I said it before he kicked it...it's got to be in play. I was STUNNED that they kicked it for a touch back. What a colossal mistake! Just kick it in play!
"Everyone's gassed. There's a greater-than-normal chance of a big return. If they get the ball out to the 40, one pass and they're in FG range. What's worse, them at the 40 with 8 seconds left or the 25 with 13 seconds left? Let's have them start at the 25. Make them complete 2-3 passes."
On a kickoff, the clock starts running once the receiving team touches the ball, right? If Buffalo kicked it short and the receiver immediately took a knee, would only 1 second expire from the clock for the change of possession?
What I'm asking is if taking a knee immediately upon possession is sufficient to stop the clock.
On a kickoff, the clock starts running once the receiving team touches the ball, right? If Buffalo kicked it short and the receiver immediately took a knee, would only 1 second expire from the clock for the change of possession?
What I'm asking is if taking a knee immediately upon possession is sufficient to stop the clock.
If he fair caught it no time and ball to 25 yard line.
The only way it works is if it rolls down the middle, makes it past the 25 and someone botches falling on it.
On a kickoff, the clock starts running once the receiving team touches the ball, right? If Buffalo kicked it short and the receiver immediately took a knee, would only 1 second expire from the clock for the change of possession?
What I'm asking is if taking a knee immediately upon possession is sufficient to stop the clock.
If he fair caught it no time and ball to 25 yard line.
The only way it works is if it rolls down the middle, makes it past the 25 and someone botches falling on it.
Ah. I wasn't aware a receiver could call a fair catch on a kickoff.
A google search tells me that a fair catch can be called on a kickoff.
So even if the Bills had kicked end-over-end up the middle, could the eventual receiver immediately take a knee upon possession, in which case 1 second would run off the clock? If so, then it wouldn't have made much of a difference.
I'm not even a Bills fan and I'm feeling crushed by that brutal loss...
A google search tells me that a fair catch can be called on a kickoff.
So even if the Bills had kicked end-over-end up the middle, could the eventual receiver immediately take a knee upon possession, in which case 1 second would run off the clock? If so, then it wouldn't have made much of a difference.
I'm not even a Bills fan and I'm feeling crushed by that brutal loss...
Unless the fair catch took place at the 10-yard line, which would have added 20 extra yards to travel for FG range with 12 seconds.
We’re expecting KC to complete two passes before trying the FG, thinking 20+20 yards =40 yards which brings it to the 35 yard line, trying a 52 yd FG. They did better.
Bills and KC D just couldn’t cover or sack those two elusive guys.
to the 5 or 10 yard line. Force them to either take a FC there, or run it back and eat up clock. Anything else was a mistake. Surprising that no one on the Bills coaching staff could figure that out.
On a kickoff, the clock starts running once the receiving team touches the ball, right? If Buffalo kicked it short and the receiver immediately took a knee, would only 1 second expire from the clock for the change of possession?
What I'm asking is if taking a knee immediately upon possession is sufficient to stop the clock.
If he fair caught it no time and ball to 25 yard line.
The only way it works is if it rolls down the middle, makes it past the 25 and someone botches falling on it.
That’s the college rule. In the NFL the ball is dead at the spot of the fair catch. Same as for a punt.
The Bills’ DBs must have watched the end of the Rams game and didn’t
If The Bills just held/tackled Hill, Kelse, etc right on the line with so little time on clock.
5 yard penalty and first down. So what?
Does the time of the play still come off the clock?
If The Bills just held/tackled Hill, Kelse, etc right on the line with so little time on clock.
5 yard penalty and first down. So what?
Does the time of the play still come off the clock?
Sure does....and while they still get another play (game can't end on a penalty) it would drastically change the game.
If The Bills just held/tackled Hill, Kelse, etc right on the line with so little time on clock.
5 yard penalty and first down. So what?
Does the time of the play still come off the clock?
Sure does....and while they still get another play (game can't end on a penalty) it would drastically change the game.
Interesting take!
So after the first completion, with eight seconds left I think, the Bills should have just locked onto every eligible receiver and literally tackled them and take the 5 yard holding penalty.
That play alone probably gets the clock down to four seconds - maybe more if Mahomes doesn't recognize what's going on - and puts the Chiefs in a hail Mary situation.
that's a terrific take on the late game situation. Absolutely would have worked and gotten the Bills out of there with a win unless the Chiefs hit a hail mary.
There was basically no risk in either, I didnt think of it but kudos to thinking about that. It would have been an all time brilliant strategy if they did it.
The proper play was a mortar kick - kick the ball higher than normal and short of the end zone.
Quote:
The kick — known as a "mortar" kickoff — worked perfectly: it landed so deep in Cardinals' territory that return man Andre Ellington had no choice but to return it, only the ball had been kicked so high in the air that by the time Ellington finally caught it, New England's special teams unit was already well downfield.
Ellington was swallowed up at the 17-yard line, and a holding penalty against Arizona on the return set them all the way back to the 8-yard line. With the new touchback rule in place, that was a net difference of 17 yards.
New England ended up winning after the Cardinals missed a 47-yard field goal on the ensuing drive. In Belichick's eyes, Gostkowski's kick, and that 17-yard difference, won his team the game.
"Certainly, we had an opportunity to kick it out of the end zone on the last kickoff, but with a good field goal kicker, a good offense, good quarterback, we try to put them on as long a field as we could," Belichick said, according to Pro Football talk. "That was a great situational play and we needed it at that time."
that's a terrific take on the late game situation. Absolutely would have worked and gotten the Bills out of there with a win unless the Chiefs hit a hail mary.
There was basically no risk in either, I didnt think of it but kudos to thinking about that. It would have been an all time brilliant strategy if they did it.
Interestingly enough, I always call for this at the end of the half when a team is trying just one more throw into the endzone before settling for a FG.
Always take the penalty! Eventually time will force them into the FG...............works in other situations as well!
Clever but not reality. Firstly, the defenders would have to succeed in holding every one of the receivers, if not then there would be a very open receiver downfield.
If this was so easily done then why don't defenders flatten block/tackle receivers within the first 5 yards when they legally can.
Receivers are really skilled athletes and the defender would get burned enough times with receivers using elusive moves to avoid the defender at the line.
No guarantees the intentional holding would work. Way too many moving parts there.
Clever but not reality. Firstly, the defenders would have to succeed in holding every one of the receivers, if not then there would be a very open receiver downfield.
If this was so easily done then why don't defenders flatten block/tackle receivers within the first 5 yards when they legally can.
Receivers are really skilled athletes and the defender would get burned enough times with receivers using elusive moves to avoid the defender at the line.
No guarantees the intentional holding would work. Way too many moving parts there.
Let me clarify. Don't hold.
Tackle.
And you don't do it normally because it's a penalty. But in this situation you don't care.
Clever but not reality. Firstly, the defenders would have to succeed in holding every one of the receivers, if not then there would be a very open receiver downfield.
If this was so easily done then why don't defenders flatten block/tackle receivers within the first 5 yards when they legally can.
Receivers are really skilled athletes and the defender would get burned enough times with receivers using elusive moves to avoid the defender at the line.
No guarantees the intentional holding would work. Way too many moving parts there.
Let me clarify. Don't hold.
Tackle.
And you don't do it normally because it's a penalty. But in this situation you don't care.
Futhermore, if you rush 2 and play nine defenders, you could actually double team and tackle their best players - like Kelce and Hill.
Clever but not reality. Firstly, the defenders would have to succeed in holding every one of the receivers, if not then there would be a very open receiver downfield.
If this was so easily done then why don't defenders flatten block/tackle receivers within the first 5 yards when they legally can.
Receivers are really skilled athletes and the defender would get burned enough times with receivers using elusive moves to avoid the defender at the line.
No guarantees the intentional holding would work. Way too many moving parts there.
Let me clarify. Don't hold.
Tackle.
And you don't do it normally because it's a penalty. But in this situation you don't care.
Sounds like something BB would coach his players to do, and have it work.
I think if it went like that, it would be the impetus to alter the rule on D penalties (at least in the last 2 minutes) to reset the game clock back to where it was pre penalty. I think the NFL would see it as going against the spirit of the game or something like that but as it is now, it’s a brilliant winning strategy to me.
Clever but not reality. Firstly, the defenders would have to succeed in holding every one of the receivers, if not then there would be a very open receiver downfield.
If this was so easily done then why don't defenders flatten block/tackle receivers within the first 5 yards when they legally can.
Receivers are really skilled athletes and the defender would get burned enough times with receivers using elusive moves to avoid the defender at the line.
No guarantees the intentional holding would work. Way too many moving parts there.
Let me clarify. Don't hold.
Tackle.
And you don't do it normally because it's a penalty. But in this situation you don't care.
Sounds like something BB would coach his players to do, and have it work.
I think if it went like that, it would be the impetus to alter the rule on D penalties (at least in the last 2 minutes) to reset the game clock back to where it was pre penalty. I think the NFL would see it as going against the spirit of the game or something like that but as it is now, it’s a brilliant winning strategy to me.
NFL has done it of course.
I remember back in 1987, the Eagles were punting under Buddy Ryan to end the half, deep in their own end. Last play of the half or close to it.
He sent out 13 players to block, and because it was on offense - even though they were penalized for too many men - the half ended. It was an offensive foul.
attention whore
Waste seconds there
Waste seconds there
Good Point...
Not me, I would rather hire Patrick Graham and that was before tonight. For the record I do not want Graham as the Giants coach.
attention whore
You are truly a dick
Waste seconds there
Yep, Esiason just said this on the postgame.
That is all.
Quote:
Into the end zone was the first mistake
Waste seconds there
Yep, Esiason just said this on the postgame.
I said it before he kicked it...it's got to be in play. I was STUNNED that they kicked it for a touch back. What a colossal mistake! Just kick it in play!
Quote:
already stated in the game thread.
attention whore
You are truly a dick
If "dick" = fucking tired of the stupidity around here.. then guilty
Waste seconds there
+1.
I’m pooching it , or top kicking it to get the big bounce and creating a clock consuming play in either case.
Quote:
Into the end zone was the first mistake
Waste seconds there
Ex
+1.
I’m pooching it , or top kicking it to get the big bounce and creating a clock consuming play in either case.
Clock doesn't start until ballnis touched. Just kick it to the 10. Get 3-4 seconds off the clock.
Quote:
In comment 15570757 EricJ said:
Quote:
already stated in the game thread.
attention whore
You are truly a dick
If "dick" = fucking tired of the stupidity around here.. then guilty
Thanks for your effort, hall monitor.
Wrong, as it turned out, so it looks dumb.
What I'm asking is if taking a knee immediately upon possession is sufficient to stop the clock.
Seems like a good guy, but also seems like the DC version of Pat Shurmur.
Allen might be the best player in the NFL. It’s him or Mahomes.
What I'm asking is if taking a knee immediately upon possession is sufficient to stop the clock.
If he fair caught it no time and ball to 25 yard line.
The only way it works is if it rolls down the middle, makes it past the 25 and someone botches falling on it.
Quote:
On a kickoff, the clock starts running once the receiving team touches the ball, right? If Buffalo kicked it short and the receiver immediately took a knee, would only 1 second expire from the clock for the change of possession?
What I'm asking is if taking a knee immediately upon possession is sufficient to stop the clock.
If he fair caught it no time and ball to 25 yard line.
The only way it works is if it rolls down the middle, makes it past the 25 and someone botches falling on it.
Ah. I wasn't aware a receiver could call a fair catch on a kickoff.
So even if the Bills had kicked end-over-end up the middle, could the eventual receiver immediately take a knee upon possession, in which case 1 second would run off the clock? If so, then it wouldn't have made much of a difference.
I'm not even a Bills fan and I'm feeling crushed by that brutal loss...
So even if the Bills had kicked end-over-end up the middle, could the eventual receiver immediately take a knee upon possession, in which case 1 second would run off the clock? If so, then it wouldn't have made much of a difference.
I'm not even a Bills fan and I'm feeling crushed by that brutal loss...
Unless the fair catch took place at the 10-yard line, which would have added 20 extra yards to travel for FG range with 12 seconds.
Bills and KC D just couldn’t cover or sack those two elusive guys.
Quote:
On a kickoff, the clock starts running once the receiving team touches the ball, right? If Buffalo kicked it short and the receiver immediately took a knee, would only 1 second expire from the clock for the change of possession?
What I'm asking is if taking a knee immediately upon possession is sufficient to stop the clock.
If he fair caught it no time and ball to 25 yard line.
The only way it works is if it rolls down the middle, makes it past the 25 and someone botches falling on it.
That’s the college rule. In the NFL the ball is dead at the spot of the fair catch. Same as for a punt.
5 yard penalty and first down. So what?
Does the time of the play still come off the clock?
5 yard penalty and first down. So what?
Does the time of the play still come off the clock?
Sure does....and while they still get another play (game can't end on a penalty) it would drastically change the game.
Interesting take!
Quote:
If The Bills just held/tackled Hill, Kelse, etc right on the line with so little time on clock.
5 yard penalty and first down. So what?
Does the time of the play still come off the clock?
Sure does....and while they still get another play (game can't end on a penalty) it would drastically change the game.
Interesting take!
So after the first completion, with eight seconds left I think, the Bills should have just locked onto every eligible receiver and literally tackled them and take the 5 yard holding penalty.
That play alone probably gets the clock down to four seconds - maybe more if Mahomes doesn't recognize what's going on - and puts the Chiefs in a hail Mary situation.
There was basically no risk in either, I didnt think of it but kudos to thinking about that. It would have been an all time brilliant strategy if they did it.
Ellington was swallowed up at the 17-yard line, and a holding penalty against Arizona on the return set them all the way back to the 8-yard line. With the new touchback rule in place, that was a net difference of 17 yards.
New England ended up winning after the Cardinals missed a 47-yard field goal on the ensuing drive. In Belichick's eyes, Gostkowski's kick, and that 17-yard difference, won his team the game.
"Certainly, we had an opportunity to kick it out of the end zone on the last kickoff, but with a good field goal kicker, a good offense, good quarterback, we try to put them on as long a field as we could," Belichick said, according to Pro Football talk. "That was a great situational play and we needed it at that time."
Lack of attention to detail is why Buffalo's season is over - ( New Window )
There was basically no risk in either, I didnt think of it but kudos to thinking about that. It would have been an all time brilliant strategy if they did it.
Interestingly enough, I always call for this at the end of the half when a team is trying just one more throw into the endzone before settling for a FG.
Always take the penalty! Eventually time will force them into the FG...............works in other situations as well!
If this was so easily done then why don't defenders flatten block/tackle receivers within the first 5 yards when they legally can.
Receivers are really skilled athletes and the defender would get burned enough times with receivers using elusive moves to avoid the defender at the line.
No guarantees the intentional holding would work. Way too many moving parts there.
If this was so easily done then why don't defenders flatten block/tackle receivers within the first 5 yards when they legally can.
Receivers are really skilled athletes and the defender would get burned enough times with receivers using elusive moves to avoid the defender at the line.
No guarantees the intentional holding would work. Way too many moving parts there.
Let me clarify. Don't hold.
Tackle.
And you don't do it normally because it's a penalty. But in this situation you don't care.
Quote:
Clever but not reality. Firstly, the defenders would have to succeed in holding every one of the receivers, if not then there would be a very open receiver downfield.
If this was so easily done then why don't defenders flatten block/tackle receivers within the first 5 yards when they legally can.
Receivers are really skilled athletes and the defender would get burned enough times with receivers using elusive moves to avoid the defender at the line.
No guarantees the intentional holding would work. Way too many moving parts there.
Let me clarify. Don't hold.
Tackle.
And you don't do it normally because it's a penalty. But in this situation you don't care.
Futhermore, if you rush 2 and play nine defenders, you could actually double team and tackle their best players - like Kelce and Hill.
Quote:
Clever but not reality. Firstly, the defenders would have to succeed in holding every one of the receivers, if not then there would be a very open receiver downfield.
If this was so easily done then why don't defenders flatten block/tackle receivers within the first 5 yards when they legally can.
Receivers are really skilled athletes and the defender would get burned enough times with receivers using elusive moves to avoid the defender at the line.
No guarantees the intentional holding would work. Way too many moving parts there.
Let me clarify. Don't hold.
Tackle.
And you don't do it normally because it's a penalty. But in this situation you don't care.
Sounds like something BB would coach his players to do, and have it work.
I think if it went like that, it would be the impetus to alter the rule on D penalties (at least in the last 2 minutes) to reset the game clock back to where it was pre penalty. I think the NFL would see it as going against the spirit of the game or something like that but as it is now, it’s a brilliant winning strategy to me.
Quote:
In comment 15571075 gregori said:
Quote:
Clever but not reality. Firstly, the defenders would have to succeed in holding every one of the receivers, if not then there would be a very open receiver downfield.
If this was so easily done then why don't defenders flatten block/tackle receivers within the first 5 yards when they legally can.
Receivers are really skilled athletes and the defender would get burned enough times with receivers using elusive moves to avoid the defender at the line.
No guarantees the intentional holding would work. Way too many moving parts there.
Let me clarify. Don't hold.
Tackle.
And you don't do it normally because it's a penalty. But in this situation you don't care.
Sounds like something BB would coach his players to do, and have it work.
I think if it went like that, it would be the impetus to alter the rule on D penalties (at least in the last 2 minutes) to reset the game clock back to where it was pre penalty. I think the NFL would see it as going against the spirit of the game or something like that but as it is now, it’s a brilliant winning strategy to me.
NFL has done it of course.
I remember back in 1987, the Eagles were punting under Buddy Ryan to end the half, deep in their own end. Last play of the half or close to it.
He sent out 13 players to block, and because it was on offense - even though they were penalized for too many men - the half ended. It was an offensive foul.
He wanted to prevent a block kick.
Chiefs had Timeouts, Cowboys had no timeouts
You have gone on record that DJ is better than Herbert and Burrow.
I think we've heard enough from you.