error. The result occured because of his flawed decisions. As stated in my other thread, the mistake occured, because the Bills chose to allow for a play that could have a mistake by taking it out, and it happened. The player then compounded the chance by fighting for extra yardage, which happened. Then, the decision to call a middle return, was the last call by someone (coach or player) that even added more chance for a mistake to happen, and all three things contributed to a fatal play. All could have been avoided. End of story! The problem with your "story" is that the errors that LM made had nothing to do with the strategy. No one is arguing that LM didn't make several mistakes, it's just that running it out wasn't one of them. A fumble can happen to anyone. Trying to fight for additional yards and getting stripped can happen to anyone (who lets it happen). Again, the issues you raise are in execution - not strategy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lv-Bills Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 The problem with your "story" is that the errors that LM made had nothing to do with the strategy. No one is arguing that LM didn't make several mistakes, it's just that running it out wasn't one of them. A fumble can happen to anyone. Trying to fight for additional yards and getting stripped can happen to anyone (who lets it happen). Again, the issues you raise are in execution - not strategy. Exactly, and as a coach, you realize that, and take that possibility away completly and put it in the hands of people who are paid to handle the ball. Not McKelvin. Your coach should put players in the best position to win the game. In that instance, the coaching staff made two mistakes....letting him bring it out as well as calling for a middle return. Right there alone, they greatly increased the chance of a mistake happening. Then, they didn't make it imperative, to McKelvin, to get down using the strategy they chose to use by calling for a middle return. It's almost RULE #1 in these situations. GET DOWN, GET DOWN, GET DOWN. I mean, yes, the execution was horrendous. The strategy was horrendous. And the coaching, for the strategy they used was horrendous. Both things, the player and strategy, failed miserably. And what's maddening, is that they didn't even coach up the strategy they used correctly. And this, from guys who supposedly spend 80 hours a week at the stadium? You've gotta be kidding me. Undefensible on many aspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5 Wide Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Fighting for the extra yardage was the only mistake. That shows a complete inability to comprehend the situation at hand. An extra 3 yards in the scheme of things is far outweighed by the risk of fumbling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChimp Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Your more scared of Brady having a timeout then just thinking lets just go make ONE FIRST DOWN and win this game. This is EXACTLY what happens to a fan base after three years of Dick Jauron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan714 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 This is EXACTLY what happens to a fan base after three years of Dick Jauron. Well from my previous posts, Im a Bills fan down here in Steeler country. The Steeler mentality would of been to come out first and 10 on the 20 thinking were gonna run smash mouth football make a first down and ice the game. We control this game, we have the lead and the ball. Buffalo thinking------is already contemplating how much time your going to give the other team when you punt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transient Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Well from my previous posts, Im a Bills fan down here in Steeler country. The Steeler mentality would of been to come out first and 10 on the 20 thinking were gonna run smash mouth football make a first down and ice the game. We control this game, we have the lead and the ball. This is exactly what I wanted to see. First and 10 at the twenty and now stop us! To those who are saying that the mistake was in LM fighting for the extra yards, the fumble was recovered at 1:57... if he doesn't fight for those yards and instead goes down at first contact the result is likely the same as taking a knee in the end zone, as clock stops at the end of the play on change of possession, so instead of 2:06 it would have been 2:01 or 2:02 (especially in NE*.) Further, every player on the NE* kick coverage team was no doubt instructed to hold him up and strip the ball, therefore making the odds of a fumble go UP in this situation! I don't know the statistics, and maybe its the pall of this game that is making me feel this way, but I would venture a guess that kick returns and punt returns result in more turnovers per play than plays from scrimmage, especially in these situations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koufax Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 I completely agree. 1) Coming out of the endzone on the 2:06 kickoff is clearly the right decision, and he made it to the THIRTY, ten yards better for a subsequent punt if we can't run out the clock with a first down, plus pushed us to the two minute warning which is the primary goal. 2) McKelvin's super power is Rocket Mode, not Beast Mode. He obviously should have done a better job protecting the ball and not fighting for extra yardage. Everybody knows this in hindsight. 3) Coming out of the end zone on the final kickoff is also a no brainer. We need yardage there for our last minute field goal. Having McKelvin try to get to the 30 or 40 or more is obviously completely worth it. He just got tackled at the 20...that happens too. 4) If he had kneeled down on the fumble play we all would have gone crazy about the two minute warning, the best special teams in football, field position, etc. Besides it would have been playing scared and not to lose instead of to win. So let's come to terms with it. We lost a heart breaker to a better football team who largely outplayed us. We had a chance to win and couldn't make that one extra play down to the wire, most notably McKelvin protecting the football, but also coverage on the two TDs and the sack on the second to last play. But let's realize that our team is better than anybody gave us credit for going in including many on this board, and there is a lot to be optimistic about going forward. Seriously. Get a grip. We're discussing strategies here. "Fumbling" is not a strategy. It is a mistake. The choice wasn't between fumbling and taking a knee. Fumbling wasn't the logical conclusion of running it back. It could have easily happened on the 1st handoff to Fred Jackson if we kept the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChimp Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Well from my previous posts, Im a Bills fan down here in Steeler country. The Steeler mentality would of been to come out first and 10 on the 20 thinking were gonna run smash mouth football make a first down and ice the game. We control this game, we have the lead and the ball. Buffalo thinking------is already contemplating how much time your going to give the other team when you punt. That was exactly my point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChimp Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 4) If he had kneeled down on the fumble play we all would have gone crazy about the two minute warning, the best special teams in football, field position, etc. Besides it would have been playing scared and not to lose instead of to win. No, in fact just the opposite is true. The fact that they had him run it out meant that they wanted the two-minute warning to happen before the play ended, so that, when New England "inevitably" got the ball back (because, of COURSE, we would NEVER be able to sustain a drive and run the !@#$ing clock out ), he would have one less "time-out" to use. THAT was playing not to lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billadelphia Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Fighting for the extra yardage was the only mistake. That shows a complete inability to comprehend the situation at hand. An extra 3 yards in the scheme of things is far outweighed by the risk of fumbling. This is exactly right IMO. You bring the ball out because with 2:06 left on the clock, you at least try and run 6 seconds off the clock to get to the 2 min warning. However, at the first sign of resistance, you go down with two arms on the ball, no matter what. It showed a lack of common sense on McKelvin's part, not the coaching staff. McKelvin was about two steps from the Pro Bowl last year and led the league for the majority of the season on returns. There's nobody else on the team that you would want to field that kick and bringing it out was the right thing to do in that situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billadelphia Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 No, in fact just the opposite is true. The fact that they had him run it out meant that they wanted the two-minute warning to happen before the play ended, so that, when New England "inevitably" got the ball back (because, of COURSE, we would NEVER be able to sustain a drive and run the !@#$ing clock out ), THAT was playing not to lose. There's not a team in football who doesn't try and run the clock out in that situation, including the Steelers. Kid yourselves if you like, but its the truth. The smart decision is to bring it out and try to get it to the 2 min warning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChimp Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 This is exactly right IMO. You bring the ball out because with 2:06 left on the clock, you at least try and run 6 seconds off the clock to get to the 2 min warning. However, at the first sign of resistance, you go down with two arms on the ball, no matter what. It showed a lack of common sense on McKelvin's part, not the coaching staff. McKelvin was about two steps from the Pro Bowl last year and led the league for the majority of the season on returns. There's nobody else on the team that you would want to field that kick and bringing it out was the right thing to do in that situation. In the first game in six years that the Bills have actually LED the Pats* that late, with the oddsmakers telling you that 95% of the time, the Bills should WIN that game, and with the Bills' Offense doing EVERYTHING it needed to do the very last possession before, scoring to go up by 11 points, the coaches, both Jauron AND April, needed to make absolutely CERTAIN that McKelvin either KNELT in the flipping end zone, or dropped QUICKLY to his knees the MOMENT he made contact with a Patriot* player. IF THEY DID THIS, the chances that we lose that game are 5% or LOWER. GOOD coaches make SURE that their players know EXACTLY what to do at those critical moments. Our coaches stare at the scoreboard and wait for the inevitable loss to happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chalkie Gerzowski Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Maybe they could have modified the return on that particular play...have McLovin run up the sideline and try to get the clock to 2 minutes...if he does, great, if not, in that particular situation, play it safe and go out-of-bounds, they're going to try and strip the ball. McLovin fumbled before I believe and #54 picked it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan714 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 No, in fact just the opposite is true. The fact that they had him run it out meant that they wanted the two-minute warning to happen before the play ended, so that, when New England "inevitably" got the ball back (because, of COURSE, we would NEVER be able to sustain a drive and run the !@#$ing clock out ), THAT was playing not to lose. Right. One first down and Brady does even get the ball back, instead were planing on it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheChimp Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Right. One first down and Brady does even get the ball back, instead were planing on it. You totally made me realize I left out the most important part of my thought: "when New England "inevitably" got the ball back (because, of COURSE, we would NEVER be able to sustain a drive and run the !@#$ing clock out ), he would have one less "time-out" to use. THAT is playing not to lose." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bufcomments Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Like some people said It was right for him to bring the ball out. But he has to hold on to the Ball damnit. It a hard lesson to learn but I bet my last dollar he does not make this mistake of going for extra yards when he just needs to protect the Rock. Like Jaws said you have to know the game situation and McKelvin learned the !@#$ing hard way. but I am more pumped up about this season than I was even yesterday. They had a chance to be 1-0 in the division and played like it. But they did not finish the game. When will they learn...maybe they are better than what we give them credit for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DELLAPELLE JOHN Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 mckelvin coming out is not the problem, because we didnt want the pats to have the 2.00 min warning... bottom line he cant fumble... man this loss hurts. it does look like we have a very solid team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Griz Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Don't be so hard on him. Leodis isn't used to playing within 8 yards of members of the other team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chandler#81 Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 They blitzed in the 2nd half too. I blame Jauron too but not for not blitzing. I blame him for running a no huddle offense and a bend but don't break D at the same time. It's a recipe that's ripe for losing games in the 4th when you have a totally gassed D who can no longer create pressure. Who didn't think the D would be easy pickings in the 4th with the ToP difference? I saw it a bit differently. We weren't running quick plays in the no-huddle, we just didn't convert 3rd downs. The announcers kept blabbing about the no-huddle hurting us but had we converted a few third downs, they'd been raving. We could have huddled every play and took right to the last second to snap the ball, and our ToP wouldn't have changed IMO. After the intitial shock, I'm OK with the game and believe in the talent and SOME of the coaches on this team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Simon Posted September 15, 2009 Author Share Posted September 15, 2009 Don't be so hard on him. Leodis isn't used to playing within 8 yards of members of the other team. ooooooh, that left a mark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuckeyeBill Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Bring it out, but when a defender gets near you... fall down or run out of bounds. I see the logic of bringing the ball out to eliminate the 2 minute warning... but don't try for that last yard Leodis!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloWings Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 It was a matter of a young player trying to do too much at the wrong time. We'll never get the full story on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ralonzo Posted September 15, 2009 Share Posted September 15, 2009 Don't be so hard on him. Leodis isn't used to playing within 8 yards of members of the other team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts