The problem with the "selling the _______ decision to the locker room" point

[TheFunPolice]

A lot is said here about taking into account how the QB decision (or any roster move) to the locker room, and to a certain degree I get it. You cannot lose the room.

 

However, there are a LOT of guys on this starting roster whose performances have been EVERY BIT as poor as Peterman's was. They just don't have stats to show it.

 

What ground does the starting OL who gets tossed aside like a ragdoll or bulldozed into the backfield every play have to criticize the coach for starting a QB who had an awful game? By that logic, maybe that guy ought to head to the bench too, then.

 

Ditto for the LBers who are out of position or get alligator arms when it's time to tackle. They are suddenly going to play GM? How about tackling and gap discipline?

 

Ditto for the DT who gets plowed backwards and run over time and time and time again, to the tune of (also historic) running yards for the opposition. Those guys sucked just as bad at their jobs as the QB did at his.

 

You could go up and down the roster and find guys who are in the starting lineup whose performances have been embarrassing and unacceptable. Now, that doesn't excuse Peterman or anyone else, but it does sort of make any criticism they might have about roster moves and trades less valid.

 

Do you job with some level of competence before you weigh in on a teammate's starting or not starting.

 

 

[Lfod]

It most likely just a talking point used to debate over who should start at Quarterback that doesn't hold any merit. Just something to throw in there to strengthen your point but I agree it's not a strong position to take.

 

Take into account we got destroyed by the Jets and the Saints so the locker room was already lost. Nobody is risking future contracts over mutiny. These players want to be in the NFL. If not playing for the team at least you know they are playing for themselves and thier own family and future.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Lfod

[TheFunPolice]

I think most players (while they obviously have opinions) really are too focused on their own jobs and careers to worry about it too much.

 

 

 

[Rick B]

You are right on all points I personally did not agree with the decision to bench Taylor. It can be difficult for any QB to excel when the O line can''t protect him. The D line has been an embarrassment. What ever happened to the stingy defense that started the season? On both sides of the ball there has been horrific play and the score board bears me out.  

[LABILLBACKER]

We have a roster of 53 players with only McCoy, Hauscka and Benjamin as legit starters. Glenn isn't healthy enough to include. We basically have 50 backups. We're as close to an expansion team as you can get.

[transplantbillsfan]

2 hours ago, TheFunPolice said:

A lot is said here about taking into account how the QB decision (or any roster move) to the locker room, and to a certain degree I get it. You cannot lose the room.

 

However, there are a LOT of guys on this starting roster whose performances have been EVERY BIT as poor as Peterman's was. They just don't have stats to show it.

 

What ground does the starting OL who gets tossed aside like a ragdoll or bulldozed into the backfield every play have to criticize the coach for starting a QB who had an awful game? By that logic, maybe that guy ought to head to the bench too, then.

 

Ditto for the LBers who are out of position or get alligator arms when it's time to tackle. They are suddenly going to play GM? How about tackling and gap discipline?

 

Ditto for the DT who gets plowed backwards and run over time and time and time again, to the tune of (also historic) running yards for the opposition. Those guys sucked just as bad at their jobs as the QB did at his.

 

You could go up and down the roster and find guys who are in the starting lineup whose performances have been embarrassing and unacceptable. Now, that doesn't excuse Peterman or anyone else, but it does sort of make any criticism they might have about roster moves and trades less valid.

 

Do you job with some level of competence before you weigh in on a teammate's starting or not starting.

 

 

 

Ummm... the difference is that Tyrod Taylor is a clear and massive upgrade over the guy who he would remain on the bench for if he were to stay there and every single player knows that. 

 

You really can't say the same for any of those positions you just brought up.

[Sweats]

They should bench the whole team and put the PS out there.

[TheFunPolice]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Ummm... the difference is that Tyrod Taylor is a clear and massive upgrade over the guy who he would remain on the bench for if he were to stay there and every single player knows that. 

 

You really can't say the same for any of those positions you just brought up.

 

I'm not sure I would say that Tyrod is a clear and massive upgrade.

 

Peterman had a horrific half, partly due to the fact that the defense was crushing him nearly unblocked and he got rattled. Tyrod has also had plenty of games without any INT but around 100 yards passing and a ton of 3 and outs.

 

Here's the difference: Tyrod is who he is, and we have seen it. He won't really do ANYTHING with the ball except run a few times and make 1-2 throws. That's why people mention the dreaded yardage point. It's a measure of how much your passing offense is moving the ball. When you barely crack 150 for a game on a regular basis that is a problem in today's NFL.

 

I think part of that is that Tyrod is so careful that he will only throw when a guy is wide wide open. Protecting the ball is good, but you also have to play the game.

 

All that said, I personally would have stayed with Tyrod and not started Peterman, but I am not the HC. Really the reason for it would have been that I tend to make very conservative choices so I would have been worried it would blow up in my face. Even if I thought the other guy might be better I would let Tyrod play himself out of the job first, which he was well on his way to doing vs the Jets and Saints.

Edited November 22, 2017 by TheFunPolice

[Wayne Arnold]

4 hours ago, TheFunPolice said:

A lot is said here about taking into account how the QB decision (or any roster move) to the locker room, and to a certain degree I get it. You cannot lose the room.

 

However, there are a LOT of guys on this starting roster whose performances have been EVERY BIT as poor as Peterman's was. They just don't have stats to show it.

 

What ground does the starting OL who gets tossed aside like a ragdoll or bulldozed into the backfield every play have to criticize the coach for starting a QB who had an awful game? By that logic, maybe that guy ought to head to the bench too, then.

 

Ditto for the LBers who are out of position or get alligator arms when it's time to tackle. They are suddenly going to play GM? How about tackling and gap discipline?

 

Ditto for the DT who gets plowed backwards and run over time and time and time again, to the tune of (also historic) running yards for the opposition. Those guys sucked just as bad at their jobs as the QB did at his.

 

You could go up and down the roster and find guys who are in the starting lineup whose performances have been embarrassing and unacceptable. Now, that doesn't excuse Peterman or anyone else, but it does sort of make any criticism they might have about roster moves and trades less valid.

 

Do you job with some level of competence before you weigh in on a teammate's starting or not starting.

 

When the "leadership council" talks to McDermott about "the head coach losing the locker room," he should show clips of Taylor checking down on 3rd and long while down multiple touchdowns, the OLine letting defensive linemen run by unscathed, and the defense missing tackle after tackle before saying "This is where the locker room lost the head coach. Now get the !@#$ out of my office."

[Dablitzkrieg]

2 hours ago, LABILLBACKER said:

We have a roster of 53 players with only McCoy, Hauscka and Benjamin as legit starters. Glenn isn't healthy enough to include. We basically have 50 backups. We're as close to an expansion team as you can get.

Incognito is a legit starter.  White, Hyde, Poyer.  If you are going to make a point, don't exaggerate.

[TheFunPolice]

1 minute ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

When the "leadership council" talks to McDermott about "the head coach losing the locker room," he should show clips of Taylor checking down on 3rd and long while down multiple touchdowns, the OLine letting defensive linemen run by unscathed, and the defense missing tackle after tackle before saying "This is where the locker room lost the head coach. Now get the !@#$ out of my office."

 

Exactly. MANY guys who start for this team are getting flat out EMBARASSED week in and week out the past 3 weeks. Yet they still go out there and start, despite 3 entire games of being completely outclassed.

 

That gives them a lot less ammunition to complain about anybody else's performance. Mills idea of blocking was waving at Bosa as he flew past him and crushed the QB.

 

None of this totally excuses Peterman. Tyrod would have either tried to scramble out (don't forget that he is among the most sacked QBs though) or just eaten the sack, rather than throw it up for grabs.

 

That's a conversation: eat the sack, kid. Now we can get to the rest of the game. Who can move the offense through the air better.

[Bills757]

Like i said in another thread, in basketball terms, McD benched his point guard because his team can’t rebound.

[TheFunPolice]

It's easy to say McDermott benched Tyrod because of the defense, but that makes no sense, which tells you it is not the reason.

 

Tyrod threw for around 50 yards for an entire game, at home, including a long section of "garbage time" where a QB can usually pad his stats. That's part of a pattern of barely having an NFL passing game under his tenure here.

 

Tyrod does some good things: his mobility and taking care of the football. Mobility is easily neutralized if a defense stays disciplined, as the Jets showed. Then it becomes a question of whether you can make the throws. He can't on a consistent basis. That is why he was benched.

 

As I said, I would have stayed with him, knowing the Chargers would tear him apart. Then, make the switch and hope for the best.

 

 

[Bills757]

30 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

It's easy to say McDermott benched Tyrod because of the defense, but that makes no sense, which tells you it is not the reason.

 

Tyrod threw for around 50 yards for an entire game, at home, including a long section of "garbage time" where a QB can usually pad his stats. That's part of a pattern of barely having an NFL passing game under his tenure here.

 

Tyrod does some good things: his mobility and taking care of the football. Mobility is easily neutralized if a defense stays disciplined, as the Jets showed. Then it becomes a question of whether you can make the throws. He can't on a consistent basis. That is why he was benched.

 

As I said, I would have stayed with him, knowing the Chargers would tear him apart. Then, make the switch and hope for the best.

 

 

 

I don’t think Taylor is perfect nor do i think he’s the long term answer. But it’s very apparent that the offense is handicapped by the Oline. And it’s funny....it was obvious prior to the LAC game but it’s only become a real talking point since Peterman got crushed due to their inability to pass protect. Such a double standard for so many to say Peterman didn’t stand a chance because of the Oline yet Taylor’s tough outings (sans the NO game) were primarily because of Taylor. 

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Peterman under pressure... 0/6 with 5 INTs... I wonder what the plan would be to beat him?

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

I rewatched the Chargers game and on multiple occasions Bosa was on top of Peterman at the 2 sec mark. I don't think any QB could operate a successful offence under those circumstances. 

 

Im more pissed at McD for starting a Rookie QB in that situation. You know the Chargers have a top 2 D-Line and you start a rookie against it with our crap O-Line. I would pin that game on our O-Line, D-Line and LB's before I put it on Peterman.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Call_Of_Ktulu

[Buffalo Bills Fan]

13 minutes ago, dneveu said:

Peterman under pressure... 0/6 with 5 INTs... I wonder what the plan would be to beat him?

 

Blocking the other team players is too start. And forcing punts by the defense LOL

4 minutes ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

I rewatched the Chargers game and on multiple occasions Bosa was on top of Peterman at the 2 sec mark. I don't think any QB could operate a successful offence under those circumstances. 

 

I kinda more pissed at McD for starting a Rookie QB in that situation. You know the Chargers have a top 2 D-Line and you start a rookie against it with our crap O-Line. I would pin that game on our O-Line, D-Line and LB's before I put it on Peterman.

 

Yes I have been saying this you checked and few others the film. People called me crap but looks true. Go check the damn film it says something lol. (not to you)

Edited November 22, 2017 by Buffalo Bills Fan

[PromoTheRobot]

6 hours ago, TheFunPolice said:

A lot is said here about taking into account how the QB decision (or any roster move) to the locker room, and to a certain degree I get it. You cannot lose the room.

 

However, there are a LOT of guys on this starting roster whose performances have been EVERY BIT as poor as Peterman's was. They just don't have stats to show it.

 

What ground does the starting OL who gets tossed aside like a ragdoll or bulldozed into the backfield every play have to criticize the coach for starting a QB who had an awful game? By that logic, maybe that guy ought to head to the bench too, then.

 

Ditto for the LBers who are out of position or get alligator arms when it's time to tackle. They are suddenly going to play GM? How about tackling and gap discipline?

 

Ditto for the DT who gets plowed backwards and run over time and time and time again, to the tune of (also historic) running yards for the opposition. Those guys sucked just as bad at their jobs as the QB did at his.

 

You could go up and down the roster and find guys who are in the starting lineup whose performances have been embarrassing and unacceptable. Now, that doesn't excuse Peterman or anyone else, but it does sort of make any criticism they might have about roster moves and trades less valid.

 

Do you job with some level of competence before you weigh in on a teammate's starting or not starting.

 

 

Spot on. How can these guys point fingers at the coach when they are pooping the bed with their play. Maybe if they did their jobs McDermott wouldn't have benched Tyrod?

[transplantbillsfan]

3 hours ago, TheFunPolice said:

 

I'm not sure I would say that Tyrod is a clear and massive upgrade.

 

Peterman had a horrific half, partly due to the fact that the defense was crushing him nearly unblocked and he got rattled. Tyrod has also had plenty of games without any INT but around 100 yards passing and a ton of 3 and outs.

 

Here's the difference: Tyrod is who he is, and we have seen it. He won't really do ANYTHING with the ball except run a few times and make 1-2 throws. That's why people mention the dreaded yardage point. It's a measure of how much your passing offense is moving the ball. When you barely crack 150 for a game on a regular basis that is a problem in today's NFL.

 

I think part of that is that Tyrod is so careful that he will only throw when a guy is wide wide open. Protecting the ball is good, but you also have to play the game.

 

All that said, I personally would have stayed with Tyrod and not started Peterman, but I am not the HC. Really the reason for it would have been that I tend to make very conservative choices so I would have been worried it would blow up in my face. Even if I thought the other guy might be better I would let Tyrod play himself out of the job first, which he was well on his way to doing vs the Jets and Saints.

 

Clear and massive upgrade.

 

Maybe Sunday is the worst week ever see out of Peterman. I think we all agree that the Saints game is the worst will see out of Taylor.

 

Peterman and 1/2 of the Chargers game:

 

14 passes 

6 completions 

0 sacks 

5 interceptions (1 pick-6)

66 passing yards... even more interception return yards.

4 rushing yards 

4 first downs

Average starting field position given to opponent while Peterman played: Buffalo's 49 yard line with 49 yard average distance to score. That's obviously without the pick-6.

 

Tyrod Taylor in 3 quarters of the Saints game:

 

18 passes 

9 completions 

2 sacks minus 6 yards 

1 interception (returned 27 yards)

56 passing yards. 

27 rushing yards

4 1st downs 

Average starting field position given to opponent while Taylor played: Saints own 36 yard line with 64 yards average distance to score. That's with the interception return off Clay's drop, otherwise it was the 28 yard line with an average distance of 72 yards.

 

 

Both these guys were baaaAAAAaaaad, but Peterman was historically bad. Hell the team practically gave up around him. The D gave up over 300 yards and 37 points in the first half alone! At least it was just a 2 TD game (as opposed to a 30 point game) against the Chargers.

 

 

I hope Peterman gets better, but I'll be happy if I never see him start another game again.

 

[Wayne Arnold]

12 hours ago, Bills757 said:

 

I don’t think Taylor is perfect nor do i think he’s the long term answer. But it’s very apparent that the offense is handicapped by the Oline. And it’s funny....it was obvious prior to the LAC game but it’s only become a real talking point since Peterman got crushed due to their inability to pass protect. Such a double standard for so many to say Peterman didn’t stand a chance because of the Oline yet Taylor’s tough outings (sans the NO game) were primarily because of Taylor. 

 

Poor pass protection hurts Peterman more than Taylor because of Peterman's lack of experience and he's obviously less mobile/athletic than TT.