Rochesterfan

I have not been here long and I agree - he really seems to have some good opinions and doesn't automatically go to extremes. I really understand what he and NoSaint are saying - the decision on how to fill those roles should be made by the GM ultimately. My feeling is that McD and Beane have had this discussion during their many runs over the years (not in regards to Buffalo - just in general) and have talked about how they want to fill a FO. I also suspect that McD talked with Beane specifically about Buffalo after McD was interviewed/hired and building a ground up structure from scratch was probably appealing. I in no way believe the task was easy or that some of the guys the Bills had in place were not good, but I think that was one of the things the Pegulas liked about McD - I think he already had a plan and a list of names for many top positions and therefore although the firing came before Beane was officially hired - I believe he had some influence on McD and that was all part of the decision.

The risk is the time needed to make that decision. We have no idea what was asked of the scouts prior to their dismissal or what McDermott looked at prior to this, but my feeling is he already had an idea of what he wanted and the vision and not one of those guys fit the future vision. There was no upside to keeping old staff - the positions can be difficult to fill, but teams do this all the time. Ideally in some business you interview the remaining staff and choose the best, but I think they had targets they wanted and wanted to move fast - people McD discussed weeks and months before this happened to bring his vision to Terry. Do you risk losing a really good guy - yes, but you get the opportunity to have people that you want and are loyal to you only.

Seems like they are doing a pretty good job filling the holes. I don't think they are going to need to outsource or rely on Walter Football (shudders). Never was a big deal. I disagree totally - keeping the guys has risk - especially if you are trying to totally change what they are looking for or how you want them to scout. You want to bring in guys with the same vision and guys that interview and understand the vision your are trying to put together. Dumping the guys meant you had some work to do, but a good GM that has worked his way up has lots of contacts and knows what he is looking for. Now we have brought in a huge group of guys sharing a vision and you know each of these guys have access to other individual scouts that can be brought in. They are building their tree and it started with the GM and has sprouted and looks pretty darn good so far. This is spot on I think.

100% agree - I thought from the beginning he was a better 4-3 DE and I thought it was a bad fit for Rex, but Rex loved him some Tigers. Size and strength - I think he will be ok - I do not think he has the speed and quickness to just beat a RT off the ball, but I think he will be able to get some leverage and make a push.

This is where I am at - I think he is a good fit. I think he can set the edge and collapse the pocket - I do not think he will be beating guys based solely on quickness or anything. Somewhere between 6-8 sacks is a nice place to start and hopefully just some consistent play and he will be just fine. I just want to see him get better and be healthy.

I actually disagree - I thought both Shaq and Washington were poor fits for Rex and better fits for a 4-3. I think Darby can cover - so I think he will be alright. I do have very big concerns about Ragland, but I did not think he had enough athleticism as a LB no matter the system - he does have great instincts though - so we will see what they can get out of him.

I think it goes even a step further. Last year I was looking at all coaches in the NFL for the last several years (it was a thread about whether last year was a make or break year for the HC) and it turns out nearly every HC that is even middling successful makes the playoffs early in their career. If they had previous experience as a HC - they typically made the playoffs in year 1 or 2 with the new team and if they were rookie HCs it was typically year 2 or 3. The notable exception was Jason Garrett in Dallas who made the playoffs in his 4th full season. The only other HC that seemed to last was Fisher in StL/LA and then he was let go, but he was not really successful. It does not take several years to turn a team around and it does not take stability to turn a team around (both help maintain success though) - it takes talent and a HC that can motivate that talent and puts them in a position to win. I do not know how much talent the Bills have - I suspect it is more than the record indicated the last couple of years, but a bad HC did not put them in position to win. I like the current pairing and I am hoping they can begin the transformation, but we should know fairly shortly quickly if they are taking the team in the right direction and whether they can capitalize on any early success or will they fall flat.

This is the issue - if Mahomes is good for KC - it does not mean the Chiefs did a better job because there is no way to know how Mahomes would have done in Buffalo instead. It is the same issue that I have with people saying we missed on Wilson a couple of years ago. With our staff at that time - Wilson would not have gotten the opportunity and then the coaching staff changed. I think Wilson would of been a totally different player here than in Seattle. I feel the same way about Mahomes. I do not think the Bills felt he was a great fit and therefore even if he succeeds in KC - that does not mean he would of succeeded here - if the fit was bad - he would have a higher chance of failing, but I understand the thoughts.

It might - I think he is better out of the pocket, but he will also be exposed a bit more. It will be interesting to see because I remember having discussions if the Bills looked more at how NO used Bree's could that help TT and it was polarizing as everything seems to be.

Fahey is interesting person to listen to and hear his discussions - I would not say he has zero credibility - he does look at the film and does compare people from the film. He also seems to understand some of his limitations (at least when you hear him talk). As I have stated a few times in this thread - I think his numbers and thoughts make sense - the issue I have is trying to use those numbers to make a valid ranking of TT. I think the numbers look good because of the offense and the throw choices. The truth falls someplace down the middle - TT was not a very good QB last year and even the OP recognized that as he was ready to move on after the Pittsburgh game, but somehow the last 2 games - Cleveland and Miami - changed his mind totally. I personally don't care - I want to see a winner - I do not think that TT will bring that - I think TT will be exactly what he has shown - a middle of the road QB that is just holding down the spot.

First this has thread has gone all over the place, but it keeps going to extremes when in actuality the extremes are not the issue - Is TT the best or worst QB in the league - Nope - he is a middling QB. He puts up good numbers in some categories and lower numbers in others. He will never be confused with an Aaron Rodgers or a EJ Manuel - he is just a guy in the middle of the pack - same as Alex Smith or Siemian or Tannehill. If you have ever listened to Fahey - he admits he is a numbers/analytics guy. He is very new to football and he readily admits that there are many nuances that he does not fully understand - he watches film and makes counts of situations. Therefore he bases many of his decisions on the numbers strictly and makes some mistakes (as everyone does) because of how the numbers and the play look. That is not good or bad - it is who he is. One of the things I think he is very wrong about is Wins if Transplant is quoting him correctly. There is not a set percentage that you can attribute to wins, but QB play is the single biggest driver of wins and losses in the NFL. It is why a QB change prior to a game can move the point spread as much as 4-6 points in some cases. It is why an injury to a QB in preseason can change a projected teams win/lost record by 3-4 games whereas any other position player going out has almost no impact. Look at the Bills - having TT as the QB - the Bills are projected to be a 6-7 win team. What would you expectations be is Yates takes over as the starting QB. The projected win total drops to what 3 wins and that is a change from a middling QB to a lower tier QB. Conversely if the Bills had Brady/Rodgers/Big Ben - the win total would go up to 8-10. The QB matters in individual games and over the course of a season. Every win or every lose is not on the QB alone, but when you get to the end of the year - it gives a pretty good idea of the trend of the QB play. Shaw has brought up several times how TT numbers in the 4th quarter are not bad, but are essentially very consistent across quarters and across situations and that does not surprise me because late in games - you do not see TT take many additional risks or make a higher percentage of plays (or fail more because of interceptions) - he is steady. Overall the biggest issue I have with this entire thread is when we are talking about Fahey's ranking - he lists most of the rankings based on percentage and that makes an assumption that if TT threw the same numbers of passes as other Abs - those percentages do not change and that is where I have my concerns. TT had an average TD percentage, but his 17 TD passes and his 201 yards/game put him near the very bottom of the league in raw numbers (24th and 31st respectively). Those fall right in line with where his attempts per game and other raw stats fall. It is part of the reason QB play is difficult to quantitate using stats. What he means is he was asked to do very little - he did many things well, but did not excel in any phase of the game - he is fairly consistent. He is the very definition of a journeyman QB. A guy that can get you through games, but not a QB that is going to suddenly explode. He is a good bridge QB and that is why they got him on what is essentially a 1 year deal - rather than his previous essentially 3 year deal and the Bills have some options to decide how they want to go forward.

See it is stuff like this that causes issues. The key statement in the entire thing is when did this occur. This supposed example occurred just months after Ralph's passing when Russ was the de facto owner in charge. I am pretty sure that Whaley would of needed his approval to make that trade - just as he would of needed Ralph's in the past or Terry's now. I think Russ had little impact on the decision, but when Whaley came to him and it was Whaley's guy - Russ in his typical manner was very gang ho and very team oriented. If you watch Russ at all - once a decision is made - he gets behind it 100% and tries to sell it to the entire organization. In any regards - that is no longer part of his job - so people point to things like that as if he should not have been involved - even as acting owner of the team and an active part of the sales/transition of the team to the Pegulas. As to the Rex Ryan fiasco - did he have some input - Yes. The Pegulas have repeatedly stated they did not have enough contacts to ask the right questions and requested that Russ reach out around the league for candidates. Russ did not have the final say, but was requested for input and once the Pegulas decided on Rex - he did not want him to leave because he knew Atlanta at the time was looking at the hire also.

Exactly - Pegs has stated and confirmed by Sal on WGR - that Russ due to years of service is actually fairly connected to others both inside and outside the league (former GMs and team presidents). They are not relying on Russ to do a search - just reach out for background information and roles from people in the know. The people that just hate him from long ago - will state he still has input, but in reality it appears he is just a research/Info gatherer. Either way - I have nothing against Russ - he is just a guy in the front office and if he stays or goes it is no impact to me.

I would not trade the two - they are too similar in my mind. The advantage would be cap savings and control, but you have a potential at a QB that could be worse. To me Watson was a draft option to grow under TT, but I would not want Watson without TT on the roster. I am not sure any of the top QBs will be more than low to mid-level QBs from this draft - so if I was going to trade TT give me a more polished pocket passer not Watson.

I think you need to go back and look at my statements and stop trying to lump me into something I am not. I have repeatedly stated that I thought TT would win the QB job - even if they have a competition. I am not convinced he will end the year as a starter because I do not anticipate with the potential schedule and the number of higher level QBs (yes better than TT even if some of the numbers are not as lofty) that we face that 2017 is going to be a good year. Hopefully I am wrong, but I see 5-6 wins - unless something really changes in the next couple of months. Therefore I would not be surprised to see them look at other potential candidates on the roster. I have also stated - I think TT biggest challenge will be whatever QB they decide to draft early next year. I would love to see an true open competition (ala Seattle) to see what Peterman has and allow him and TT (and Yates and Cardale) to really shoot it out to see who truly is the best fit, but I think McDermott would prefer a veteran and a guy that is safe and that describes TT. As to your coach speak - I understand, but typically coach speak is more generic and things like "I will have a competition at every position" when you know a guy like Dareus is going to start. Most of the time coaches (HC or OCs) do not pile on about a players negatives. Finally again - I have repeatedly stated that we will see what TT has to offer in this offense - I do not expect a lot of improvement because he has to this point not demonstrated an ability to quickly read and digest a play and make throws quickly, but he is very athletic and maybe a good fit for Dennison's offense. If you are going to mis-represent me at least get something close, but it is obvious that you think you know what I think without actually reading my comments.

I am not always correct and thank you for the kind words. There are many things that sites like PFF and Fahey put together that is amazing work and should be appreciated and could not be done in the past, but even they acknowledge that many times they are just numbers and more understanding is needed to see how they fit. Fahey rightly points out many positive things that TT does well and TT overall numbers fall in an above average location and even on the old BBMB - Shaw would point out many positive things like TT passing rating in 2015 and all of those things are part of a bigger picture. The next question becomes can he take another step and make the plays that are needed to win games or does he become like Colin Kaepernick a limited success guy that as more was added to his plate shrank back.

I am not dismissing his findings - I think based upon what anyone outside an organization finds - he presents comparative numbers and data. The question is what do they mean - he admits he is subjective on decisions and he really has to be. He puts together a series of numbers to make rankings, but the rankings are still not definitive because the game of football is more complex than baseball or basketball. Baseball you can look at an individual pitchers numbers and get a relative feeling of how he is doing - things like K/innings pitched give a pretty balanced picture of the QB. His numbers tell you that TT is accurate and safe in the throws he chooses to make and that is correct. They also tell you that he is less accurate closer to the LOS and that he threw few screens and slants as those are quick short throws and he drops way off on those throws under 10 yards or at and behind the LOS. What the percentage numbers do not tell is was he good or not. They suggest he is accurate and safe, but the coaches suggest he did not do enough in the passing game. The state that there were plays to be made in the passing game - suggesting that although Fahey states he completed a high percentage of passes that maybe he was not reading the play correctly or he did not follow the progression and made a safe throw. The numbers also suggest he is not a great fit for a roll out, short, quick passing game as his accuracy drops closer to the LOS, but I think that is just once again a product of numbers and throws chosen. We will just have to see if he is successful or not going forward.

To me it is the same light - PFF does a great job at looking at film and trying to create a scorecard from that data they glean. The issue is it is very difficult to know if what conclusions they draw actually mean anything. Your example of John Miller (whether exact or not) is correct - they would look at plays and decide if it is successful and give a grade, but never really know if that was the correct block or not. Fahey catalogs throws and decides things like accuracy and interceptable percentage and does a nice job of putting the numbers together, but what does it really mean. Is anyone surprised that TT was the 3rd best in percentage of passes that were not interceptable - I actually would of thought it was even better. TT is very careful with the ball and although he has few turnovers - he also takes very few chances with throws and therefore his numbers should be good. The same issue occurs with Accuracy % - it is not incorrect (it is somewhat subjective, but not incorrect) when you look at the values, but what is missed is what throws and where those throws are - so I would not complain that TT is inaccurate in the throws he makes, but I do get disgusted with the continual choice of throws. It also impacts things like YAC because of where and who he throws the ball to. Typically PFF does not try to quantitate this because they do not know the play call - so you have to watch the plays and then listen to what people in the know - like the former coach, both former OC's, and the former GM say and that was they were looking for more from the passing game and were looking specifically for more throws in the middle of the field and more anticipatory throws - those things kept coming up in interviews. The comments from the coach, OC, and GM tell me that although the passing game was simplistic and they left throws in that they knew TT was comfortable with - they also had other options that he did not take advantage enough and that is where I think the analysis falls flat. They can tell me he completes a lot of throws and does not throw balls that can be picked off, but they can not tell me (nor should they) if there were other or better options and how that compares to other QBs. Therefore we are stuck with subjective data that does not provide through information and everyone's use eye test.

How do I know because we have already gone through Fahey once before and you are getting the same issues here that you got on BBMB. Fahey rankings are based on his opinion of the play - just as every other fans opinion. I am saying his numbers rank where they rank by Fahey and it means nothing because of the offense he led and where and when he chose to throw the ball - it does make a difference. The answer as to why I think the WR do not get YAC and why that is on TT is two fold. First both of his OC, his HC, and his GM all stated he needed to get more out of the passing game and directed those comments at TT. That tells me they saw what most people saw watching the All-22 - there were plays to be made that he chose not to make. Second after a full off-season the OC was trying to open up the passing game in Baltimore and TT missed throws all game long - he made a few plays here and there, but he did not make the throws needed. Once replaced - the new OC wanted TT to provide more input on routes that were comfortable for Him and we saw more of the same from 2015 lots of comebacks and out routes - so that tells me when combined with the OC talking about simplifying things - that those are the routes TT was comfortable throwing. I understand that TT was a product of the offense, but the offense was also a product of TT. We could see the guys open and yes sometimes TT could not get there due to pressure, but there were times he gets fixated on a single route and never comes off. Look you know where I stand on TT - I always assumed he would be back this year because he is a middling QB and that production is just what we should expect. I anticipate that this year will be little different- TT will have a good completion percentage and low INTs, but he will leave plays on the field. What I truly hope is that like Seattle - We hold a true open competition at the QB spot and see what he can do. I would expect him to make plays with his legs, but I would expect other QBs on the roster to be better in the passing game and maybe we see. Something different.

And Dude - you watched enough games to know that there were guys running open that TT never got to in a progression because he locked early on to a particular route. We saw that on the All-22 time and again - starting in Baltimore - he had plays that could be made and he choose the easy throw to the routes he was comfortable with. There are many routes on the route tree and both OC's over the last 2 years kept certain routes that he was comfortable with in the trees - comebacks, outs, go routes down the sideline. There were also post routes and slants, routes with WRs going across the middle of the field and those were thrown to with less frequency. I know he made the plays, but I still believe he leaves way to many plays on the field to ever be the guy to lead a team where you want to go - especially if you need a late score to win.

So then why the low amount of YAC for him - oh yeah - the decisions TT makes and where he throws the ball. I agree he is not negating YAC with his throws - he refuses to throw passes in locations consistently to get YAC. His bread and butter throws have consistently been the comeback routes that he is late on and the WR gets tackled immediately and the out breaking routes that lead the WR to the sideline. He has great completion percentage and that makes his stats look great for a guy like Fahey to compile, but the question is he doing what he needed to do to win. Is he making the plays or not. He does not make mistakes and he does not throw into coverage or into areas where the WR can make a big play, but there is risk. Fahey's numbers are not absolutely wrong, but they provide almost no context because all he is doing is making subjective numbers out of the result of the play. This makes TT numbers look better than a guy like Rodgers (or many other top line QBs) because Rodgers takes some risks and has more interceptable balls and more incompletions, but part of that is the big plays that come from the risk - especially late in games and late in the half. Look TT is still the exact same QB you saw the last 2 years - nothing has changed - he is above average in some limited games, but in too many games he does not do enough when the ball is in his hand. He does not lose games for the team - the defense did enough of that, but he does not win games either. If he wants to become a winner - unfortunately I believe you are going to have to see a major shift in those numbers - he is going to have to take a few more risks and throw to some guys that are covered and throw them open. If not the numbers are just that numbers and are meaningless. I think he has a chance with the new offense, but we will know shortly will he make the plays or will he be replaced and someone else - Peterman/2018 Draft pick will get a shot.

I know - just like old times - Wheres the popcorn?

Do you have their combine stats to prove that. The statement from others is that QBs increase their Arm strength in the NFL. Did they start out around Peterman and get a bit stronger. What was Brady's combine velocity - I can not find it, but his velocity was very bad early on in his career. What are your numbers that prove that. Coming out of the combine his arm strength and velocity I do not believe was any better than Peterman at all.

It depends because there are a ton of people on the list without numbers and guys like Brady came out and his know was his weak arm and he has done fine. What we know is that in the last 10 years - those QBs that we have numbers on and became successful were over 55. There are some successful QBs without numbers - so we do not know where exactly they fall. There is also a huge number of successful QBs that we do not have data on, but some that we suspect were successful and did not have high velocity arms and you mentioned 2. I will worry about this once we have a true cause and effect for velocity. I think it is one of many aspects that can make a QB successful, but I do not harbor at all the expectation that someone at 54 will not be successful strictly because of velocity.

Look - I do not think it will be a true open competition - I think baring injuries there is probably nearly a 100% chance TT starts the season as the QB. I just do not think the team is going to view TT as anything more than a 1 year gap and if the schedule plays out tough and we are not winning - I would not be shocked to see a change at QB this year. If I had to put odds on things - I would give higher odds to Peterman starting a game this year than TT being on the team in 3 years (meaning he got some type of extension). I think both are low odds, but I do not know how this team is planing for the next 12-24 months.