From: johndoe@samadams.inmet (johndoe)
Subject: Re: Bills-Oilers
Reply-To: johndoe@inmet.com (Bus error - core dumped)
Organization: Intermetrics, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 00:26:03 GMT

In article <43009@sdcc12.ucsd.edu> kprashan@sdcc3.ucsd.edu (hyderabadi) writes:

>   Boy what a choke job by the Hou defense. What a pathetic job at playing
>   zone defense. In a zone, you have to take away the deep stuff first, *then*
>   the short pass. To give up so many big plays deep in a zone is awful.

i think you should add a couple of poor decisions on the part of the oilers
to that list:

	first, by the coaching staff, was the decision not to line up a
	bunch of people with hands for an onsides kick.  still being up
	35-10, it seemed like it would hurt only a little to end up with the
	ball deep in your own territory rather than give the home team more
	momentum following an onsides kick recovery.  the result:  the bills
	recover, gain momentum and confidence, score, gain more momentum and
	confidence, and bring the crowd back in at 35-17.

	second, by the oilers defenders going for so many interceptions on 
	the first couple of drives in the comeback.  this compounds the
	errors they committed playing zone defense.

	third, by warren moon on his interception play in overtime, there
	was a receiver (jefferies, i believe) to the outside of duncan, who
	appeared open for the first down, whom moon apparently didn't see.

finally, that field goal that the oilers botched really was huge.  in many
cases, you hear announcers talking about what would have happened if a field
goal had been made, but the strategic situations of the game end up
changing.  in this case, the bills still would have gotten the ball about
where they got it after the play, they still would have had some momentum
after stopping the oilers for only a fg, and they still would have had to go
for a td since they would have been down 7 instead of 4.  the oilers then
would have known they had to drive only for a fg, as they seemed to have
been doing, and the play calling probably would have been about the same.
rarely do i like to play what-if because of the normal change of strategic
variables and thus play-calling on offense and defense, but in this case, if
montgomery handles the snap and the field goal is good, then the final field
goal in an almost identical ending wins instead of ties the game for
houston.

>   The Bills did catch 2 breaks;

you certainly need a couple to make a comeback like that.

   o That catch by Beebe after he stepped out of bounds. The ump on the line
     was not looking at Beebe's position. Bad officiating, bottom line.

kind of.  actually, the line-judge on that side was looking where he was
supposed to be looking ... at the line of scrimmage:  he needs to make sure
linemen don't go downfield and make sure reich (or whoever) doesn't cross
the line before making a forward pass.  but the back judge down the sideline
should have been looking, and from the look of the replay, he was, but
didn't see the call or thought it was too close to call.  i guess i'll agree
with the bad officiating call here.


   _______________________________________________________
   | Prashanth                    |                      |
   | U. of California @ San Diego | prash@raman.ucsd.edu |
   #######################################################

-johndoe
Newsgroups: rec.sport.football.pro