Ask Vic: Bills deserve criticism for final drive

We've got mail:

Question: Is it just me or did Buffalo really not manage that drive well in the fourth quarter against Dallas on Monday night when they were intercepted? With a rookie quarterback and a good running back, why didn't they just run it and get a field goal? At the worst, it would have given the Bills an 11-point lead with about five minutes to play. Instead, Trent Edwards threw an interception. I was surprised the play-calling was not second-guessed more than it was. -Christian G., Montreal

First, the play you referenced has been second-guessed -- along with other coaching decisions in the game -- a great deal in the Buffalo media. Some radio talk-show hosts are even calling for the firing of Dick Jauron.

Second, I agree that, facing a third-and-8 from the Dallas 11-yard line with 6:21 remaining, the Bills should have run the ball and kicked a field goal. As you pointed out, that would have given Buffalo a two-score lead and at least made it more difficult for the Cowboys to rally.

Asking a rookie quarterback making only his second NFL start to throw the ball was simply a bad idea. Throwing an out pattern, which is one of the riskiest of all passes, made it worse.

Question: I follow your power poll each week. However, I am amazed that you dropped the Cowboys from third to fourth. I hope you will be the first to suck it up and place them on top should they win Sunday against the Patriots. Winning is hard in the NFL. The Cowboys are still 5-0. I do believe this e-mail will be one of many bringing you to task on this. --Byron G., Bellingham, WA

You're right on one count. I have received many similar e-mails.

Generally speaking, I'm inclined to give higher rankings to teams with better records. However, perfection, alone, was not enough to convince me that the Cowboys merited a better spot than the 4-1 Steelers, who I moved from fifth to third.

My thinking was this: The Cowboys were outplayed in every possible way a team could be outplayed by an opponent that entered the game 1-3 and was missing a ridiculously large number of defensive starters and had a rookie at quarterback. In my book, they actually lost to the Bills even though the scoreboard said they didn't. It was not a performance becoming of a so-called "elite" team, even though I still put them in that category. I just don't think, after Monday night, they are as much of an elite team as they were before kickoff (but I'm totally prepared to change my opinion should they knock off the Pats).

Meanwhile, I think the Steelers, despite their record, are the better team. The day before the Cowboys underachieved their way to a win, the Steelers overcame the absence of key starters on both sides of the ball and scored an impressive 21-0 victory against Seattle.

Question: Was Wade Phillips correct when he said that the Terrell Owens catch in the final seconds would not have been reviewed, and reversed, in Monday night's game against Buffalo if Dallas had been able to get the snap off prior to the replay challenge? That seems unfair to me. If a play is worth reviewing it should be reviewed no matter what. That situation seems very pro-defense.-Jim A., Spokane, WA

Wade was correct.

Whether the challenge is by a coach tossing a red flag or -- as was the case on the Owens play -- because it occurred in the final two minutes, the upstairs replay official buzzing down to the referee, notification must be made before the next offensive snap. Otherwise, a challenge cannot be made and the play stands regardless of the outcome. That is why, when there might be some doubt about whether a play will stand, the offense makes every effort to get off the next snap as quickly as possible.

You say that if a play is worth reviewing it should be reviewed no matter what. That pretty much is the case when it comes to the final two minutes of the half or a game and the decision to challenge is up to a replay official, who is likely to buzz the referee even before he looks at the monitor in order to prevent a quick snap. However, when the challenge is up to a coach, it isn't always an automatic decision. The coach needs to give his assistants upstairs a chance to see a replay so they can recommend a challenge. And with a non-reversal resulting in the loss of a timeout, the coach wants to at least believe his grounds for challenging were solid.

As for the replay system being pro-defense, maybe it is. But the rules of the game, particularly the penalization of a defender making contact with a receiver beyond five yards of the line of scrimmage, are decidedly pro-offense.

Question: Do you get the feeling that Ken Whisenhunt doesn't believe that Matt Leinart is the Cardinals' franchise quarterback? Considering the quarterback-by-committee situation, the haste with which they placed Leinart on IR, as well as Leinart's poor play, I wouldn't be surprised if they looked elsewhere to find a QB for the team's future. I know that Whisenhunt has given his reasons for the dual-QB situation and the IR decision, but I think there's more to it than that. What do you think? --Danny

You might be onto something.

Whisenhunt wouldn't be the first coach who didn't necessarily believe in a quarterback he inherited rather than one he selected. Although I do think Leinart's broken collarbone made the IR decision fairly straightforward, Whisenhunt's decision to rotate his quarterbacks spoke volumes about his lack of faith in Leinart.

It seemed fairly clear to me that he had far greater trust in Kurt Warner, and it will be interesting to see how the Cardinals' long-term quarterbacking picture shakes out. The Cards already have made a large investment in their presumed "quarterback of the future." Do they dare make another?

Have a question for Vic on anything NFL related? Don't just sit there -- send it to AskVic@nfl.com, and the best questions will be answered throughout the season right here on NFL.com!