Theory--starting Peterman more about the defense than anything

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

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. 

I'm saying you don't need to look for any explanation beyond Taylor and the offense are bad. The defense is also bad, but not as bad as the offense. 

 

The staff has been moving guys in and out on defense, and now they're moving guys in and out on offense. I don't see why this needs such scrutiny.

[dave mcbride]

 

This just doesn't cut it, and it's likely to get worse:

 

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

I'm saying you don't need to look for any explanation beyond Taylor and the offense are bad. The defense is also bad, but not as bad as the offense. 

 

The staff has been moving guys in and out on defense, and now they're moving guys in and out on offense. I don't see why this needs such scrutiny.

The defense is less talented than the offense, and by a long way. The Bills o-line is at least decent, they have a decent TE, an elite RB, and a now-potentially OK group of receivers with the acquisition of Benjamin. On defense, they have one good CB, one good safety, one OK safety, and a sh*tshow on the front seven.

Edited November 16, 2017 by dave mcbride

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 hours ago, hondo in seattle said:

My question is this...

 

Which would score more points?  A Peterman led Dennison offense or a Tyrod led Roman offense?

 

The way we used Tyrod last year was ideal for his skill set.  Not only did  Tyrod gain a lot of yards on the ground, the threat of his running helped our backs lead the NFL in rushing.  More importantly. we scored a lot of points.

 

Instead of running a similar offensive system, Rico put Tyrod in a different kind of offense that hasn't been productive.  So now instead of switching offenses he's switching QBs.   

 

Peterman might be the next-coming of Brett Favre as Micah suggests.  Maybe Peterman's looked so good in practice that they just couldn't sit him anymore.  But Rico's decision making has been interesting.  

based on this years output.   I have to hope its Nate.  We'll know in the next few weeks what the average PPG is. 

 

[dave mcbride]

3 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

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...

Oh yeah, it's necessarily a simplification. But as a defensive coach who has presided over some dominating defenses populated by elite players, McDermott has to be aghast.

[Alphadawg7]

I said this just before the season started that this FO and Regime would love nothing more than to see either TT or Peterman take control of the QB position enough to where they don't have to use a lot of draft capital to move up and get a QB and can use it to continue to build this roster full of holes.  And because of that, I said that TT will and should start and will likely get until week 10 to show he can be the guy next year, and if he hasn't ceased the job I fully expected a shift to NP to see if he can show enough to not need to spend big on a QB in the draft.  

 

And it basically played out exactly that way.  So I agree with you to a degree that making a switch now is taking into consideration this next draft.  I don't think that was the only factor, being in the 6th playoff spot coming off 2 bad losses definitely played into it as well.  I think they have seen opportunities left on the field, and making the move now could help spark the offense if NP plays well and maybe snap the playoff streak this year still.  But certainly, seeing our DL and OL get manhandled, trading Darues, etc has shown we really need to invest heavy across this team in the draft.  So giving NP a big enough sample size to show enough to take the pressure off QB in the next draft is something I do believe was in the consideration.  

 

That being said, no matter what happens, I expect the Bills to still take a QB in the draft regardless.  However, the better NP plays then the less of a priority it will be and they can wait and use a pick they have on a guy when they feel comfortable rather than go early or make a costly trade.  

[dlonce]

2 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

 

This just doesn't cut it, and it's likely to get worse:

 

 

Probably right,unless we can get some leads and force to opposition to throw instead of run.

With that we need a pass rush. I don’t understand the lack of disguised pass rushes. Our front four isn’t cutting it.

[GoBills808]

2 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

 

This just doesn't cut it, and it's likely to get worse:

 

The defense is less talented than the offense, and by a long way. The Bills o-line is at least decent, they have a decent TE, an elite RB, and a now-potentially OK group of receivers with the acquisition of Benjamin. On defense, they have one good CB, one good safety, one OK safety, and a sh*tshow on the front seven.

So you could say they're overperforming based on talent, while the offense is underperforming. To that chart: the Bills, offensively, are currently-

 

28th in YPG

30th in passing YPG

15th in rushing YPG

20th in PPG

 

It doesn't look to me like a QB change should be that controversial an option.

[dave mcbride]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

So you could say they're overperforming based on talent, while the offense is underperforming. To that chart: the Bills, offensively, are currently-

 

28th in YPG

30th in passing YPG

15th in rushing YPG

20th in PPG

 

It doesn't look to me like a QB change should be that controversial an option.

I don't disagree. I like Taylor a lot, but he doesn't work in this offense. I think he works fine in certain systems, but the Bills don't run those. He still is good at protecting the ball, though - 2 of his 3 INTs this year were the fault of the receiver (Clay both times).

[Boatdrinks]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

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. 

Yep, and those watching the team closely knew this going in. Many wanted to believe that this D ( when it was playing well) was elite. It was obvious that they were overachieving and didn't have game changing type talent. One look at the starting LB 's and actually the front seven in general was enough to see the dearth of top flight talent. That was bound to become evident in the games at some point. Still, the primary focus and need of the Bills has been and will be the QB until they find a guy. 

[YoloinOhio]

The new organization appears more “Ballsy” than “Billsy”, to me

[Boatdrinks]

1 minute ago, YoloinOhio said:

The new organization appears more “Ballsy” than “Billsy”, to me

Certainly in this case, I will agree. This was a ballsy move, not a Billsy one. The Billsy move is to stick with Taylor as the season inevitably goes down the drain. Then switch QBs when it is too late to salvage the season, thus shielding oneself from criticism if the change doesn't produce the desired result. 

[dave mcbride]

9 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Certainly in this case, I will agree. This was a ballsy move, not a Billsy one. The Billsy move is to stick with Taylor as the season inevitably goes down the drain. Then switch QBs when it is too late to salvage the season, thus shielding oneself from criticism if the change doesn't produce the desired result. 

Really? They benched Losman for Trent Edwards (Losman was not out long in 2007) less than midway through 2007. They benched Edwards for Fitzpatrick early in 2009. They benched Manuel for Orton in game 5 of 2014. They benched Losman for Holcomb after 8 games in 2005.  Christ, they benched RJ for Flutie in 1998, Flutie for RJ in 1999, and RJ for Flutie in 2000!

 

Seems like it's par for the course, no? 

Edited November 16, 2017 by dave mcbride

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, dave mcbride said:

Really? They benched Losman for Trent Edwards (Losman was not out long in 2007) less than midway through 2007. They benched Edwards for Fitzpatrick early in 2009. They benched Manuel for Orton in game 5 of 2014. They even benched Losman after 8 games in 2005.  Christ, they benched Flutie for RJ in 1999, and RJ for Flutie in 2000! Seems like it's par for the course, no? 

I agree. This seems very much like a Bills move. I think the difference is the staff making the decision is newer than the QB.

[Boatdrinks]

16 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Really? They benched Losman for Trent Edwards (Losman was not out long in 2007) less than midway through 2007. They benched Edwards for Fitzpatrick early in 2009. They benched Manuel for Orton in game 5 of 2014. They benched Losman for Holcomb after 8 games in 2005.  Christ, they benched Flutie for RJ in 1999, and RJ for Flutie in 2000!

 

Seems like it's par for the course, no? 

  

if you are referencing the Bills lack of stong QB play over the years, then yes. Changing QBs is par for the course when you don't have a good one. I don't think any of those moves were made when the Bills had a winning record. The outlier is Johnson/Flutie which is well known to have been made by the owner, not the Head Coach. The Bills haven't had a good QB in an eternity. If that makes this Billsy to you then so be it. Peterman probably isn't the long term answer either. Tyrod just hasn't shown he can throw from the pocket , which is where teams will keep him from here on out. The conservative , " safe play" that the media would expect would have been to let Tyrod go down with the ship in 2017. 

Edited November 16, 2017 by Boatdrinks

[Doc]

49 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

 

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.

 

They have offensive woes as well.  And that's why they made the QB switch.  Fixing the defense will be another issue and that's why I think that trading Dareus was a mistake.  Again like I said, I think they'll start a space-eater like Coleman to help against the run game, which would be a start.

[Mr. WEO]

4 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

 

 

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.

 

 

Well...Romo was throwing to TO, Witten and Dez Bryant..

 

But you may be right about the D.  But no point drafting  heavy for D if you keep the same DC.  He's got to go.

[Starr Almighty]

2 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

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.  

I meant what was left over after trading up but I was not clear on that and that's on me. But I am in total agreement that you don't wait on scraps and go after the top guys. That's why I called him "the guy" earlier

Edited November 16, 2017 by Starr Almighty

[ctk232]

3 hours ago, BillsVet said:

A plausible theory. McBeane have already spent a great deal on the new secondary, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them go again focus on the front 7. They've already used two high picks last year on offense (Z. Jones and Dawkins) while trading for Benjamin. If Peterman is passable, I could see them justifing those moves as freeing them up to go defense in the 2018 draft.

 

If so, this ideology is why Buffalo doesn't win, hasn't won, nor will win in this era. We've been down the road of stacking the defense with high picks and big contract types and it's never worked. The game isn't suited to being strong defensively and pedestrian on offense. New England right now is among the league's worst defenses and yet they're still 7-2. Certainly they don't need as much on that side of the ball with Brady, but for Buffalo to return to the days of Jauron going defense heavy in 2006, or Nix doing the same in 2010-2012, they're not balanced for how the NFL operates now. Never focusing on obtaining a QB is the common denominator for the generation of failure we're witnessing.

 

 

 

 

I agree - I think we've put off truly sacrificing for a QB. Our inevitable mediocrity certainly hasn't helped us in this regard either, but even when we've had a top 5 pick, we haven't capitalized on the QB position. What's worse is there isn't a franchise QB in every year's draft, which is what everyone who feels this way wants and will give our entire teams future and their first child to get it.

 

I agree that stacking defenses doesn't translate to success as much as getting your QB. But looking at our current team, it doesn't matter if we have Brady/Rodgers at QB if our OL is old and porous, our DL can't pressure or stop the run, we have mediocre LB's and play, our RB is aging and can't be the whole offense when we have no solid RB2. McD has a lot more to deal with in this regard than we know, and I don't think it's worth giving up our number of draft picks this year just to take a chance on a QB if you're really looking to build to the future. I'd rather address our D/OL positions this year, and LB/RB2 than address none of these and take a risk on a QB.

[billsfan60]

I fail to see why this is so hard to understand. Football games are won by the team that scores the most points. If your goal is to win football games then you have to score more points than your opponent. If you're not scoring enough points then that is the thing you fix first.  If your D line crushes the running game and you have shut down corners you might hold the bad guys to 9 points but if all you generate on offense is 2 FG and a safety, you lose. The only realistic way the Bills can win now is to put as many points on the board as possible and hope it's enough to overcome a flawed defense. Our defensive minded HC knows this and that's why Kelvin is here and Tyrod is riding the bench. The WRs are good enough, Clay is an above average receiving TE, Shady is force in the passing game as well. Peterman may crash and burn, but it's a better gamble than asking this defense to pitch shutouts against the likes of Rivers, Smith and marsha.

Edited November 16, 2017 by billsfan60

[dave mcbride]

1 hour ago, Doc said:

 

They have offensive woes as well.  And that's why they made the QB switch.  Fixing the defense will be another issue and that's why I think that trading Dareus was a mistake.  Again like I said, I think they'll start a space-eater like Coleman to help against the run game, which would be a start.

This is my point! Coleman has been hanging around the far fringes of the league for four years, bouncing from practice squad to practice squad. And all of of a sudden this undrafted bum who has never done anything might actually be defense's focal point on run downs for the remainder of the season because he weighs a lot. The talent level is pathetic. 

28 minutes ago, Starr Almighty said:

I meant what was left over after trading up but I was not clear on that and that's on me. But I am in total agreement that you don't wait on scraps and go after the top guys. That's why I called him "the guy" earlier

yup - gotcha.