Jump to content
Hapless Bills Fan

All-22 of Bills-Jags from Cover1

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

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.

Yup - not factoring in the difference between the Jax and SD secondaries is a dereliction of duty on John C's part. Seriously, Peterman would have been absolutely embarrassed if he had started that game. He is simply not ready for prime time, and Jax definitely has a prime time D. 

Share this post


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

 

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.

Both Dennison and Taylor have something in common: Neither will be with the team next year. So this topic is moot. 

2 hours ago, PolishDave said:

 

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?

Did you watch the game and see how TT played?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 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. 

 

Of course.  

 

 All those flaming your take must have forgotten the 3 points the other qb led us to 😝

Edited by Teddy KGB

Share this post


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

 

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.

I'm confident that Taylor won't be on the roster next year. So basically this is a moot topic. 

 

As far as criticizing Beane and McDermott's judgment overall they did a splendid job. They got a team that lacked talent and had them overachieving to the point that the team made the playoffs. The first time in more than a generation. In the grand scheme of things when reviewing the season the Charger game had no meaningful impact because the team still made the playoffs. What you and others refuse to acknowledge is that Taylor was replaced because he played poorly in a string of games. You may disagree with the substitution but there was an understandable reason for it i.e. Taylor's poor play in prior games. 

 

As far as using a flying analogy let me add to your pilot example. If you performed at the level that Taylor played for us you wouldn't be posting here because you would have crashed and burned yourself to the land of perpetual rest. 

6 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

Of course.  

 

 All those flaming your take must have forgotten the 3 points the other qb led us to 😝

In time the Taylor discussion will end because he won't be on our roster. Taylor and Bortles, combined,  have the historical distinction of being part of the worst display of qbing in the playoffs in modern history. Sometimes you wonder if the defenders even watched the game? From an offensive standpoint it was embarrassing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see Myles Jack singled out a couple times for making plays ... remember the experts here who told us that Shaq Lawson might not have the same talent as Jack, but that Jack's knee wouldn't last half a season?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

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.  

Fans want INTs until it becomes common place.  Fitz threw INTs.  Outside of that he was a good QB.  Just had a weak arm. No one wants Fitz do they? Actually Peterman is a lot like Fitz IMO.  Same picks, same arm, same gunslinger attitude, same good play once in a blue moon.  Difference is that Fitz knows the game better.  I suspect Peterman may end up just like Fitz, but may not last as long and have as good of a career as.

Edited by Scott7975
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

Yup - not factoring in the difference between the Jax and SD secondaries is a dereliction of duty on John C's part. Seriously, Peterman would have been absolutely embarrassed if he had started that game. He is simply not ready for prime time, and Jax definitely has a prime time D. 

 

 

John C is thoughtful but because he just too often chooses to ignore the obvious he is unfortunately rarely insightful.     

 

Peterman is a turnover machine.

 

The primary reason the Bills got to the playoffs..........and were even able to keep the Jags game close......was turnover differential.

 

The Chargers lost to the Jags the game before they played Buffalo.    They then showed on the Bills second offensive series that they weren't too interested in defending the run by giving up the Bills quickest TD drive of the season on 2 handoffs.   But according to a few like John C a blowout loss to them was inevitable....and dammit because Tyrod started in Jax the Bills should have beaten the Jags.   Okeedokee.:doh:

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2018 at 2:42 AM, 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.

Benjamin isn't disinterested, this is what he has been in the NFL this whole career. He doesn't get separation. 

12 hours ago, JohnC said:

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. 

He played. He had a first down, a fumble, an intentional grounding, and an interception.

 

You are wrong. 

Share this post


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

I'm confident that Taylor won't be on the roster next year. So basically this is a moot topic. 

 

As far as criticizing Beane and McDermott's judgment overall they did a splendid job. They got a team that lacked talent and had them overachieving to the point that the team made the playoffs. The first time in more than a generation. In the grand scheme of things when reviewing the season the Charger game had no meaningful impact because the team still made the playoffs. What you and others refuse to acknowledge is that Taylor was replaced because he played poorly in a string of games. You may disagree with the substitution but there was an understandable reason for it i.e. Taylor's poor play in prior games. 

 

As far as using a flying analogy let me add to your pilot example. If you performed at the level that Taylor played for us you wouldn't be posting here because you would have crashed and burned yourself to the land of perpetual rest. 

In time the Taylor discussion will end because he won't be on our roster. Taylor and Bortles, combined,  have the historical distinction of being part of the worst display of qbing in the playoffs in modern history. Sometimes you wonder if the defenders even watched the game? From an offensive standpoint it was embarrassing. 

 

This is extremely disingenuous, John. 

We're discussing McDermott's judgment and Beane's judgment, relevant since they're still here will be next year.  You've made the contention that they had no choice but to make the "desperate decision" to start Not Ready Nate in the Chargers game and that the Bills would have had a better chance to win the Jags game with him. 


It is pointed out that in fact, it could be clearly seen in the Panthers game (Week 2) - not coincidentally, the game in which the Bills scored 3 points and would have won if they added a touchdown - that Tyrod was struggling to execute in this offense.   It is also pointed out that since the Jags secondary and ability to disguise coverage faked a HOF QB (Roeth) into 5 picks, goodness only knows what they could have accomplished with Peterman.

 

Instead of addressing any point made by anyone else, you sidestep. Now it's all a "moot point" because, Taylor.  No, it's not a moot point because, McDermott and Beane judgment.   Could I say more, yes, but frankly, when you refuse to respond in a meaningful way, why should anyone engage with you?  I know you're not a troll, but your insistence on defending an indefensible point and failing to engage or address any counterpoint is the essence of trollish.

 

PS your attempted flying analogy is highly silly

 

Edited by Hapless Bills Fan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Scott7975 said:

Fans want INTs until it becomes common place.  Fitz threw INTs.  Outside of that he was a good QB.  Just had a weak arm. No one wants Fitz do they? Actually Peterman is a lot like Fitz IMO.  Same picks, same arm, same gunslinger attitude, same good play once in a blue moon.  Difference is that Fitz knows the game better.  I suspect Peterman may end up just like Fitz, but may not last as long and have as good of a career as.

Experience does matter.  

 

No no reward without risk. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Elite Poster said:

Benjamin isn't disinterested, this is what he has been in the NFL this whole career. He doesn't get separation. 

He played. He had a first down, a fumble, an intentional grounding, and an interception.

 

I know highlight films are deceptive, but from the Benjamin ones I've watched looks like he gets about 2 feet of separation, straight up over his head.

Also looked like at times, he had to come back for the deep throws from Newton.  Interesting.

 

I don't, obviously, subscribe to the theory that Peterman = better chance in the game, but to be fair, it must be acknowledged that throwing him into the final seconds due to injury was a very tough spot, and not likely to represent the best he could do.

 

1 hour ago, Scott7975 said:

Fans want INTs until it becomes common place.  Fitz threw INTs.  Outside of that he was a good QB.  Just had a weak arm. No one wants Fitz do they? Actually Peterman is a lot like Fitz IMO.  Same picks, same arm, same gunslinger attitude, same good play once in a blue moon.  Difference is that Fitz knows the game better.  I suspect Peterman may end up just like Fitz, but may not last as long and have as good of a career as.

 

Interestingly, in Fitz very first game (in St Louis, where I live), he led a comeback win and flashed all the "competent QB" lights - completion percentage, 3 TD 1 INT, 10.8 AY/A As a result, he was given the next 3 starts in which he threw 1 TD and 7 INTs (he had a 5 INT game in there).    I would have to say Fitz as a rookie > anything Peterman showed as a rookie (better knowledge of the game, better arm, better wheels), but you're absolutely correct in your comparison.  A lot of the same traits - reportedly, great ability to process and recall in the QB room,  trouble making good reads under 'live fire'.

And you're d*mn straight about fan reaction.  I remember when Fitz was the savior from Trentative Edwards with his willingness to throw downfield and take risks - until the INTs mounted.

Edited by Hapless Bills Fan
  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

I know highlight films are deceptive, but from the Benjamin ones I've watched looks like he gets about 2 feet of separation, straight up over his head.

Also looked like at times, he had to come back for the deep throws from Newton.  Interesting.

 

I don't, obviously, subscribe to the theory that Peterman = better chance in the game, but to be fair, it must be acknowledged that throwing him into the final seconds due to injury was a very tough spot, and not likely to represent the best he could do.

 

 

Interestingly, in Fitz very first game (in St Louis, where I live), he led a comeback win and flashed all the "competent QB" lights - completion percentage, 3 TD 1 INT, 10.8 AY/A As a result, he was given the next 3 starts in which he threw 1 TD and 7 INTs (he had a 5 INT game in there).    I would have to say Fitz as a rookie > anything Peterman showed as a rookie (better knowledge of the game, better arm, better wheels), but you're absolutely correct in your comparison.  A lot of the same traits - reportedly, great ability to process and recall in the QB room,  trouble making good reads under 'live fire'.

And you're d*mn straight about fan reaction.  I remember when Fitz was the savior from Trentative Edwards with his willingness to throw downfield and take risks - until the INTs mounted.

 

Solid post

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Scott7975 said:

Fans want INTs until it becomes common place.  Fitz threw INTs.  Outside of that he was a good QB.  Just had a weak arm. No one wants Fitz do they? Actually Peterman is a lot like Fitz IMO.  Same picks, same arm, same gunslinger attitude, same good play once in a blue moon.  Difference is that Fitz knows the game better.  I suspect Peterman may end up just like Fitz, but may not last as long and have as good of a career as.

 

I agree.

 

I doubt Peterman will ever be as good as Fitzpatrick is/was.   Fitz was plagued by subpar arm strength and accuracy issues.    Even so, he played with such guts and effort that he was able to hang around in the league.    He was just good enough to keep getting another chance to break through to the upside.   He just couldn't get there.   His physical skill peaked out short of what it takes to make it.

 

Personally, I don't think Peterman will ever get the opportunities that Fitz did.   I say that because I think the horrific play he has already displayed has tarnished him bad enough where he will never get that shot here in Buffalo.   If he is ever given a shot here, fans will want to hang him the first time he throws one more interception.   The second time he throws one, that is all the media will talk about.    He won't get significant playing time unless he plays nearly flawlessly from here on out.

 

I don't see that happening.   Possible, sure...but very unlikely.

 

 And because of that I think he fizzles out of the NFL on the fast track.    His 15 minutes of fame are nearly over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the last play when Tyrod got the concussion, when I look close, I think that was a facemask.

Watch at 30 seconds how Fowler gets one hand on Tyrod and his head whips around.

 

What is sadder is that it looks to me as if Tyrod would have had the first down.

 

Miller actually had Fowler on the ground, and was on top of him. Unfortunately Miller got up off of Fowler, which allowed him to get up and slam Tyrod Taylor to the ground.

 

So another way to describe that play is that Tyrod Taylor either couldn't see , or didn't have a clean throw to Thompson, because Ducasse and his man were in the way.

 

Ducasse's man can be seen raising his hands to block a pass by the way, when he sees Tyrod looking that way.. So Tyrod instead makes a break for the first down because he knows he can get it. But he was tackled and injured because Miller was kind enough to get up off of Fowler so he could then slam Tyrod to the ground.

 

I actually don't like Tyrod Taylor as a starter. I hope he is not our starter again. But when I watch the film I often see the people around him doing stupid things.

And then Tyrod gets blamed for it.

 

So, it seems to me that  if we get a new guy, he also will have problems, if the people around him keep doing stupid things.

 

As for the Peterman talk. I might be crazy because I am not discouraged and I do not see his year as having been "disastrous" as one reporter described it.

 

Here is what I think based on what I have seen. I thin Peterman can see the receivers, where they are supposed to be, in his head as the play unfolds. He can turn from one side the field to the other and look right at where the receiver's route should have taken him at that point. Tyrod cannot do that. What Peterman cannot do, is also track the defenders. Or see where they are and what their trajectory is. And we have seen what happens. Tyrod can do that part.

 

I think if Peterman can get to where he understand where the defenders will be and quickly understand which way they are moving etc. then he has a chance to to be a pretty darn good QB. That is encouraging to me. And I am not all upset he can't do both of those things yet, because it is very hard. But at least he is trying and he has got some of it right.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by BadLandsMeanie
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Elite Poster said:

Benjamin isn't disinterested, this is what he has been in the NFL this whole career. He doesn't get separation. 

 

He posted an 1000 yard 9 td performance as a rookie. He also was a machine on critical 3rd downs. 

 

No need to roll the bus over him to prop up Taylor.   

Edited by Teddy KGB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/11/2018 at 2:29 AM, MJS said:

So hard to be a receiver on this team. You beat your man over and over and never get a ball thrown to you.

 

It's been a fun couple of years with Taylor and I wish him the best, but I sure hope we upgrade the position this off season.

But i just read here some useless stat about no seperation from our wrs blaming them for tyrods troubles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Elite Poster said:

Benjamin isn't disinterested, this is what he has been in the NFL this whole career. He doesn't get separation. 

 

My comment actually was referring to his lackluster run blocking.  He just stood there.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

My comment actually was referring to his lackluster run blocking.  He just stood there.

 

Yes.   I recall him taking off a play he should have been blocking on in the run game.

 

It's a great point. That point hasn't been mentioned much this year.     Last year's receivers were MUCH better run blockers than this year's.    I wonder how much that contributed to the much lower YPC in this year's running game?   Had to contribute some.

Share this post


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

 

Yes.   I recall him taking off a play he should have been blocking on in the run game.

 

It's a great point. That point hasn't been mentioned much this year.     Last year's receivers were MUCH better run blockers than this year's.    I wonder how much that contributed to the much lower YPC in this year's running game?   Had to contribute some.

 

When Woods left I said here over and over again that we’d feel his loss most in the running game.  I was right.  Run blocking is an underrated part of what receivers do but on a run-first team, I find it shocking that McBeane hasn’t prioritized it more.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

 

This is extremely disingenuous, John. 

We're discussing McDermott's judgment and Beane's judgment, relevant since they're still here will be next year.  You've made the contention that they had no choice but to make the "desperate decision" to start Not Ready Nate in the Chargers game and that the Bills would have had a better chance to win the Jags game with him. 


It is pointed out that in fact, it could be clearly seen in the Panthers game (Week 2) - not coincidentally, the game in which the Bills scored 3 points and would have won if they added a touchdown - that Tyrod was struggling to execute in this offense.   It is also pointed out that since the Jags secondary and ability to disguise coverage faked a HOF QB (Roeth) into 5 picks, goodness only knows what they could have accomplished with Peterman.

 

Instead of addressing any point made by anyone else, you sidestep. Now it's all a "moot point" because, Taylor.  No, it's not a moot point because, McDermott and Beane judgment.   Could I say more, yes, but frankly, when you refuse to respond in a meaningful way, why should anyone engage with you?  I know you're not a troll, but your insistence on defending an indefensible point and failing to engage or address any counterpoint is the essence of trollish.

 

PS your attempted flying analogy is highly silly

 

Your response makes little sense to me. I never said McDermott had no choice in replacing Taylor in the Charger game. That's a disingenuous response. Of course he had a choice to make. He decided to do make a change because Taylor was ineffective in the prior games. So he went with a rookie qb whom he felt was a better option. If you disagree with the substitution that is fine. I have no problem with the disagreement. The problem I have is that you, and many others, refuse to acknowledge that the basis of Taylor's substitution was that he played poorly in a string of prior games. That's the glaring point that is ignored. 

 

As I stated in prior posts the Charger game had no bearing on how our season concluded. The team still squeaked into the playoffs. And as I stated in prior posts the Charger qb who is a legitimate HOF candidate played at a level in which the Bills with its impotent offense couldn't have won no matter which qb played. 

 

This fixation on McDermott's decision to switch qbs in that game is out of proportion to how overall he performed as a HC. This very limited team overachieved and accomplished what it hasn't accomplished in more than a generation. Yet his decision that didn't work out in a game that the Bills had no chance to win because of the play of Rivers is cited as a reason for damaging the psyche of a team. Well that didn't happen. The team played well enough in the subsequent games to keep themselves in the playoff picture. 

 

The Taylor issue is for all intents and purposes is a moot issue. I'm confident that he won't be on the roster next year. If you don't understand why then that is your blind spot that you need to address. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

John just take back your statement that Peterman would’ve given us a better chance to win the Jags game and I suspect we’ll all be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Taylor should have started the Jax game and then been replaced at halftime because of the inept offensive output.  

 

Share this post


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

John just take back your statement that Peterman would’ve given us a better chance to win the Jags game and I suspect we’ll all be good.

Absolutely not! Taylor's play in that game was abysmal. I strongly believe that in hindsight Peterman with a conservative game play would have been a better option. That's how bad Taylor was in this game. 

 

 

Share this post


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

Absolutely not! Taylor's play in that game was abysmal. I strongly believe that in hindsight Peterman with a conservative game play would have been a better option. That's how bad Taylor was in this game. 

 

 

 

I love you man, but you cray cray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×