Vic Carucci's Interesting Take On Why Tyrod Was Benched

[Norcalbillsfan]

I think the loss to the Jets was almost the nail in the coffin not just the saints. I think mcD saw his fears of what happens to tyrod when he's forced to be a qb by a decent team at best. Wasn't alot of help from the defense among other things, but it was like the team laid down cuz they knew once shady is out of the equation the game is over. Then the saints just proved what happens when tyrod faces a playoff caliber team that forces him to be a qb. Also every defense that we were gonna face the rest of the season just needed to copy the scheme of the saints and Jets and it's in the bag. McD needed a passing threat for a chance of saving the season.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

12 hours ago, SaviorPeterman said:

 

It's not just that Shady, sources have also told me that Peterman has better getting better and better in practice for weeks and pretty has outperformed Taylor in the setting for some time now despite not taking nearly as many reps as Taylor was being the starter.

Please sorry dude but I don’t buy the inside source BS you post 

so spare the bytes. 

 

 

 

We love Vic when he post good stuff and hate him when we disagree 

 

I have heard this on the Tv and national media.  

 

Taylor was a rental

aka 

Bridge QB. 

 

Bridge Closed 

[dave mcbride]

12 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I think it's a ridiculous theory. These guys had no trouble trading away one of the three most talented players on the team for a second round pick. Then had no problem trading away another one of the three for a sixth round pick. They obviously have no problem disrupting the locker room or caring what the fans think, and they shouldn't care what the fans think. Even if we made the playoffs backing in and TT did not play well they would have no qualms or hesitance getting rid of him before next year, saying he has taken them as far as he could.

No offense, Dog, but I think this is crazy. If they were to make the playoffs, subsequently jettison Taylor, and settle into 6-10 next year, the optics (as they say) would be horrible. They are aware of this. Don't ever discount managers' sense of pr and how it relates to perceptions of forward progress or the lack thereof. 

[LABILLBACKER]

8 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Please sorry dude but I don’t buy the inside source BS you post 

so spare the bytes. 

 

 

 

We love Vic when he post good stuff and hate him when we disagree 

 

I have heard this on the Tv and national media.  

 

Taylor was a rental

aka 

Bridge QB. 

 

Bridge Closed 

Exactly,  this decision was probably made in camp. Bring TT back as a bridge qb and when he starts making the same mistakes he's made for over 2 yrs (not 2 games) you try out your drafted qb. This is an obvious move and not shocking in the least. There's no way they're resigning Tyrod next March, he's done. And this still gives the organization an option to draft a first-round quarterback this April. This is a win win no matter what the results are.

[Nanker]

Conversely to their brilliant analysis, Peterman could take The Bills to the playoffs and that would make TT all the more expendable and the FO could say they're building the team around Nate, or if he doesn't break through that barrier, they've got a clean slate to go get the QB of their dreams... Peyton Brett Tom Unitas. He should be easy to find.

[Gavin in Va Beach]

2 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

Regardless, it's a very good take by Simms. Bear in mind that I regard getting to the playoffs this year at 9-7 as the equivalent of back to back super bowls. 

This is a really good discussion that will satisfy all sides in this debate. Florio takes the side of the Taylor skeptics and is quite articulate; Simms criticizes the organization from an informed perspective.

 

Interesting to note that I believe the same day this was posted, when Simms criticized the Bills defensive line for being too light because we have no 300lb+ guys, the Bills sign DT Coleman who weighs 341 and cut Worthy who weighed just 300. 

[BigBuff423]

2 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

I will agree with you that the purpose of the player purge was not to try and lose games.  I guess what I believe is that they simply didn't care if they won or loss games; they were making moves for the future of the team and if it ended up making the team uncompetitive, then so be it.

 

So I don't know what else to call it, other than a tank.  Even though they're not "trying" to lose games, they're certainly not making roster moves that would help them win many.

 

Fair enough, and to those specifics, I can't / won't disagree.

[dave mcbride]

1 hour ago, eball said:

 

Dave, it doesn't make sense at all and your comment basically proves that.  They made the decision to dump Taylor -- not because they were afraid that keeping him and sneaking into the playoffs would make for a tough offseason, but because they believe Peterman gives them a better shot now.

 

Everybody is always looking for a conspiracy or nefarious motive.  Maybe it's simple x's and o's.

I disagree, largely because I personally think that Taylor is going to be a better player than Peterman will be for the remainder of this season. Call me crazy, but I am not sold on a marginal pick who has not played a meaningful NFL down in his life coming into the the final part of a season to save the day. I know Peterman has his fans, and that's fine. But I'm trying to be reasonably objective here, and it is the case that Taylor has led the team to wins more often than losses despite mostly bad defenses throughout his career here. He is not great, but he is certainly more qualified at this point. 

 

Btw, this whole "teams have figured him out in the last few games" is a joke. Post-bye, in the three games prior to the Saints game, he played OBJECTIVELY well. Here are the numbers:

 

69 completions in 100 attempts (69 percent) for 718 yards (7.18 ypa); 4 TDs/0 INTs; 2 rushing TDs, and one total turnover (fumble v. the Jets).  His rating in those three games?  102.9.  Are the numbers everything? No, but they're more indicative than a lot what of the commentators on the board think they mean.

 

This narrative of teams figuring him out has to stop. Yes, he had a horrible game against NO. But you know what? Every qb in the league not named Brees, Rodgers, or Brady does. Did anyone watch Dak Prescott on Sunday? Mariota last night? Roethlisberger when he threw five picks vs. Jax?  I honestly think that some on this board don't watch other teams with any regularity.

Edited November 17, 2017 by dave mcbride

[Andrew Son]

People actually believe that Taylor was benched because the coach/front office was scared that he was going to take us to the playoffs?!?!

 

[Gugny]

Just now, SWATeam said:

People actually believe that Taylor was benched because the coach/front office was scared that he was going to take us to the playoffs?!?!

 

 

I gathered that from no one's comments.  If I missed something, please link it.

[dave mcbride]

55 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Sal C was on WGR yesterday and stated what made the staff resort to the change was TT's inability to makes throws without hesitancy even when they were significantly behind. Taylor played himself out of the starting job (as you noted). He was not in the long term picture and his recent play made earned him a spot on the sidelines. The coaching staff simply got frustrated with his inability to cut loose when there was a play to be made. That's on the player. 

He did it a mere four weeks ago against Tampa! 

 

Look, he's not great, but no one ever said he was. I hope Peterman turns out to be great, but if the Bills get blown out by SD (who have the best DE pair in the league right now) with the season on the line, questions are going to be asked. Taylor takes a lot of sacks, but he gets out of sure sacks more than any other qb in the league.

Edited November 17, 2017 by dave mcbride

[quinnearlysghost88]

9 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

It didn't take this long. Teams figured it out around halfway through his first year. It's not that easy to do. Tyrod is quick and evasive.

 

Good defenses can do it, bad teams have trouble. 

 

Vic's right that they might have made the playoffs. Still might. The AFC is so bad this year someone might make them with an 8-8 record. And then be ejected the minute they face a good team.

 

I doubt the theory because I don't think the new management would feel compelled to do anything they didn't want to do. Even if they made the playoffs if they wanted to get rid of Tyrod, they would have done it, I think.

 

But it's not an impossible theory. Thought-provoking.

 

 

Take a look at the standings in the AFC. Only six teams are NOT below .500.

Titans and Jags are fighting for 1st in the AFCS, and they all play each other down the stretch. They can manage to win the 4 out of 7 games to make them both at least 10-6. That leaves one spot for the other WC. At that point you're basically betting that either the Raiders or the Dolphins or the Ravens won't win 6 out of their last 7 games. The Ravens have the best shot, playing the: packers (no QB), texans, lions, colts, browns, bengals, steelers. But you're probably right, after looking at the standings, nine may take it. i wouldn't count on it though, this is the NFL, strange things happen. 

[BisonMan]

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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. 
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Making the playoffs, while important, is not the goal of the organization as stated several times by McD. Winning a championship is.
9. 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

 

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, K-9 said:

Like I said in another thread, I couldn't get past the first 10 minutes. Vic and Skurski literally didn't know what they were talking about in terms of football knowledge and insight. Vic threw shade on Peterman because he looked good facing NO's prevent defense when the Saints didn't play one down of prevent defense the entire time Peterman was in there. That's just one example. They have little credibility. 

 

They want me to pay a monthly fee to read football writers that have zero in-depth football knowledge. LOL

[dave mcbride]

Just now, BisonMan said:

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:

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. 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).
4. 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.
5. 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. 
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. Making the playoffs, while important, is not the goal of the organization as stated several times by McD. Winning a championship is.
9. 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

 

Maybe for a team like the Steelers, but not for a team like Buffalo, which has not made the playoffs in nearly two decades. There would be a PR problem if they jettisoned him after a playoff season, especially if they get worse next year. That's a recipe for a third-year firing if they don't get it together. 

Just now, HappyDays said:

 

They want me to pay a monthly fee to read football writers that have zero in-depth football knowledge. LOL

The Saints D was in the injury prevention defense. It was 47-3, for chrissake.

[Wayne Cubed]

The Bills weren't "committed" to Taylor in 2017 so why would they be scared if he took them to the playoffs? The only reason the Bills wound up with Taylor this offseason is because he chose to come back, the Bills were ready to move on. They weren't chasing him. They were looking for other QBs, they'd already hired Dennison. Taylor knew the offense was going to change.

 

So this idea that they'd be scared of what it meant for 2018 simply can't be true

 

Which would be better for the Bills long term, they build around Taylor OR build the offense as they see fit for the long term?

 

And I'm not saying Peterman is going to be the second coming, I'm just saying they want to run the offense that they want to run.

[BisonMan]

3 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Maybe for a team like the Steelers, but not for a team like Buffalo, which has not made the playoffs in nearly two decades. There would be a PR problem if they jettisoned him after a playoff season, especially if they get worse next year. That's a recipe for a third-year firing if they don't get it together. 

 

 

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

[dave mcbride]

3 minutes ago, BisonMan said:

 

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

They all do. They don't want to get fired. Anyone who has followed the Bills over the years knows what happens when the city and media turn on you. Christ, Mike Mularkey fled the town! Marrone up and quit. The alleged straw that broke the camel's back re: Donohoe's employment was fan-related! Buffalo is a pretty hostile environment compared to other cities - it's a combination of passion and constant losing. 

 

Making the playoffs and then getting rid of the qb doesn't set them up well if they struggle next season. Don't get me wrong - I am sure they have their issues with Taylor and want to see what they have in Peterman. I also think that their interest in the latter stems from the realization of how bad the defense actually is. They need to address that.

Edited November 17, 2017 by dave mcbride

[K-9]

4 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

The Saints D was in the injury prevention defense. It was 47-3, for chrissake.

Except that Vic flatly stated they were in prevent defense when they didn't play one snap of prevent. And for a defense that was seeking to simply avoid injury (and I don't buy that because that can be dangerous) they didn't slow down in rushing the passer and even sent 6 at us on two occasions. The need to downplay Peterman's play, regardless of the situation and to stretch the truth in doing so, in order to satisfy a predetermined narrative was all that Carucci was doing. I have no respect for that. 

 

And I don't buy his theory that they benched TT because they will have a PR nightmare by letting go of the first QB to lead us to he playoffs in 17 years. They benched him because they don't feel he is going to get us there. And while it's a better than even chance that Peterman won't be that guy either, I can't fault them for taking the chance to find out. Vic and Skurski simply trotted out a specious line of thought to satisfy their narrative. 

 

[dave mcbride]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Except that Vic flatly stated they were in prevent defense when they didn't play one snap of prevent. And for a defense that was seeking to simply avoid injury (and I don't buy that because that can be dangerous) they didn't slow down in rushing the passer and even sent 6 at us on two occasions. The need to downplay Peterman's play, regardless of the situation and to stretch the truth in doing so, in order to satisfy a predetermined narrative was all that Carucci was doing. I have no respect for that. 

 

And I don't buy his theory that they benched TT because they will have a PR nightmare by letting go of the first QB to lead us to he playoffs in 17 years. They benched him because they don't feel he is going to get us there. And while it's a better than even chance that Peterman won't be that guy either, I can't fault them for taking the chance to find out. Vic and Skurski simply trotted out a specious line of thought to satisfy their narrative. 

 

How is the "trying-to-avoid-injury-in-a-laugh-worthy-blowout defense" dangerous to players? Please explain. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by dave mcbride