All-22 of Bills-Jags from Cover1

[JohnC]

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 January 11, 2018 by JohnC

[PolishDave]

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. 

[Stank_Nasty]

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. 

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

[PolishDave]

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! 

[mob16151]

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

 

[BuffaloRush]

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

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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.

[Dadonkadonk]

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 January 12, 2018 by Dadonkadonk

[JohnC]

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. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

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.  

 

 

[Stank_Nasty]

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 January 12, 2018 by Stank_Nasty

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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 January 12, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Coach Tuesday]

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.

[Royale with Cheese]

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. 

 

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

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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 January 12, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[PolishDave]

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? 

 

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 January 12, 2018 by PolishDave

[HappyDays]

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.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

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.  

[HappyDays]

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.

[Dr.Sack]

Very easy to blame the QB, so blame the QB.

[dave mcbride]

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. 

[JohnC]

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? 

 

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?  

[Teddy KGB]

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 January 12, 2018 by Teddy KGB

[JohnC]

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. 

[The Frankish Reich]

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?

[Scott7975]

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 January 13, 2018 by Scott7975

[BADOLBILZ]

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.

 

[Elite Poster]

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. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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 January 13, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

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. 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

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 January 13, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Elite Poster]

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

[PolishDave]

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.

[BadLandsMeanie]

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 January 13, 2018 by BadLandsMeanie

[Teddy KGB]

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 January 13, 2018 by Teddy KGB

[Pbomb]

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

[Coach Tuesday]

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.

[PolishDave]

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.

[Coach Tuesday]

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.