View Full Version : Will GW's Decision to... WARNING: Critical and Potentially Negative Thread! :D
...not pull Bledsoe for the final two minutes of the Pats game come back to bite us when we travel to N.E. to play them?
With 6 minutes left, and up 38-7, Belichick IMO graciously ran the ball 7 straight times w/ Smith. I'm sure that if Smith had gotten in Belichick wouldn't have minded. But IMO he clearly was trying to be a gracious victor by not trying to run the score up since I'm sure the Pats could easily have scored again starting from our 29 with almost 6 minutes left on the clock and still taken most of the time off of the clock as well.
Meanwhile, we had had only seen the red zone twice in the game up 'til that point. IMO Bledsoe should have come out and we should have run out the clock instead of trying to put a little bit of window dressing on this loss to save some face for GW & Co. IMO, it also hurt us more b/c while we managed to drive down the field quickly enough, we could not put the ball into the endzone on three tries from the 4, 1, and 1 YLs. So in the long run, I think it ended up totally backfiring anyway as it merely emphasized the problems that we've been having on offense instead of trying to cover them up some more.
Q: Will GW's decision to keep Bledsoe in the game and try to score hurt us when we go to N.E.?
No. Running up the score on someone can hurt you though. It's my understanding Drew asked to remain in the game telling GW he expected to be out there every snap no matter what. I think it speaks to his character. Not only does he want to play...he wants to take the lumps just like the team has to take lumps.
4thAndLong
11-09-2002, 11:21 AM
You cant forget, Bledsoe might of still been in there because he is chasing Dan Marino's record, especially when it's Bledsoe against his old team, you'll want to pad his stats a little.
Why would it hurt us in NE?
lordofgun
11-09-2002, 11:32 AM
Can you run up the score when you're hopelessly behind? Teams alwqays try to score to make it look closer than it actually was.
I've just heard some commentary on WNY sports shows and from Fred Smerlas in particular addressing the situation. I simply thought I'd ask the question.
It's unlikely that Drew's gonna hit Marino's record. A good reason why many people are hopeful that he does is due to 2 O/T performances resulting in a significant accumulation of passing yardage adding to his totals. He needs to average 326 YPG from here to tie it. That's pretty optimistic in anyone's opinion. Considering that our offense is struggling right now and that we are entering many games in cold weather and in which we face tougher Ds, IMO he isn't going to be very close. That's not to say he's having a bad season. I simply think that that record is out of reach practically speaking.
As to the game, with the Pat D playing the way it was, why risk additional hits/sacks to Bledsoe w/ the game way, way out hand? That's one school of thought on the matter.
It's tough to argue that 7 more points was all that meaningful and worth injury risks considering that Drew was taking heat. I guess it's all hindsight. If Drew goes down, then it's a horrible call.
Either way, IMO, the benefit that we derived from keeping him in there was minimal if positive at all. I don't think it did us any favors not being able to put the ball into the endzone on three tries from the 4, 1, and 1.
JMO however.
The other school of thought on the matter is that Belichick wouldn't be as merciful next time around in N.E. Based on the fan reaction we saw at RWS, we certainly can't hope that the fans don't call for running up the score should the situation arise in N.E.
Tough crowd last Sunday! Too many Pats fans there...
Dozerdog
11-09-2002, 01:43 PM
I don't care what Bledsoe says...
Great- you want to take your lumps with the team. If I'm the coach, then I'll tell him -"OK- you get to run 20 more laps with the rest of these sorry assed guys- matter of fact- lead them around the track!"
"But I am not risking the season on your pride. You will take a seat next to doughboy over there... Travis- get in the game!!"
Marcos20
11-09-2002, 01:50 PM
he wanted to stoy there....
To me it was his commitment to take every snap this season. I don't mind that at all.
mybills
11-09-2002, 03:13 PM
Had he left, what would NE be thinking? No matter who made the decision for him to stay in, or sit it out, NE would only be thinking one thing. The word "Wuss" comes to mind, which would only boost their ego for next time!
I doubt I'd chance the injury, but I'm glad it worked out ok. Now we can go into NE with a "payback" attitude, unlike the "I'm lost" attitude they all seemed to have last weekend!
I really need to find a tailgate party for that game. :(
DIHARD2
11-09-2002, 04:01 PM
Actually I do not want him to write a record on passing yards, but I do want us to win the game's. What that would show is, that the running attack was balancing out the passing attack. If he gets it or if he has to, then fine but I'd rather see us controlling the clock and winning the games.
GO!!!...BUFFALO!!!...
LuvDaBills11
11-09-2002, 07:28 PM
gws coaching will hurt us in new england more than drew.drew threw for 302 yards but williams sucked
if he dosnet learn he will get beat the same way and we will be embarassed again
and then hell be fired if were lucky
Halbert
11-10-2002, 02:51 AM
Leaving him in because he wants to take every snap: Stupid.
Leaving him in because he wants to chase a record: Stupid.
Leaving him in to set an example for the rest of the team: Misguided. And stupid.
I wasn't going to bring it up because I like GW and didn't want to pile it on after 4th and 2 but that's another call he won't likely make again. When Drew got crunched at the end of an obviously hopeless situation I think it clarified the issue for future reference.
Judge
11-10-2002, 08:22 AM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
...not pull Bledsoe for the final two minutes of the Pats game come back to bite us when we travel to N.E. to play them?
...
Q: Will GW's decision to keep Bledsoe in the game and try to score hurt us when we go to N.E.?
YES! It will!
The only purpose for leaving Drew and co. in was personal stats for those guys- to keep Bledsoe's drive for 5000 yards going and to help Moulds and Price. Why else would they have been in there gunslinging away?
The Patriots were TICKED, as shown by their aggressive hitting on that drive.
It was in poor taste to do that when the game was out of reach. The Bills should have had Travis Brown handing off to Joe Burns to end the game.
DIHARD2
11-10-2002, 08:40 AM
I have seen in two minutes a team, come from two touchdowns and a field goal behind to win the game. It was Buffalo, against the New York Jets I believe it was 68. One of the only game's Buffalo won that year I think.
They started out as a team, and I don't think in their mind it was ever totally over, not if they are true competitors, which I think they are..
It's easy to sit here and say what we feel should have been done it is always easier to second-guess. But to say that Bledsoe should have been pull, it just shows me, some have never really played competitive sports. If I were in that position and I were Bledsoe I would refuse unless I'm hurt to be pull. That was a no-brainer and I would've been more disappointed if Williams did pull him.
The signed of a true competitor is being willing to crash and burn with the team.
If Bledsoe would've been pulled, then I would have to question Bledsoe's willingness to play in a bad situation.
GO!!!...BUFFALO!!!...
lunatic_bills_fan
11-10-2002, 08:48 AM
The only real argument for not playing him was for the injury aspect. Judge this is the NFL. Unless your up by a bunch you dont just chuck in the rserves and run out the clock. That pis$#! me off as much as a Major League basball player trotting down to first base when he doesnt think he can make it. These are million dollar athletes and they should be expected to give everything they got for 60 minutes, regardless of the situation. If this was the case I guess Moss and Culpepper are just playing now a days to pad their stats, cuz they dont have a shot at the playoffs. May as well pull them and put reserves in to finish the year.
That's a good point DIEHARD. I really hate it when people give up when there is still a chance. And before you folks come out who will say it isn't going to happen think about this. It may be near impossible statisticaly, but near impossible is not impossible. And I am not just talking about this game. I remember when I was a kid seeing Roger Staubach throw three touchdowns in the final minute of play to win a game. I don't care if we are down by ten touchdowns if there is enough time on the clock to have ten onside kicks ran in for touchdowns we damn well better be out there trying to get those ten touchdowns (remember the game can't end on a penalty). I can understand people want to be conservative and avoid a potential disaster. I would rather try and win. I don't like a team that packs it in when there is still a small chance they can win a game.
I would also assert of all the games ever played in the NFL where teams gave up on a win at some point there have been several that team would have won had they went back on the field with the attitude they weren't going to lose that game.
Judge
11-10-2002, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by lunatic_bills_fan
The only real argument for not playing him was for the injury aspect. Judge this is the NFL. Unless your up by a bunch you dont just chuck in the rserves and run out the clock. That pis$#! me off as much as a Major League basball player trotting down to first base when he doesnt think he can make it. These are million dollar athletes and they should be expected to give everything they got for 60 minutes, regardless of the situation. If this was the case I guess Moss and Culpepper are just playing now a days to pad their stats, cuz they dont have a shot at the playoffs. May as well pull them and put reserves in to finish the year.
What a crock this post is.
Lunatic, this is the NFL. When a team is totally defeated, and it's the last 2 minutes of a game, they DO pull their stars out. And the "only real argument is the injury aspect" is EVERYTHING! The ONLY argument, and the CRITICAL argument! Wake up.
Marv Levy did that regularly in either blowout wins or blowout losses when the score was truly out of reach, late in the 4th quarter. Why? Maybe to ensure that a vital player to the team's success for the season wasn't lost.
Drew got hammered on the last play of the game- he took a hit that was completely unnecessary. Thankfully, he got up. If he hadn't, you'd be singing a different tune, lun.
Judge
11-10-2002, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by Typ0
I would also assert of all the games ever played in the NFL where teams gave up on a win at some point there have been several that team would have won had they went back on the field with the attitude they weren't going to lose that game.
True, but this is inapplicable to a game where the score is 38-7 with 1:50 left in the fourth quarter.
...and starting from our own 1 YL I might add just to stir the pot a little more. :D
It doesn't look like it needs a lot of stirring at this point however.
Two Qs nonetheless:
What is the greatest amount of points that has been scored in 1:56?
and;
What is the least duration of time that 31 points has been scored?
Looking back to the "Comeback Victory", we needed almost an entire half, and well over a Q for us to come back from a 32 pt. deficit vs. Houston in '93.
Is it then even realistic to think that under any circumstances whatsoever, that scoring 31 points in 1:56, when in fact you currently have the ball at your own 1 YL, is even possible? It's one thing to be competitive when there's a chance. It's another thing altogether to "run headlong into the endzone wall" simply to 'prove' how tough you are.
I'm surprised we even got down the field that far. Our longest drive in that game up to that point had been 62 yards. We had only thrown for 222 yards up until that point; 186 net yards; and had rushed for only 65.
Also, again, keep in mind that Belichick I'm sure could have easily punched it in for another 7 from our 29 w/ 5:56 left in the game. IMO, next time he won't hesitate to do that. I would imagine he'll even try to run up the score simply inresponse to our actions in this game. MO only however.
casdhf
11-10-2002, 11:15 AM
Wys, who were the Centers that we could have gotten cheaper, that are better than Teague? This was in another thread, and I have no idea who was better than him out there
DIHARD2
11-10-2002, 11:20 AM
Has anybody asked Bledsoe, his opinion on being pulled?
I am sorry the players are paid to play 60 minutes injury's, yes, that can happen, the fact is it didn't happen. It is easy to second-guess the coach or Bledsoe, you're not being fair to their decision. It's so easy for us to sit here say this is what should have been done, but I think we need to ask those who are actually involved.
Marv Leavy is no longer coaching the Buffalo Bills, and his way did not take us to the top, we never walked away with the ring! So maybe that might be one of his flaws, giving up or not having a killer instinct!
GO!!!...BUFFALO!!!...
cas,
Do you think $2.5M for a C is a good deal first?
Answer that, and I'll go find out for you. I don't have every one of 500 FAs of last season memorized. I can tell you that several Gs sure signed for less, and some name Gs too. Teague was not a "name." He had one season of starting in his 5 in the league prior to this season.
DH, etal.,
Do we play in order to win games?
Or do we play in order to "get our money's worth" or for some other reason among which may be statsm, yardage, to not make the coach/team look bad, etc.?
In my mind, and this is only MO, but we play games in order to win them. I've been told plenty of times right here on this MB that a loss is a loss and a win is a win regardless of how many points it is by; 1 or 99.
Inasmuch as injuries are a very expected part of the game, we do not control them. They come when they come. It would seem to me that the balance between benefit and risk is one of the components of the game that needs to be managed and that that onus falls entirely on the coaching staff.
JMO however. But it is also MO that what we had to gain by trying for another score was meaningless in the grand scheme of things, yet the risks with the way that the D was playing combined w/ the fact that they had gotten to Drew all day long far outweighed any possible benefits. JMO again however.
I would suggest however, to GW, that if he truly thought we could win down by 31, starting at our own 1 YL with 1:56 on the clock, and having had only 251 total net yards up to that point in the game, that those are grounds enough for firing him. No coach who is sane would think that there is even a one-in-a-million shot at winning such a game. IMO, 99% of all H.C.'s out there would have run the clock out under identical circumstances. Again, JMO. But I'll tell you that if Bledsoe had gone down w/ a serious injury, everyone but everyone would have been calling for GW's head. Even you I would venture to guess. JMO however.
I know what you guys are saying. My point is even the seemingly impossible can happen sometimes and applaud their failure to quit doing what they wanted to do when they started the game which was score points. If it was me I would want to go out there and score some points just to get a positive leap into the bye and the next game. Whatever.
I think there are plenty of coaches out there who would have sent them out screaming at them to score some points just to prove they could do it.
I think this will be a very good week to get our offense back on track against one of the worst Ds in the league. We've been struggling and we should be able to hang in this game if we play like we played early on in the season.
This game will reveal much. If we lose by 20 and don't ourselves score in the 30s or even 40s, then a whole host of other issues will arise. MO.
mybills
11-10-2002, 11:34 AM
I've said Teague sucks all along. I wouldn't give him a dollar!
He looks like a cheer leader out there....
hike it to the clouds,
hike it to the ground,
hike it anywhere,
hike it all around!
:chuckle:
casdhf
11-10-2002, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
Do you think $2.5M for a C is a good deal first?
Answer that, and I'll go find out for you. I don't have every one of 500 FAs of last season memorized. I can tell you that several Gs sure signed for less, and some name Gs too. Teague was not a "name." He had one season of starting in his 5 in the league prior to this season.
He was the best option out there, I don't think he's as over-payed in comparrison to all the other Centers out there
How much are other Cs getting and how good is he in comparison to them?
Do you think he's doing a good job at C? Great, average, fair?
Centers that were available were:
Olin Kreutz
Jeremy Newberrry
Corey Raymer
Kendall Jacox
While Kreutz and Newberry are head and shoulders better than Teague, they both signd for another few bucks. Kreutz is young however and already among the best Cs. He signed a 6 year deal for $23M that averages out to around $1.4M more than Teague.
Newberry however is also a far better C and he only signed for around $500 K more. I don't know if he would have changed teams, but we didn't even make a move for him. But he would have been well worth the additional 1/2 M.
Raymer is the one I was thinking about along w/ Jacox who was the Chargers best OL-man over the past few seasons. He's G too but can play C. Both of them about 1/2 M less than Teague went for and IMO are better Cs.
There were also some Gs that could have played C too that we didn't bring in either. The best, IMO, was Chris Naeole who went for just over $2M/yr. I really thought the Bills should have brought him in.
I guess it depended upon your approach. The FO probably didn't know who they were going to draft. I don't know for how long they had their eyes on Williams. But if they knew that before they bought Teague, then IMO, it was remiss to sign Teague to play T. I was of the opinion all along that at 6'5" and 290, w/ only 1 year of starting experience at T, that Teague was not a good bet to start at LT.
Knowing that we were goig to draft Williams, which again, IDK if the FO knew when they bought Teague, then to me at least, and IMO, it would have made more sense to get a G like Naeole and play him at C or G. Or keep Conaty at G. Again, it's MO that Teague isn't playing it that much better than Conaty did last year w/ a terrible OL around him to boot.
That's my rationale for the thinking behind your questions. ;)
casdhf
11-10-2002, 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
How much are other Cs getting and how good is he in comparison to them?
Do you think he's doing a good job at C? Great, average, fair?
I think he's done a very good job. He's had his bad moments, but who hasn't?
Fair enough. I just think that for the difference in price, we would have been better off spending that money elsewhere and starting Conaty.
DIHARD2
11-10-2002, 04:47 PM
wys, when G. W. came to Buffalo, what I saw was new blood coming into head coaching in the NFL. There was no way to judge how good or how bad he would be until he is surrounded by the team of his choice.
Right now, he has the offense that he wants.,So this off-season the defense will be of his choice just like Marv Leavy did.
Then, next year (if he gets that chance), then we will be able to judge his ability.
Unfortunately in today's NFL, as you know, you now have to worry about salary caps, so you cannot just go out and buy the team you want. It takes three years to get a team together once you gut a team like Buffalo had to, these last two years.
Right now G. W. decision-making has me wondering if he can adjust and run a team during game day, but again he has only been able to put together one side of the ball that he wants.
GO!!!...BUFFALO!!!...
The_Philster
11-10-2002, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by Wys Guy
Fair enough. I just think that for the difference in price, we would have been better off spending that money elsewhere and starting Conaty.
Agreed. Billy may be no Kent Hull, but he wouldn't be much, if any, drop-off from Teague.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.