BisonMan

Peterman it is. I can't see how starting Taylor accomplishes any of the goals set forth by the team's leadership. If the goal is to win a championship at some point, we know it won't be with Taylor. I'd love to see what Peterman can do with a small amount of line protection. The line play against the Chargers was a joke.

Any coach, GM or owner that makes decisions about player personnel based on a "PR problem" deserves to be run out of the league. Some of the worst decisions in the last decade have been made by owners doing exactly that. I live in the DC region and Snyder (until a couple of years ago) constantly played "fan boy" with the roster to bring in players (and even coaches) that he was enamored with. It was a miserable failure. PR doesn't win championships. Worrying about PR definitely doesn't. If there is something in McD or Bean's actions that lead you to believe they give a crap about PR, let me know. So far, I've seen the opposite. The current owner, GM and coach had nothing to do with the last 17+ years. I seriously doubt they think much about that in any decision. EdW

The trouble with wild conspiracy theories is that you can never prove them wrong and are rarely based on actual evidence. In this case, Vic is telling us what's in the minds of the coaching staff, GM and owner. Guess what, they'd never tell you that. You can spin endless conspiracy theories around this move including racism, as I've heard on at least two outlets in the past few days. A few things we can infer are backed up by actual evidence: Tyrod Taylor was forced to renegotiate his contract if he wanted to stay with the Bills and either wasn't offered more money elsewhere (likely) or chose to stay knowing the new offensive scheme was coming. So, he isn't "under paid" by economic standards. Based solely on his contract, the Bills had no intention of keeping Taylor next year unless, by NFL market standards, his play this year would make him worth the $16M in his 2018 roster bonus and salary. He has obviously not excelled in this offense to make him worth that much next year. The Bills have stock-piled picks in 2018. They did this before having a full understanding of how their QBs would play in games or in practice. The likely reason for this is that the team feels it needs a new QB. Rarely do you see successful teams bundle picks to move up to pick another position (see Sammy Watkins). The most exposure to the play of Nate Peterman has been to the coaching staff during practices. Pre-season and mop up duty this year is not what determined their confidence in him. His performance in practice has likely led this staff to determine that he is a better option down the stretch. The team obviously would like to see what they have in Peterman with real bullets flying prior to the draft. How many games does this take? Likely more than three or four. The coach stated openly that this move is a risk. Why take a risk? Because you think that the current path does not lead to success, either in the short run, the long run, or both. It's a bit ironic that one likely reason Taylor is being benched is because he is so risk averse, even in situations where taking a risk is the only chance to succeed. The offensive scheme the Bills chose (WC variant?) is mainstream in the NFL. The former non-standard offense has had limited success in the league (one SB appearance with SF/Kap?). It has not been repeated. This creates a roster that is highly specialized and inflexible. The rules in the NFL favor passing offenses and instituting a "run first, run second, run third" scheme is swimming upstream. Making the playoffs, while important, is not the goal of the organization as stated several times by McD. Winning a championship is. The staff has shown no reticence to make controversial moves to improve the team in the long-run. The idea of replacing a QB that plays well enough to get you to the playoffs but not a SB is not controversial. That would be an easy move compared to trading away Sammy or dumping Darius for a 6th round pick. EdW

Wait, I'm supposed to have two?

I agree that Eli was already tapped to be the future in NY. However, he wasn't supposed to start in 2004 as he was supposed to sit and learn behind Warner. Warner had a horrible start which led to accelerating Eli into the starting role. I'm not sure that the Bills believed that Peterman was the "future" but they have always been (or seemed to be) high on Peterman. It's also obvious from Tyrod's contract that they had no intention of paying him $16M next week given his typical production. Tyrod was always going to be history in Buffalo unless his game completely changed this year...an unlikely scenario. RE: "best possible situation...hoping for 6-10" I don't believe that the "best possible situation" has a goal of just one more win this season. Best possible is that he steps up to the challenge and they take games from LA, MIA (2), INDY and finish with a 9-7...sneaking into the playoffs in a weak AFC.

I pointed that out in the OP. If a #1 overall failed that miserably, what can we expect of a 5th rounder?

Kudos to The NFL Network for pointing today out that the last 5-4 team in a playoff hunt to replace their QB with a rookie was the Giants with Eli Manning replacing Kurt Warner (2004). Sure enough, they have Warner on the show to talk about it. Warner pointed out that that Giants team wasn't very good and "not a playoff team" and switching to the #1 pick at QB was an acknowledgement of the future (sound familiar?). Of course, Warner didn't point out that he was having the worst year of his career with 6 TDs, 4 INTs and a whopping 39 sacks (in 9 games!). He also had one of his lowest YPG of his career. Everyone assumed he was washed up after the 2 injury filled seasons before that. As it turns out, the offense wasn't aligned with his skills (see: Tyrod Taylor) and moving to AZ revived his career. Eli was horrible as his replacement with 6 TDs, 9 INTs and just 115 YPG. Let's hope Peterman is no Eli Manning...as a rookie.

Also, kudos to The NFL Network for pointing out that the last 5-4 team in a playoff position to replace their QB was the Giants with Eli Manning replacing Kurt Warner. Sure enough, they have Warner on the show to talk about it. Warner pointed out that that Giants team wasn't very good and "not a playoff team" and switching to the #1 pick at QB was an acknowledgement of the future. Of course, Warner didn't point out that he was having the worst year of his career with 6 TDs, 4 INTs and a whopping 39 sacks (in 9 games!). He also had one of his lowest YPG of his career. Eli was horrible as his replacement, however. 6 TDs, 9 INTs and just 115 YPG. Let's hope Peterman is no Eli Manning as a rookie.

Damn, LA teams! My mind can't start with L.A. and end with Chargers. I'm so old I still call them the "Baltimore Colts".

I watched several of the shows on both ESPN and NFL Network today and their coverage of the move to Peterman. For the most part, the commentary was inane. Very little in the way of player analysis (i.e. who does what better) from the talking heads. There was a lot of talk about dividing the locker room and general statements about how rookies fare. Not one discussed McD's admission in his presser that the move to Peterman was a "risk" that the team felt it had to take or how he downplayed the overall importance of a 2017 playoff appearance vs. competing for a championship in the long-run. Several commentators noted the salary hit from Taylor if he remains a Bill in 2018 as a factor and the desire to see what they have in Peterman before the draft. Only one (Heath Evans?) discussed how having a faster release was a factor in choosing Peterman over Taylor, especially against the Rams' pass rush. A couple of really good stats were shown on NFL Live (ESPN) but nobody really addressed them in their discussion. First, Tyrod is 3rd worst in the league in completion percentage on throws over 15 yards this year (52%). I think they were the ones that also showed that Peterman had the highest completion percentage in the Big 5 conferences on those throws last year. More telling, Tyrod has the second lowest completion rate (29%) in the league on throws into "tight windows" (which ESPN defined as receivers within 1 yard of the coverage defender) over the last two years after Geoff (who had a horrible rookie 2016). One show noted the time of possession in the Saints game (18 mins) as a demonstration of the team's offensive ineptitude. I was struck that not a single one of the shows analyzed game film of either QB (pointing out weaknesses and/or strengths). The only film was "B-roll" while a commentator discussed a players. Very disappointing. I'm hoping for more of this as Sunday rolls around. As TBD denizens note, the ability for Peterman to "throw receivers open" and Tyrod's inability to read defenses quickly was probably a key reason for the switch.

No, Marcel Darius wasn't injured.

<shrug> - Atlas

A fumble is a "live ball" too. That just means the play isn't dead (e.g. Incomplete pass).

Good pulling out the rules here. Thanks. Unfortunately, there is still some ambiguity in my mind. It never states that a backward pass that hits the ground ISN'T a fumble but the rule treats it exactly as if it were a fumble. It also mentions an "intentional fumble". How is that not exactly a backward pass that hit the ground? I think there is some "intent" inferred by refs on backward passes (I.e. Laterals) which hit the ground that they could use to differentiate the from intentional fumbles. I need Dean Blandino to explain this one.

I, for one, take no joy in hearing about layoffs from any company. I fail to see how hoping for ESPN's demise is much of a good thing. If you don't like the programming, don't watch it. Don't like your cable bill, unplug as many have. Having lived through the 70s in Buffalo, I have some idea of the devastating toll layoffs can have on people, big and small. My current employer is also going through a layoff process. Real people are being hurt and their lives are turned upside down. One of my colleagues killed himself after being laid off. Statistically, this happens everywhere. My thoughts are with those employees that are about to get laid off (if true) at ESPN. They likely won't find as well paying an employer even if they find continued employment in their field. Many of these folks are not going to be "on air", highly paid talent. They are just working schmoes like the rest of us.

Either team can normally advance fumbles as well. This does not account for the rule on advancing a fumble in the last 2 minutes, which is not allowed.

This was exactly my thinking as I screamed at the TV during the play for the refs to blow the whistle. It happened several times on that play (as noted) that I couldn't imagine the refs being that incompetent and that I must not understand the rules on laterals/fumbles. If the refs are that clueless on a type of play that happens at the end of a lot of one-score games, the NFL really needs to stage an intervention with the officiating crews. The risk of injury is just way too high on a disjointed play like this where players are coming at each other from all sorts of non-typical directions. This is the ultimate "head on a swivel" play for defenders. If the Bucs had scored, this play would have gone to review. If over-ruled (as I think it would have been), it would have been a total black eye for the league. Again, looking at the Bills/Packers game, the refs immediately blew the whistle when a Packer recovered the fumble. So, the refs are trained for traditional looking fumbles, just not for bounced laterals. EdW

This is my point. If a player attempts a lateral and it bounces and a defender gets it before an offensive player, it's a fumble recovery. How can you recover a fumble that wasn't a fumble? I still think a bounced lateral attempt is a fumble.

Yes, this was the first time I'd ever seen a team bounce laterals on the last play of the game. I've seen players being tackled try to lateral and the ball hitting the turf being ruled dead under the rule.

So, the player's intent is the key here? Imagine a QB being taken down at the end of a game and he throws the ball backward toward a teammate. It bounces off the turf and the lineman picks it up and scores. This would be legal based on the refs interpretation of the QBs intent, right? Strange rule. I can't think of other "intent" rules in the game aside from certain personal fouls.

The rule applies to any play within 2 minutes left in either half. It doesn't apply at other times. The Ravens scored a TD tonight on a ball fumbled forward into the end zone ("holy roller"). It just wasn't in the last 2 minutes of a half. It definitely applies to balls "fumbled" backward as happened in the Packer's game against the Bills. As soon as another Packer picked up the ball, the play was blown dead at the site of the recovery. Safety for the Bills! http://www.buffalobills.com/video/videos/30_Blitz_Bucs_vs_Bills/497360e6-6972-423e-8ae8-750ae7e43d55 So, I'm still unclear as to how a "lateral" that hits the ground is not a fumble. Could you not claim that any ball hitting the ground was a "lateral"? Clearly, there must be some language of "intent" in the rule to allow a ball hitting the ground behind the spot the player released to be ruled a lateral ("he meant to do that") vs. a fumble ("he didn't intent to do that"). I just don't know the rule well enough and need some clarification.

Gents, In watching the last multi-lateral play against the Bucs, I noticed during the play that a few of the lateral pitches/passes hit the turf before being picked up and advanced by Bucs' players. I thought that any time the ball hits the turf, it's technically a fumble (intentional or not). If that's true and the play happened within the last two minutes of the game, the refs should have blown the whistle as soon as another player besides the one that "fumbled" picked up the ball. This is similar to the safety the Bills got against Aaron Rodgers in the end zone a couple of years ago. Rodgers fumbled the ball and another Packer picked it up. The Refs immediately blew the whistle indicating a dead ball at the spot of the recovery (in the end zone) causing a safety. So, shouldn't the last play by the Bucs have been ruled down as soon as the ball skipped off the turf from one player to another. I don't see how "intent" to skip it could be in the rule and thereby this should be a fumble. Thoughts? I may be out to lunch on this one in not understanding the rule. The announcers never said a peep about this during the game. I haven't seen anything on this in the press/web either.

I'll go with 9-1 heading into the KC game. Next week worries me the most as Cincy seems erratic. We might kill them or they play like they have have most of the last few years and give us a hell of a time. I like playing Tampa at home. They've lost already to a lesser team than Buffalo. Carr is likely out with the broken back bone so, a sad homecoming for EJ. Jets are not tanking but the Bills still should beat them at home. The Saints are another worrisome game but their defense is weak and their offense didn't put up that many points by Saints standards against the dumpster fire that is the Patriots defense right now. The Chargers will be a Bills home game if last week is any indication. That should give us the advantage but the Chargers play everyone close...and lose. So, that's six straight games in my mind. Then two weeks of hell and then some more breathing room. 12-4 in the end. EdW

Bringing Down the Haushka! The dude is money. We need another turnover.