THE ROCKPILE REVIEW - Ramblings of a Madman

[Shaw66]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Shaw does a beautiful job of spelling out the contradictions in McWrestler and Mr Beane's approach that lead some of us to question whether they know what they're doing.

If you want to tank, Tank - but in that case, why not trade (or release, rather than renegotiate) Taylor and trade Dareus in the off season before cheapening his stock with benchings and dis-talk?  On the other hand, if you want to rebuild while winning now, why not tailor the offense to Taylor's strengths instead of insisting he become something he's not?

 

Why start a rookie on the road, when you're 5-4, then after he craps the bed, go back to the benched guy saying "we're in the hunt"?  (there's a story about the soprano Bev "Bubbles" Stills gleefully accepting a future "dream role" offered during a phone call - then calling the director back 5 minutes later to decline: "I can't, I'm pregnant".  To which the director replied, rather stunned, "weren't you pregnant 5 minutes ago?").  If you really didn't know he would crap the bed....see above question, how could they not know Peterman wasn't ready?

 

Maybe there's a master plan and process behind all this, but from here it just looks like a Hot Mess with a side helping of Bad Player e v a l Judgement.

I am, reluctantly, in the same place.  

[oldmanfan]

43 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

 

I'm often wrong, so this won't be the first time.  And frankly, I've been thinking as I write that I maybe making too big a deal about it.   But I don't think so.  

 

Two things I could be wrong about.   One is that maybe he hasn't burned the bridge to Tyrod staying in Buffalo beyond his contract.  Maybe Tyrod will be a really big man and say it's okay, let's see how it goes.   I doubt it.   He's been dumped on repeatedly since McDermott took over, and he doesn't have much reason to believe it will change.   

 

The other is that maybe McDermott and Beane have decided to move on from Tyrod, they knew that benching him would mark the beginning of the end of Tyrod in Buffalo, and they're okay with that.  If they thought that, then I disagree with the decision but at least they understood the consequences.  I disagree because I think you don't get rid of your best quarterback until you have a better one on board, and the Bills are very far from having a better QB on board.  Tyrod is the best QB the Bills have had since Bledsoe, maybe since Kelly.  

 

I think this decision forces the Bills to bet the ranch on a franchise QB rookie in the upcoming draft.   Last time the Bills were forced to take a QB because they had no one they got Manuel.  It's much better to be shopping for something when you don't absolutely need the thing.   

I have no doubt they are looking for a QB come draft day and will get one.  I also don't think you give up on Peterman because of one half of football.  They drafted him because in college he was the type that processed things well.  That is what an NFL QB needs to do.  

 

I'll say again, I think Peterman starts next year with their high round pick behind him.  TT goes elsewhere.  Like it or not they don't think the kind of offense you have to play withTT is going to be consistently effective.  

[Billsfan1972]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

I have no doubt they are looking for a QB come draft day and will get one.  I also don't think you give up on Peterman because of one half of football.  They drafted him because in college he was the type that processed things well.  That is what an NFL QB needs to do.  

 

I'll say again, I think Peterman starts next year with their high round pick behind him.  TT goes elsewhere.  Like it or not they don't think the kind of offense you have to play withTT is going to be consistently effective.  

He's a fifth round daft choice.  They are seldom ready for much besides backing up good quarterbacks for a # of years, learning and maybe, maybe if lucky get a chance to win a starting job 4 years later.

 

He was not and will not be ready.  Again if happy to tank 2018, then so be it........  I'm not.

 

And the NFL is about strong agile QB's with arms........

 

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Shaw, you are way over exaggerating the consequences of one decision.  If anything can be said about McDermott, it is that he thinks before making decisions.  And he made a decision that he himself referred to as a calculated risk with Peterman.  Why?  Because he felt it gave the team- the team- a better chance to win.  I like TT myself but guys like Benoit on si.com talked about how he was missing open guys.  So he made a decision, and it didn't work out.

 

Now if it were just ego he'd hang with that decision.  But he had the sense to realize the decision was wrong, and now goes back to TT because he realizes putting Peterman back in, in a hostile place like Arrowhead, would be wrong.  And that TT gives them the best chance to win, even given his limitations

 

What about other decisions?  Again it's about team.  And they are consistent with what he and Beane have said for quite a while now; they have a short and a long term view.  So Dareus.  Long term they knew his performance/attitude did not merit his huge cap number.  It may have affected our D now but even when Dareus was not on the field earlier this season they played well.  So given that it did not seem a huge short term risk.  Benjamin?  Simple, had an opportunity to get a big target that helped short and long term, and a guy they knew from Carolina.

 

i question other personnel decisions, like why Ducasse starts.  I'm also not at practice every day.  I question Dennison and his philosophy; I like you would like to see them move TT around.  But I've complained about O coordinators since Buster Ramsey ran things. (And his first choice is now back on the market??).  And for the life of me I can't figure out what happened to the defense.

 

Bottom line going forward is this:  we have a young coach that was on the list of coordinators from the NFL ready for his shot. You have a young GM also ready, and the two are in synch with what they want to do.  Beane said when he got here you can't win without the star QB.  I have no doubt they draft one this year.  And I think they'll sit him behind Peterman next year.  I think they'll also focus on front seven on D and O line in the draft and FA because they know games are won in the trenches.  Beane has amassed a lot of solid personnel guys on his staff, and hopefully that translates to a good draft and good FA picks.  

 

Three weeks ago ago no one was complaining.  Now they've run into a bad stretch.  And the HC made a risky choice last week that didn't pan out.  It won't be the last time either.  Let's let the process work, because ultimately as much as people mock "the process" successful organizations all have processes they define and follow.  Or they're not successful.

 

Well, Shaw and I may be Eeyore and Eeyore2 here.  I'd actually rather like that to be the case.

Here's a couple places where I stick with your e v a l though.  If McDermott honestly felt it was a calculated risk with positive odds of success to put Peterman in with that game plan, against that pass rush, with our OL (or if he bought off on the suggestion when Dennison made it), something is really profoundly off in his player and film evaluation.

I take Benoit with a grain of salt - see other post about how media pundit claimed we were double teaming Bosa all game while eyeballs on tape can see it's not so, and pointing to the Bills D giving up a record number of points in the first half against Jax (without mentioning that 24 of them came directly from offensive turnovers).  It's true - and was true last year and the year before - that Taylor misses seeing open guys and takes off prematurely.  All QB do this, but Taylor does do it more.  Taylor also holds the ball too long at times, is indecisive at times.  But with all that, he also does a significant number of good things, things that had us finish as #10 and #11 scoring offense last year and year before even after he missed games.  If you look at film of say, N'Orleans, you can see that a lot of the time, the problem was that our guys just weren't open, and Dennison was slow to adjust to the Saints coverage.  Here's a nice analysis from Cover 1.  Also, the same pundits who were pointing out the opportunities Taylor leaves on the field, were pretty much unanimously responding to the benching "What are you, Crazy?"

 

The real issue I have is that to me, the benching of Taylor and the focus on Offense seems like a classic deflection technique.  Through it all, the real problem has been the defense, right from the start of the Jets and Saints game when they clearly couldn't stop a nosebleed much less a professional NFL run game, and answers there are slim.  I have no question that trading Dareus hurt our run D - the people who claim it didn't aren't even looking at the actual number of snaps Dareus played each game in B'lo except when injured/out/recovering (hint: it isn't 25% or 30%), nor at his impact in Jax -  but it's far from the only problem.  (But again - if we're trying to win now, why didn't McDermott recognize the impact it would have and adjust?)  There have been missed tackles and craptastic tackles, players just plain old blowing their assignment, and other "tire fire" symptoms the last 3 weeks.  We didn't see that in the first 7 weeks.  Are players on D all shell-shocked from the Dareus trade?  Or Is it just there's enough film to expose weaknesses?  

 

If we can't ID our weaknesses and counter them fast, we're going to lose, a lot.  The NFL is the ultimate chess match, and successful HC and coordinators need to be prepared for the "weakness ID'd exploited" "countermeasure implemented" "new weakness" game.  Much as I hate him, we also play the NFL Chess Grandmaster 2x each year.  Until we stop needing to pencil those in as losses, our progress is limited.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I have no doubt they are looking for a QB come draft day and will get one.  I also don't think you give up on Peterman because of one half of football.  They drafted him because in college he was the type that processed things well.  That is what an NFL QB needs to do.  

 

I'll say again, I think Peterman starts next year with their high round pick behind him.  TT goes elsewhere.  Like it or not they don't think the kind of offense you have to play withTT is going to be consistently effective.  

If that's their plan, okay, I get it.   But if that's their plan, then you pick a point in time and start him every game and live with the consequences. You don't start him for a half and then go back to the other guy.   

 

McDermott was very clear.   He said he  played Peterman not because he's the future but because he gave the team the best chance to win.  In other words, he wanted to win now.   And that's consistent with what McD has done now.  He put Taylor back in in the second half, and he's starting Taylor this week.  What that suggests is that he no longer believes Peterman gives them the best chance to win, Taylor does.   That suggests that your view is wrong - that they haven't decided to go with Peterman next year.

 

My point is not about Peterman.  It's about Taylor.   He's your best QB right now, so he's the best option for winning.   I think it's foolish to go away from him until you have someone better.  Or, if you're following your plan, which is to cut bait and go with Peterman and draft another guy, then you don't make the Benjamin trade.   You've got a good second pick, one that is getting better every week the Bills lose, and you're going to need that pick to move up in the draft.  The Benjamin trade is much more consistent with trying to win now, and trying to win now means they play Taylor, not Peterman.  

 

So I think your plan is NOT the plan.   And if it isn't the plan, then keeping Taylor as a viable option is what the Bills needed.   This decision effectively takes Taylor out of the mix.  

 

 

[BadLandsMeanie]

14 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

there's a story about the soprano Bev "Bubbles" Stills gleefully accepting a future "dream role" offered during a phone call - then calling the director back 5 minutes later to decline: "I can't, I'm pregnant".  To which the director replied, rather stunned, "weren't you pregnant 5 minutes ago?").  If you really didn't know he would crap the bed....see above question, how could they not know Peterman wasn't ready?

 

 

Beverly Sills?  The story fits perfectly. But somehow a Beverly 
"Bubbles" Sills anecdote does not fit my initial impression of you based on your other posts and your avatar. Do you watch the Bills games with opera music playing? That makes an interesting mental image.

 

I think you may be a bit unusual. We will get along fine.

 

Right now I think they genuinely didn't know Peterman was not ready because he must have looked very good in practice. And they did not know our line was incapable of stopping a very fierce pass rush. And I bet McD had never started a rookie before. I know he had to do with Newton but Newton was groomed from the the start of OTA's to be the starter.

Peterman was running the scout team, not taking reps as a potential starter. So no matter who the QB is I think you have to expect some jitters in that first game and I think McD did not.

Recall though that the first few series didn't look bad. Aside from the Dimarco interception the offense was doing ok. Then Benjamin goes down after catching one pass, and he was supposed to be the main guy for Peterman.

 

At that point is where McD made his second and maybe less understandable mistake. My rookie got picked off, not his fault but still it is rattling. Now out goes his main target he has been practicing with all week. He has to be unsteady we have to dial it back.

 

Ask yourself, honestly, in McD's shoes wouldn't you have known that if you were thinking level headed and dispassionately? Wouldn't you have known it was time to regroup?

I would have.

 

We try a run game or some screens and take some 3 and outs if we have to so the QB can settle down. He did not do that he kept on full steam ahead. I think that was either emotion or stupidity on McD's part. Right now I think it was emotion though he won't recognize that.

 

 

[Shaw66]

10 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Well, Shaw and I may be Eeyore and Eeyore2 here.  I'd actually rather like that to be the case.

Here's a couple places where I stick with your e v a l though.  If McDermott honestly felt it was a calculated risk with positive odds of success to put Peterman in with that game plan, against that pass rush, with our OL (or if he bought off on the suggestion when Dennison made it), something is really profoundly off in his player and film evaluation.

I take Benoit with a grain of salt - see other post about how media pundit claimed we were double teaming Bosa all game while eyeballs on tape can see it's not so, and pointing to the Bills D giving up a record number of points in the first half against Jax (without mentioning that 24 of them came directly from offensive turnovers).  It's true - and was true last year and the year before - that Taylor misses seeing open guys and takes off prematurely.  All QB do this, but Taylor does do it more.  Taylor also holds the ball too long at times, is indecisive at times.  But with all that, he also does a significant number of good things, things that had us finish as #10 and #11 scoring offense last year and year before even after he missed games.  If you look at film of say, N'Orleans, you can see that a lot of the time, the problem was that our guys just weren't open, and Dennison was slow to adjust to the Saints coverage.  Here's a nice analysis from Cover 1.  Also, the same pundits who were pointing out the opportunities Taylor leaves on the field, were pretty much unanimously responding to the benching "What are you, Crazy?"

 

The real issue I have is that to me, the benching of Taylor and the focus on Offense seems like a classic deflection technique.  Through it all, the real problem has been the defense, right from the start of the Jets and Saints game when they clearly couldn't stop a nosebleed much less a professional NFL run game, and answers there are slim.  I have no question that trading Dareus hurt our run D - the people who claim it didn't aren't even looking at the actual number of snaps Dareus played each game in B'lo except when injured/out/recovering (hint: it isn't 25% or 30%), nor at his impact in Jax -  but it's far from the only problem.  (But again - if we're trying to win now, why didn't McDermott recognize the impact it would have and adjust?)  There have been missed tackles and craptastic tackles, players just plain old blowing their assignment, and other "tire fire" symptoms the last 3 weeks.  We didn't see that in the first 7 weeks.  Are players on D all shell-shocked from the Dareus trade?  Or Is it just there's enough film to expose weaknesses?  

 

If we can't ID our weaknesses and counter them fast, we're going to lose, a lot.  The NFL is the ultimate chess match, and successful HC and coordinators need to be prepared for the "weakness ID'd exploited" "countermeasure implemented" "new weakness" game.  Much as I hate him, we also play the NFL Chess Grandmaster 2x each year.  Until we stop needing to pencil those in as losses, our progress is limited.

Exactly.

 

I've gone from very positive to very negative about this team in three weeks.

 

The only hope is that McDermott has what it takes, learns from his mistakes, and rights the ship.  Based on these things we've been discussing, I have serious doubts.  

[Billsfan1972]

Anyone who bought that Peterman gave them the best chance at winning are probably surveying swampland in Florida as we speak.

[BadLandsMeanie]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

 

 

 

I think this decision forces the Bills to bet the ranch on a franchise QB rookie in the upcoming draft.   Last time the Bills were forced to take a QB because they had no one they got Manuel.  It's much better to be shopping for something when you don't absolutely need the thing.   

I hadn't thought of it this way. That is ominous. You are right and I do not like this. That is exactly how we blew it with the last two first round qb picks. 

 

I wish I was Pegula because I am pretty sure I could fix this so we could keep our options open. But I don't get the sense that he is crafty, or should I say Krafty, like me.

[Shaw66]

2 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Beverly Sills?  The story fits perfectly. But somehow a Beverly 
"Bubbles" Sills anecdote does not fit my initial impression of you based on your other posts and your avatar. Do you watch the Bills games with opera music playing? That makes an interesting mental image.

 

I think you may be a bit unusual. We will get along fine.

 

Right now I think they genuinely didn't know Peterman was not ready because he must have looked very good in practice. And they did not know our line was incapable of stopping a very fierce pass rush. And I bet McD had never started a rookie before. I know he had to do with Newton but Newton was groomed from the the start of OTA's to be the starter.

Peterman was running the scout team, not taking reps as a potential starter. So no matter who the QB is I think you have to expect some jitters in that first game and I think McD did not.

Recall though that the first few series didn't look bad. Aside from the Dimarco interception the offense was doing ok. Then Benjamin goes down after catching one pass, and he was supposed to be the main guy for Peterman.

 

At that point is where McD made his second and maybe less understandable mistake. My rookie got picked off, not his fault but still it is rattling. Now out goes his main target he has been practicing with all week. He has to be unsteady we have to dial it back.

 

Ask yourself, honestly, in McD's shoes wouldn't you have known that if you were thinking level headed and dispassionately? Wouldn't you have known it was time to regroup?

I would have.

 

We try a run game or some screens and take some 3 and outs if we have to so the QB can settle down. He did not do that he kept on full steam ahead. I think that was either emotion or stupidity on McD's part. Right now I think it was emotion though he won't recognize that.

 

 

Two points.  One is as Hapless says, what kind of evaluator is McD if he couldn't see Peterman wasn't ready and he couldn't see his defense was in trouble?

 

The other is something that I haven't seen anyone talk about.  When McD announced that Peterman was starting, someone in the press asked if the offense would be simplified for him, being a rookie and all.   He said, admirably in one sense, that Peterman is a football player and the Bills are asking him to play the position as designed, not some subset.   Do your job.  

 

Well, that's the same message as the Bills won't redesign the offense to Taylor's strengths.   "We know what we want the players to do, and they have to do it."   If you don't have players who can do what you want, doesn't it make sense to modify your approach?

[oldmanfan]

11 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

If that's their plan, okay, I get it.   But if that's their plan, then you pick a point in time and start him every game and live with the consequences. You don't start him for a half and then go back to the other guy.   

 

McDermott was very clear.   He said he  played Peterman not because he's the future but because he gave the team the best chance to win.  In other words, he wanted to win now.   And that's consistent with what McD has done now.  He put Taylor back in in the second half, and he's starting Taylor this week.  What that suggests is that he no longer believes Peterman gives them the best chance to win, Taylor does.   That suggests that your view is wrong - that they haven't decided to go with Peterman next year.

 

My point is not about Peterman.  It's about Taylor.   He's your best QB right now, so he's the best option for winning.   I think it's foolish to go away from him until you have someone better.  Or, if you're following your plan, which is to cut bait and go with Peterman and draft another guy, then you don't make the Benjamin trade.   You've got a good second pick, one that is getting better every week the Bills lose, and you're going to need that pick to move up in the draft.  The Benjamin trade is much more consistent with trying to win now, and trying to win now means they play Taylor, not Peterman.  

 

So I think your plan is NOT the plan.   And if it isn't the plan, then keeping Taylor as a viable option is what the Bills needed.   This decision effectively takes Taylor out of the mix.  

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

He's a fifth round daft choice.  They are seldom ready for much besides backing up good quarterbacks for a # of years, learning and maybe, maybe if lucky get a chance to win a starting job 4 years later.

He was not and will not be ready.  Again if happy to tank 2018, then so be it........  I'm not.

And the NFL is about strong agile QB's with arms........

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

 

Well, he might be ready.  But the big picture says "not freakin' likely".  Some more detail behind what you say:

 

Because of the round where Brady and Wilson and Prescott were drafted, Bills fans suffering from BBFS are all over hoping and even expecting that the latest 6th or 7th or 5th round draft choice will be the Next Big Thing.

Reality Check:  In the last 40 years, there have been 48 QB drafted in the 5th round.  Wanna guess how many of them have become starters, and had good careers?

One.  One, and you have to go back to 1993 to find him - Marc Brunell.   Wanna know how many of them even started more than 10 games?  That would be 8.  8 out of 48, and includes the likes of John Skelton, Dan Orlovsky, and AJ Feeley if you want to call those guys capable NFL QB.

In the 5th round of the NFL draft, that means there are 2% odds of finding a quality starter, and <20% odds of finding a guy who can play a bit.

Now maybe Peterman will beat those odds, but the fact that he didn't have the "reality check" after the 3rd INT to go "Oh...gotta change up my style" like most every other young rookie NFL QB, does not bode well for his chances.

[Billsfan1972]

4 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Two points.  One is as Hapless says, what kind of evaluator is McD if he couldn't see Peterman wasn't ready and he couldn't see his defense was in trouble?

 

The other is something that I haven't seen anyone talk about.  When McD announced that Peterman was starting, someone in the press asked if the offense would be simplified for him, being a rookie and all.   He said, admirably in one sense, that Peterman is a football player and the Bills are asking him to play the position as designed, not some subset.   Do your job.  

 

Well, that's the same message as the Bills won't redesign the offense to Taylor's strengths.   "We know what we want the players to do, and they have to do it."   If you don't have players who can do what you want, doesn't it make sense to modify your approach?

Bang on........  Could you imagine if Belichek in 2017 implemented a running mobile qb game plan and announced to the world that is what Tom Brady will be running.......  Defies logic.

[oldmanfan]

I think Peterman earns the job next preseason.  I don't think they hand it to him on a silver platter.  And I could care less what round  he was taken.  They will also draft a guy and if he shows he's the best he'll start.  TT will likely be gone, but if he lights it up the rest of the year maybe they reconsider.  

 

I also think they feel that putting Peterson out there right now would be counterproductive as stated above.  So TT gives them a better shot right now.

 

short term and long term objectives.  They've said that since day 1.  Maybe it's time to actually believe what they're saying instead of reading tea leaves for something that isn't there.  And time will tell if their approach succeeds.

[BUFFALOKIE]

On 11/20/2017 at 1:03 AM, Avisan said:

Look, I'm going to make a statement here that has nothing to do with politics, despite its unfortunate tangential relationship to the current state of US affairs:

 

Trump is a moron.

 

He's always been a moron.

 

He will never not be a moron.

 

He's been understood to be a moron for decades.  DECADES.  He drove an entire football league into the ground.  He's been lampooned and satirized as an icon of corrupt, selfish idiocy since at least as far back as the 80s.  He bizarrely tried to claim credit for the Pegulas buying the Bills when that whole thing was going down.  He's that kind of moron.

 

Whatever misgivings you might have about the Pegulas, the current situation is much, much better than it could have been.

Yeah, but at least he (probably) would not have been where he is now. In hindsight, I would be been willing to take one for the team.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

13 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Beverly Sills?  The story fits perfectly. But somehow a Beverly 
"Bubbles" Sills anecdote does not fit my initial impression of you based on your other posts and your avatar. Do you watch the Bills games with opera music playing? That makes an interesting mental image.  I think you may be a bit unusual. We will get along fine.

 

    No Opera during Bills games, I promise.  Usually, my teenager covers her ears and complains of my language.  With good reason.

 

15 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Right now I think they genuinely didn't know Peterman was not ready because he must have looked very good in practice. And they did not know our line was incapable of stopping a very fierce pass rush. And I bet McD had never started a rookie before. I know he had to do with Newton but Newton was groomed from the the start of OTA's to be the starter.

 

All you say may be true.  But, and I can't put this nicely - if you are an NFL head coach, and you do not know that how your 5th round rookie plays against the Scout Team or against the backups in Garbage Time in a blowout game are not good indicators of game readiness - you don't know your job.  If you don't know our line is incapable of stopping a fierce pass rush, after seeing them play against N'Orleans the previous week (and several other teams with good pass rush) - either you can't dissect film better than a bunch of "Armchair Arnies" here, or you just aren't doing it.  (Taylor, with his wheels, is not in the bottom third of the league for sacks 'cuz our pass protection grooves!) If you don't know (or your OC doesn't know) how to game-plan for a rookie to give them the best odds for success - you don't know your job. 

You bring up an interesting point about rookie QB though.  When McWrestler was in Philly under Reid, the QB was the durable Donovan McNabb.  In his first few years, I think he was "assistant to the HC" or "QC" - something that would have exposed him to the offense - McNabb was injured, and the Eagles started AJ Feeley for 4 games.

 

AJ Feeley is one of the 8/48 5th round draftees to have played more than 10 games in the NFL. 

 

Maybe this gave him an unrealistic baseline of what to expect from a 5th round rookie. 

I think it may be true as reported here that Dennison was the lobbyest for the change.  In which case, repeat the above substituting "OC" for HC"

 

[Maine-iac]

11 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

Bang on........  Could you imagine if Belichek in 2017 implemented a running mobile qb game plan and announced to the world that is what Tom Brady will be running.......  Defies logic.

See this is where Belichick has been so much better than other coaches.  He doesn't have  a "thing" he does.  He has some base like he starts out with a 3-4 and Brady but  in a game setting he changes and changes quickly to what ever it takes.  If you show a base defense he'll come out with 4 rb's and line them all up as WR's.  He plays chess with everyone and he wins at it.  0n defense I saw us make in game changes earlier in the year and go from getting gashed to shutting teams down.  I think McD and Frazier can do that ............ or could do that.  Again the loss of Dareus might have changed that.  The stark contrast to that is on offense.  I have seen none of that from Dennison and the offense. 

[Figster]

5 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Shaw, you are way over exaggerating the consequences of one decision.  If anything can be said about McDermott, it is that he thinks before making decisions. 

I agree, 

 

When T T goes out and has his best game against the Chiefs perhaps Shaw will see the light.

 

Tyrod Taylor was looking more and more like Trenative Edwards, been there , done that , and Taylor got his own self benched and deserved it IMO.

 

 

 

 

[Maine-iac]

2 minutes ago, Figster said:

I agree, 

 

When T T goes out and has his best game against the Chiefs perhaps Shaw will see the light.

 

Tyrod Taylor was looking more and more like Trenative Edwards, been there , done that , and Taylor got his own self benched and deserved it IMO.

 

 

 

 

If you can tell me that it isn't doing what he's being coached to do I'll buy what your selling but you can't.   It's easy for Dennison to say we wanted him to throw deep on third and long except Dennison is the reason it's 3rd and long and he only has two receivers even run routes past the sticks.  It would be stupid to make that throw.  Taylor is a product of the coaching.  Taylor is being coached not to run.  I think the offense is being planned in a predictable and conservative manner and they're effectively coaching away the most dangerous elements of their players.  Draft a QB next spring .......... go ahead but we sure as hell better find a better 0C or it will not matter.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

maybe McDermott and Beane have decided to move on from Tyrod, they knew that benching him would mark the beginning of the end of Tyrod in Buffalo, and they're okay with that.  If they thought that, then I disagree with the decision but at least they understood the consequences.  I disagree because I think you don't get rid of your best quarterback until you have a better one on board, and the Bills are very far from having a better QB on board.  Tyrod is the best QB the Bills have had since Bledsoe, maybe since Kelly.  

 

I think this decision forces the Bills to bet the ranch on a franchise QB rookie in the upcoming draft.   Last time the Bills were forced to take a QB because they had no one they got Manuel.  It's much better to be shopping for something when you don't absolutely need the thing.   

 

You are completely on-point with the problem of feeling you have to draft a QB (and have to start them).  That's exactly what got us Losman and Manuel and kept the St Louis Rams in a futile cycle with Bradford for 5 freakin' years.  The most successful approach to finding a QB has been employed by teams like Seattle and Philly, who both pulled out all the stops - draft one, sign the best vet FA,  go for the best "dark horse backup" FA on the market.

 

It has to be recognized that even at the top of the 1st round, the odds are 50/50 at finding a QB who can play.

I would personally have been "OK" if McWrestler had walked in and cut Tyrod loose - said "he doesn't fit what we're trying to do here, we wish him the best in his future endeavors".   But you have to do a full-court-press, in that case, to bring in someone durable and competent.

 

We do have Tyrod under contract for another year, you know that, right?  He doesn't have an escape clause for next year.  Under the Dareus logic, though, I don't see the Bills keeping him.

Edited November 23, 2017 by Hapless Bills Fan