It's funny how good the Offense looked

[Forward_Lateral]

With even a mediocre QB. The O-line looked a lot better, the WRs were actually getting open, and the running game was decent.

Granted, NE's Defense isn't Miami's or Green Bays, but still, it's New England. Putting up 30 (ok, 23) points in New England is impressive to me. Especially with how awful it looked in week's 1 and 2.

Now, someone please explain to me how Fitzpatrick wasn't/isn't going to do any better behind that O-line?

[streetkings01]

Re: It's funny how good the Offense looked

Kick Trent Edwards while he's down!

[Forward_Lateral]

Re: It's funny how good the Offense looked

I'm not kicking Trent, I'm kicking all the morons who said the offense would stink just as badly, no matter who was QB.

[ddaryl]

Re: It's funny how good the Offense looked

1 - 2 - 3 steps and throw makes a huge difference and forces teams to not stack the box. the quit slant the WR screen all of these were lost in with Edwards for the most part, and opposing D's knew it.

Edwards just couldn't do that. He needed to get back into the pocket before he could make a read, ya can't do that in this league and expect to get away with it. You have to have the quick passes.

[HAMMER]

Re: It's funny how good the Offense looked

Let's revisit this thread next Monday. Jets defense is far better than Pats.

[RoscoeMagic]

Re: It's funny how good the Offense looked

Let's revisit this thread next Monday. Jets defense is far better than Pats.

As long as you guys don't give us the, "Yeah but they didn't even have Revis" excuse. Chad Henne looked like Peyton Manning (well maybe Matt Schaub) against that D and we shut his ass down. Jets without Revis = beatable if we can stop that run and get pressure on Sanchez.

[justasportsfan]

Re: It's funny how good the Offense looked

I'm not kicking Trent, I'm kicking all the morons who said the offense would stink just as badly, no matter who was QB.

Kick HH while he's down?

[TacklingDummy]

Re: It's funny how good the Offense looked

Chan called a different game plan for Fitz. Edwards hands were tied with the crappy play calling .

[Thief]

Re: It's funny how good the Offense looked

Chan called a different game plan for Fitz. Edwards hands were tied with the crappy play calling .

This is sarcism, right? I think the play calling was tied because of Trent's crappy hands.

Actually, I'm not sure too much changed other than execution.

[Ground Chuck]

Re: It's funny how good the Offense looked

Imagine if we actually had a mediocre QB.

[Nighthawk]

Re: It's funny how good the Offense looked

With even a mediocre QB. The O-line looked a lot better, the WRs were actually getting open, and the running game was decent.

Granted, NE's Defense isn't Miami's or Green Bays, but still, it's New England. Putting up 30 (ok, 23) points in New England is impressive to me. Especially with how awful it looked in week's 1 and 2.

Now, someone please explain to me how Fitzpatrick wasn't/isn't going to do any better behind that O-line?

Don't you know that it was all the OL's fault and nobody could make plays behind it? :sarcasm2:

[HAMMER]

Re: It's funny how good the Offense looked

This is sarcism, right? I think the play calling was tied because of Trent's crappy hands.

Actually, I'm not sure too much changed other than execution.

I can be very sarcistic sometimes.

[Thief]

Re: It's funny how good the Offense looked

I can be very sarcistic sometimes.

OK. So you have 2 screen names?

[TacklingDummy]

Re: It's funny how good the Offense looked

This is sarcism, right? I think the play calling was tied because of Trent's crappy hands.

Look at the play calls in the Miami game then look at the play called last week. You tell me.

[Thief]

Re: It's funny how good the Offense looked

Look at the play calls in the Miami game then look at the play called last week. You tell me.

That doesn't mean the game plan was different. It could mean a couple different things.

Let me provide examples....

First, Trent was unable to command any respect, so the 'Phins hung out at the LOS. By contrast, with Fitz, Lynch and co were afforded some room to run, because the Pats couldn't keep 9 guys in the box.

Second, because the Bills were more successful on first down with Fitz, they were able to run more, and have more balance.

Third, because the Bills were able to sustain drives, they were provided the opportunity to use more of the play book.

Fourth, Fitz was able to check out of plays correctly.

Fifth, Fitz was able to hit the hot read when under pressure rather then fold like a tent in a hurricane.

I mean seriously, do you think the game plan vs GB was to not get Lee involved? It was to not throw to him, but once? How about when the Bills were down by 20+ points? Was that the time to pull out the bread 'n' butter dear in headlights look and have Trent run out of bounds?

BTW, the last play ever for Trent was a run out of bounds on 4th down. Dude couldn't even bring himself to throw it then.

And you belive it was all due to Chan's gameplan as if it was a consperacy theory to ruin Trent's life?

So I'm gonna go ahead and disagree... on this one.