Tyrod to start vs Chiefs

[Jerome007]

6 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

Yes, let's ignore Jacksonville and the Raiders. Let's also ignore Tennessee and the Eagles as well, since they're not supporting your point. Do you really have a point here? Oh and the Rams too. Probably shouldn't mention them.

 

 

 

Besides the Eagles, which of these teams are Superbowl favorites? They are on the way up.. compared to the ugly place they were. Is it in an improvement? Hell yeah! But a guarantee for being a constantly dominant team? Nope. And they tanked for a few seasons, not just one. And oh let's forget the Browns and other 0-16 teams of the last 10 years. All powerhouses for years to come now, right?

 

My point is, as you still don't get it: tanking does NOT guarantee a return to greatness! And so far, it's your ONLY magical solution. Recall that Bill Bellichick hire and drafting Tom Brady with pick #199, a compensatory pick, in the sixth round? They needed to tank completely for that to happen?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, NoPlayoffs said:

 

I'm comparing downfield passing attempts...I thought it was pretty clear.  If you can't understand that, I don't know how to help you.  I mean, it makes sense that you don't understand, but it is what it is.

 

If only checking down was the only thing an NFL QB had to do. If only.

 

 

Just now, Jerome007 said:

Besides the Eagles, which of these teams are Superbowl favorites? They are on the way up.. compared to the ugly place they were. Is it in an improvement? Hell yeah! But a guarantee for being a constantly dominant team? Nope. And they tanked for a few seasons, not just one. And oh let's forget the Browns and other 0-16 teams of the last 10 years. All powerhouses for years to come now, right?

 

My point is, as you still don't get it: tanking does NOT guarantee a return to greatness! And so far, it's your ONLY magical solution. Recall that Bill Bellichick hire and drafting Tom Brady with pick #199, a compensatory pick, in the sixth round? They needed to tank completely for that to happen?

 

Well then I guess we should just wait until the end of the sixth to take our QB, am i right? What could POSSIBLY go wrong doing that?

 

 

So by all means, let's do it your way. Let's strive for .500. I'm sure we'll have a great future doing that. It's worked the past 20 years!!

 

[Bill_with_it]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

 

If only checking down was the only thing an NFL QB had to do. If only.

 

 

Well we know they arent supposed to throw 5 picks in a half....

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, Jerome007 said:

Besides the Eagles, which of these teams are Superbowl favorites? They are on the way up.. compared to the ugly place they were. Is it in an improvement? Hell yeah! But a guarantee for being a constantly dominant team? Nope. And they tanked for a few seasons, not just one. And oh let's forget the Browns and other 0-16 teams of the last 10 years. All powerhouses for years to come now, right?

 

My point is, as you still don't get it: tanking does NOT guarantee a return to greatness! And so far, it's your ONLY magical solution. Recall that Bill Bellichick hire and drafting Tom Brady with pick #199, a compensatory pick, in the sixth round? They needed to tank completely for that to happen?

Um, Rams?

[BuffaloHokie13]

3 minutes ago, Jerome007 said:

Besides the Eagles, which of these teams are Superbowl favorites? They are on the way up.. compared to the ugly place they were. Is it in an improvement? Hell yeah! But a guarantee for being a constantly dominant team? Nope. And they tanked for a few seasons, not just one. And oh let's forget the Browns and other 0-16 teams of the last 10 years. All powerhouses for years to come now, right?

 

My point is, as you still don't get it: tanking does NOT guarantee a return to greatness! And so far, it's your ONLY magical solution. Recall that Bill Bellichick hire and drafting Tom Brady with pick #199, a compensatory pick, in the sixth round? They needed to tank completely for that to happen?

The Eagles didn't really tank either. They went 7-9, 7-9, 10-6, 10-6, 4-12 in the last 5 years and the year they went 4-12 they selected Fletcher Cox with the 12th pick in the draft...

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

The Eagles didn't really tank either. They went 7-9, 7-9, 10-6, 10-6, 4-12 in the last 5 years and the year they went 4-12 they selected Fletcher Cox with the 12th pick in the draft...

 

AND Carson Wentz. They gutted that team the year they brought in Wentz.

 

Got rid of the chip kelly cancers, like we SHOULD be doing with the Whaley leftovers.

 

[BuffaloHokie13]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

AND Carson Wentz. They gutted that team the year they brought in Wentz.

 

Got rid of the chip kelly cancers, like we SHOULD be doing with the Whaley leftovers.

 

They didn't tank though. They won 7 games and then traded a bunch of picks for him. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, joesixpack said:

 

AND Carson Wentz. They gutted that team the year they brought in Wentz.

 

Got rid of the chip kelly cancers, like we SHOULD be doing with the Whaley leftovers.

 

Follow the plan of the best team in the NFL who drafted what looks to be the best QB of his generation? No way! Let's keep doing it this way!

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

4 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

They didn't tank though. They won 7 games and then traded a bunch of picks for him. 

 

OK, so, let's talk about the upcoming draft. Are you hanging your hat on SF trading with us?

Secondary question: how much are you willing to give up to get a QB?

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by joesixpack

[BuffaloHokie13]

3 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

OK, so, let's talk about the upcoming draft. Are you hanging your hat on SF trading with us?

 

9ers, Colts, Broncos, Giants are all in play depending on the offer and how things shake out in the last few weeks.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

9ers, Colts, Broncos, Giants are all in play depending on the offer and how things shake out in the last few weeks.

 

Sorry, i was late with the follow-on question.

 

[GoBills808]

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

9ers, Colts, Broncos, Giants are all in play depending on the offer and how things shake out in the last few weeks.

I said yesterday and I stick by it that the Giants aren't going QB in the first round...Colts situation is really up in the air from what I hear. It will clarify over the next couple months.

[Wayne Arnold]

15 minutes ago, Jerome007 said:

Recall that Bill Bellichick hire and drafting Tom Brady with pick #199, a compensatory pick, in the sixth round? They needed to tank completely for that to happen?

 

They went 5-11 in Belichick's first season so maybe they were tanking.

[Big Gun]

14 minutes ago, Bill_with_it said:

Well we know they arent supposed to throw 5 picks in a half....

5 pics, constant checkdowns to 3 and out punts, is there really a difference?

[Billsfan1972]

19 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Manning has gone for 6TDs to 1INT since Beckham Jr. went down. That's along with the injuries to his other receivers...his main target right now is a rookie TE/WR hybrid. Tough slate of games with Seahawks Rams Broncos Chiefs all since Chargers...dumpster fire is the easy narrative.

 

Bills fans like to complain about our offensive line...watch the Giants and you'll suddenly have a much greater appreciation for them.

I'm saying that Eli has been hamstrung, the team has won 2 games and 2 games with under 130 yards passing (yes 1 win).  The point was they beat KC and didn't have a TD.  

 

Just an observation.

[Fadingpain]

5 hours ago, Billzgobowlin said:

I think he had too.  He almost certainly would have lost the team.  I think what took him so long was KC had to wait to prepare fully

Losing the team would be cool.  We have nothing to gain by a few more wins this year.

 

 

[T-Bomb]

Well, after the next 2 losses (next 2 games), Peterman will be back in.

Edited November 22, 2017 by T-Bomb

[GoBills808]

Just now, Billsfan1972 said:

I'm saying that Eli has been hamstrung, the team has won 2 games and 2 games with under 130 yards passing (yes 1 win).  The point was they beat KC and didn't have a TD.  

 

Just an observation.

I was objecting to your observation of Manning's play since Beckham Jr went down as a 'dumpster fire'. 

[moshermw]

4 minutes ago, PeterGriffin said:

5 pics, constant checkdowns to 3 and out punts, is there really a difference?

5 punts x 40 yds each = 200 yds of field position difference.

 

Yes.

[Big Gun]

1 minute ago, moshermw said:

5 punts x 40 yds each = 200 yds of field position difference.

 

Yes.

It's been said over and over and over that yards don't mean a damn thing.

[Billsfan1972]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

I was objecting to your observation of Manning's play since Beckham Jr went down as a 'dumpster fire'. 

He has been very pedestrian and the Giants are not scoring or moving the ball and the defense was atrocious and then beat KC...... 

 

Sound familiar?

 

Yep grasping at straws and have hope.

[GoBills808]

Just now, PeterGriffin said:

It's been said over and over and over that yards don't mean a damn thing.

When it comes to QB passing yards, they don't. But those punting yards are huge!

[BuffaloHokie13]

Just now, joesixpack said:

Sorry, i was late with the follow-on question.

Depends on the prospect and how far we have to move. The standard offer over the past 2 years. 2 1sts, a 4th, and a 1st next year. If it's the Broncos or Giants maybe you look to package Tyrod in the deal and bump one of the 1sts down to a 2nd? I'd do either of those for Rosen, but I also don't see a way to fix the OL while making that move which is bothersome.

 

The Rams trade with Tennessee seems doable with the right partner and jumping up from 15 to 1 feels about like what we'd need to do.

Rams got Pick 1, Pick 113 (4th), and Pick 177 (6th)

Tennessee got Pick 15, Pick 43 (2nd), Pick 45 (2nd), Pick 76 (3rd), Future 1st, Future 3rd

[moshermw]

4 minutes ago, PeterGriffin said:

It's been said over and over and over that yards don't mean a damn thing.

Ok. At the very least it woulda taken NO and LAC longer to score at least - so the final is 35-14ish instead of 47-10 and 54-24.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Depends on the prospect and how far we have to move. The standard offer over the past 2 years. 2 1sts, a 4th, and a 1st next year. If it's the Broncos or Giants maybe you look to package Tyrod in the deal and bump one of the 1sts down to a 2nd? I'd do either of those for Rosen, but I also don't see a way to fix the OL while making that move which is bothersome.

 

The Rams trade with Tennessee seems doable with the right partner and jumping up from 15 to 1 feels about like what we'd need to do.

Rams got Pick 1, Pick 113 (4th), and Pick 177 (6th)

Tennessee got Pick 15, Pick 43 (2nd), Pick 45 (2nd), Pick 76 (3rd), Future 1st, Future 3rd

 

Now the question you have to ask yourself:

 

Is it more palatable to do that Rams deal or than to lose the last 5 and lessen the load? me, i'd trade 5 losses to save 2 picks.

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by joesixpack

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

Now the question you have to ask yourself:

 

Is it more palatable to do that Rams deal or than to lose the last 5 and lessen the load?

Problem is losing the last 5 doesn't get you out of needing to move up. And I'd prefer to develop a habit of winning, if possible. Give me the Rams deal, I find it plenty palatable.

 

For RG3, Washington gave up 3 1sts and a 2nd to move from pick 6 to pick 2...

Edited November 22, 2017 by BuffaloHokie13

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Problem is losing the last 5 doesn't get you out of needing to move up. And I'd prefer to develop a habit of winning, if possible. Give me the Rams deal, I find it plenty palatable.

Well, suppose the last five games are a difference of 7 spots draft position? Say from 15 to 8. Now you only need to move up maybe three spots. Should be doable with a swap of firsts and a second, preserving a first and a second for use in other areas. Short term pain for long term gain.

 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by joesixpack

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, joesixpack said:

Well, suppose the last five games are a difference of 7 spots draft position? Say from 15 to 8. Now you only need to move up maybe three spots. Should be doable with a swap of firsts and a second, preserving a first and a second for use in other areas.

For Washington, 6 to 2 was 3 1sts and a 2nd.

For Philly, 8 to 2 was 2 1sts, a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 4th

[paulbills]

The fact of the matter is that Tyrod simply did not get it done against NYJ and totally laid an egg against the Saints when we really needed those two wins, the decision was warranted after the starting QB passed for 56 yards in a brutal effort in a must win game at home, although whoever told McD that Peterman was ready is just flat out wrong.

 

I honestly I think even if Peterman threw 3 picks and had a decent outing with 1 td and 200+ yds he would still be starting again, to be fair, no one in their right mind thought it would go down how it did on Sunday, and it does leave the coach in a bad predicament, it ultimately shows the debacle that has been the QB position on this team and how there is no prospect moving forward, nor has there been any real commitment to one guy.

 

I don't know what to expect from Tyrod nor do I think I even care or that it matters at this point, even if Tyrod proves he can mount a successful run now at the end of the season and make the playoffs, what do you do at that point? Do you stick with him after the message is clear you're trying to move on from him? This is just a horrible situation all around. 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

For Washington, 6 to 2 was 3 1sts and a 2nd.

For Philly, 8 to 2 was 2 1sts, a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 4th

 

I'm talking moving 8 to 5. Don't need to get to 2, I don't think (hope not).

 

But suppose we split the dolphin games and win the colts game...now, we've won two entirely meaningless games and end up 7-9.

 

Now the cost may be BOTH our firsts and possibly a second. Ouch.

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by joesixpack

[Scott7975]

Here is my take....  If you want to try and win start Tyrod.  Seems to me they still want to win.  If you want to give up on the season ala half baked tank attempt then start Peterman.  I don't think the coaches could look at their vets in the eyes and say we are playing for draft picks.  That's how you lose locker rooms and you don't come back from that.

 

As to the people that want to evaluate Peterman... They don't need to.  Its simple... keep Peterman, do whatever with Tyrod.  Go after your QB during the draft.  Put QBs in rookie camp, mini camp, training camp, and preseason.  There is your evaluation period.  Start best QB.  They don't need to evaluate  Peterman at all this year.

Edited November 22, 2017 by Scott7975

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

I'm talking moving 8 to 5. Don't need to get to 2, I don't think (hope not).

But suppose we split the dolphin games and win the colts game...now, we've won two entirely meaningless games and end up 7-9.

Now the cost may be BOTH our firsts and possibly a second. Ouch.

I don't know man. I really like the Rams move and they went from 15 to 1. If we could repeat that I think I'd take it (assuming they're as sold on Rosen as me). If it went identically we'd have:
1st overall pick

KC's 1st rounder

2 4ths

2 5ths

and a 6th

 

Could be a lot worse, plus we'd have a late 1st to snag one of the high end Guards/DTs

[GreggTX]

5 hours ago, Woodman19 said:

Peterman will be back when we are officially out.  Probably after the Patriots game.  Tyrod isn't a bad choice for the next two games.

Exactly. With our run defense looking like it did when Reggie Torbor was our best LB and guys like Torell Troupe and Michael Jasper our saviors, we aren't going anywhere. All in for 2018!

[Scott7975]

7 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

Well, suppose the last five games are a difference of 7 spots draft position? Say from 15 to 8. Now you only need to move up maybe three spots. Should be doable with a swap of firsts and a second, preserving a first and a second for use in other areas. Short term pain for long term gain.

 

 

 

They aren't moving from 15th to 8th just by swapping picks and tossing in a second.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Scott7975 said:

They aren't moving from 15th to 8th just by swapping picks and tossing in a second.

Read it again.

 

I asked the question if they lose out, it's likely the difference between finishing with the 8th or 15th pick.

 

[Scott7975]

Just now, joesixpack said:

Read it again.

 

I asked the question if they lose out, it's likely the difference between finishing with the 8th or 15th pick.

 

My bad I misread it.  You're talking moving from like 8th to 5th.  Makes more sense now.  Long day that started at 4am and wont be ending until about 7am tomorrow.  Sorry lol.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, Scott7975 said:

My bad I misread it.  You're talking moving from like 8th to 5th.  Makes more sense now.  Long day that started at 4am and wont be ending until about 7am tomorrow.  Sorry lol.

no bigs.

 

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by joesixpack

[Scott7975]

Just now, joesixpack said:

no bigs. Get some sleep.

 

 

If only I could haha.  To re-respond to your post....

 

I agree but don't agree.  In the long run and in reality losing out now would be the best for the Bills.  Would be even better if they haven't won 5 games already.  On the flipside... Vet players don't like losing.  No one does actually.  At least one of these vets was going to retire but was talked into coming back another season.  Players also don't like being embarrassed.  While other play has been embarrassing too... nothing is more embarrassing than having a starter that was playing ok... not great.. not terrible... but ok getting pulled to put in a rookie who throws 5 picks in a half of football.  This coach would completely lose the locker room doing that for the rest of the season.  

 

That's all just my opinion.

[1billsfan]

Trevor Siemian got benched this year and there was not one single blip on the “how dare the head coach do that” outrage meter anywhere.

 

Siemian and Taylor are total equals in the QB performance department (look up the stats) and Taylor has had four extra years in the league.

 

Is anyone else baffled by the completely overboard fan and media outrage of McDermott’s benching Taylor? Has the seemingly occurring narration of Tyrod Taylor being a well-established starting QB become one of the biggest NFL myths ever? Is anyone else becoming tired of the outrage?

 

Phil Simms was a top 10 pick and three year veteran and Parcells started Scott Brunner over him for his fourth season. Terry Bradshaw was benched by Chuck Knoll. What would today’s 24/7 media and fans say about those moves?...and we’re seeing a melt down over seven year veteran Tyrod Taylor being benched?! 

 

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by 1billsfan

[HappyDays]

29 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

When it comes to QB passing yards, they don't. But those punting yards are huge!

 

Correct.

 

Passing yards have a 0.16 win correlation which essentially means no correlation:

 

http://www.footballperspective.com/correlating-passing-stats-with-wins/

 

Opponent average starting field position has a 0.45 win correlation which is a moderate positive correlation:

 

http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2011/12/how-important-is-opponent-starting.html?m=1

 

I know you don’t care about stats but this one is actually inarguable.

Edited November 22, 2017 by HappyDays