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

[Shaw66]

1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:

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.

You're missing my point.  It isn't about Peterman.  It's about Taylor.   I think you're absolutely wrong about Taylor.   I think it's a 90% certainty that Taylor will not be a Bill in 2019, because all he's gotten since McDermott and Dennison arrived are votes of no-confidence.   His head coach actually thought that Peterman was better than Taylor.   I think Taylor is leaving as soon as he can.  So your scenario where Taylor lights it up is a nonstarter.  It doesn't matter if they reconsider; Taylor won't.   So if Taylor lights it up the rest of this season and next, Taylor will get a five-year $125 million somewhere, and it won't be with the Bills.    Why would he stay with the Bills?   He can get the same money from some other team, and playing for another coach means he no longer have to worry about who McD thinks gives the Bills the "best chance to win."

 

The problem here isn't how they handled Peterman.  If Peterman is going to make it in the league, he'll make it.  The problem is that they mishandled Taylor. 

5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

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.

Yeah, I know he's under contract.   I'm guessing his agent asks for a trade, maybe already asked.   If the Bills say no, they want to keep Taylor, he asks for along-term deal.  They'll say no to that, too.  So Taylor will play 2018 and exercise his option to get out.  I just don't see him swallowing his pride after McD has made it so abundantly clear that he has no confidence in Taylor.  

[oldmanfan]

12 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

You're missing my point.  It isn't about Peterman.  It's about Taylor.   I think you're absolutely wrong about Taylor.   I think it's a 90% certainty that Taylor will not be a Bill in 2019, because all he's gotten since McDermott and Dennison arrived are votes of no-confidence.   His head coach actually thought that Peterman was better than Taylor.   I think Taylor is leaving as soon as he can.  So your scenario where Taylor lights it up is a nonstarter.  It doesn't matter if they reconsider; Taylor won't.   So if Taylor lights it up the rest of this season and next, Taylor will get a five-year $125 million somewhere, and it won't be with the Bills.    Why would he stay with the Bills?   He can get the same money from some other team, and playing for another coach means he no longer have to worry about who McD thinks gives the Bills the "best chance to win."

 

The problem here isn't how they handled Peterman.  If Peterman is going to make it in the league, he'll make it.  The problem is that they mishandled Taylor. 

Yeah, I know he's under contract.   I'm guessing his agent asks for a trade, maybe already asked.   If the Bills say no, they want to keep Taylor, he asks for along-term deal.  They'll say no to that, too.  So Taylor will play 2018 and exercise his option to get out.  I just don't see him swallowing his pride after McD has made it so abundantly clear that he has no confidence in Taylor.  

I agree it is unlikely TT is back.  Because while effective when he is on the move, showing his running capability etc., they ultimately don't think his style and his deficiencies can get them a Lombardi.  

 

My original point, which seems to have been lost here, is that you seem to have gone from optimist to pessimist based on one coaching decision.  He thought Peterman would run the offense better, and it didn't pan out.  Would have been very interesting to see what happens last week if Benjamin doesn't get hurt and if DiMarco doesn't get stone hands the first pick.

 

One decision does not have that much weight  to change an opinion so drastically.

[Shaw66]

40 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

I agree it is unlikely TT is back.  Because while effective when he is on the move, showing his running capability etc., they ultimately don't think his style and his deficiencies can get them a Lombardi.  

 

My original point, which seems to have been lost here, is that you seem to have gone from optimist to pessimist based on one coaching decision.  He thought Peterman would run the offense better, and it didn't pan out.  Would have been very interesting to see what happens last week if Benjamin doesn't get hurt and if DiMarco doesn't get stone hands the first pick.

 

One decision does not have that much weight  to change an opinion so drastically.

One decision caused me to change my view of what was going on.   Benching Taylor means they've decided there's no hope for Taylor.   It means they have to trade up in the draft to get a really good QB.   I have two problems with that.

 

One, I think it's foolish to give up on Taylor.   I may be wrong.

 

Two, it means it was really stupid to trade for Benjamin.  If they're trading up for a qb, that pick they gave up is very valuable.   

 

Since those two moves are inconsistent  with each other, it suggests to me that no one is actually thinking about the consequences of their decisions.   

 

Bottom line, if you've given up on Taylor, you don't trade your second round pick.   If you haven't given up on Taylor, you don't bench him.  

 

I really think these people don't know what they're doing.   And THAT's what made me pessimistic.  I can't reconcile two important decisions they made about the QB position.  

 

And then you add to that the point that others have made here, that McD haas had no answer over the past three weeks for a totally failing offense and defense.   The team has been completely uncompetitive, and McDermott apparently has no answer.   

Edited November 23, 2017 by Shaw66

[oldmanfan]

25 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

One decision caused me to change my view of what was going on.   Benching Taylor means they've decided there's no hope for Taylor.   It means they have to trade up in the draft to get a really good QB.   I have two problems with that.

 

One, I think it's foolish to give up on Taylor.   I may be wrong.

 

Two, it means it was really stupid to trade for Benjamin.  If they're trading up for a qb, that pick they gave up is very valuable.   

 

Since those two moves are inconsistent  with each other, it suggests to me that no one is actually thinking about the consequences of their decisions.   

 

Bottom line, if you've given up on Taylor, you don't trade your second round pick.   If you haven't given up on Taylor, you don't bench him.  

 

I really think these people don't know what they're doing.   And THAT's what made me pessimistic.  I can't reconcile two important decisions they made about the QB position.  

 

And then you add to that the point that others have made here, that McD haas had no answer over the past three weeks for a totally failing offense and defense.   The team has been completely uncompetitive, and McDermott apparently has no answer.   

It was a third and a seventh forBenjamin.

 

i agree I have no idea what happened to the D.  It wasn't just the loss of the fat tub of goo in the middle.  As for the offense, that's why he started Peterman - thought he might run things better.

[Billsfan1972]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

It was a third and a seventh forBenjamin.

 

i agree I have no idea what happened to the D.  It wasn't just the loss of the fat tub of goo in the middle.  As for the offense, that's why he started Peterman - thought he might run things better.

And I would have rather had a full season of Watkins........  You have to pay for talent.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

The problem here isn't how they handled Peterman.  If Peterman is going to make it in the league, he'll make it.  The problem is that they mishandled Taylor. 

Yeah, I know he's under contract.   I'm guessing his agent asks for a trade, maybe already asked.   If the Bills say no, they want to keep Taylor, he asks for along-term deal.  They'll say no to that, too.  So Taylor will play 2018 and exercise his option to get out.  I just don't see him swallowing his pride after McD has made it so abundantly clear that he has no confidence in Taylor.  

 

I wouldn't be surprised if the Bills tried to trade Tyrod, but here's the thing: if he's still on the roster next spring, Bills owe him $6M in addition to the accelerated bonus cap hit.

So if I'm a team that fancies Taylor, unless I really really want him right now, why not just wait?  

 

I could be wrong, but I don't see McBeane paying $16M for a guy they're willing to bench for a 5th round rookie.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Billsfan1972 said:

And I would have rather had a full season of Watkins........  You have to pay for talent.

 

Just now, Billsfan1972 said:

And I would have rather had a full season of Watkins........  You have to pay for talent.

I said at the time I wanted them to keep Watkins.  But while I know you'll come up with your thousands of rationales for him, he's been little more than a decoy in LA.  And yes, I have watched some of the games.

 

Watkins cost himself money this year.

[Billsfan1972]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

 

I said at the time I wanted them to keep Watkins.  But while I know you'll come up with your thousands of rationales for him, he's been little more than a decoy in LA.  And yes, I have watched some of the games.

 

Watkins cost himself money this year.

No Goff (and McVay) have........  I said it elsewhere but if he stays healthy through the end of the season someone will pay him $10,000,000+ and hopefully not to be a decoy......

 

Can't catch what's not thrown at you (1 drop this season if people want to know).........

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

31 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

One, I think it's foolish to give up on Taylor.   I may be wrong.

 

Two, it means it was really stupid to trade for Benjamin.  If they're trading up for a qb, that pick they gave up is very valuable.   

 

Since those two moves are inconsistent  with each other, it suggests to me that no one is actually thinking about the consequences of their decisions.   

 

Bottom line, if you've given up on Taylor, you don't trade your second round pick.   If you haven't given up on Taylor, you don't bench him.  

 

I really think these people don't know what they're doing.   And THAT's what made me pessimistic.  I can't reconcile two important decisions they made about the QB position.  

 

It's not foolish to give up on a player if you aren't willing to use him to best advantage.  Now whether that latter is foolish, is another question.

 

There is a third possibility about the Benjamin trade.  It is possible they looked at him as the Rookie QB's Best Friend, the AJ Green to Peterman's Andy Dalton.  Despite the failure of the Watkins/Manuel pairing, it's not an unreasonable notion. Next to a good run game, a WR with the catch radius of a military helicoptor is a Good Thing

That would mean they discussed starting Peterman and benching Tyrod as far back as the Tampa or Oakland game.

 

If you've given up on Taylor but still want to win and plan to play your rookies, perhaps a 2nd round pick makes sense.

 

Make of that what you will.

[oldmanfan]

Just now, Billsfan1972 said:

No Goff (and McVay) have........  I said it elsewhere but if he stays healthy through the end of the season someone will pay him $10,000,000+ and hopefully not to be a decoy......

 

Can't catch what's not thrown at you (1 drop this season if people want to know).........

 

 

Blah, blah, blah.  You're like an old record, and have tried to rob this thread brining up your Watkins stuff.  Take it to an appropriate thread.

[Billsfan1972]

12 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Blah, blah, blah.  You're like an old record, and have tried to rob this thread brining up your Watkins stuff.  Take it to an appropriate thread.

This is part of the larger debate that McDermott & Beane did whatever they could to handcuff the Bills offense and Tyrod.  The trade was terrible and imo led to the next domino of Boldin walking away.  

 

An offense that doesn't maximize their QB's strength, trading his most dynamic receiver who he was building a good rapport with, putting him under center, asking him to stay in the pocket........  Mistake after mistake after mistake.

[BadLandsMeanie]

19 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

It was a third and a seventh forBenjamin.

 

i agree I have no idea what happened to the D.  It wasn't just the loss of the fat tub of goo in the middle.  As for the offense, that's why he started Peterman - thought he might run things better.

I also don't think the defense is all due to Marcell not being in for the 45% or whatever amount of plays he had.

 

I have started to wonder though if his absence leaves us without an enforcer. By that I mean somebody who gives other teams a reason not to cross lies with cheap shots or sneaky punches etc. The only one I can think of on offense is Richie and he is 35. Hughes isn't afraid to mix it up on defense but I am not sure how effective he is.

 

That is just total speculation but I will be looking for cheap stuff when I look at the film the next couple days.

[Figster]

2 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

This is part of the larger debate that McDermott & Beane did whatever they could to handcuff the Bills offense and Tyrod.  The trade was terrible and imo led to the next domino of Boldin walking away.  

 

An offense that doesn't maximize their QB's strength, trading his most dynamic receiver who he was building a good rapport with, putting him under center, asking him to stay in the pocket........  Mistake after mistake after mistake.

So going on 3 seasons, 3 differrent OC's and not being able to throw the football like any normal NFL Offense is the coach/GM's fault.

 

 

[Billsfan1972]

6 minutes ago, Figster said:

So going on 3 seasons, 3 differrent OC's and not being able to throw the football like any normal NFL Offense is the coach/GM's fault.

 

 

We have an OC who has said he's implementing his system and the it's up to the qb to play it, which is ridiculous.  The OC's job is to maximize the strengths of all 11 on offense, most important being the qb.  The HO & coach take away his best receiver (by a mile), who he has had success with and then the vet they signed walks out on the team.  Any answers for that one?  

[Figster]

17 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

We have an OC who has said he's implementing his system and the it's up to the qb to play it, which is ridiculous.  The OC's job is to maximize the strengths of all 11 on offense, most important being the qb.  The HO & coach take away his best receiver (by a mile), who he has had success with and then the vet they signed walks out on the team.  Any answers for that one?  

Why have an expensive/ elite WR that wants touches on a team that has the lowest amount of pass attempts in the league?

 

Boldin was over the hill and knew it IMO.

 

I did allot of boasting before the season started on how well the WCO matched Taylors skill set, while some of the more football savvy posters told me I was wrong.

 

I'm here to tell you now I was wrong...

[Happy]

3 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

And then you add to that the point that others have made here, that McD has had no answer over the past three weeks for a totally failing offense and defense.   The team has been completely uncompetitive, and McDermott apparently has no answer. 

I suspect McDermott may have lost the locker room about 2-3 weeks ago.  I don't think there is really much of an explanation for the past 2-3 losses and how they have occurred this embarrassingly lopsided.  I was watching NFLN last night; Willie McGuinest seems to think that McDermott is not being transparent with the team and that they have shut down on him.

 

Whatever the cause, it is painful.  I hate being the butt of cruel jokes and hearing less than flattering conversations about how bad the only team I have ever rooted for, is.

[Buffalo Bills Fan]

5 hours ago, Maine-iac said:

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. 

 

Never trade Dareus or type of player during season. Should of been off season. Hate in season trades.

 

I think lack of replacement and killed team morale cause of it. Plus little other stuff.

16 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

I suspect McDermott may have lost the locker room about 2-3 weeks ago.  I don't think there is really much of an explanation for the past 2-3 losses and how they have occurred this embarrassingly lopsided.  I was watching NFLN last night; Willie McGuinest seems to think that McDermott is not being transparent with the team and that they have shut down on him.

 

Whatever the cause, it is painful.  I hate being the butt of cruel jokes and hearing less than flattering conversations about how bad the only team I have ever rooted for, is.

 

I think all started to happen when they trade Marcell. They got lucky in Raiders game when ST could not hold on the football makes it easier for offense.

[Happy]

2 minutes ago, Buffalo Bills Fan said:

think all started to happen when they trade Marcell.

Certainly possible since the time Dareus was released and the blowouts start, coincide.

[BadLandsMeanie]

7 hours ago, Happy Gilmore said:

I suspect McDermott may have lost the locker room about 2-3 weeks ago.  I don't think there is really much of an explanation for the past 2-3 losses and how they have occurred this embarrassingly lopsided.  I was watching NFLN last night; Willie McGuinest seems to think that McDermott is not being transparent with the team and that they have shut down on him.

 

Whatever the cause, it is painful.  I hate being the butt of cruel jokes and hearing less than flattering conversations about how bad the only team I have ever rooted for, is.

Per your first point, I don't know if they have shut down on him or not.

I know I don't know who he is. And maybe the players don't either. He is too positive and too squeaky clean and he hides his less admirable qualities too much. Everybody has negatives. He hides his too much.

 

The very first time I spoke to a head NFL coach Mike Mularkey made me the butt of a joke by twisting a question I asked. All nearby had a hearty chuckle. I wasn't happy in the moment but afterwards I liked him. He was real and he treated me like one of the guys is how I take that. He told me another time he was intimidated about having to face the Patriots twice a year. He didn't pretend.

 

I called his radio show a couple times, mind you I had done my homework watching film. He listened to what I said. He filled me in on some stuff. I had told him the Chargers had got our silent snap count somehow because watching frame by frame the first half I figured it out they started off the line a fraction of a second too soon. He told me I was right and that they saw it and changed it up later. I was asking him what was wrong with our offense. Something was wrong but I couldn't put my finger on it because everybody was doing the right things. He agreed with me, on the air, and later used the same word I had come up with to describe it in a presser. I was very mad when he quit but I am over that now and this was a real person. 

 

I think they may not be against McDermott but they also can't get attached to him if he is the same cardboard cutout to the players as he is to us.

 

As for your second point, I don't like that either! But how old are you? There is a very real chance I will be dead before the Bills ever turn it around. I am in no immediate danger and I could easy be alive in 20 years or more. But, the drought itself is getting to be that long.

 

So I have had to accept it and deal with it on that footing.  One part of that for me is I won't buy into a team until the organization does things the way I believe they have to be done. So far they have done that, this latest fiasco aside. Overall they are doing things the way I would in terms of the draft and draft preparation.

Here is the bright side as I see it. Strictly speaking the odds of winning a Superbowl are 1/32. If it takes 32 years I will almost certainly not be here. But, if you have an owner who is really trying, that cuts the odds I think by about half. So, 1 in 16. Pegula may not be off to a great start but he is trying. He very plainly is not here to make as much money as he can off the team. That is a blessing.

 

 

 

Edited November 24, 2017 by BadLandsMeanie

[Happy]

2 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

As for your second point, I don't like that either! But how old are you? There is a very real chance I will be dead before the Bills ever turn it around. I am in no immediate danger and I could easy be alive in 20 years or more. But, the drought itself is getting to be that long.

 

Thanks for the excellent reply.  As far as how old I am, well, without giving an exact number, I was a very young kid when Joe Ferguson, Joe Cribbs, Jerry Butler, etc were playing and we won the AFC East in 1980.  This is about when I started to root for them.  I followed them all through out the 80's, 90's (watched all four SBs), 00's, and until today.  I've heard the jokes - BILLS actually stands for Boy I Love Losing Superbowls.  If we had won just one, and probably should have won two of them, we would be considered one of the greatest franchises of all time.  But that is long gone, and I'm thankful that I'm still young enough that I should see them turn things around and make more SB runs.  

 

Not surprising that the first year is a bit rough, but I agree that it appears there is a plan in place.  This offseason, draft, and FA will be revealing as far as how 'real' Beane and McDermott are; have to nail the draft.  Then next year should start to show us what type of team they're building and the guys they want.

 

Agree that Pegula wants to win, which I'm thankful we have that kind of owner.  It looks like he made his coach and GM decisions and will see it through; and I think they'll get more than three years, which I think is good given the group that was brought in.  The lack of direction, poor coaching, poor drafting, and constant turnover is why we have 17+ years of futility.  Hope this is the light at the end of the tunnel.