Theory--starting Peterman more about the defense than anything

[rodneykm]

If Peterman can be mid level QB that'd be great. I'd focus on drafting a stud LG ( Richie isn't getting younger ) and a RB ( Neither is Shady ).

[Starr Almighty]

6 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:

Always an option, but of course they are older and will cost more money which isn't necessarily ideal. 

Generally you want to build in the draft and add 1 or 2 missing pieces in free agency. And the Bills have a lot of missing pieces in their front 7 which makes it very expensive to sign a bunch of free agents tied up to the front 7

Can't argue with you there. We haven't had a decent linebacker since Spikes and Fletcher. Now that Kyle is old all we have is Hughes on the line. The way I see it is, either try to sign Kirk Cousins and have a heavy defensive draft. Hope Peterman is the guy and draft defense. My final option which I think may be best is draft "the guy" at QB use the rest of your picks on Defense and build from there.

Edited November 16, 2017 by Starr Almighty

[dave mcbride]

Just now, Starr Almighty said:

Can't argue with you there. We haven't had a decent linebacker since Spikes and Fletcher. Now that Kyle is old all we have is Hughes on the line. The way I see it is either try to sign Kirk Cousins and have a heavy defensive draft. Hope Peterman is the guy and draft defense. My final option which I think may be best is draft "the guy" at QB use the rest of your picks on Defense and build from there.

Cousins is a good player and he's someone to watch closely. But at the end of the day he is going to have a ton of suitors, and my bet is that he ends up back in Washington anyway. He's going to cost $25 million-plus a year too.

[BillsFan130]

Just now, Starr Almighty said:

Can't argue with you there. We haven't had a decent linebacker since Spikes and Fletcher. Now that Kyle is old all we have is Hughes on the line. The way I see it is either try to sign Kirk Cousins and have a heavy defensive draft. Hope Peterman is the guy and draft defense. My final option which I think may be best is draft "the guy" at QB use the rest of your picks on Defense and build from there.

I agree with you on that. If the Bills miss the playoffs this year I hope they just lose out so they can get a high draft pick to get their guy. And then like you said, spend a lot of the remaining picks on that front 7

[dave mcbride]

2 minutes ago, Starr Almighty said:

Can't argue with you there. We haven't had a decent linebacker since Spikes and Fletcher. Now that Kyle is old all we have is Hughes on the line. The way I see it is, either try to sign Kirk Cousins and have a heavy defensive draft. Hope Peterman is the guy and draft defense. My final option which I think may be best is draft "the guy" at QB use the rest of your picks on Defense and build from there.

If you're committed to drafting a qb early, don't settle for the "best guy" at that slot. That's what gets you JP Losman and Paxton Lynch. Do what the big boys (Philly, Rams) do and trade up. I can almost guarantee you that the best couple of guys will be measurably better than the next two.  

[Boatdrinks]

Well, you stated that Taylor is more likely to lead the team to 9-7. I do t think McDermott agrees with that. Yes, in the bigger scheme of things Taylor is finished here. That was probably always the case, unless he became a completely different player and ran the Dennison WCO at a high level. I don't think the draft strategy was known yet and still isn't. It's unlikely Peterman has much impact on that going forward. A good outcome for a 5th round QB is a career backup. NP could exceed that, but the strategy this year is just to win football games. Peterman would really have to amaze to alter the draft strategy one iota. Perhaps they can scratch backup QB off the grocery list. That's about it. The FO knew that there will be needs they couldn't address in 2017, but will need the rest of the year and then FA to see what those draft needs are. It's very likely that QB will remain at the top of that list. 

[dave mcbride]

Just now, Boatdrinks said:

Well, you stated that Taylor is more likely to lead the team to 9-7. I do t think McDermott agrees with that. Yes, in the bigger scheme of things Taylor is finished here. That was probably always the case, unless he became a completely different player and ran the Dennison WCO at a high level. I don't think the draft strategy was known yet and still isn't. It's unlikely Peterman has much impact on that going forward. A good outcome for a 5th round QB is a career backup. NP could exceed that, but the strategy this year is just to win football games. Peterman would really have to amaze to alter the draft strategy one iota. Perhaps they can scratch backup QB off the grocery list. That's about it. The FO knew that there will be needs they couldn't address in 2017, but will need the rest of the year and then FA to see what those draft needs are. It's very likely that QB will remain at the top of that list. 

That could be the case, but I also think it's become painfully evident how bad the front-seven talent on this team is. It's really bad. 

[cd1]

15 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Every other Bills administration the last 30 years has acted in the same way, pretty much. Plus the guy they hired has more than a passing resemblance to another guy they hired nigh on about a decade ago - a former DB and longtime DC that went to an elite school and wants character guys who care a lot to populate his team.  I'm not necessarily down on McDermott, but I've seen his type before. That other coach thought he had a gem with a Bill Walsh-endorsed mid-round pick who ran a pro offense in college too. We shall see. It's not impossible for Peterman to be the next Romo, but it's less than a 50/50 proposition. It'll be interesting to see how he performs and what his limitations are. They exist.

 

Oh my - now there is some solid reasoning. In your world all horses must be jack-asses.

[Mat68]

Football is a complete team game.  Both side of ball and all 3 units normally need to all make plays win football games.  Going into last weekend, everyone knew that NO were a hot team and won 6 straight games.  Offensively they are able to run the ball and by the way if you load up on it Brees will pick you apart.   After each team has scored its 7-3 it became obvious to me that a shootout was going to happen.  The Saints moved the ball with precision and than Buffalo's defense got the turn over deep in there own redzone.  The following drive buffalo can not even pick a first down or two required to at minimum flip the field for the defense.  14-3.  The offense does nothing again.  Not a major victory but the defense holds them to a Fg with time remain before half to steal some point and momentum 17-3.  Again 3 and out and leaves time for brees to make a few passes and get into scoring range.  Next play sack and end of half with NO getting the Ball.    A drive very similar to the first 2 of the game. makes it 24-3.  Believe the next drive is the Int and the Saints have the ball on 3.  Game over.  I am not saying that a better offensive performance results in a Bills victory.  But an offense that was able to move the ball and score some timely points changes the game and it is competitive.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

1 hour ago, ScottLaw said:

Can't pass on QB AGAIN.

 

Assuming Peterman doesn't look like the next coming of Brady, they need to draft QB with their first round pick. Stop passing on QBs. Why is that so easy for them? 

 

As for the defense, this is the roster McBeane assembled so they have no one to blame but themselves for the ****ty talent.They'll have cap room to work with so I suspect they'll bring in a few FAs to help patch some holes, but they need just about EVERYTHING. I'd start upfront with getting some interior pass rushers.

 

I knew they were in trouble when Rico said in the offseason he didn't care what they did last season on offense. 

 

Sounding like a coach who will force his system on the players... which is exactly what we are getting.

 

I remember in the summer Many were puzzling over forcing Tyrod into a WCO which plays to his weaknesses. 

 

But then again I always think of Ricos offense as what Houston was running with Foster and Matt Schaub. It worked because Foster was a brute and the Line was stout. Schaub was Alex Smith lite. Ultimately a great defense and solid run game propelled them to being competitive. One of the hallmarks was the zone left and zone right.  The line would run block the same whether passing bootleg or running play. 

 

But if your line can not deliver and your defense is inferior- it's a recipe for failure in that scheme. At that point you need an offense that can generate more points even at the risk of more turnovers.

 

i suspect we will see the offense run differently now. It aligns with the OP point, Peterman represents a change to the offense, not an indictment of one QB over another. 

[dave mcbride]

13 minutes ago, cd1 said:

 

Oh my - now there is some solid reasoning. In your world all horses must be jack-asses.

So there's no continuity in team management this century? Call me crazy, but I see it. Christ, this season alone is a freaking replay of four other seasons this century.

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

Irrespective of whether the qb switch is the right move or not, I'm gonna throw this idea out there: the switch is a function of panic about defense and in a sense a hail mary throw with regard to the future of the qb position. 

 

Here's my thinking: McDermott and Beane have decided that Taylor, who is probably more likely to lead them to 9-7 than Peterman, is not the answer and not the future qb of the Bills. They need to find out what Peterman is, but not just for the reason everyone thinks. I susepect they always anticipated packaging picks and moving up to get a qb, but times have changed. That is, they may well be having serious second thoughts about that strategy right now. Why? They are presiding over a defense that is functionally devoid of talent on the front seven -- and I mean almost *completely* devoid of talent. Jerry Hughes is the only mid-level starting caliber player in the entire group (don't kid yourself about Lawson or Lorax), and it basically requires a massive overhaul. They need to spend high draft picks to fix this huge problem (late round prayers won't cut it), and spending a couple of firsts and a second in order to move up for a qb (which is usually the best strategy given the centrality of the qb position) won't let them do that. McDermott is a defensive coach at the end of the day, and overseeing this pathetic crew--which can't sack anyone and (post-Dareus) can't stop the run--has to be galling. 

 

Starting Peterman, who actually looks like a pro-style qb in his limited garbage time efforts (last week and preseason), represents something of a hail mary on their part. They're likely hoping that over the next few games he can show that he's potentially another Tony Romo or Kirk Cousins -- a guy who can evolve into a franchise qb in a relatively short period of time. Both of those guys have put up numbers regardless of who they were throwing to.

 

That frees them up to draft defense throughout on the first couple of days of the draft.

 

Whether this happens or not, I don't know. However, if you apply Occam's Razor to the situation, it is the most Bills-y approach (ignoring qb early in the draft and praying for the best with marginal talent) -- and history tells us that it therefore has a decent likelihood of happening.

 

They are in disarray.

 

They clearly did not anticipate the damage trading Dareus would do.

 

Sometimes one player changes the way you play offense or defense..........and that's why you get those guys.

 

Watkins and Dareus were the two highest picks the Bills have made in decades for a reason.

 

I think you are right that they need to find out what they can get out of Peterman because they are in deep sh*t in that front 7.    

 

What irritates me as a long time fan is that this team should have been entering an offensive-dominated cycle for a few years.......they drafted heavy on offense a few years ago........it gelled late last year and they tore down what they had offensively over the past 11 months at a time when they were just positioning themselves to be able re-load with youth defensively.  

 

 

27 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

So there's no continuity in team management this century? Call me crazy, but I see it. Christ, this season alone is a freaking replay of four other seasons this century.

 

 

As you've heard me say 100 times.......the Bills haven't simply taken a QB originally slotted first round pick in any draft.

 

Ever.

 

McD's first draft he passed on QB.

 

If there is anything we have seen with this organization it's that it's consistent wrt finding an excuse not to draft that QB.

 

 

[Doc]

The move wax first and foremost to improve the QB position and offense.  I think they plan on starting Coleman at DT to give them the big space-eating body to help stop the run and defense. 

[SaviorPeterman]

I've also maintained this move was also about defense.

 

But never underestimate a coaches pride and how pissed McD and Beane were being embarrassed at home by a Saints team they faced twice a year in Carolina.

 

I do believe the Saints are a potential championship contender this year but you have to play better at home and show you belong in this league whether you are a 3-13 caliber squad or wildcard contender like many thought of the Bills just a few weeks ago.

 

Bottom line they weren't going down in flames with Tyrod Taylor, if it happens it's going to be with their guy NP.

[dlonce]

As McD has stated,starting Peterman is a “calculated risk”

 

What calculations did they use ?

The last two games have magnified the reasons to switch. I could throw for more than 56 yards in a game.

Tyrod is not a pocket passer,he’s horrendous under center and not very good in shotgun. He likely leads the league,or close to it in 3 and outs.He cannot get into the end zone consistently in the red zone. He gets balls batted down regularly and will not throw unless a receiver is wide open. Tyrod lacks anticipation.

can he even read a defense?

Peterman already checked out of a play,I’ve never seen Tyrod ever do this.

 

The fact that Dennison refuses to craft an offense around Tyrod has been a detriment to him. The writing was on the wall for TT.

 

They likely felt we were going to lose a lot of games with TT under center,no passing game equals no running game,unless you use his legs.

Peterman offers up a pocket passer who gets rid of the ball quickly,with a bit of accuracy. If Peterman doesn’t play better than Taylor has been I’d be very surprised,even though he’s a rookie.

There will be interceptions,but at least we will have a guy who pushes passes to the receivers,or takes chances at jump balls. None of this Tyrod will do.

 

With this change I’m not expecting us to win a lot of games but we were not likely to win them with Taylor either.

Trying to keep the defense off the field is important,and getting the passing game going will help the running game.

I believe their calculations offered up little choice. We need to see what Peterman can do with Dennisons terrible offensive philosophy.

 

Edited November 16, 2017 by dlonce

[GoBills808]

Everyone understands that the defense has been outperforming the offense up till now statistically, though, right?

[dave mcbride]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

Everyone understands that the defense has been outperforming the offense up till now statistically, though, right?

The defense has been abysmal since the Tampa game, in which they gave up 447 yards. They got a bit lucky against the Raiders (rain; no Lynch; some lucky bounces on deflections), but it's pretty clear that they can't rush the passer and now they can't stop the run. 

[Scott7975]

I think it's more about Tyrod wasn't good enough. They gave him an opportunity Nd after watching tape they feel Peterman can do at least as good of a job if not better. 

 

In half the games our offense has been ok, not great, but good enough. In the other half it's been bad. 

 

Some people want to say they have given up on playoffs with this move. I thunk the exact opposite. I think they have watched Peterman grow since camp and Taylor slide. I think they feel they want to win and at this point Peterman might give them a better chance to do so. 

[dave mcbride]

9 minutes ago, Doc said:

The move wax first and foremost to improve the QB position and offense.  I think they plan on starting Coleman at DT to give them the big space-eating body to help stop the run and defense. 

 

Just now, Scott7975 said:

I think it's more about Tyrod wasn't good enough. They gave him an opportunity Nd after watching tape they feel Peterman can do at least as good of a job if not better. 

 

In half the games our offense has been ok, not great, but good enough. In the other half it's been bad. 

 

Some people want to say they have given up on playoffs with this move. I thunk the exact opposite. I think they have watched Peterman grow since camp and Taylor slide. I think they feel they want to win and at this point Peterman might give them a better chance to do so. 

I'm not saying at all that they're giving up on the playoffs. As I say above at some length, I think that the defensive woes are driving a lot of the medium term decision making now. They've been absolutely dismantled a couple of weeks in a row, and they have KC and NE (twice) coming up. They're staring at an end-of-season defensive ranking of the high 20s/30.

[Coach Tuesday]

You're right Dave, although it may not be as black and white as your post suggests.  They have a number of contingencies they're worrying about as they approach the offseason, and the front seven is certainly high up there on the list.  They need to see what they have at the QB position.

 

Whether they needed to get themselves into this situation is another matter...