Henry 15 carries!

[Romes]

Wys-

I was not defending Bledsoe in that post. I was answering to why it was that Henry only got 15 carries. In fact Bledsoe did have a horrible game.

Our first drive we ran five plays, 2 of which were runs, probably would have been 3 but we had a penalty that put us in a passing down.

Next drive, very first play drew got interecepted.

12 minutes into the game we were already down 17 points. At that point we got the ball back. We did still have time to run, so we did. Henry got 1/3 of his carries on that drive alone. We got to the one and that is when Bledsoe threw his second int. Should of ran in retro spect so Henry gets 16 carries instead of 15.

NE then takes the ball and goes on an 8 minute drive and gets 3 points. We get the ball with 2 minutes left in the half and of course we are passing in this situation.

We get the ball at the beggining of the 3rd and we give the ball to Henry 5 times on a 12 play drive. Not bad for when you are down by 20 in the second half. We get 3. We are still down by 17, atleast 3 scores.

Next drive is 6 plays. We run Henry the first play to make them think we still will. Then we pass the other 5 and get a TD to moulds with 4:15 left in the 3rd.

First set of downs we complete a pass to price then run travis for a 1st. Next, Bledsoe gets sacked (maybe we could have ran here) puts us in a passing situation. We don't get the 1st we punt.

Next drive for the Bills is the one where price fumbled that was on the first play of the drive. No chance to run on this drive. NE scores we are down by 17.

From this drive on we have 10 minutes in the 4th quarter to get 3 scores. Do you really think we can do that by running Henry?

Bledsoe had a bad game, the turnovers screwed us. I would not blame Gilbride for giving Henry only 15 carries.

As far as Bledsoe winning games by himself the Minnesota game comes to mind off the top of my head or the game in 1994 he had against the vikings.

Oh, and also Favre, Young, McNabb, Vick, Garcia and Warner have had bad games too where they through 4 INTs. No QB is great every single week. I know I would have liked a better performance from Bledsoe when we had our backs up against the wall but it was just a bad game at the wrong time.

(Wow, this post was long, I now know what it feels like to post like Wys )

[LuvDaBills11]

wys is right that gilbride doesnt run the ball enough but he just doesnt see the reason this time. gilbride was suddenly down 20-0 and had to find a way to come back quickly. he still should have comited to running more so it would keep the pats o off the field and make them rusty. the d and drew were as much to blame as gilbride was but if drew was handing off instead of running there wouldnt have been an int that early.

[Romes]

Originally posted by LuvDaBills11
wys is right that gilbride doesnt run the ball enough but he just doesnt see the reason this time. gilbride was suddenly down 20-0 and had to find a way to come back quickly. he still should have comited to running more so it would keep the pats o off the field and make them rusty. the d and drew were as much to blame as gilbride was but if drew was handing off instead of running there wouldnt have been an int that early.

Good point. I will admit that in past games they haven't given the ball to Henry enough but in this last game I think 15 carries considering the position we were in is a resonable amount.

[DIHARD2]

CalBillsFan, it wasn't long the way wys is. The difference is, you don't have six paragraphs saying the same thing, (sorry wys) but that is my observation on a lot of your post, and threats.

CalBillsFan, your post was informative and its stated the situation informatively, it's exactly what happened.

For those who don't understand what CalBillsFan has just said or if you just want to rag on the coach because you resent his first year and his, we, are go to win pompous attitude. (By the way, how many tickets do you think we would've sold, if he really would have stated what he felt.)

His job is not only to coach the team, he also has a responsibility towards the PR people, so he has to give the fans a row-row attitude, so the fans would buy tickets before they see the team play.

So, Again, what cost us the game against New England was, (((FOUR INTERCEPTION and a FUMBLE))) and New England capitalizing on the majority of them. I do not know how many football experts would tell you that a lot of game between close teams are lost in turnovers.

Also I took another looked at that TH and Prices fumble's again, and the defensive player speared TH arm and pulled the ball out of Price's arm witch is what they are taught to do from their first time playing defense on a Pop Warner team.

Although that is against Pop Warner rules to teach the (helmet spear) technique. That's only for the safety of the kid. But as we know, grownups have a habit of figuring out ways to circumvent the rules, a.k.a. (cheating) they, (the coaches) want to always live vicariously through there children they teach. And they forget the harm they can do to a child.

I to apologize for all my long post, but I enjoy writing it keep my mind going, even if it is just dribble.

GO!!!...BUFFALO!!!...

[venis2k1]

Originally posted by Wys Guy
Good job Kevin!

Way to do your research. You get spanked like a felon at a Catholic school in round one, and then you do the same exact thing in round 2.

I've got some cheap land to sell ya just south of the Keys!

Time to get rid of these fools! The entire ship full! Screw continuity.

why would a felon GET spanked at a catholic school??? shouldn't it be a catholic school girl in prison?

[WG]

Look, the point is that Henry's had 15 or fewer carries 6 times. At some point you have to blame Gilbride, especially when we're losing. Perhaps we should have been running more from the onset anyway.

I'm not lost in all of this. You guys are. Here's the point, again;

Suppose the options are running the ball down by 20, and putting points up and hoping for a N.E. TO; OR; passing some more when in fact Bledsoe has struggled, to say the least, twice against N.E. and burrying ourselves deeper? BTW, in fact again we were down by only 10 w/ [b]plenty[/i] of time left (3rd Q) and did we run? No!

I hear your arguments, but they're not making any sense. Just b/c we were down by 20 early on, who cares if we were only down by 10 in the middle of the third. The game changes, Gilbride doesn't.

But again, and this point seems to be lost on you guys, Bledsoe STUNK the joint up! We were moving backwards so-to-speak w/ him throwing the ball. If his performance doesn't prove that, then I don't know what will. Simply saying some fun words like "our best chances are when Bledsoe throws the ball" doesn't overcome reality. Sorry, it just doesn't.

People here say we're the #6 offense. Well big deal. We were #1 and have slipped to as low as #9 when we should be #1 or 2 w/ the talent that we have. So IMO we're drastically underperforming.

I'll say this, if we don't rebound against S.D. and G.B., nicely too, then there are issues w/ this O. And whom do you want to blame for it? B/c the choices are:

Gilbride
Bledsoe
Henry
Moulds
Price
OL
TEs

We can't blame Henry b/c he's doing all that's being asked of him in the limited opps that he's been given.

We can't blame the OL. Sure, they're not perfect, but they've played very well and Bledsoe's had plenty of time to throw very, very often and still hasn't always made plays. The run blocking apparently has been very sufficient!
TEs, a non-factor.

Moulds/Price? IDK how you can blame them other than for not getting open.

That leaves Drew himself, or Gilbride.

I know, I know, the Defense, blah, blah, blah...

This just in! The defense has virtually nothing to do with the performance of the offense! Field position possibly, but performance, no!

So which is it? Who's at fault for this, as we were told from the beginning of the season, "powerhouse offense" not being anything close to powerhouse over the last half of our games? Slipping from #1 to #6 and not less only on the merits of another lucky game against Miami!

If we only put up 17 v. S.D. and G.B., we'll be ranked 8th, possibly 9th, and in my book, when I look at the talent on O, that's completely unacceptable.

I can tell all of you this, that if we only play the way we've played over the last 6 or 7 weeks next season on O, then we'll be 6-10 again and it won't have anything at all to do with the D. You simply don't win too many games by not putting up more than 17 or 20 points in this league.

[TacklingDummy]

Originally posted by Wys Guy

I'll say this, if we don't rebound against S.D. and G.B., nicely too, then there are issues w/ this O. And whom do you want to blame for it? B/c the choices are:

Gilbride
Bledsoe
Henry
Moulds
Price
OL
TEs

Where is the choice of blaming the Defense? If the defense could stop somebody or keep the game close, the offense would be much improved. They wouldn't have to be playing catch-up all the time.

[DIHARD2]

wys, the fact is, we do not have the defense that we can trust to get three and out, so we can get the ball back in enough time.

When you run the ball you also run the clock. Again I don't think you understand what cost us the game, So Again it was Interceptions and a Fumble, that is what cost us the game with New England being able to capitalize on the majority of them. If you look at the stats we are close in that game except for turnovers.

I remember games were Kelly, in the first-half through interceptions that cost us points, but he was able to come back in the second half using just the passes and win the game. The difference, is Kelly had a defense that on average was able to get the ball with three and out.

Our defense is a suspect in this game. Even though our defense kept the Score down, New England was still able to control the clock when they had the ball.

So when we did get the ball, we needed to move down the field as fast as possible and score. The only way that could be done is through the passing game. We do not have the luxury to run the ball 30 times.

wys, your hatred for Gilbride is really showing in this thread, because your argument is very weak.

GO!!!...BUFFALO!!!...

[Romes]

This is pointless to argue. I have realized that there are two lines of thought here and if we can't agree on these points this discussion is not going anywhere. The points are:

1. The defense's and offense's performance have nothing or very little to do with each other and that in most game situations the score has very little to do with the play selection.

2. That the defense and offense feed off of each other and that they can be held largely responsible for each unit's efficiency. Also, that in almost every game situation the score does have an effect on the play calling.

The bottomline is that since we cannot agree on the latter statements there is no possible way we can come to a conclusion on why it is that our offense is struggling to score points.