Im tired of coaching losing games

But Dan stated that he did not want to leave the Bills any time, so while we agree in principle, I think that it was a better option to take the shots with 23 seconds left and 2 TO’s rather than possibly score early and give them time to come back.

Its all semantics at this point because we still left them with too much time to work with but I think that was more of a result of St.Brown’s first down catch being overturned, and the time being put back on the clock.


Devils advocate- the refs reviewed two plays and added I think 15 seconds total back to the clock. If they hadn’t, then we would have given the Bills the ball back with 8 seconds, not 23. So there’s that.

I’m still in the “use the timeouts and go win the game “ camp. But I can see the possible logic ere- it just got spoiled by two ref reviews.


Then WHY throw a deep pass on 3rd and 1….???

Either run the ball…. or scheme up a short pass in the middle of field that is a high percentage play.

Get the 1st down.
Take more time off the clock.
Move the ball so the FG isn’t 51 yards.

If Badgely had missed that 51-yarder…
this would have looked really bad….

and Badgely had made only 44% of his 50+ yard attempts prior to that kick…. for a tie game.


The clock management criticism that Romo issued on the St Brown 2nd down reception… He complained that it was 4 or 5 extra seconds that ran off? It really wasn’t as the refs put time back on the clock.

A couple plays previous Romo was saying he’d be screaming for a measurement (to get a clock stoppage).
Well, you gomer-looking ass-wipe, that’s what occurred on this play, yet you (Romo) have the gall to criticize. The refs measured and put time back on the clock, erasing the hypocritical complaint.

Why throw the pass…simple Buffalo was not expecting it and had the box stacked. It was and is a great play call and would have worked with a better pass.

Not to beat a dead horse but we had three open routes on the play and two that could have resulted in TD’s. This was a great shot at a time when Buffalo was expecting something COMPLETELY different. As i have previously stated, great play call - bad execution.

1 Like

Never said you were were idiots and I understand the logic behind taking timeouts and leaving time on the clock, but I also understand the logic in doing what Campbell did with running the clock . . . which apparently Rich Eisen and others don’t.

Erik Schlitt said that Campbell was screaming for a timeout, but the side judge on the Lions side had run into the middle of the field to huddle (likely to talk about if ASB’s knee was down earlier). So was it because Campbell wasn’t calling a timeout or was it because the refs were out of place or the scoreboard operator didn’t get the message from the refs?

So, at the 32 yard line on a 3rd and 1 with 32 seconds left. Ben Johnson drew up a play where all four WR’s were open and there were only 4 defenders covering them. Now if this was called and Brady or Rodgers was the QB, I have no doubt that they would have hit 84 (21 left his guy to double ASB) for the TD. Nonetheless, 14 and 11 were both open and easy passes could/should have gotten a 1st down at the 30 or inside the 20. The 3rd and 1 call was awesome, it wasn’t executed, but the call was absolutely awesome.

Now on 4th and 1 from the 32, I thought he’d go for it, but he choose to have Badgley kick the FG and he made it.

So on the last drive, he had a shot to win the game, a very good shot (Chark or Zylstra - almost guaranteed) and when he didn’t, he made the FG to tie the game and left only 23 seconds on the clock for Allen and the Bills. Apparently too much time, but we have people screaming that he should have called time out and left more time for Allen.

If they had over a minute, they’d only have one timeout (one earlier in the drive - swing pass to Swift and one when ASB got close to 1st down) and if they make the 1st down, they’d be out of timeouts and 1 minute left. Now you will be facing a prevent defense with a 3 or 4 man rush and 7 or 8 in coverage (instead of the 4 on 4 on the 3rd and 1 play) . . . but you have 1 minute of time. Is this bad - no not necessarily. Is this better than what Campbell did - no not necessarily. It’s just different. 32 seconds and two timeouts is more than enough time to go 30 yards for the score (if that was what was to be done).

There are a lot of journalists out there that complained, most are following the mob. They complained about Campbell not calling timeouts and they complained about him leaving Allen too much time. Eisen, I like a lot. I don’t watch him much any more, but I’ve seen him readily admit being wrong, when interviewing a more knowledgeable guest and I think if someone explained to him what Campbell was trying to do with not leaving Allen a lot of time, while still scoring. I think Eisen would get it. It would be interesting to see if Rich talks about this on his show on Monday.

I don’t have a problem going the “traditional” route of calling some timeouts and leaving time on the clock (although every second left on the clock is more time for the Bills), but I also see the wisdom in doing what Campbell did, by trying not to leave enough time for Allen. My problem isn’t so much with people yelling for Campbell to go traditional, my problem is that they (including Eisen and maybe Romo) lack the awareness to understand the advantages to doing what Campbell did.


I generally agree that the criticism of DC’s time management is overblown. I would have used a timeout earlier on one of those plays, but they still had 3 time outs with 20 something seconds left if Goff gets the ball to St. Brown for a first down.

Goff zeroing in on Chark instead of St. Brown is a problem, but #84, Zylstra, isn’t really wide open. Poyer, who is a good safety, is right there to pick up Zylstra on that play. Poyer ignores Zylstra and starts heading towards the throw as soon as Goff commits to Chark.

Raymond isn’t really open either for that play.

1 Like

It is really easy as an analyst or fan to find fault with a play choice or in game decision AFTER it was made. The problem is it completely ignores the dynamics behind each play as it unfolds. Maybe you want to conserve time so you call a quick out. But that play is covered up and ultimately the QB keeps or passes inside the hashes. Suddenly you may have to call a time-out you were not planning to burn or use up 20 seconds of clock. Or maybe you are planning to burn 35 seconds but the pass is incomplete or the player is knocked out of bounds.
There is a reason Dan Campbell said “thread the needle”. Clock management changes on every play. I have seen teams looking to burn clock score on a broken play burning about 7 seconds. It happens. One of the greatest things about football is the actual play by play - looking at the matchups, the play call, the strategy and the execution of every play. No coach is perfect and he is always at the mercy of the players execution and the ability of the other team to counter. Personally I would have preferred a more conservative approach to the clock at the end of the half but I also recognize the dynamics of a game. Every decision is a good decision until suddenly it does not work - then it is a bad decision and subject to second guessing. It is more important to look at the overall body of work. IF this team were unprepared, overly sloppy, acted like they did not care AND the play calling and time management were obviously awful then by all means lets sweep the coaching staff (I was calling for MP’s head after the first game and never stopped). But this team is improving weekly. The talent level is getting better under Holmes. It is not an emotional response by players - it is player acquisition and development. I may not always agree with the play call or time management but I do believe that this staff evaluates everything weekly including each and every review, TO, play call and any other in game decision and critiques themselves. And they are getting better too. First time in years I really believe there is light at the end of dark tunnel of Lions futility.

1 Like

This is GROSSLY undervalued…as well as inspired men attacking with relentlessness…they are evolving as individuals, gaining faith in themselves and each other, becoming more trusting of their teammates, becoming more fundamentally strong, becoming more autonomous in thier responsibilities, and more.

This is getting more fun every week, fellas.

1 Like

Love him or hate him, valenti is pretty spot on with what I’m talking about. Honestly there are probably 2 or 3 games just this year we had a shot at winning and then ‘questionable’ decisions. NFL windows are really small, player wise. When have we, at the end of the game, said ‘man that coaching decision won us the game’? basically I think we need a multiple score lead at the end of the game so coach can’t bungle it. I like the guy, I think he’s great for the Lions, but good lord he needs to learn a hell of a lot quicker than 2 years.

1 Like

Ultimately Dan’s end of half and end of game mis-management played a huge role in this loss…good coaches dont lose that game. A guy like Belichik doesnt lose that game in that fashion.

@KarlKaliente BB wouldn’t have taken this job. Established coaches won’t come to our former pile of dung. We were able to get a motivator, to get players to be competitive, and patient while we rebuild. Maybe hire a great coordinator. The losing-est franchises don’t get BB.

I am perfectly fine with our current hire. If he doesn’t learn on the job or hire the right coordinators, then will have an issue. Once we have a more motivated, talented roster that is.

once we have a more motivated roster?

Well because the play and game was there for the taking. It’s never ok to lose a game you should win. And It doesn’t matter how you campare the teams the win was ours for the taking and we failed to take it. We’re would we be now if we would have taken advantage of the teams we had beat just to let it slip away. If your ever gonna compete with good teams you have to be able to win these types a games . I would rather just get beat then watching you win a game for 3 qters and then just fall apart when the game is on the line.

It took a few days but the “it’s Dans fault” blame train has gotten to chugging.

One thread shows multiple open receivers and a bad decision by Goff.

Another thread uses Valenti as proof it’s Dan’s fault.

Fans. Can’t live with them, can’t live without them.

1 Like

Me I’m ok with Dan he makes mistakes but he also has guys playing well and fighting. Dan seems to have progressed in the game management part he’s still not perfect but he adjusts and keeps trying if something is working he makes changes and I like that. He young coach with a lot of other young coaches. He’s not stuck in one system or do it my way, he’s always looking to improve and I like that also. As long as he keeps improving he’s on the right track. It’s more knee caps for me and I hate the knee cap thing. I can’t wait to see the offseason unfold and what we are next year. Can’t wait to see Holmes approach in FAs and the draft.

1 Like

Completely bypassing the fact that we are not even in the game w/o Dan’s coaching.


1 Like

Seriously. Like how bad does tunnel vision have to be to miss that?

In contrast when do we give credit when the players execute the play, and we ultimately win a game? This is catch 22, because the players get the credit for the wins and the coach (and QB usually) wear the brunt of the loss. If that play worked many would still complain about something they felt Dan should have done better rather than credit him with the play call. We can’t expect perfection from the players or coaches as no one is perfect, not even the great BB

1 Like

so if coaching is good enough to make the game winnable but then bad enough to actually lose the game, is that a moral victory?