Jump to content
Hapless Bills Fan

All-22 of Bills-Jags from Cover1

Recommended Posts

3 hours 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!

 

It may not be all on Taylor.  One of the evals of N'Orleans-Bills [by a contributor to Cover1 - not  Nate, sorry I forget who] made a point that Dennison was calling a lot of plays that were GREAT cover3 beaters - except the Saints were actually running Tampa-2, and it took well into the second half for Dennison to adjust what he was calling.  Maybe the word is out, you can fool the Bills OC into calling poor plays for your coverage, and then if you shift it again at the LOS, Taylor will totally miss the read.

 

I don't doubt you can read the D (from the stands) better than Taylor but then, you're not standing on the field with nothing but Vlad and Mills between you, Malik Jackson, and Yannick Ngakoue.  The degree of difficulty would seem to rise in that latter situation.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Haven't seen this linked here, excuse if I missed it.

 

Analysis of Bills-Jaguars by Cover1's Nate Turner

http://www.cover1.net/execution-comes-up-short-against-a-talented-jaguars-defense/

The bottom line doesn't change: Any time your defense holds the opponent to 10 points, you should win the game.  But some good stuff there I haven't seen elsewhere, such as the Jags using some obvious and snipeable defensive signals (Cover-3 and Palms) coverage that we missed.

 

He gives Dennison props for having enough in the game plan to win and puts a lot on the players for not executing.  On the one hand, sure - Taylor especially, the drops, the penalty calling back Shady's run.  On the other hand, if someone has been lacking at something all season, why ask them to do it in a playoff game?  If blocking assignments have been an issue for your OL all season and you haven't been calling traps, do you really want to dust off a trap just so's you can watch them mess it up?  Dance with what brung ya I say.   

 

Again, bottom line, our D came through, we had good enough talent and offensive game plan to win, we were just a handful of successful plays short.  Nate puts it mostly on Taylor, and maybe it belongs there.  OTOH, Nate is a clever analyst, and clever analysts appreciate clever play concepts by clever offensive coordinators - which is great provided the team has the right pieces to pull it off.  Sometimes it's better to KISS and stick to the things your men can execute really well.  Maybe that wouldn't have worked either.

 

Good read, have a look.

 

I've been saying this for quite a while now, as I've seen plenty in the game plan that allows us to win. It's just execution that falls short. It's why I don't feel strongly about getting rid of Dennison, as too many plays are left on the field each game. It's not just 1 play here or there, it's a lot of them...seemingly on every drive. It's just frustrating to not know how good the offense COULD be if the correct plays on the field were made.

Share this post


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

Players learn just as much from a busted play as they do a successful one, maybe even more. This off-season Peterman and the rookie QB can study game film of this offense in real NFL games and learn exactly what to do/not to do, while observing tendencies of players who are actually on their team. 2017 was an installation year and the experience is going to make the 2018 learning curve that much smaller.

 

Agree to disagree about the game plan. Calling only the plays that your QB is comfortable with eventually gets super predictable. They may have been even worse off with that kind of approach. Maybe Tyrod didn't even want that, anyway. Maybe he's pushing himself to take the next step. Who knows.

 

Dennison designed a game plan that could beat the Jags' #1 defense. They prepared that game plan all week. The players aren't surprised by the calls. They know what they have to do and the responsibility is on them to get it done. Seeing successful play designs gives me hope that they could put up a lot of points on any defense with the right QB. 

 

Yes, we can agree to disagree.  The SB Bills did eventually get predictable - but until then, they ran a small set of plays and ran them really really well.  What Taylor wants or doesn't want is immaterial.  What's important is to put the players in the right position to win, we all agree on that.

 

My point is it isn't sufficient to prep a great game plan all week and practice.  The guy drawing it up must consider what his guys can absorb and what they are able to do well and at playoff game speed.  It's not an accident that when players on teams that turn it around are asked "what did Coach New do differently than Coach Old that helped?" the most popular answer seems to be "simplify".  Anthony Lynn said the best advice he got from a trusted pundit was "throw out half your game plan".   This isn't some notion I just dreamt.

 

Unless we trade for Cousins, "the right QB" isn't going to spring into our laps full-bore.  He is going to need to be led and developed.  Plans will need to be limited and simplified.  Will Dennison do this?  I don't know, but based on this season, the answer may be "Here's our game plan.  We got all these great plays that can really work!  Bring your hoist!" (to carry it home for study).

 

5 hours ago, NewEraBills said:

Hapless Bill I get what you are saying but I'd take a slightly different take.  You ask why call a trap?  You call a trap because when you looked on film you noticed that it was one of the running plays that the Jags struggled with tremendously.  They don't struggle with much in this department, but they do struggle with the trap.  So your run game coordinator looks at that and says he Rick, here is what I seen them struggle with.  Your run game coordinator trusts that his guys can run that play.  That's why the play is called.  It's not just Dennison at play here.

 

It's necessary, but not sufficient to draw up plays that your opponent will struggle with.  You also got to consider your guys familiarity, what they're able to do.  If the run game coordinator and OL coach trusted his guys could run that play, then his trust was misplaced. That begs the question "Why?"  Two possible reasons: Either the coaches aren't spending enough time hands-on with their guys so they get an accurate read, or they're throwing too much at them.   

 

Either way, though, the buck stops with Dennison for the offense.

 

In the case of the Jags, their D was 21st for most rush yards given up, so I doubt "they don't struggle with much" was too accurate.

 

4 hours ago, NewEraBills said:

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

 

Indeed. 

Guessing that the "one read and run" vs "timid" are related aspects: he struggles to read the D, so if his first read's not there, his gut instinct is haul down and scamper.  He's been told in no uncertain terms that he'd better progress his reads, but he doubts what he sees and hesitates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Boyst62 said:

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

Your response is well thought out and clearly expressed. However, I strenuously disagree with the general theme of it. No one is making the case that the Peterman decision to start in the Charger game was in hindsight the right thing to do. But I'm one of the few posters here who had no problem with going with a different qb. The replacement wasn't a testament to Peterman's readiness as much as it was a testament to Taylor's struggles over the previous number of games. After seeing during the games and tape sessions the same mistakes the OC and HC tried something different. Was it an act of desperation? Absolutely!

 

Turning the discussion into who is the better qb or will be a better qb vis a vis Taylor and Peterman is a waste of time. Neither qb is now or in the future will be a franchise qb. That is a simple question for me to answer. That is why I have for years advocated using a high draft pick on a qb.  I have also without equivocation stated that last year the right draft strategy was to take either Mahomes or Watson. Just because JeffisMagic is vilified doesn't mean that he wasn't right in advocating for taking a qb in last year's draft.

 

Make no mistake about what I am saying about Dennison. I'm not declaring him to be some offensive guru who can elevate an offense with his innovation. Because he can't. As an offensive coordinator I consider him to be very uninspiring and average. If you want to criticize him for not adapting better to TT's limited talents then there is some merit to that line of reasoning. But what happened this year that made a limited qb even more ineffective was that the opposition adjusted to Taylor even more than in the past and took away what he did well and forced him to do what he was incapable of doing i.e. being a conventional pro qb.

 

As far as the issue regarding the players being upset with the qb change in the Charger game my response is that I don't care what they think. Ask McCoy after the Jaguar game if he was satisfied with the qbing in a game that was there for the taking? What do you think his response would be? 

 

You may be fine with Taylor on next year's roster but I'm not. It is for his sake and for the team that he get a fresh start somewhere else. I'm confident that this regime will deal him one way or the other and have some one else taking the snaps next year. My recommendation is to bring in a veteran qb and move up in the draft to get a high end prospect. 

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

It may not be all on Taylor.  One of the evals of N'Orleans-Bills [by a contributor to Cover1 - not  Nate, sorry I forget who] made a point that Dennison was calling a lot of plays that were GREAT cover3 beaters - except the Saints were actually running Tampa-2, and it took well into the second half for Dennison to adjust what he was calling.  Maybe the word is out, you can fool the Bills OC into calling poor plays for your coverage, and then if you shift it again at the LOS, Taylor will totally miss the read.

 

I don't doubt you can read the D (from the stands) better than Taylor but then, you're not standing on the field with nothing but Vlad and Mills between you, Malik Jackson, and Yannick Ngakoue.  The degree of difficulty would seem to rise in that latter situation.

I was watching all game and must say I was thrown off by the disguises by the Jags. No wonder Roethlisberger and others have difficulty

 

Several times I swore it was cover 1.  CB's walk to LOS. Or off it. Then it changed to cover 3 under.  

 

They dared us to go deep and I was !@#$ing going nuts to just keep trying to go deep. We did once.  

 

If I can see it from a corner end zone 20soemthing rows up... I'm fairly certain 10 yards in front of you or half a football field in front you at the most is easy.

 

 

Dennison is the biggest part of the problem and the one that needs to be corrected.  Taylor is a problem but I can with him and I'd have been going deep all day.

 

Dennison is a lot of things I dislike. One of them is a coward. He can't be that stupid to not try to go deep with his position. You can't rise to that position being dumb.

 

He and Eric Wood need to go.

1 minute ago, JohnC said:

Your response is well thought out and clearly expressed. However, I strenuously disagree with the general theme of it. No one is making the case that the Peterman decision to start in the Charger game was in hindsight the right thing to do. But I'm one of the few posters here who had no problem with going with a different qb. The replacement wasn't a testament to Peterman's readiness as much as it was a testament to Taylor's struggles over the previous number of games. After seeing during the games and tape sessions the same mistakes the OC and HC tried something different. Was it an act of desperation? Absolutely!

 

Turning the discussion into who is the better qb or will be a better qb vis a vis Taylor and Peterman is a waste of time. Neither qb is now or in the future will be a franchise qb. That is a simple question for me to answer. That is why I have for years advocated using a high draft pick on a qb.  I have also without equivocation stated that last year the right draft strategy was to take either Mahomes or Watson. Just because JeffisMagic is vilified doesn't mean that he wasn't right in advocating for taking a qb in last year's draft.

 

Make no mistake about what I am saying about Dennison. I'm not declaring him to be some offensive guru who can elevate an offense with his innovation. Because he can't. As an offensive coordinator I consider him to be very uninspiring and average. If you want to criticize him for not adapting better to TT's limited talents then there is some merit to that line of reasoning. But what happened this year that made a limited qb even more ineffective was that the opposition adjusted to Taylor even more than in the past and took away what he did well and forced him to do what he was incapable of doing i.e. being a conventional pro qb.

 

As far as the issue regarding the players being upset with the qb change in the Charger game my response is that I don't care what they think. Ask McCoy after the Jaguar game if he was satisfied with the qbing in a game that was there for the taking? What do you think his response would be? 

 

You may be fine with Taylor on next year's roster but I'm not. It is for his sake and for the team that he get a fresh start somewhere else. I'm confident that this regime will deal him one way or the other and have some one else taking the snaps next year. My recommendation is to bring in a veteran qb and move up in the draft to get a high end prospect. 

 

 

There is little I can reply with as I agree with where you're coming from

 

My biggest frustration is why he wanted to start Peterman in that game.

 

After I return a PM to Hopless make sure I PM you some details of that that are not fit for open discussion

Share this post


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

I was watching all game and must say I was thrown off by the disguises by the Jags. No wonder Roethlisberger and others have difficulty

 

Several times I swore it was cover 1.  CB's walk to LOS. Or off it. Then it changed to cover 3 under.  

 

They dared us to go deep and I was !@#$ing going nuts to just keep trying to go deep. We did once.  

 

If I can see it from a corner end zone 20soemthing rows up... I'm fairly certain 10 yards in front of you or half a football field in front you at the most is easy.

 

 

Dennison is the biggest part of the problem and the one that needs to be corrected.  Taylor is a problem but I can with him and I'd have been going deep all day.

 

Dennison is a lot of things I dislike. One of them is a coward. He can't be that stupid to not try to go deep with his position. You can't rise to that position being dumb.

 

He and Eric Wood need to go.

There is little I can reply with as I agree with where you're coming from

 

My biggest frustration is why he wanted to start Peterman in that game.

 

After I return a PM to Hopless make sure I PM you some details of that that are not fit for open discussion

Let's not overstate how damaging the Peterman decision to start in the Charger game was. The Bills were going to lose that game no matter who started. They whipped us from the start. That type of game happens where a good or even poor team outplays a better or even lesser team. The Chargers were laughing and mocking us all through the game. In my view too much is made of that substitution. The OC and HC wanted to change the dynamic from an ineffective starting qb. They took a gamble that didn't work. I'm not bothered by it. The Jacksonville game should demonstrate why the staff did what it did, regardless if it worked or not. 

Edited by JohnC
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours 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

 

Dude...

 

Pollock is a fish

 

You meant to call me a Polak.   Just so we're on the same page. :thumbsup:

Share this post


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

 

Dude...

 

Pollock is a fish

 

You meant to call me a Polak.   Just so we're on the same page. :thumbsup:

HAHAHA. that would be correct. my intelligence shines bright once again.

  • Haha 1

Share this post


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

HAHAHA. that would be correct. my intelligence shines bright once again.

 

Hey I get to leave more smilies again!  Woohoo!   Earlier it told me I was out of them for the day.    Invision software lies! :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Great stuff.

 

Mills was garbage in this game and shouldn’t be a starter in the NFL.

 

Benjamin is either very injured or incredibly disinterested.

 

These receivers and tight ends get zero separation and it was negligent of Beane to let the roster look like this.

 

Mills was so bad,I almost wanted the Bills to play Ducasse at RT. That's sad

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Haven't seen this linked here, excuse if I missed it.

 

Analysis of Bills-Jaguars by Cover1's Nate Turner

http://www.cover1.net/execution-comes-up-short-against-a-talented-jaguars-defense/

The bottom line doesn't change: Any time your defense holds the opponent to 10 points, you should win the game.  But some good stuff there I haven't seen elsewhere, such as the Jags using some obvious and snipeable defensive signals (Cover-3 and Palms) coverage that we missed.

 

He gives Dennison props for having enough in the game plan to win and puts a lot on the players for not executing.  On the one hand, sure - Taylor especially, the drops, the penalty calling back Shady's run.  On the other hand, if someone has been lacking at something all season, why ask them to do it in a playoff game?  If blocking assignments have been an issue for your OL all season and you haven't been calling traps, do you really want to dust off a trap just so's you can watch them mess it up?  Dance with what brung ya I say.   

 

Again, bottom line, our D came through, we had good enough talent and offensive game plan to win, we were just a handful of successful plays short.  Nate puts it mostly on Taylor, and maybe it belongs there.  OTOH, Nate is a clever analyst, and clever analysts appreciate clever play concepts by clever offensive coordinators - which is great provided the team has the right pieces to pull it off.  Sometimes it's better to KISS and stick to the things your men can execute really well.  Maybe that wouldn't have worked either.

 

Good read, have a look.

I thought his name was Erik Turner and I'm not a fan of that guy.  He doesn't take criticism well and will block you if you dare challenge him.  Lame.  Won't support Cover 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, BuffaloRush said:

I thought his name was Erik Turner and I'm not a fan of that guy.  He doesn't take criticism well and will block you if you dare challenge him.  Lame.  Won't support Cover 1

 

You're right I'm wrong and I should have checked.  Me bad.

 

I know nothing about how he takes criticism or who he blocks when why.  But he knows his football. 

 

No obligation to read this thread.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Your response is well thought out and clearly expressed. However, I strenuously disagree with the general theme of it. No one is making the case that the Peterman decision to start in the Charger game was in hindsight the right thing to do. But I'm one of the few posters here who had no problem with going with a different qb. The replacement wasn't a testament to Peterman's readiness as much as it was a testament to Taylor's struggles over the previous number of games. After seeing during the games and tape sessions the same mistakes the OC and HC tried something different. Was it an act of desperation? Absolutely!

 

 

I think there are two issues kind of being merged here.  One is "was it a problem to try a QB change?"  No, no it was not.  Taylor was struggling, the offense was stuck.  In the abstract, I have no problem with it, provided it's change that you think gives you at least as good or better a shot to win as Taylor (that was, and remains, the contention of McDermott and Dennison - Peterman gave them their best chance to win).

 

The second is "was Peterman realistically ready to start in an NFL game?".  In hindsight, the answer is no, but Boyst is saying he's got gouge that from practice, people in the facility knew he was not, and certainly not a normal, full offensive game plan.

 

That leaves us with two possibilities:

1) Either McDermott/Dennison knew he was not ready, and are lieing to us like rugs or

2) They're telling the truth, and one or both of them calls his competence into question if he couldn't recognize what other folks in the building knew and the rest of the nation learned

 

If they did want to try a change (or had to start him due to injury) do what other teams have done with rookies  - simplify the game plan, ask him to hand off the ball and make low-risk, high-probability throws.  I know, I know: we can't modify the Sacred System for One Player (Hapless bangs head on wall)

 

Look, if you're not a liar and you actually do have player personnel evaluation chops and you're fed up with Taylor, bring someone in.  Trade for someone before the deadline.  Snipe someone off a Practice Squad and check him out.  Sign Shaun freakin' Hill.  Just don't throw a not-ready rookie to the wolves.  It's not good for anyone - not the team, not the record, and not the rookie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, BuffaloMatt said:

O'leary wasn't just missed, it looked like he was throwing the ball to the third row. That play and the 1st and goal on the 1/2 yard line sealed our fate.

The game was zero zero and in the first half.

O’Leary drop on third down was more critical.

 

But dam that was a terrible seam throw too

Edited by Dadonkadonk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think there are two issues kind of being merged here.  One is "was it a problem to try a QB change?"  No, no it was not.  Taylor was struggling, the offense was stuck.  In the abstract, I have no problem with it, provided it's change that you think gives you at least as good or better a shot to win as Taylor (that was, and remains, the contention of McDermott and Dennison - Peterman gave them their best chance to win).

 

The second is "was Peterman realistically ready to start in an NFL game?".  In hindsight, the answer is no, but Boyst is saying he's got gouge that from practice, people in the facility knew he was not, and certainly not a normal, full offensive game plan.

 

That leaves us with two possibilities:

1) Either McDermott/Dennison knew he was not ready, and are lieing to us like rugs or

2) They're telling the truth, and one or both of them calls his competence into question if he couldn't recognize what other folks in the building knew and the rest of the nation learned

 

If they did want to try a change (or had to start him due to injury) do what other teams have done with rookies  - simplify the game plan, ask him to hand off the ball and make low-risk, high-probability throws.  I know, I know: we can't modify the Sacred System for One Player (Hapless bangs head on wall)

 

Look, if you're not a liar and you actually do have player personnel evaluation chops and you're fed up with Taylor, bring someone in.  Trade for someone before the deadline.  Snipe someone off a Practice Squad and check him out.  Sign Shaun freakin' Hill.  Just don't throw a not-ready rookie to the wolves.  It's not good for anyone - not the team, not the record, and not the rookie.

What I am about to say is the same thing I have told Boyst62, the Carolina Rasputin. Too much was made of the decision and game. The potential HOF qb, Rivers, was making beautiful passes all day long. He was having so much fun that he was yucking it up all game long. The Bills were thoroughly outclassed in that game. It didn't matter who was going to start and who was going to be substituted. Rivers was dynamic while our qbs (collectively) were impotent. Those type of games happen throughout the league. Lesser teams dominating better teams and better teams playing at a higher level than normal.

 

What I also stated to Boyst62 that is missed when discussing that decision is the context. The backdrop to that desperate decision was that the running qb had a string of ineffective games where not only did he play poorly but he couldn't execute the offense. So a change was made. You can disagree with the decision but there was an understandable rationale behind it. Anyone who watched the play of Taylor in the Jacksonville should be more receptive and understanding to that desperate player change. I'll go even so far as to say that if Peterman started in the playoff game the Bills would have had a better chance to win. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Along with John I don’t disagree with the gamble to start Nate.  

 

The 3 game offensive slopfest was then matched with the 3rd defensive slopfest. 

 

The rookie was way overmatched and  imo Taylor wouldn’t have produced any points until the Chargers D let up later in the game. aka garbage time.  

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 I'll go even so far as to say that if Peterman started in the playoff game the Bills would have had a better chance to win. 

oh my god. wow..... WOW WOW WOW. 

Edited by Stank_Nasty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

I was watching all game and must say I was thrown off by the disguises by the Jags. No wonder Roethlisberger and others have difficulty

(....)

Dennison is a lot of things I dislike. One of them is a coward. He can't be that stupid to not try to go deep with his position. You can't rise to that position being dumb.

 

I fervently hope Roeth is studying up and able to figure it out this weekend.

 

Taylor's deep ball is good, and he can really let it rip in windy conditions.  But last year I seem to remember Watkins and Goodwin having to slow a bit and come back for it.  This year I can't remember seeing that a single time - it was always over-thrown for the WR.  I'm kind of thinking we don't have a current WR on the roster who can consistently beat his coverage deep.  Either they get jammed up on the line so they're not where Taylor expects them to be during the game, or they just don't have the speed, or both.

 

Perhaps Dennison doesn't go deep this year not because he's a coward, but because he sees in practice it isn't working.

Edited by Hapless Bills Fan

Share this post


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

What I am about to say is the same thing I have told Boyst62, the Carolina Rasputin. Too much was made of the decision and game. The potential HOF qb, Rivers, was making beautiful passes all day long. He was having so much fun that he was yucking it up all game long. The Bills were thoroughly outclassed in that game. It didn't matter who was going to start and who was going to be substituted. Rivers was dynamic while our qbs (collectively) were impotent. Those type of games happen throughout the league. Lesser teams dominating better teams and better teams playing at a higher level than normal.

 

What I also stated to Boyst62 that is missed when discussing that decision is the context. The backdrop to that desperate decision was that the running qb had a string of ineffective games where not only did he play poorly but he couldn't execute the offense. So a change was made. You can disagree with the decision but there was an understandable rationale behind it. Anyone who watched the play of Taylor in the Jacksonville should be more receptive and understanding to that desperate player change. I'll go even so far as to say that if Peterman started in the playoff game the Bills would have had a better chance to win. 

 

John, you've gone too far on this one.  Peterman would've "gotten debacled" in Jacksonville, as Emmitt Smith would say.

Share this post


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

 

Dude...

 

Pollock is a fish

 

You meant to call me a Polak.   Just so we're on the same page. :thumbsup:

 

So a Pollock is a dumb fish?  Never knew until now!

Share this post


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

What I am about to say is the same thing I have told Boyst62, the Carolina Rasputin. Too much was made of the decision and game. The potential HOF qb, Rivers, was making beautiful passes all day long. He was having so much fun that he was yucking it up all game long. The Bills were thoroughly outclassed in that game. It didn't matter who was going to start and who was going to be substituted. Rivers was dynamic while our qbs (collectively) were impotent. Those type of games happen throughout the league. Lesser teams dominating better teams and better teams playing at a higher level than normal.

 

What I also stated to Boyst62 that is missed when discussing that decision is the context. The backdrop to that desperate decision was that the running qb had a string of ineffective games where not only did he play poorly but he couldn't execute the offense. So a change was made. You can disagree with the decision but there was an understandable rationale behind it. Anyone who watched the play of Taylor in the Jacksonville should be more receptive and understanding to that desperate player change. I'll go even so far as to say that if Peterman started in the playoff game the Bills would have had a better chance to win

 

You've certainly checked your judgement at the door with that last statement I bolded.  The Jags pass rush is every bit as potent (or more) as the Chargers, and the Jags secondary coverage is able to be even more confusing - this is the secondary that successfully baited Ben Roeth into 5 picks.  If you say Not-Ready-Nate would give us a better chance, you're either trolling or your football acumen is sunning itself on the beach while you're up north shoveling.

 

As to the rest, given the final statement I'm not sure there's anything here subject to logic and judgement, but for the benefit of anyone reading I'll try:

1) I tell my kid, you can't look at one aspect of a game and think if you change it, everything else is the same.  Per Boyst, the whole team knew from practice that Nate was Not Ready and was playing demoralized and demotivated.  Judging from how he played, it's not hard to believe that the team knew he would struggle, especially given the game plan he was given.  You can't mentally take Peterman out, plug Taylor in, and say otherwise it's the same game.

2) See analysis of N'Orleans game.  Seriously, you may not agree, but if you haven't read this, read it.

3) Ultimately, the point is not whether we dominated or were dominated in that game - it's the JUDGEMENT SHOWN BY BEANE McDERMOTT AND DENNISON in reaching the point to make what you (who support it) correctly term a "desperate decision".  Taylor's inability to execute Dennison's offense was not some new thing that sprung up in the Jets and N'Orleans game.  You must know that.  It was strongly evident in Game 2 and Game 4 (Panthers and Bengals).  In fact, the difference in the Jets and N'Orleans games was not Taylor, but the impotence of our rushing defense giving up 3-4x the yardage of previous weeks, and that's NOT on Taylor.  So why wait until Game 10 to discover that "hey, Taylor sucks in this O and we got to do something, anything, even throw a rookie QB who's known to be not ready into the shredder?" when people with eyes have seen it since Week 2?  That's my point.

 

I analogize a bit to piloting decisions.  I am an amateur pilot, and I study decision making and chains of causation in accidents.  Usually when a pilot makes a desperate decision that either saves the day or ends badly, it's because of a chain of faulty information and decisions that have put them in the place where they are "boxed in" and perceive themselves as having no choice but to make that decision.  But that's BS.  They had choices along the way.

 

PS when Coach Tuesday tells you you've gone too far, you've gone too far.

Edited by Hapless Bills Fan
  • Like 3

Share this post


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

I'll go even so far as to say that if Peterman started in the playoff game the Bills would have had a better chance to win. 

 

What are you basing that guess on - his subpar "Fitzpatrick like" interception when he was put in as QB? :D

 

How many interceptions do you think the Bills needed to throw in order to come out with a win against Jacksonville in that game?  8?  10?   more?

Edited by PolishDave

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, JohnC said:

 

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!

 

He had the same chance to succeed that Roman/Lynn had. Last year we scored 2.9 offensive TDs per game which was good for 7th best in the league (this year it would be tied for 2nd). This year we scored 1.6 offensive TDs per game which is good for 28th best in the league.

 

Same QB, same elite RB, same offensive line. Receivers changed but considering the injuries last year the talent level was about the same. What causes a drop from 7th to 28th if not the coordinator? I don't know why everyone chooses to ignore last year's success when talking about this year's offense, it's as clear as day that there was major regression at every level.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John’s statement while “out there” to some indicates to me that anyone but Taylor could have won that game.  

 

Maybe he should have said EJ would have won that game.  

 

You know it’s bad when fans want INTS over Taylors ineptitude.

 

 

 

It’s almost as if the only one not buying into the process was TT.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I made my above post before seeing the news about Dennison. I'm glad to see the process can still be trusted. That level of regression needs to see consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×