Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Just now, GoBills808 said:

Fair point. However, equally frustrating are the people blaming other players for things that ARE Taylor's fault, like someone did earlier in this thread on the O'Leary endzone throw.

 

I guess I don't notice them because I don't hold hatred for Tyrod.   I have no other explanation for why I don't notice them.  

 

Well, I guess I have seen some praise here and there that was over the top, but it wasn't people volunteering that praise unprovoked day after day thread after thread post after post.

 

It was one or two guys saying it and then moving on.

 

The negative stuff however is day after day, thread after thread, post after post - and it's about a guy who is very, very likely heading out the door.   Get me?

 

And the negative stuff gets so over the top and so overdone that it provokes people to come out and defend against it - which then makes it look like everyone loves the guy - which they don't.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, PolishDave said:

 

 

How is it that you single out Tyrod for this.      Dennison is old enough to be Tyrod's father.   And he is the coach.    What about the QB coach?   What about the head coach?   Why aren't you sharing the blame where it belongs?

 

Tyrod could have noticed it sure.   But friggin nobody did.   And those other guys have WAY more experience than Tyrod breaking down defenses.    You are blaming Tyrod just because you are a hater.   You aren't being objective about it at all.   Realistically it is a complete COACHING fail.    

 

If the coaches come out and say they did notice it and did integrate that into the game plan and Tyrod just ignored it, well then okay - Tyrod's fault.   I didn't hear anyone say that.  Did you?

 

I hate defending Tyrod now because I think he flat out sucked in that game.   You bastards make it impossible to ignore though because of your incessant blame on him for anything and everything that isn't Tom Brady perfect.   WTF man?  WTF?

he's one of the worst to talk to around here when it comes to being rational about taylor. don't bother with him.....

 

and your last statement is exactly how I feel. I don't even like going to bat for taylor becuz I've been soooo over him for so long now but there are certain people that say the most idiotic things and then I find myself arguing for taylor over and over again. you hit the nail on the head with all of this post.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

Thats why I posted right after the game that I don't know how McD watches that game film and doesn't come out wanting a new QB. 

 

If Taylor is on this team next season McD will take the heat for Taylor sucking and also making over 16 mil.

I think it's been pretty obvious for a while that they intend to find a new QB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, PolishDave said:

 

I don't know this for a fact, but something tells me that the offense Baltimore ran back when Dennison worked with Tyrod there as a QB coach was not the same offense that Dennison ran this year.    I honestly don't know.   My intuition tells me it is extremely unlikely.

 

The one advantage with bringing in Dennison should have been - that he knows Tyrods strengths and weaknesses already.  Therefore he should be better prepared to design an offense that Tyrod can execute well.

 

 

 

 

 

From my Ravens fans perspective, it's all on Tyrod.  They said when he was there with Dennison his problem wasn't exactly the same problem that we experience in Buffalo where TT is timid but it is indicative of it.  His problem in Baltimore was he took off too much.  He made the one read and took off.  Here, he just seems very timid at times.  I'm not sure what that is or why that is.

 

I'm not into bashing TT.  I've seen him do better than this season. 

Edited by NewEraBills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, PolishDave said:

 

Well, I guess I have seen some praise here and there that was over the top, but it wasn't people volunteering that praise unprovoked day after day thread after thread post after post.

 

PolishDave meet transplant, transplant meet PolishDave.  

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

PolishDave meet transplant, transplant meet PolishDave.  

Right on man.

 

I like how I am the bad guy all the time, how dare I say anything bad about the all mighty savior, the great playoff QB that took us single handedly to the playoffs and does no wrong. Never the QBs fault in this passing league, always everyone elses. 3 years running. How dare I have a different opinion.

Edited by xRUSHx
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

PolishDave meet transplant, transplant meet PolishDave.  

 

Ahh yes.  He does go over the top.  I have noticed that.   I honestly don't read most of what he writes because it is usually WAY too long.

 

1 minute ago, xRUSHx said:

 the all mighty savior

 

That guy is here too.   I think he is a Peterman fan. :lol:

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PolishDave said:

 

Ahh yes.  He does go over the top.  I have noticed that.   I honestly don't read most of what he writes because it is usually WAY too long.

 

That is why many go over the top on him because of those threads. I guess if you do not read them you wouldn't understand.

 

I agree with you saying it gets frustrating trying to explain in a MB.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NewEraBills said:

From my Ravens fans perspective, it's all on Tyrod.  They said when he was there with Dennison his problem wasn't exactly the same problem that we experience in Buffalo where TT is timid but it is indicative of it.  His problem in Baltimore was he took off too much.  He made the one read and took off.  Here, he just seems very timid at times.  I'm not sure what that is or why that is.

 

I get what you are saying.

 

I just don't understand how that has anything to do with or relates at all to whether Baltimore ran the same offense then that Buffalo is running now?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, PolishDave said:

 

I get what you are saying.

 

I just don't understand how that has anything to do with or relates at all to whether Baltimore ran the same offense then that Buffalo is running now?

 

I'd think the concepts that TT picked up then are the same.  I'm just guessing.  Some of the formations are the same (not guessing).  I'd think many of the checks are the same.  Also would think the verbiage is very similar.  But I'm just guessing.

Edited by NewEraBills

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still think Dennison is garbage but the game was called well.  But l, still garbage.  I just don't like hjm

 

I saw a lot of cover 3. I didn't recognize it at first because they appeared to show cover/tampa2 then walk the safety up to cover 3, sometimes backing the CB's off.  Taylor has not been able to read a field well, we all know that.  So Dennison still letting Taylor get these plays where he would see the defense shift pre snap was frustrating.

 

That's on Dennison. He needs to coach to his players. Taylor is incapable of adjustments in the field in most situations.  I don't doubt for a minute I can read a defense better than he can, hell, I was doing it the whole game from the stands.

 

What needs to happen is simple. If they're both staying they need a lot of time together. Dennison just doesn't get it and Taylor is incapable. If Dennison stays we will need such a specific type of QB that we will be limited if we can even identify one.  This is a disaster of a scheme and Dennison must go.  Taylor gives us a better chance to win than he does and that's sad!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, NewEraBills said:

 

I'd think the concepts that TT picked up then are the same.  I'm just guessing.  Some of the formations are the same (not guessing).  I'd think many of the checks are the same.  Also would think the verbiage is very similar.  But I'm just guessing.

 

Gotcha.  I'm out of likes and thanks for the day.   So I couldn't leave you one.

 

I think I have invested WAAAY too much of my life on this board in the last 24 hours.  Yikes!

 

My god.   What is wrong with me? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just say this:  I'm not saying Dennison is good or bad.  I've seen TT be better than he was in this offense.  Where the disconnect is I do not know.  All I know is from what I see.  And I see guys open at times.  I see guys not open at times.  I see a QB who's body language has not exuded any confidence since preseason and who has been very timid at times.  That's what I see.  I don't know all of the stuff going on that is playing into that.  I see a coordinator who's had previous dealings with this same guy using similar formations, route concepts.  Don't know if the verbiage is exact, but not sure why it would be different if it's the same coordinator??  I see a guy struggling in something that from just putting the puzzle together in my head, he already has experience with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, xRUSHx said:

Right on man.

 

I like how I am the bad guy all the time, how dare I say anything bad about the all mighty savior, the great playoff QB that took us single handedly to the playoffs and does no wrong. Never the QBs fault in this passing league, always everyone elses. 3 years running. How dare I have a different opinion.

exactly what I was referring to. thanks for this.

 

you live in extremes. and this is honestly how you see it anytime anyone takes up for the guy. you cant talk about him rationally. literally nobody claims the bolded on this board but anytime somebody has called you on your dramatic over the top nonsense about him you go into this worthless diatribe.

 

that being said. i'm waiting with anticipation to see the direction they go with the position this year. its time to turn the page..... its just not nearly the sad story you make it out to be. not even close.

 

EDIT: FTR I get some of it may be sarcasm but at what point, after you literally do it all the time, is it not considered sarcasm anymore? 

Edited by Stank_Nasty
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to see an analysis of QBs(and especially Taylor) by coverages faced...both known and disguised. 

 

For instance it could show long term patterns with various QB who struggle versus different coverage concepts as well as those who struggle with disguised coverages(ie, the D shows one thing pre snap and then changes post snap).

 

I'm sure teams break things down in this manner but I am unsure why we have never seen analysts break down QBs in this manner...it would be pretty helpful to know what they struggle with and excel at...

 

If I had access to the All-22 and enough time I'd do it myself but this would be a massive undertaking.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

exactly what I was referring to. thanks for this.

 

you live in extremes. and this is honestly how you see it anytime anyone takes up for the guy. you cant talk about him rationally. literally nobody claims the bolded on this board but anytime somebody has called you on your dramatic over the top nonsense about him you go into this worthless diatribe.

 

that being said. i'm waiting with anticipation to see the direction they go with the position this year. its time to turn the page..... its just not nearly the sad story you make it out to be. not even close.

 

EDIT: FTR I get some of it may be sarcasm but at what point, after you literally do it all the time, is it not considered sarcasm anymore? 

Yeah not even close. Rational is one thing but the name calling is ok as long as it geared toward the posters you do not like, right?. I get it man the best way to shut up the negative is to discredit them and throw in a few name calling, it's the same tactic used on the BBMB and brought over here.

 

Extremes is your post it had nothing to do with you but yet here you are doing the COT pile on about a negative post on Tyrod. I take things I have seen posted on this board and BBMB about Tyrod, the extreams are huge on how some post on him.Have a good day

Edited by xRUSHx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, xRUSHx said:

Yeah not even close. Rational is one thing but the name calling is ok as long as it geared toward the posters you do not like, right?. I get it man the best way to shut up the negative is to discredit them and throw in a few name calling, it's the same tactic used on the BBMB and brought over here. Have a good day.

i'm fairly certain I didn't use any names for you in either of my posts here that had anything to do with you. am I missing something? 

 

was it the Pollock calling the lot of you bastards? lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

i'm fairly certain I didn't use any names for you in either of my posts here that had anything to do with you. am I missing something? 

 

was it the Pollock calling the lot of you bastards? lol

Let it go man, your little finger pointing at me is taking over a good thread posted by the OP. Sorry OP for the rant back and forth

  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

I still think Dennison is garbage but the game was called well.  But l, still garbage.  I just don't like hjm

 

I saw a lot of cover 3. I didn't recognize it at first because they appeared to show cover/tampa2 then walk the safety up to cover 3, sometimes backing the CB's off.  Taylor has not been able to read a field well, we all know that.  So Dennison still letting Taylor get these plays where he would see the defense shift pre snap was frustrating.

 

That's on Dennison. He needs to coach to his players. Taylor is incapable of adjustments in the field in most situations.  I don't doubt for a minute I can read a defense better than he can, hell, I was doing it the whole game from the stands.

 

What needs to happen is simple. If they're both staying they need a lot of time together. Dennison just doesn't get it and Taylor is incapable. If Dennison stays we will need such a specific type of QB that we will be limited if we can even identify one.  This is a disaster of a scheme and Dennison must go.  Taylor gives us a better chance to win than he does and that's sad!

In baseball you can be the best pitching coach in the game but if your pitcher lacks control no amount of good coaching is going to overcome that deficiency. In basketball you can be the best coach in the game but if your point guard doesn't have good vision and instincts the coaching is not going to compensate for that crushing deficiency. A teacher can stone cold know his/her subject matter. However, if the teacher lacks communication skills and is a dullard his knowledge is not going to be imparted to the students who will certainly be sleeping or playing with their devices at their desks. You can be greatest boxing trainer in the business. But if the boxer you are working with has clumsy feet, slow hands and nonexistent boxing tactics he is going to get his faced punched in regardless of the instructions he is getting from his corner

 

It doesn't matter how smart an OC is and how brilliant a game plan he can design. If your qb is inaccurate, lacks vision, can't make anticipatory throws and can't function within the pocket no amount of coaching is going to overcome such a flawed qb.  Greg Roman was a credible OC. Dennison is a credible OC. Neither is innovative or elite but both fall within the range of being reasonably competent.  Neither succeeded in elevating or at the minimum adequately managing the qb's limitations because of the inherit flaws of the qb each had to work with. When the opposition has you figured out and you have no flexibility to work outside of your small box then what do you expect? 

 

If Dennison had a credible qb to work with and it didn't work out then he is open to be criticized. That would be fair. But under the restrictive circumstances he had to deal with he had little chance to succeed. And so would any replacement coach who had to deal with the same circumstances!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnC said:

In baseball you can be the best pitching coach in the game but if your pitcher lacks control no amount of good coaching is going to overcome that deficiency. In basketball you can be the best coach in the game but if your point guard doesn't have good vision and instincts the coaching is not going to compensate for that crushing deficiency. A teacher can stone cold know his/her subject matter. However, if the teacher lacks communication skills and is a dullard his knowledge is not going to be imparted to the students who will certainly be sleeping or playing with their devices at their desks. You can be greatest boxing trainer in the business. But if the boxer you are working with has clumsy feet, slow hands and nonexistent boxing tactics he is going to get his faced punched in regardless of the instructions he is getting from his corner

 

It doesn't matter how smart an OC is and how brilliant a game plan he can design. If your qb is inaccurate, lacks vision, can't make anticipatory throws and can't function within the pocket no amount of coaching is going to overcome such a flawed qb.  Greg Roman was a credible OC. Dennison is a credible OC. Neither is innovative or elite but both fall within the range of being reasonably competent.  Neither succeeded in elevating or at the minimum adequately managing the qb's limitations because of the inherit flaws of the qb each had to work with. When the opposition has you figured out and you have no flexibility to work outside of your small box then what do you expect? 

 

If Dennison had a credible qb to work with and it didn't work out then he is open to be criticized. That would be fair. But under the restrictive circumstances he had to deal with he had little chance to succeed. And so would any replacement coach who had to deal with the same circumstances!

Good post man

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, PolishDave said:

 And he probably eats wings with a knife and fork.

 

 

 

Not sure about the wings but I heard he ate his candy bars with a knife and fork.

 

Heathcliff (AKA Polish Paul)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, JohnC said:

In baseball you can be the best pitching coach in the game but if your pitcher lacks control no amount of good coaching is going to overcome that deficiency. In basketball you can be the best coach in the game but if your point guard doesn't have good vision and instincts the coaching is not going to compensate for that crushing deficiency. A teacher can stone cold know his/her subject matter. However, if the teacher lacks communication skills and is a dullard his knowledge is not going to be imparted to the students who will certainly be sleeping or playing with their devices at their desks. You can be greatest boxing trainer in the business. But if the boxer you are working with has clumsy feet, slow hands and nonexistent boxing tactics he is going to get his faced punched in regardless of the instructions he is getting from his corner

 

It doesn't matter how smart an OC is and how brilliant a game plan he can design. If your qb is inaccurate, lacks vision, can't make anticipatory throws and can't function within the pocket no amount of coaching is going to overcome such a flawed qb.  Greg Roman was a credible OC. Dennison is a credible OC. Neither is innovative or elite but both fall within the range of being reasonably competent.  Neither succeeded in elevating or at the minimum adequately managing the qb's limitations because of the inherit flaws of the qb each had to work with. When the opposition has you figured out and you have no flexibility to work outside of your small box then what do you expect? 

 

If Dennison had a credible qb to work with and it didn't work out then he is open to be criticized. That would be fair. But under the restrictive circumstances he had to deal with he had little chance to succeed. And so would any replacement coach who had to deal with the same circumstances!

Business at 29 South West

 

I fully disagree, with all due respect. I see it  to I-85 business US 29 South US 70 West as a coach should be able to work to the best of his roster regardless of lack of quality. Dennis and spent the entire season trying to cram a roundpeg into a square hole. He was unable to find what work for this team when anyone of us on this board so I wasn't working he kept doing it over and over again. His insistence to use tolbert's, his lack of ability to recognize The Limited role of our receivers, the inability to create mismatches with Charles Clay who actually had an outstanding year. ... The list just goes on

 

I saw enough to concern me with Denison as I did when it came to Nate Hackett and his inability to work with what he had on the roster.  Denison needs a Ryan Fitzpatrick. He isn't going to get that or anywhere near that with Tyrod Taylor

 

Further, that he pulled Taylor and put in Peterman when Peterman was not able to play nor ready is a huge indictment of what he can do as a coach. If he could not recognize what was coming out a practice with Peterman then I don't know what to say, and it's clear he did not see it. When I spoke with bills officials and people that cover this team in private at various events in the games I went to I was told that Peterman was not going to be ready this year he just wasn't catching on to the system and to the speed of the NFL. The same people said he has the upside of a career backup similar to that of Reich rt or Ryan Fitzpatrick. But they said it was glaringly obvious that he would be unable to contribute this year

 

Further that is backed up by more information I receive towards the end of the year which holds true to the rumors we heard, that players were not happy with Peterman playing in that San Diego game which is why we saw such a piss-poor performance by the team. Everyone knew why Taylor was benched, including the team. He isn't the best quarterback in the league and he's towards the bottom half more so than the top half. 

 

That's just plain fact but he's the best we had and I can't expect better because I've seen 3 years of his play. But I can expect someone who has the acclimation that Dennis and does to be able to contribute more to this team than what was done

 

Further, I'm fine with Taylor in 2018. People talk about him being one of the highest paid quarterbacks in the top 20, but that doesn't take into consideration how many quarterbacks are on rookie deals

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Tommy said:

Regarding the separation of our receivers, I saw a chart yesterday on Twitter from (I believe) Matt Harmon, who writes for NFL.com and other outlets. The chart contained "next gen stats" and indicated average yards of separation of WRs at the time of QB release for all 32 teams. The Buffalo Bills were dead last in this metric. One interesting note was that the Chiefs were #1.

 

It's an interesting metric, but I'm not sure what it means.  For example, are the Chiefs #1 because Smith lofts them to Hill a lot and at ball release, he's already 5 yards past the nearest DB?  If another team has minimal separation, does it matter if they have a QB who is willing and able to thread the needle through the smallest hole, or a big tall WR who is always open 2 feet over his head? 

 

What seemed evident from the start of the season is that the Bills didn't have any WR who were able to gain separation TT was comfortable with, and once Clay was injured, Well Then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PolishDave said:

Excellent well thought out and well explained post!

 

Coaching is more than just desigigning a scheme that can work.   You have to teach your guys to execute it too.   That is like at least half of the coaches' duties.   If the players can't execute what you are telling them to do, well then you aren't doing your job well enough.  You either aren't teaching them or you are asking them to do too much.

 

People like to just blame the players for lack of execution.  That is only fair if you think all players are superstars and should be able to execute anything thrown at them.    There probably aren't more than 3 or 4 players on each team that can execute anything thrown at them.   The truth is - different guys have different things they are good and bad at. 

 

It is up to the coach to devise a system they can execute and teach them to execute it exceptionally well.

 

This again lends more weight to the idea of simplifying everything until you can execute all the basic stuff really well.   Then build on that and complicate things more as you go on.   

 

But most coaches (in my guestimation) start right out with complicated stuff and keep trying to run it even when their team has proven they can't execute it.  And say the players just aren't good enough.   Maybe they aren't.   But if they aren't, it is at least partially the coaches' fault.

 

Does anyone think that this BIlls' offense is executing these plays with a high degree of success in practice?   I don't.   At least not against live fire action.    Maybe in walk throughs.     Because how could you possibly suck that bad in the game if you are executing them well in practice?

 

Thanks for the kind word.

 

I seem to remember Gailey, in his 3rd year as HC, talking about how the offense had progressed from his first year - he started simple and added on.  Perhaps that's why he got some performance out of his "goonie" WR.  I think a lot of coaches do just as you say: "here's the playbook, get ready go".

 

It's certainly fair to blame the players for lack of execution sometimes, sure, but it's also fair to ask if the coach is asking them to do something beyond their physical capabilities or their comfort with the system sometimes, because if they have to think about what to do for a fraction of a second, that's all it takes to get blown back off the line.

 

Perhaps the players are executing well in practice - I hope they are - but the guys they're executing against during the season are the backups and the taxi squad.  Anyone think there might be a bit of difference between blocking Cap Capi and blocking Myles Jack?  I'm going to go out on a limb here and say the former equates to running 1/2 or 2/3 the speed of the latter during a game.  Whoo hoo, my OL can block a borderline player, tell Von Miller "Bring It!"

 

5 hours ago, NewEraBills said:

To me this is not completely accurate.  Tyrod has played in this offense before.  Dennison was his QB coach in Baltimore.  This is what is so infuriating about it.  The Dennison hire was actually good on the surface because this was a guy your QB that you brought back had already worked with.  Why TT struggled in an offense he was supposed to already familiar be with I do not know.  But it is what it is at this point.

 

NewEra, there are a bunch of assumptions here. 

 

First, as you say, Dennison was the QB coach; Kubiak was the OC.  You're making the assumption that the system Dennison installed on his own as OC here in 2017 is exactly the same as the system Kubiak ran in Baltimore in 2014.  Chances are the terminology is different, and chances are Dennison wanted to try his own wrinkles now free from Kubiak. 

 

Second, sure, Taylor learned the system during Ravens OTA and training camp.  But during the season, he was the practice squad QB; he wasn't getting to execute the system, he was learning to simulate the offense they'd face each week.

 

Third, in a given offensive system, there are literally 1000s of plays, but the OC will pull maybe 100 to focus on, and put maybe 25-35 in the game plan that week.  So even if the system and terminology were identical or very close, the plays being focused on could be different enough that there's not a lot of familiarity.

 

Linking the two posts together, maybe that's part of the problem...maybe Dennison felt he was working with a smart hardworking guy who already knew his system so he could unlock a lot of the playbook, but in reality Taylor was much less grounded than he thought.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×