Decision on starter vs. Chiefs is the fork in the road

[cd1]

Badlandsmeanie posted this in another thread:

 

Quote

  

- In 2004 Drew Bledsoe, The First overall pick,  who was at that time an 11 year veteran starter, who had play in the Superbowl, was learning to get rid of the ball in 3 seconds.

 

 

 

- In July 2012, Bledsoe was named the 30th greatest quarterback of the NFL's post-merger era by Football Nation.[17]

 

 

 

- Nov 19 Nathan Peterman 5th round pick starting his first ever NFL game, had between 1.5 and 2.5 seconds to read the field and throw the ball before being hit.

 

It is a great dis-service to not look at the whole picture. Mills was totally ineffective at stopping a pass rush. 

 

How on earth do you judge the poor rookie who was thrown to the wolves by a "rookie" coaching staff who somehow can hold their collective heads up while fielding such an inadequate team.

 

Really - no attempt to replace Mills or Ducausse?  Are these the folks that we are suppose to trust with "the Process"?

 

GMAB!

[YesPlayoffs]

7 minutes ago, cd1 said:

How on earth do you judge the poor rookie who was thrown to the wolves by a "rookie" coaching staff who somehow can hold their collective heads up while fielding such an inadequate team.

 

It hasn't stopped people from judging poor Tyrod when he plays on the exact same "inadequate" team.

[hondo in seattle]

43 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't agree.   Last week was the fork in the road, and he took it.   Whether McD knew it or not, benching Taylor last week meant that it's a virtual certainty that Taylor will not be a Bill in 2019, and maybe not even 2018.   If the Bills don't cut him, he's going to get out as soon as his contract permits, which is the end of 2018.    What can McDermott possibly say to Taylor or do that will make Taylor believe anything other than that he's the QB only until the next warm body comes along?   In Taylor's eyes, McDermott is so desperate to replace him that McDermott actually started a guy who was totally unprepared for live NFL action, so why would Taylor believe that McDermott won't do it again?   

 

So from that point of view, I suppose the only choice at QB is Peterman.  Why,?  Because it's now a certainty that Taylor isn't the QB of the future, so you may as well play the next guy in line, even if he looks like an incredible longshot.   The problem with that is McDermott risks losing the rest of the team, because as the HC you're asking 44 other guys to go out there, play hard and risk injury when you've left your best chance to win at your most important position on the bench.   Do I want to play for that guy?   If I'm Kyle do I want to come back for another year?  If I'm Incognito?  If I'm Matthews?   Who wants to play for a coach who doesn't play the best players. 

 

Starting Peterman was a colossally stupid decision.   It made sense only if McD was sure that Peterman is an NFL starter, and if McD was sure Peterman is an NFL starter, then there are serious questions, huge questions, about his ability to evaluate talent.   

 

 

I agree with much of this.

Hindsight is 20-20 as they say.  And with hindsight we now see what a bad decision it was to start Peterman.  As things turned out, this wasn't good for Peterman who's confidence must be shaken.  It wasn't good for Tyrod.  It wasn't good for the older vets who are considering whether to play on or retire at the end of the year.  It wasn't good for McD who's credibility took a shot when  he controversially decided to start a QB who then produced a historically bad first half.

McD bet big, rolled the dice, and lost.  

 

 

 

[YoloinOhio]

 

[buffaloboyinATL]

so are we forked yet?

[Rocky Landing]

There's a lot of hay being made that "Tyrod will be gone next year, so it doesn't matter..." But, really? With the exception of the bizarre notion that we "need to see what we have in Peterman" notwithstanding, let's assume we that we draft our "QB of the future" in 2018. Then what? Do we start whoever that is right out of the gate? Can we assume that whoever we get is going to be immediately NFL ready? (Like Peterman supposedly was???) Are we going to go out shopping for whatever version of Brian Hoyer might be out there, and start the career backup while out future franchise QB sits like Goff did? Would that be better than Taylor for another season?

 

If we're really building for the future, it would be smart to have Tyrod playing for this team next season, and I have to believe he is pissed as hell. IMO, McD has mismanaged this situation about as badly as he could have. I certainly hope he is in full on damage control mode at this moment. This is the fork in the road, indeed. If McD can't get this thing back on track, I sincerely hope he, and his entire staff is canned at the end of this season, and not the obligatory Bills' two-year-coach tenure. It's hard to trust someone who has screwed things up this badly.

[cba fan]

13 hours ago, JaCrispy said:

Mathematically we are in a playoff hunt... but in reality, the Buffalo Bills ain’t huntin’ nothin’. 

100% correct. All indications are they are done. Only math keeps them alive.

 

Browns are still in the hunt. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-playoff-picture-heres-how-the-0-10-browns-can-still-miraculously-get-in/

 

Sometimes I just look at "math" and laugh at math.

[NewEra]

2 hours ago, Billzgobowlin said:

I think it is funny how some people lose objectivity like we will give up 60 this year.  This is the same team that was leading the league in defense at 5-2.  I understand they have been very bad these past few weeks but that won't be maintained.  Could it be bad against the Chiefs?  Sure but all I am saying is the Chiefs have been equally bad and the Giants are a close second to the Browns as the worst team in the league.  As much as you hate to admit it we aren't the Giants.

IS this the same team that went 5-2?  The chiefs have been “equally” bad??  There’s objectivity then there’s reality.  The reality is, we’ve been the worst team in football the last 3 weeks......and it hasn’t really been close.  We’ve lost our last 3 games by 80 points.  The chiefs last 4 losses are by a combined 21 points I believe. While they’ve been off stride, an Andy Reid coached offense could put up 60 on us and no one here would be surprised, except maybe those that haven’t lost their objectivity.

 

 

 

[Billzgobowlin]

1 hour ago, NewEra said:

IS this the same team that went 5-2?  The chiefs have been “equally” bad??  There’s objectivity then there’s reality.  The reality is, we’ve been the worst team in football the last 3 weeks......and it hasn’t really been close.  We’ve lost our last 3 games by 80 points.  The chiefs last 4 losses are by a combined 21 points I believe. While they’ve been off stride, an Andy Reid coached offense could put up 60 on us and no one here would be surprised, except maybe those that haven’t lost their objectivity.

 

 

 

If they had beat the Giants I might agree with you but the Giants are very very bad this year with no WRs and no RB and a very bad defense.  This Bills team has lost a lot of their momentum as have the Chiefs.  Since the 5-2 start we have lost Dareus but gained Benjamin otherwise it is still the same team.  

[NewEra]

1 hour ago, Billzgobowlin said:

If they had beat the Giants I might agree with you but the Giants are very very bad this year with no WRs and no RB and a very bad defense.  This Bills team has lost a lot of their momentum as have the Chiefs.  Since the 5-2 start we have lost Dareus but gained Benjamin otherwise it is still the same team.  

I still wouldn’t be shocked to see us get destroyed on Sunday.  I fully expect KC to put up at least 30.

[The Frankish Reich]

15 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

Well, as suggested by Yogi Bera, I think McDermott should take it.. 

And we just literally lived the Yogi joke, taking the Peterman fork AND the Tyrod fork.

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

......despite my advancing years, something still is not passing the smell test about the Peterman start.....on the road against a Chargers team whose W/L record may not clearly indicate the close games they lost......I STILL think this was Dennison's doing.......his inconsistent game plans relative to TT are suspect.....pretty sure it was the Oakland game and perhaps one other where he appeared to take advantage of Taylor's mobility, resulting in more well rounded game(s)...think TT spread the wealth to 9 different receivers vs Oakland...and then the flexible plan stopped......he is not and never will be a 3 step drop pocket passer especially if you factor in the stellar OL Coach Cast-gotta-go and his Wikileaks zone blocking scheme.....and if McD let Dennison call the shot, which if so, was more personal than to the benefit of the team, we have "who the hell is in charge" issues.....

[Billzgobowlin]

57 minutes ago, NewEra said:

I still wouldn’t be shocked to see us get destroyed on Sunday.  I fully expect KC to put up at least 30.

I definitely could see 30 plus.  I hope they figure out what they lost though and look like they did earlier this year

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, Billzgobowlin said:

I definitely could see 30 plus.  I hope they figure out what they lost though and look like they did earlier this year

 

...Arrowhead has never been a friendly barn.....it is reminiscent of The Rich in the 90's when the "W" was never in question versus by "how much"...........

[Shaw66]

7 hours ago, Billzgobowlin said:

I've said it before but it's possible he looked prepared in practice, the problem with that is that our Offensive line is facing our defensive line

I agree with this.   He must have looked good in practice, because otherwise the decision makes absolutely no sense at all.   I think he looked good in practice and then he did some good things against the Saints.

 

But an NFL head coach is supposed to know the difference between taking reps in practice and playing under live fire when the game is on the line during the regular season.   All kinds of guys look good in practice.   

 

I've always said I give McDermott credit for having no fear.   However, he should have been able to see that his entire team had played poorly for two games, the entire team, and he should have been able to see at a minimum that whatever it was that Peterman was doing in practice wasn't so outstanding as to be likely to make a difference against the Chargers. 

 

And as I've thought about it talked about it with others, I think having made the decision he made, he now has closed the door on Taylor being his quarterback beyond 2018.   Closing the door on any starter is a bad thing, and closing it on your quarterback when you have no one waiting in the wings is really bad.   Maybe Peterman has a future, but we've seen Dak as a rookie step in for a starter and we've seen Watson as a rookie step in for a starter and we've seen Wentz as a rookie step in for a starter, and Peterman didn't look anything like those guys.