Bills757
-
Posts
295 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Bills757
-
-
14 minutes ago, xRUSHx said:
Schemes don't win players do.
MLevy
IMO you're missing the point. Scheme and approach are two very different concepts. Whether it's a WCO or a traditional passing attack isn't the issue. It's the calls within the schemes that set the tone for an offense. You can go conservative in pretty much any type of scheme.
-
11 minutes ago, Buffalo30 said:
Well...you throw to Benjamin. He's open when he's covered. He is used to winning one on one jump balls. That's what he does. However, Tyrod doesn't like taking any chances...hence he's conservative which leads to more conservative play calling to keep him comfortable. His lack of aggressiveness in the passing game is the biggest reason we don't throw the ball down the field more. It's not like they don't call passing plays, he just tends to hold onto the ball more and not throw those 50/50 balls to Benjamin that other QBs do.
So why is it that Dennison called 40% less pass plays in the second half and continually ran McCoy after so many negative run plays? Why is it that Denver fans complained about the same approach by Dennison that we're discussing now? Taylor wasn't the QB in Denver.
The fact your'e trying to blame the conservative play calling on the QB is laughable. Dennison calls the plays and it's not a coincidence he goes into his shell when the Bills have a lead.
-
It's obvious to me, when a coach goes conservative, the players know it. The mentality of playing not to lose versus playing to win takes over. The team get's tight and production slows. McD allows this to happen. If there's a year where you experiment and go for the jugular in games like these, this is the year. There are certainly times when you go conservative to run the clock, but it appears McD is overly conservative too early in virtually every game when the Bills have a lead. Why not try and step on Miami's neck, score a few more times and have some momentum going into NE? As it stands now, even in the case of getting the W, the offensive unit has to feel at least a little dissatisfied with their second half performance which doesn't help their confidence going into next week.
1 minute ago, Buffalo30 said:I didn't criticize his lack of turnovers and poor decision making, I criticized his lack of aggressiveness as a passer. He seems to not trust his own arm at times. If he did Benjamin would be targeted more in one on one situations. He did a better job in the first half in being aggressive down the field. He hasn't done that this year. He hasn't trusted himself to make a play and attempt those throws up to this point in the year. That's what I was criticizing. The result of his conservative play has been his low turnovers. My point was, it's hard to criticize the play calling when you have a QB that doesn't take chances throwing the ball unless the player is wide open. That makes it difficult to be more aggressive in your play calling. Tyrod did a better job of it in the first half but returned to his conservative passes in the second half. There were play calls that had receivers running down the field but he didn't throw it...can't put all of the conservative play calling on the coaches
So it's the QB's fault that Dennison keeps running Shady up the gut for 3 yard losses? It's the coach's responsibility to set the tone on offense, not the QB. Dennison's play calling was very obviously conservative in the second half when the Bills had the lead. The same has been said about Dennison when he was in Denver. Taylor threw 18 passes in the first half and 11 in the second half.....that's 40% less opportunities through the air.
Whether Taylor sticks around or not next year, I'm not crazy about Dennison's approach and nor am I happy McD allows it to happen. The turtle approach won't be bringing any championships to Buffalo, that's for sure.
-
1 minute ago, BillsFan4 said:
Damn it McCoy. You may have just cost Buffalo 3 points.
How many times did McCoy need to get tackled for a loss before Dennison thought about trying something else?
-
1
-
-
Say what you want about the players but IMO Dennison needs to hit the bricks.
-
4 minutes ago, PeterGriffin said:
Hahaha, clueless...
I agree. You are.
2 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:I could not disagree more with this statement. The results have been the same for 3 years with different players all around. We have had a number of different WRs - several high draft picks - from Watkins, Woods to Benjamin, Matthews, and Jones. You have had Clay and McCoy, etc. They are not devoid of talent. The o-line has struggled, but they are forced to hold pass blocks longer than every other o-line in the league.
I do not think TT masks the O-line deficiencies, but adds to them - because he takes a huge number of sacks and holds the ball so long.
You could have a point if the passing attack was worse this year, but the passing attack is the same - the difference is the running game. I think missing Glenn has a lot to do with that.
Haha. So Peterman gets pressured big time and throws 5 picks yet Taylor ADDS to the Oline’s problems. I have to applaud you for taking such a leap with that statement.
-
1 hour ago, PeterGriffin said:
He's had Watkins, Woods, Goodwin, Clay, Benjamin (1 game), Matthews, McCoy, and a bunch of scrubs over the last 3 years and his stats say the exact same thing from year to year.
I guess your type will only be satisfied and only be able to see that TT is the problem if they had Rice, Moss and Owens in their prime catching balls from TT. How blind can you be? The endless arguing and parade of excuses for a bad QB is disturbing.
The Oline blows!! They’re terrible. The run game wouldn’t have been great if it weren’t for McCoy and to some extent Taylor. Again, you can bring the perfect pocket passer to Buffalo but unless the Oline is upgraded, he’s gonna get crushed and possibly injured.
Did the Peterman experiment not open your eyes? He had zero time to throw (most of the time) and was no threat to run the ball. And McCoy actually put up some yards in that game.
Add in the fact the Bills have no deep threat. Taylor throws one of the best deep balls in the NFL yet management decides not to provide a WR that can stretch the field.
If the Bills don’t go heavy on OL and DL in the draft and waste a first round pick on a QB, they’re bigger fools than some of the posters on this board.
-
45 minutes ago, Rochesterfan said:
It is all so dumb in the analysis. This is TT 3rd year and he is on the exact same pace as year 1 and year 2. The offense is not holding TT back at all - he is exactly the same QB as the last 2 years - the difference in the Bills offense this year is in the running game which has dropped about 40 yards a game - still in the upper half of the league.
I think by the end of the year we will have another top 10 rushing attack (currently 12th, but have been moving up) and a bottom 5 passing attack (currently 30th) - just as we have the last 2 years under TT. So how is this offense holding him back?
People blaming the offense or the changes are just arguing semantics at this point - TT is the QB that he has been - his numbers are consistent year to year - bottom tier passing while having a top flight rushing offense. 3 OC have been involved and all 3 have gotten the exact same results - almost nothing out of the passing game and a rushing attack that features 2 threats in McCoy and Taylor.
TT will continue to put up what will statistically be another decent year with middle of the pack numbers that work great when things are perfect, but do nothing to help the team win games. He is the ultimate game manager - no turnovers and no chances - just dink and dunk and punt away. One or two drives a game to get scores and we will play a close tight game.
It's funny how fans like yourself wants to indict Taylor on his offensive numbers yet it's very apparent the Oline sucks and the WR corps isn't nearly as good as many other teams. Add in the fact Shady's had more so-so games this year than the last two. And let's not forget Dennison and his "go-for-broke" approach (sarcasm) and you get what you get.
Peterman plays, throws five picks in one half and all of sudden we have an Oline problem....like it didn't exist when Taylor was the QB. The simple truth is Taylor masks the crappy Oline and rather than throw balls up for grabs, he opts to tuck and run. If Dennison would actually play to Taylor's strengths (getting him outside the pocket and actually running him), we might see a better offense. You can't tell with a straight face that Dennison's approach with over two minutes to go last week was smart.
Carry on though.....I'm sure you can't wait until the Bills draft a "franchise QB". Better hope Beane and McD do something about the Oline or else said "franchise QB" will be on the IR faster than you can say Billsy.
-
32 minutes ago, MTBill said:
In my not football educated opinion... The problem is not the OC, the QB, or the skill players (other than keeping WR healthy)... it starts with the O-Line.
A solid O-Line would improve a lot. TT can win in this league playing efficient error free... trouble is, the O-Line can't provide enough protection - or deal with good D lines...
It all starts up front. If you have a crap o-line, it doesn't matter who your QB or OC is. We get some pieces of it (Incognito, Dawkins) - but not all of it (Ducasse/Mills)... Until we get much better on the line, we're not going anywhere - unless the D is getting insane turnovers, as they did earlier this year.
Just my .02 as someone who does not get to see the games very often, but see the constant pressure/sacks whenever I do. With a better O-Line, you could get a different OC/QB who might well to much better than the current combination, but I think we would be just fine right now if we could get solid/consistent play on the line.
#love dawkins... We need to get the right side upgraded.
Agree with your first comment 100%. The Oline is the most important unit on the offense. It allows the skill players to do their jobs. But you know how people think on this board.....they think a "franchise QB" can overcome a bad Oline.....THE guy can somehow make throws from his back and lead the Bills to the SB. That's why I chuckled at the suggestion the Bills take Eli Manning and how that would somehow be a major upgrade.
-
7 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said:
I don't disagree, in theory. But you also have to consider - the offense stinks.
When you run it up the gut, yes, I would agree. If Dennison would actually call games to the strength of his unit, I think the results can be better. Throwing 5 passes in the second half was not the right approach.
I think it's interesting how McD and Dennison were all-in on Peterman playing against the Chargers to see if he could "jump start" the offense....and they were obviously willing to turn the ball over evidenced by actually letting him throw 5 picks in one half. Then, all of a sudden, against the Chiefs, it's back to ultra conservative? Why is that? Why not open it up, get Taylor running the ball more...encourage more high-risk plays. It's classic Jekyll and Hyde. Part of me thinks McD and Beane simply don't want Taylor to have success....they'd rather just bide their time and release him.
-
4 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said:
No. Not with Marrone's and Hackett's scheme. You really think Tyrod is much if any better than Kyle Orton in a system like that? I do not. Greg Roman's system? Sure.
I don't blame McDermott for not trusting Dennison to make the right play play call.
And in the end he was right - they won.
Can't argue that; however, when the offense has a chance to actually seal a game with a first down, IMO, you try to do just that. There's a difference in doing what the Bills did versus the offense actually putting the game away and I think it has an effect on the next game and future games. By putting the game away you give the offense confidence which is important and sometimes underrated by some.
-
5 minutes ago, Lfod said:
I think the end of the Chiefs game told me all I needed to know. You posses the ball and with a few minutes remaining in the game you are holding on to a slipping lead.
At that point you are in control. You can grind clock to leave no time if your forced to punt or you can secure a victory if your aggressive and score a touchdown.
Instead it was decided to just be conservative and get stuffed on 3 runs only taking 12 seconds off the clock. You could of at least attempted to be serious and take shots to move the chains with a QB known for not turning the ball over.
You gave the Chiefs a chance to come back and win the game. That's all it took for me.
I agree. The play calling was as if there was only 40 seconds on the clock. It was beyond ridiculous....not one play action short pass to maybe catch the Chiefs off-guard? One first down would've been huge.
-
12 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:
Coaches need to be ballsy, and not billsy
Couldnt have said it better! +1
-
Just now, jmc12290 said:
Watching the players. I personally do not care that TT has a smidge higher YPA or completion percentage compared to 2017 Eli on a tanking team.
Eli had 6 game winning drives last year and won 11 games on his way to the postseason. I'll take him over Tyrod's 6th alternate ProBowl appearance.
Again, unless Eli can accomplish such feats with the Bills' Oline, your statement is moot.
2 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:He's famous for being a 2 time SuperBowl MVP.
A couple draws and screens to Shady, and some deep balls and the defenses will back right off. Sign me up!
Soooo, who's he gonna throw the deep balls to, and, how is he going to have time to wait for the WR to run that far to throw a deep ball?
-
If we were to bring a Manning in to be the Bills' QB, I'd take Peyton over Eli....even now. Peyton's one of the best all-time and is a team leader....Eli? Not so much.
-
Just now, jmc12290 said:
You can't count pretty high then.
Haha. How about TOO MANY times? That better?
Be careful what you wish for because if Eli came to Buffalo and we had the same Oline, he'll get crushed. Then you'll get the sour puss attitude he's so famous for and that'll be that.
-
28 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:
Eli actually plays the position.
Sure, he won't be scrambling for a handful of TD's anytime soon, but completed passes, attacking downfield, running a 2 minute drill?
Sign me up please.
Unless Eli can magically learn to complete passes from his back, it won't matter. I laugh at you people thinking a pocket passer with no wheels can step in and instantly make this team better (assuming the same Oline is protecting the QB). Peterman's inexperience aside, the dude was a statue and he got planted into the LA turf more times than I could count.
-
13 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:
I don't agree. I don't think it is outstanding but it is adequate in my mind. And as people who have been here years will know I am not a great believer in arm strength being the most important factor.
I'm with you. Rudolph looks to me the type of QB who has enough velocity to get it done. He also has really good touch and some wiggle to extend plays.
-
One thing to keep in mind, though, is the fact the Big12 simply doesn't play defense. It's across the board. it's not because the offense are extremely prolific....a lot simply has to do with the fact defenses in that conference blow. There are a total of two defense from the Big12 in the top 50 in total defense (TCU at 18 and Iowa State at 46).
-
11 minutes ago, blacklabel said:
I think Rudolph is exactly the type of QB McBeane wants. We've heard Beane describe his ideal QB as a big dude with the ability to hang in the pocket. Rudolph shows that but he also has inconsistencies as well. They all do. But they're gonna take one of these kids, they almost have to.
I've been saying it in threads all over. I really hope this front office/coaching staff is flexible when it comes to how high they prioritize certain player traits. It's well understood that they want team-first, high character guys, guys who play for love of the game as opposed to getting paid, etc. But I wouldn't let those traits limit my decisions. If they have Player A and Player B on the big board and one guy is a naturally gifted athlete who would likely be a great player but has some character stuff and Player B is gonna be a solid but never spectacular player but he drives a bus of 50 grandmothers to church every Sunday... I sincerely hope they give consideration to taking the purely better player, not necessarily the better person with higher character traits.
Plus, if McD wants to shape the culture to his liking, he should be confident that his locker room can be a positive influence on a player with a couple red flags.
Only McD and Beane know who they'd choose between two players. In the end, they'll choose the guy they think will give their team the best chance to win. There are risks involved, for sure, by choosing someone with character flaws (I'm talking in general...not about Mayfield).....it's the whole risk-reward type of thing. Case in point was Michael Vick. Andy Reid felt he could work with Vick and have success....Reid felt Vick deserved a second chance....and to some extent, it paid off on the field. Vick kept his nose clean, paid back all of his creditors and has been doing the right things even after his playing days. It's kinda like Shady said about Kaepernick......he's simply not good enough to counter balance his baggage. And he's right. I wouldn't pick a guy like Kaepernick for all of the distractions and the fact he's not good enough to overcome them.
-
33 minutes ago, racecitybills said:
Great college QB. Unfortunately he is Johnny Manziel without the booze problem. Yet.
Get a bigger QB. Mason Rudolph
I think Rudolph has more upside than Mayfield.
-
3 hours ago, Homey D. Clown said:
Eli Manning was unceremoniously benched this past sunday, and I thought for sure that loud mouthed Douche Bag Richard Sherman would be up in arms! It seems he is very concerned about quarterbacks getting benched when they under-perform.
This is a shocker for sure... I have been searching social media for days just waiting for him to cry "Outrage!" So I am writing him this letter:
Dearest Richard,
Why have you gone silent Richard? Is this not your fight to fight as well? It baffles me why you would for one, but not another? Is this silence a new, cool way of protest? Please help me understand, you leave us little people so confused, and poor Eli to face this travesty all alone, when his heart could be warmed in the cockles of your tweets.
Warmly yours,
Homey D.
The Giants have been out of the playoff picture. Why not try someone different? The Bills were squarely in the playoff hunt and McD benches Taylor for someone he said could spark the offense.LOL.
-
20 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:
Rumors started yesterday
The rumors have been out for several weeks. When Sumlin was obviously on the hot seat, the rumors started swirling. Great recruiter.....just not a great in-game coach.
-
The tricky part about evaluating talent in college is the fact the talent disparity is so great in college. OU has way more talent than most of their opponents so it's hard to really gauge Mayfield's talent. Is he really that good? Or is the other team that bad? It may seem unfair to bring this up but there's some truth to it. It's a big reason why EJ got drafted so highly (along with his measurables). While FSU wasn't at its greatest when EJ was there, they always had talent at the skill positions which benefited EJ.
Nate Peterman Update
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Yea, if you wanna shakes things up, start Peterman. But dear God, don't let him throw 5 picks in the first half before deciding to take him out. It killed the team's chance to win AND it could have lasting negative effects on Peterman as well.