thebandit27

No worries man--I know you weren't trying to argue. I think you may have just missed old school's post and mistook the fallout for being leveled at one of your opinions.

Ok...you are very confused here. I'm not sure you're even reading my posts anymore. I understood your point, and made as much clear. I have said, repeatedly, that I'm not confusing your opinion of Peterman with anyone else's. See below: No. It. Isn't. You are misunderstanding people that took issue with old school's post. that was your first mistake

What does that have to do with what I've said in this thread? Furthermore, why would Dennison not fit his offense around what the team does well? Does it not make sense to see what he does with Taylor operating when games count before we say what his offense will or won't ask of Taylor? Lastly, since you've been reading my posts for many years now, when have I ever shown myself not to understand rudimentary football observations? Oh. My. Word. I have never, once, ever, said that you said Peterman is better equipped--which is the exact point I am trying to make. Nobody is misunderstanding you. Certain folks (see the post from old school above) are claiming that Peterman should be given the job, and others (like myself) are refuting that. You came along and defended your view despite nobody taking issue with it. Relax.

If what I posted was laughable, then you'd be justified in calling it out as such. For example: Jonathan Williams should be the Bills' starting RB. He performed MUCH better than McCoy in this offense behind this offensive line in this preseason.

About the same number of times that I'll have to explain that nobody is misunderstanding you.

And I still don't see anyone taking offense to that. I myself only ever took issue with folks stating as fact that Peterman has done close to enough to earn the starting job.

I'm 100% certain that you aren't referring to me; otherwise please show me where I insulted anyone. Calling a questionable-opinion-stated-as-fact "laughable" is not an insult. ^ now this here, that's an insult...and I suppose I'd feel insulted if I bothered to let other people's opinions of me have an effect. It is indeed laughable to state as a fact (you did not state it as an opinion) that a rookie 5th round pick that looked mediocre against 2nd and 3rd stringers in the preseason gives the team a better chance to win than a 2-year starter with a winning record. It cannot be backed up by anything other than an extra helping of opinion.

It is laughable that you are so convinced of this based on the preseason performance of a 5th-round rookie, which is more telling to you than 29 games of regular-season work from a 7th-year vet.

The only part of that statement that bothers me is the implication that his experience somehow justifies the idea that Trayvon Martin/Michael Brown are innocent bystanders of unjustified brutality. It makes it more difficult for me to take the rest of his statement at face value.

Nope. 50% of Buffalo's run plays ran zone last year: https://www.buffalorumblings.com/2017/3/15/14933170/buffalo-bills-lesean-mccoy-mike-gillislee-rick-dennison-run-game-zone-blocking

This thread will end up in PPP...without any doubt whatsoever.

Fixed that for ya' As I said here (and elsewhere): there is absolutely no rush to see Peterman. You have the kid under contract for this year plus 3 more, and no level of play from him short of Super Bowl MVP is going to preclude this team from drafting a QB with their top pick next year. Let Tyrod play since he's more likely to give you a true barometer of what the rest of the talent on the offense can do (because he's more NFL ready), which will help you plan going forward. If and when he plays himself out of the job, then go ahead and give the kid a shot.

No...you make Sammy the centerpiece of the passing game because he's better than those guys.

Yep, the same ones...ranking dead last in the NFL in passing attempts for 2 consecutive seasons will do that. The data on Sammy is out there, and it's hardly inconclusive. When he's been targeted with a similar ratio to guys like Jones/Brown/Beckham, he's been at least as good. Opportunity has been the #1 factor...availability comes in at a [relatively] distant second.

Tyrod without Sammy in 2016: 149/244 (61.1%), 1,527 yds (6.23 YPA), 7 TDs, 3 INTs Tyrod with Sammy in 2016: 121/193 (62.7%), 1,496 yds (7.75 YPA), 10 TDs, 3 INTs Context matters Doc; you know that. EDIT: I should note that the above includes the 2 games at the beginning of the season where it was obvious that Sammy couldn't get around well out there, but it would be disingenuous to simply remove them from the data set. If you did remove them to analyze the difference between "no Sammy" and "healthy Sammy", the YPA goes up by another half-yard and the TD:INT goes to 7:2. For your first point, no, it didn't. I think that much of that has to do with how heavily they relied upon the run, and how effectively they executed their run game. For me, the impact on the pass game will come when Tyrod needs to get the ball out quickly (which, IMO, will be often in this scheme). For 2 years, the only guy he seemed to trust implicitly was Watkins; I'm worried that he'll struggle when he doesn't have the guy he knows will be where he's supposed to be when he needs him to be there. It appeared to happen often in the preseason, but you know I don't put much stock into that. To your second point: that's a distinct possibility and a relevant point.

I think it makes sense to mention Sammy in reference to the impact that it can have on a QB like Taylor--who thrives when he can throw the ball with anticipation and hit deep throws. As for Sammy vs. Matthews, it's interesting to me. It took Sammy missing 8 games for Matthews to have more yards than Sammy; I feel like it's a significant downgrade in ability, which I'd be accepting of (in light of the extra draft pick) so long as there were a marked difference in availability. The irony of course being that, right now, only one of the two is definitely on track to play in week 1, and unfortunately for us it's not Matthews. With regard to Ru's, yeah, those dudes have carved out quite a niche. They're not going anywhere. It was...look, I'm open to changing my disposition on the offense's performance with/without Sammy; I simply need someone to put into context why the passing yardage from the QB is 40% better on a per-attempt basis with him in the lineup if he has no impact on the QB's quality of play? I don't mean to harp on one stat as though it's the end-all; I do, however, think it's quite an indicator.

Oh yeah...really, really good stuff. In fact, now I'm going for lunch tomorrow.

I think that there's a marked difference in performance when a QB makes a jump from worst-in-the-league in a key indicator like YPA to best-in-the-league based on one WR being in/out of the lineup. What I said was that your opinion on the guy is based on something that a friend told you, which was an accurate statement by me. Also, if you're going to call my opinion silly, you may as well get it right: I said that Watkins was one of the team's best offensive players of the last 3 years, which is true. He was easily the team's most productive and explosive WR during his time here. And as BADOL says: the offense actually functioned fine with Gillislee and Karlos when Shady went out...the team's YPC average actually improved. With Watkins out, the QB's YPA took a dip. That's the point. And as I said, it's hardly an obsession to talk about how to replace the team's best WR. Some might consider that a relevant topic. You don't. No worries, but it doesn't really make sense to bash folks that do.

If you have the numbers, I'd be interested in seeing them. What is your argument for the idea that--despite what the passing output would indicate--Watkins' presence didn't improve Taylor's play? No, we weren't a good team with them. We were a better passing team with Watkins than we were without him; I have no idea why anyone would suggest otherwise. You're as guilty as anyone for continuing to discuss Watkins even though he's been traded. Your outrage toward me for continuing to discuss one of the team's best offensive players of the last 3 years is misplaced. It's a topic of discussion because he hasn't been replaced to many folks' satisfaction. It's the same reason we still talk about QBs non-stop. Also, you probably already know this, but no, Sammy didn't miss anywhere near as much time as he played. I get that you don't like the guy because someone you know told you he could've played last year; fine. You're entitled to your opinion; that doesn't mean that it makes sense to marginalize the difference he made on the field in terms of the QB's statistical output.

Yes, Tyrod played better football when Watkins was on the field. I haven't tracked his air net per with/without Sammy, so I can't speak to it. If you have, I'd be interested in seeing the numbers. Yes, i agree with that wholly. As I said above:

Agreed. And we're back to this point, huh? So the failure of the last 2 years was on the QB and his favorite WR, both of whom assisted in a top-10 scoring unit, and not on a defense that underachieved horribly in perpetuity?

Ag long as finishing in the top-10 in scoring offense qualifies as "didn't do squat", then I agree. Some combination thereof, but I lean closer to your first breakdown as opposed to your second one. Well, it correlates most directly with winning: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2012/10/finally-an-effective-way-to-rank-nfl-quarterbacks/264154/ What stat correlated the best with winning? Yards/pass attempt. The second most-important stat was interception percentage.

And the offense managed a whole 7 points while he was in the game (after Baltimore took their starting defense out). No, that's simply your interpretation. The point is obvious: if we're only relying on preseason performance to determine who will function best in this offense, then that should apply to everyone, no? Either J. Williams should start at RB, or we shouldn't be making blanket statements based on 2+ quarters of preseason action. So your plan is to wait and see what Peterman shows before committing to investing in the QB position early in the 2018 draft? That's a bad plan. Even if Peterman comes in and lights up the universe Nick-Foles-in-Chip-Kelly's-1st-year-style, you still draft a QB early in 2018. Look what happened to Foles: from 27 TDs and 2 INTs to possible-long-term-backup in 2 short seasons. There's no need for "hard evidence"; it's common sense.

Tyrod Taylor's career YPA with Sammy Watkins: 8.8 (good enough to lead the NFL in 2015 and finish 2nd in 2016) Tyrod Taylor's career YPA without Sammy Watkins: 6.2 (poor enough to finish 34th in 2015 and 30th in 2016) Yes, he was very, very good for Tyrod. It probably would've helped slightly had they made any kind of concerted effort to actually throw the ball to him.

Peterman was working against 2's and 3's...there's no comparison. We also don't know what the offensive game plan is going to look like with Taylor, the starting OL, and the starting WRs in the lineup, since we haven't seen that yet. It's not a square-peg-round-hole situation unless Tyrod looks wholly incapable when the games start to count. Surely you have to admit that the coaching staff has a better feel for who's more capable today based on what they've seen day-in/day-out in practice than we do based on preseason. We have no reason to suspect that they're stuck in win-now mode. Also, if we're only going on what happened this preseason, then Jonathan Williams should be the starting RB over McCoy. He's not...because experience, track record, and regular-season body of work matter.