Shaw66
-
Posts
9,251 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
16 minutes ago, LittleJoeCartwright said:
Are we maybe missing the detail of Rex being told to bench Taylor and he refused, so he was fired? Then Lynn was told and he obeyed?
Nobody's missing anything. This was reported last year when it happened.
As I recall it: Rex, Terry and Doug were having their weekly call. Doug told Rex he wanted Taylor benched. It's never been disclosed whether Terry made that decision. The most credible speculation is that Whaley wanted to preserve his options under Taylor's contract, and if Taylor got injured in the last game, Whaley might have been stuck with Taylor long-term with no option to terminate his contract. Since the Bills were out of the playoffs, Whaley didn't want to take the chance of a Taylor injury.
AFTER the phone call, Rex walked into Pegula's office and asked whether he would be fired after the last game. Pegula said yes. Rex said "then fire me now." Pegula said okay.
I think what you infer from that is that if Pegula told Rex he'd be the coach in 2017, Rex would have been okay benching Taylor. But Rex wasn't going to bench Taylor, a guy he'd handpicked, if he was going to lose his job anyway.
Then they offered the interim spot to Lynn and told him he couldn't play Taylor. Lynn didn't have the same commitment to Taylor, and the HC spot, even for a game, was much too valuable to his career to say no.
57 minutes ago, Livinginthepast said:Pretty obvious this was the case. Must be pretty embarrassing for Rex to admit. I would have ignored the order. He was a lame duck by that stage anyway, why not stand up for yourself and make the owners fire you then. The writing was on the wall anyway for Rex yet he caves? Makes him seem even more of a loser than I thought!
Rex prides himself in being a players' coach. He stood up for Taylor. Rex effectively DID make them fire him.
-
3 hours ago, Woodman19 said:
No one in particular, just how everyone has expectations of having a premium offensive and defensive unit with a rookie head coach and how he has to make us a Superbowl contender right now otherwise he needs to be fired. Failure in any area means the coordinators or head coach is responsible because the team talent is obviously top notch.
I don't think there are many people around here who had expectations like that. There weren't a lot of people who thought when the season bean that the Bills would go to the playoffs. It's true that expectations rose when they went 5-2 to open the season.
What you heard from me last week, and what you heard from a lot of people, wasn't disappointment from unreasonable expectations. It was reaction to the fact that the team was completely uncompetitive three weeks running. That shouldn't happen to any coach, rookie or not.
-
1 hour ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
Your point taken on the first part. They sure did go far to set up a run play. And kind of risky too.
I won't disagree. But I do understand why they are greedy to get wood and richie out on front of McCoy any way they can.
As for Lawson, well, I don't want to watch that play again. It made me shocked and sad. He was so lumbering slow. I will just go ahead and take your word for it pal.. It is the easier path. But from what I saw, which is a very limited sample I know, but from that, I see a tackle not an end. In the Bills shoes I would be thinking about putting 20 pounds on him off season and sticking him where Marcell used to be.
I am going to quit the all 20 as soon as I watch this game to save money. (All 20 hasnt come up yet)But next year I think I will just get it from the start. Personally I don't think I really even see the game til I see that. It is sort of like watching through a paper towel cardboard tube without it. On the other hand it takes a good bit of time.
But I hope to watch this next game before my pay deadline hits because I think Tyrod is maybe getting a bad rap on this game. (and for those who don't know, I am not a Tyrod advocate. But I do like to know the truth of things when I can)
As I said, I wasn't defending Lawson so much as suggesting that that particular play may have been how the Chiefs would run it against most defenses because Tyreek Hill is THAT fast.
Moving him to tackle is an interesting idea. The games about speed, and he'd be a quick tackle rather than a slow end.
-
4 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
I think I figured it out.
Justin Houston there, 50, didn't bite on the fake. He is just looking right at Shady. Shady was supposed to go that way but 50 ruined that plan, Shady sees this, and runs the other way.
That is what I think happened there.
Nice analysis. I agree.
But I think the point is that the Bills went to all that trouble to complete a pass five yards behind the line of scrimmage. Taylor is standing all alone with a good deal of time to look downfield. Seven defenders are clustered in this picture. In other words, the Bills did a great job designing a play to get the defense out of position, and then threw the ball into the teeth of the defense. That play should have been designed to go down field. But these guys - Dennison and McDermott, are so run-oriented that even when they create motion that gives the wideouts a lot of open field to run in, they still want to throw the ball to the running back.
More so than any other play (except maybe the 3rd and 6 run), this play demonstrates for me how run-oriented, ridiculously run-oriented, these coaches are.
Think about it - this play design is to pull offensive linemen to the right, start McCoy to the right, intending to draw defenders. (And remember, these are defenders who've been prepared all week to go where Shady goes.) Then, when you've succeeded in getting three quarters of the defense to over-shift to the offensive right, you throw the ball there.
Yes, maybe if that one defender isn't on top of the play you get Shady to the edge and up the sideline with a convoy. Yes, it's just a play that didn't work. But it's one of the more creative plays the Bills ran, and it's a play designed to complete a pass five yards behind the line of scrimmage.
3 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:One more thing and I will stop. Lawson is not playing well in this game. He appears to be quite slow.
I can sum it up in one picture. This is a sweep on 2nd and 5 and it went for 10 or 15 yards I forget but it went a good long ways.
Lawson is the blue and white arrow.
The pulling linemen just ignored him. They ran right by him and so did the running back.
They ignored him like he wasn't even there and they were right to do so.
Well, in Lawson's defense on this play (not in general), if that's Tyreek Hill with ball, and I think it is, the play likely was designed to take advantage of Hill's speed more that Lawson's lack of it. The Chiefs didn't block him because they didn't have to. Practically no defensive end in that position has the lateral quickness and/or forward burst to hold the edge against Hill at full speed.
NFL play design is all about getting mismatches at the point of attack, and the Chiefs got one here. One technique that seems to be used with increasing frequency is relying on tendencies and leaving guys unblocked.
Lawson certainly isn't lighting it up, but I don't think this play demonstrates the problem.
-
They're juvenile. Self-absorbed.
I thought the NFL ban was stupid, so bringing them back is a good thing. But these skits are stupid. Develop a simple, signature move, do it, and get off the field. Frankly, that's what I like about Gronk.
-
1
-
-
7 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:
Once again the defense won the game, while the offense did just enough not to throw it away. I'm not convinced that Dennison actually knows what he's doing. He's shown to be extremely stubborn and clueless. I suspect it was Dennison's idea to start Peterman agains SD and Tyrod was prepared to come in if the wheels fell off the experiment, which they did. If Dennison play calls not to lose next week, and gets cute with stupid gimmicks, it will be another long and embarrassing loss to NE.
I have to believe that McDermott wants to score on offense, and find it hard to believe that 3 points is an acceptable cushion. It has been said that he wants to avoid turnovers, which is fine, but you can't coach scared and expect to win consistently. The offense has to score. Dennison just does a poor job game planning the opposing defense, and I have to believe McDermott has to see this...right? This needs to be fixed next week.
On defense, the key to beating Brady is pressure up the middle; the blueprint to beating him is known, though teams inexplicably fail to do this. Hope Frazier is up to the task, otherwise NE will carve us up for 50 points.
Good writeup.
You properly separate two separate thoughts: 1. Conservative offense. 2. Bad offense. I put them together.
I think McDermott is conservative. So is Dennison.
But the offense still has to have plays that work, and they have to get called. That, as you say, is on Dennison.
-
The Rockpile Review – by Shaw66
Back on Track
The Bills beat the Chiefs in Kansas City on Sunday. A win is a win, and there’s no need to complain about any win, but the big news wasn’t the win. The big news was the Bills returned to the NFL, at least for a week.
The Bills had been totally uncompetitive against the Jets, the Saints and the Chargers, being essentially unable to do anything offensively and unable to stop more or less anything on defense. The Bills needed to prove, to their fans and most of all to themselves, that they actually deserved to be in the NFL at all. And prove it they did.
For the previous three weeks, the Bills may have been the worst team in the league. For all we know, the Browns may have petitioned the league for a schedule change. Everyone wanted a piece of the Bills.
Curiously, the Chiefs have suffered their own collapse, so the Bills had competition for the worst-team-in-the-league title. So a game that six weeks ago looked like a crucial matchup between two of the AFC’s best became each team’s best chance to stop a desperate slide out of the playoffs.
The Chiefs were big favorites, in part because they were at home, in part because their losing streak was shorter and in part because the Chiefs’ early-season success looked to be sustainable, while the Bills’ success smelled and looked more like smoke and mirrors.
Well, the Bills aren’t the worst team in the league. We still don’t know if the Chiefs are.
The really good news is that the Bills’ defense showed up. The Chiefs’ vaunted running game has stalled over the past month, so the Bills stopping the Chiefs on the ground isn’t making any NFL headlines. Still, the Bills were stout up front. They weren’t getting pushed off the ball, they weren’t allowing backs a free pass to the second level. Linebackers ran to the ball and made sure tackles. The Bills forced the Chiefs to throw.
Against the pass, the Bills didn’t break down. The pass rush certainly wasn’t devastating, but it often created pressure an Smith and got to him occasionally. More importantly, the defensive front generally contained Smith, making it tough for Smith to hurt the Bills with his legs. He had some nice runs, generally off scrambles, but as Bills fans know, when your QB running is your best offensive weapon, your offense is in trouble. Smith WAS their best weapon, and he didn’t have enough to win the game.
On the opposite side of the ball, the Bills’ offense is maddening. It is hopelessly conservative. Maybe McDermott has no confidence in Taylor, which would be consistent with the Peterman debacle. Maybe he has no confidence in his offense generally. Maybe it’s just that his philosophy is that defense is more important, and he believes that in crunch time you put the game in the hands of your defense.
A few maddening sequences: Second possession of the game. McCoy for minus 1, pass to Zay for 5, Cadet runs for 4. Punt. Really? Who runs on 3rd and 6? Well, it does happen once in a while, but it’s almost predictable with the Bills.
Bills razzle-dazzle. Once, the Bills faked to McCoy going right, then faked the flanker reverse, leaving Taylor with the ball ten yards behind the line of scrimmage with no pass rushers in sight. What’s the play? Throw it BEHIND THE LINE, five yards behind the line. Think about it – they actually designed a play hoping defenders would bite on the fake to McCoy and then threw to him, surrounded by all the defenders who bit. The defense clearly reacted to the fake to McCoy and probably also to the flanker reverse. The whole point of a play like that is to throw the ball downfield. Not the Bills. Their idea of a big play is a screen pass.
With a lead, the Bills were content to play for field goals. Up by 6 with 12 minutes left in the game, they were content to run the ball, wind the clock, and punt. Other than the completion to O’Leary, the wouldn’t throw the ball downfield. They punted and left it to the defense to win the game. Did the defense do it, or are the Chiefs helpless on offense?
When the Bills next got the ball, still up 6, everyone knew they’d run twice and then let Taylor run. Three and out to give the Chiefs ANOTHER chance to win and to ask the defense ONCE AGAIN to win the game.
Anyone watch the Rams beat the Saints today? Nursing a 10-point lead against an explosive offense, Goff was throwing the ball all over the field. Not the Bills. The hopelessly conservative offense, and consequently the hopelessly predictable offense, runs when it should run and runs when it should pass. When it passes, it passes to running backs.
Taylor had another nice game. Not great, but enough to win. The Bills put him on the move more than in recent weeks, and as a consequence he wasn’t getting trapped in the pocket. He threw well, often with nice touch. He wasn’t as accurate as he should be; the poor throw to O’Leary cost the Bills a critical first down late in the game, and he missed some other throws over the middle. But as usual, his completion percentage was in the mid-60s, as usual he threw for under 200 yards and as usual, he had no giveaways.
Can Taylor do more? I don’t know. The Bills don’t ask him to do more.
Fun fact: Nick O’Leary uses the same hair gel worn by Johnny Miller.
A few quick hitters:
1. Milano always seems to make a standout play.
2. The Bills linebackers struggle in pass defense. They held their own Sunday, barely. To their credit, and the coaches, Kelce didn’t kill them.
3. Zay Jones looks to be playing himself into the league. I like how he looks.
4. Colton Schmidt did a nice job.
5. Hauschka, too. Too bad his streak ended.
6. I thought White would fumble on his interception return. Gotta get down the minute someone gets close.
7. Shady does some amazing little thing every game. Or two, or three. Not necessarily spectacular, but amazing.
8. Anyone think Peterman gives the Bills the best chance to beat the Pats?
9. Bills could use Benjamin and Glenn in the lineup, but the Bills have nothing to complain about on the injury front. They’ve been remarkably injury-free.
10. Playoffs? Through week 12, the Bills are in. Beat Miami twice and Indianapolis once and they have a chance. Throw in a win over the Pats and they’re in. That would mean closing the season 5-1 after three totally embarrassing losses. Don’t bet the ranch.
So, are the Bills back, the October Bills? Or are the Chiefs just that bad? Tune in when the Pats visit Orchard Park next week. Ball game or blowout?
GO BILLS!!!
The Rockpile Review is written to share the passion we have for the Buffalo Bills. That passion was born in the Rockpile; its parents were everyday people of western New York who translated their dedication to a full day’s hard work and simple pleasures into love for a pro football team.
-
5
-
1
-
-
40 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
I agree it is unlikely TT is back. Because while effective when he is on the move, showing his running capability etc., they ultimately don't think his style and his deficiencies can get them a Lombardi.
My original point, which seems to have been lost here, is that you seem to have gone from optimist to pessimist based on one coaching decision. He thought Peterman would run the offense better, and it didn't pan out. Would have been very interesting to see what happens last week if Benjamin doesn't get hurt and if DiMarco doesn't get stone hands the first pick.
One decision does not have that much weight to change an opinion so drastically.
One decision caused me to change my view of what was going on. Benching Taylor means they've decided there's no hope for Taylor. It means they have to trade up in the draft to get a really good QB. I have two problems with that.
One, I think it's foolish to give up on Taylor. I may be wrong.
Two, it means it was really stupid to trade for Benjamin. If they're trading up for a qb, that pick they gave up is very valuable.
Since those two moves are inconsistent with each other, it suggests to me that no one is actually thinking about the consequences of their decisions.
Bottom line, if you've given up on Taylor, you don't trade your second round pick. If you haven't given up on Taylor, you don't bench him.
I really think these people don't know what they're doing. And THAT's what made me pessimistic. I can't reconcile two important decisions they made about the QB position.
And then you add to that the point that others have made here, that McD haas had no answer over the past three weeks for a totally failing offense and defense. The team has been completely uncompetitive, and McDermott apparently has no answer.
-
1 hour ago, oldmanfan said:
I think Peterman earns the job next preseason. I don't think they hand it to him on a silver platter. And I could care less what round he was taken. They will also draft a guy and if he shows he's the best he'll start. TT will likely be gone, but if he lights it up the rest of the year maybe they reconsider.
I also think they feel that putting Peterson out there right now would be counterproductive as stated above. So TT gives them a better shot right now.
short term and long term objectives. They've said that since day 1. Maybe it's time to actually believe what they're saying instead of reading tea leaves for something that isn't there. And time will tell if their approach succeeds.
You're missing my point. It isn't about Peterman. It's about Taylor. I think you're absolutely wrong about Taylor. I think it's a 90% certainty that Taylor will not be a Bill in 2019, because all he's gotten since McDermott and Dennison arrived are votes of no-confidence. His head coach actually thought that Peterman was better than Taylor. I think Taylor is leaving as soon as he can. So your scenario where Taylor lights it up is a nonstarter. It doesn't matter if they reconsider; Taylor won't. So if Taylor lights it up the rest of this season and next, Taylor will get a five-year $125 million somewhere, and it won't be with the Bills. Why would he stay with the Bills? He can get the same money from some other team, and playing for another coach means he no longer have to worry about who McD thinks gives the Bills the "best chance to win."
The problem here isn't how they handled Peterman. If Peterman is going to make it in the league, he'll make it. The problem is that they mishandled Taylor.
5 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:You are completely on-point with the problem of feeling you have to draft a QB (and have to start them). That's exactly what got us Losman and Manuel and kept the St Louis Rams in a futile cycle with Bradford for 5 freakin' years. The most successful approach to finding a QB has been employed by teams like Seattle and Philly, who both pulled out all the stops - draft one, sign the best vet FA, go for the best "dark horse backup" FA on the market.
It has to be recognized that even at the top of the 1st round, the odds are 50/50 at finding a QB who can play.
I would personally have been "OK" if McWrestler had walked in and cut Tyrod loose - said "he doesn't fit what we're trying to do here, we wish him the best in his future endeavors". But you have to do a full-court-press, in that case, to bring in someone durable and competent.We do have Tyrod under contract for another year, you know that, right? He doesn't have an escape clause for next year. Under the Dareus logic, though, I don't see the Bills keeping him.
Yeah, I know he's under contract. I'm guessing his agent asks for a trade, maybe already asked. If the Bills say no, they want to keep Taylor, he asks for along-term deal. They'll say no to that, too. So Taylor will play 2018 and exercise his option to get out. I just don't see him swallowing his pride after McD has made it so abundantly clear that he has no confidence in Taylor.
-
2 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
Beverly Sills? The story fits perfectly. But somehow a Beverly
"Bubbles" Sills anecdote does not fit my initial impression of you based on your other posts and your avatar. Do you watch the Bills games with opera music playing? That makes an interesting mental image.I think you may be a bit unusual. We will get along fine.
Right now I think they genuinely didn't know Peterman was not ready because he must have looked very good in practice. And they did not know our line was incapable of stopping a very fierce pass rush. And I bet McD had never started a rookie before. I know he had to do with Newton but Newton was groomed from the the start of OTA's to be the starter.
Peterman was running the scout team, not taking reps as a potential starter. So no matter who the QB is I think you have to expect some jitters in that first game and I think McD did not.
Recall though that the first few series didn't look bad. Aside from the Dimarco interception the offense was doing ok. Then Benjamin goes down after catching one pass, and he was supposed to be the main guy for Peterman.
At that point is where McD made his second and maybe less understandable mistake. My rookie got picked off, not his fault but still it is rattling. Now out goes his main target he has been practicing with all week. He has to be unsteady we have to dial it back.
Ask yourself, honestly, in McD's shoes wouldn't you have known that if you were thinking level headed and dispassionately? Wouldn't you have known it was time to regroup?
I would have.
We try a run game or some screens and take some 3 and outs if we have to so the QB can settle down. He did not do that he kept on full steam ahead. I think that was either emotion or stupidity on McD's part. Right now I think it was emotion though he won't recognize that.
Two points. One is as Hapless says, what kind of evaluator is McD if he couldn't see Peterman wasn't ready and he couldn't see his defense was in trouble?
The other is something that I haven't seen anyone talk about. When McD announced that Peterman was starting, someone in the press asked if the offense would be simplified for him, being a rookie and all. He said, admirably in one sense, that Peterman is a football player and the Bills are asking him to play the position as designed, not some subset. Do your job.
Well, that's the same message as the Bills won't redesign the offense to Taylor's strengths. "We know what we want the players to do, and they have to do it." If you don't have players who can do what you want, doesn't it make sense to modify your approach?
-
10 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
Well, Shaw and I may be Eeyore and Eeyore2 here. I'd actually rather like that to be the case.
Here's a couple places where I stick with your e v a l though. If McDermott honestly felt it was a calculated risk with positive odds of success to put Peterman in with that game plan, against that pass rush, with our OL (or if he bought off on the suggestion when Dennison made it), something is really profoundly off in his player and film evaluation.
I take Benoit with a grain of salt - see other post about how media pundit claimed we were double teaming Bosa all game while eyeballs on tape can see it's not so, and pointing to the Bills D giving up a record number of points in the first half against Jax (without mentioning that 24 of them came directly from offensive turnovers). It's true - and was true last year and the year before - that Taylor misses seeing open guys and takes off prematurely. All QB do this, but Taylor does do it more. Taylor also holds the ball too long at times, is indecisive at times. But with all that, he also does a significant number of good things, things that had us finish as #10 and #11 scoring offense last year and year before even after he missed games. If you look at film of say, N'Orleans, you can see that a lot of the time, the problem was that our guys just weren't open, and Dennison was slow to adjust to the Saints coverage. Here's a nice analysis from Cover 1. Also, the same pundits who were pointing out the opportunities Taylor leaves on the field, were pretty much unanimously responding to the benching "What are you, Crazy?"The real issue I have is that to me, the benching of Taylor and the focus on Offense seems like a classic deflection technique. Through it all, the real problem has been the defense, right from the start of the Jets and Saints game when they clearly couldn't stop a nosebleed much less a professional NFL run game, and answers there are slim. I have no question that trading Dareus hurt our run D - the people who claim it didn't aren't even looking at the actual number of snaps Dareus played each game in B'lo except when injured/out/recovering (hint: it isn't 25% or 30%), nor at his impact in Jax - but it's far from the only problem. (But again - if we're trying to win now, why didn't McDermott recognize the impact it would have and adjust?) There have been missed tackles and craptastic tackles, players just plain old blowing their assignment, and other "tire fire" symptoms the last 3 weeks. We didn't see that in the first 7 weeks. Are players on D all shell-shocked from the Dareus trade? Or Is it just there's enough film to expose weaknesses?
If we can't ID our weaknesses and counter them fast, we're going to lose, a lot. The NFL is the ultimate chess match, and successful HC and coordinators need to be prepared for the "weakness ID'd exploited" "countermeasure implemented" "new weakness" game. Much as I hate him, we also play the NFL Chess Grandmaster 2x each year. Until we stop needing to pencil those in as losses, our progress is limited.
Exactly.
I've gone from very positive to very negative about this team in three weeks.
The only hope is that McDermott has what it takes, learns from his mistakes, and rights the ship. Based on these things we've been discussing, I have serious doubts.
-
4 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:
I have no doubt they are looking for a QB come draft day and will get one. I also don't think you give up on Peterman because of one half of football. They drafted him because in college he was the type that processed things well. That is what an NFL QB needs to do.
I'll say again, I think Peterman starts next year with their high round pick behind him. TT goes elsewhere. Like it or not they don't think the kind of offense you have to play withTT is going to be consistently effective.
If that's their plan, okay, I get it. But if that's their plan, then you pick a point in time and start him every game and live with the consequences. You don't start him for a half and then go back to the other guy.
McDermott was very clear. He said he played Peterman not because he's the future but because he gave the team the best chance to win. In other words, he wanted to win now. And that's consistent with what McD has done now. He put Taylor back in in the second half, and he's starting Taylor this week. What that suggests is that he no longer believes Peterman gives them the best chance to win, Taylor does. That suggests that your view is wrong - that they haven't decided to go with Peterman next year.
My point is not about Peterman. It's about Taylor. He's your best QB right now, so he's the best option for winning. I think it's foolish to go away from him until you have someone better. Or, if you're following your plan, which is to cut bait and go with Peterman and draft another guy, then you don't make the Benjamin trade. You've got a good second pick, one that is getting better every week the Bills lose, and you're going to need that pick to move up in the draft. The Benjamin trade is much more consistent with trying to win now, and trying to win now means they play Taylor, not Peterman.
So I think your plan is NOT the plan. And if it isn't the plan, then keeping Taylor as a viable option is what the Bills needed. This decision effectively takes Taylor out of the mix.
-
2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
Shaw does a beautiful job of spelling out the contradictions in McWrestler and Mr Beane's approach that lead some of us to question whether they know what they're doing.
If you want to tank, Tank - but in that case, why not trade (or release, rather than renegotiate) Taylor and trade Dareus in the off season before cheapening his stock with benchings and dis-talk? On the other hand, if you want to rebuild while winning now, why not tailor the offense to Taylor's strengths instead of insisting he become something he's not?
Why start a rookie on the road, when you're 5-4, then after he craps the bed, go back to the benched guy saying "we're in the hunt"? (there's a story about the soprano Bev "Bubbles" Stills gleefully accepting a future "dream role" offered during a phone call - then calling the director back 5 minutes later to decline: "I can't, I'm pregnant". To which the director replied, rather stunned, "weren't you pregnant 5 minutes ago?"). If you really didn't know he would crap the bed....see above question, how could they not know Peterman wasn't ready?
Maybe there's a master plan and process behind all this, but from here it just looks like a Hot Mess with a side helping of Bad Player e v a l Judgement.
I am, reluctantly, in the same place.
-
Some decisions are bigger than other decisions, and some have more far reaching consequences than others.
I think starting Peterman had significant long-term consequences. It was more than let's play the guy for a game and see what happens. It was more because it's the most important position. It sent a message to Taylor. It sent messages to all the other guys on the team. What does he do now? Stand in front of the team and say "I made a bad decision. It's clear now, and should have been clear then, that Peterman isn't ready"? Can't really say that without dissing Peterman in front of the team, which is a coaching no-no. "I made a mistake, and I'm telling you now Tyrod is my guy"? Can't say that because you've said it before, and you obviously didn't mean it before.
Start the wrong guy at safety, fine, you just move on. Start the wrong guy at QB, it has consequences.
-
3 hours ago, oldmanfan said:
Shaw, you are way over exaggerating the consequences of one decision. If anything can be said about McDermott, it is that he thinks before making decisions. And he made a decision that he himself referred to as a calculated risk with Peterman. Why? Because he felt it gave the team- the team- a better chance to win. I like TT myself but guys like Benoit on si.com talked about how he was missing open guys. So he made a decision, and it didn't work out.
Now if it were just ego he'd hang with that decision. But he had the sense to realize the decision was wrong, and now goes back to TT because he realizes putting Peterman back in, in a hostile place like Arrowhead, would be wrong. And that TT gives them the best chance to win, even given his limitations
What about other decisions? Again it's about team. And they are consistent with what he and Beane have said for quite a while now; they have a short and a long term view. So Dareus. Long term they knew his performance/attitude did not merit his huge cap number. It may have affected our D now but even when Dareus was not on the field earlier this season they played well. So given that it did not seem a huge short term risk. Benjamin? Simple, had an opportunity to get a big target that helped short and long term, and a guy they knew from Carolina.
i question other personnel decisions, like why Ducasse starts. I'm also not at practice every day. I question Dennison and his philosophy; I like you would like to see them move TT around. But I've complained about O coordinators since Buster Ramsey ran things. (And his first choice is now back on the market??). And for the life of me I can't figure out what happened to the defense.
Bottom line going forward is this: we have a young coach that was on the list of coordinators from the NFL ready for his shot. You have a young GM also ready, and the two are in synch with what they want to do. Beane said when he got here you can't win without the star QB. I have no doubt they draft one this year. And I think they'll sit him behind Peterman next year. I think they'll also focus on front seven on D and O line in the draft and FA because they know games are won in the trenches. Beane has amassed a lot of solid personnel guys on his staff, and hopefully that translates to a good draft and good FA picks.
Three weeks ago ago no one was complaining. Now they've run into a bad stretch. And the HC made a risky choice last week that didn't pan out. It won't be the last time either. Let's let the process work, because ultimately as much as people mock "the process" successful organizations all have processes they define and follow. Or they're not successful.
I'm often wrong, so this won't be the first time. And frankly, I've been thinking as I write that I maybe making too big a deal about it. But I don't think so.
Two things I could be wrong about. One is that maybe he hasn't burned the bridge to Tyrod staying in Buffalo beyond his contract. Maybe Tyrod will be a really big man and say it's okay, let's see how it goes. I doubt it. He's been dumped on repeatedly since McDermott took over, and he doesn't have much reason to believe it will change.
The other is that maybe McDermott and Beane have decided to move on from Tyrod, they knew that benching him would mark the beginning of the end of Tyrod in Buffalo, and they're okay with that. If they thought that, then I disagree with the decision but at least they understood the consequences. I disagree because I think you don't get rid of your best quarterback until you have a better one on board, and the Bills are very far from having a better QB on board. Tyrod is the best QB the Bills have had since Bledsoe, maybe since Kelly.
I think this decision forces the Bills to bet the ranch on a franchise QB rookie in the upcoming draft. Last time the Bills were forced to take a QB because they had no one they got Manuel. It's much better to be shopping for something when you don't absolutely need the thing.
-
29 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
I know your take on what you do. I understand that and you have said it before so it isn't new to me.
You might say you construct a theory that fits the facts that we know.
I think you are more like a defense attorney. You have a built in approach that the client is innocent. And you construct a story incorporating the known facts that supports that conclusion. Those are similar but not the same.
For whatever it is worth I thought the plan was to have Peterman start next year and have the QB they get this year learn behind him. It is 16 million dollars cheaper and lets them assemble a roster that fits their vision for the offense. It also gives them two guys who might win out as a long term starter instead of just teh one they draft this year.
I think that plan, if it ever was a plan, is in trouble too.
Yeah that's a fair characterization of what I do, except when I disagree with my client I say so.
What you say about Peterman is a fair plan not in consistent with what I said. Go with Taylor and look for your replacement.
I thought they were riding in a motor boat looking for a speed boat. Peterman might have been the speed boat or some player to be named later. What McDermot just did is Jump Out of the motor boat with no other boat in sight. I can't defend that.
-
7 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:
I expected him to improve on the defence not regress. That's asking a lot?
A big reason they are trash is because he decided to trade good players away. That's on him
You're right. And I've been waiting for someone to say this for the past several weeks: Anyone know who's leading the league in tackles? Right. Zach Brown.
Brown. Dareus. Darby. Gilmore. No one shoukdntell usnthat it isn't McD's fault he has no talent.
3 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:What exactly is brutal? That I'm stating facts about their offensive and defensive ranks?
I'm agreeing with you. It's brutal to look at those numbers. Its what made me post that the Bills could be the worst tsam in the league.
-
1 hour ago, billsfan11 said:
Gilmore was a free agent. Hyde is good, Poyer has regressed a lot since his hot start.
Bills on offence are ranked 27th in yards, would probably be closer to 32 if it wasn't for garbage time stats the last 3 games
Bills on defence are 25th in yards and 30th points. The sad part is this guy is supposed to be a defensive coach. Hyde and White are good, but if they are 30th in points, what good is that? Got to look at the big picture. They have sooo many holes on that defence
The Bills also have virtually no young talent on their team with the exception of Tre White.
So once again, what exactly has Mcd done? They have regressed big time on both sides on the ball and they probably have the worst young talent in the NFL
But he's done a god job so far, right?
What good has that done though? They are 30th in points
God, that's a brutal recitation.
The Bills may be the worst team in the league, and may not even be close.
-
42 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:
I get what you're saying but i still disagree with it.
I would rather him come out and say something like... "our last 3 performances were awful and that starts with me as a coach. We are still alive and we are Right in the hunt and we will do everything we can to get back to the way we know how to play".
Not sound like a phony optimist.
I'm pretty sure a player would rather hear the coach say something like I mentioned above instead of pretending like everything is ok. I don't think the players buy that for one second
I don't see.that there's much different between that and what he's said. He's said "that's not the way we want to play." You said "We played bad." What's the diff?
He hasn't pretended everything is okay. He's said they have a lot to fix.
-
14 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
Yes very much so.
But since we are of the Untouchable caste, figuratively speaking among NFL fans, accept and adapt is my strategy.
I have had the impression that you have been very unwilling to question authority or expertise when it comes to the Bills and their coaches.
I like it better when you don't set your opinion aside as automatically less valid.
Rock on Shaw I say!
PS That Pats are going to slaughter us. Better I think to just enjoy watching one of the greatest of all time perform surgery on our secondary live and in person. I did that once so I am not saying you should do it but I couldn't. And it is a lifetime fond memory just having got to watch him because he is so good at that.
I think you and others misunderstand me. Yes, it's true I tend to put a lot of confidence in coaching and management, because I've learned over the years that people with experience generally are better in their field than people without experience. Like Clinton, Obama and Trump, all amateurs who stumbled along in the White House, trying to figure it out.
So what I generally try to do is try to figure out why a rational person with a lot of experience as a head football coach would decide to do what he did. In most cases I come up with a theory that I'm comfortable explains why he did it. That doesn't mean what the coach did was right; it just means I have some insight into why he did it.
As we've talked about the Peterman start, the awful three-game performance and the Dareus and Benjamin trades, I've concluded there simply isn't a rational explanation for all of that other than horribly bad judgment. I'll repeat what I've been saying:
It looked to me that what Beane and McDermott were doing was following a plan that went like this: Teach guys the system this year, while they're weeding out some guys who don't fit. In the process of weeding, pick up some draft picks. Next May, use the picks to fill several holes. Along the way, pick up a QB prospect, but plan to play Taylor in 2018 and, if all goes well, in 2019 and 2020. When they conclude Taylor has hit his ceiling, decide whether to move on or not. Their hope and expectation was to build from 7-9 or so into a playoff team. If they got there this year, great, but if it took another year, that's fine.
I know there are plenty of people who didn't like that plan, because they want Taylor gone. But that was the only rational plan I could see short of blowing things up, and it seemed to be McD and Bean were on that path.
What they've done, I think, is burn the live-with-Tyrod bridge, which means they need a QB now, which means they don't get to fill the holes because they have to seriously consider moving up in the draft next May. If they do that, they don't have the capital to fill the holes. That seems to me to be a much worse plan.
In short, until they benched Tyrod, they had left themselves the option of moving forward with Taylor. It's always better to have options.
-
19 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:
I agree 100 percent. I wonder if he actually believes the garbage he says
I think the Bills are hopeless, but think about it for a minute. He's a coach. He's supposed to be leading 53 men and getting them to perform their best. He MUST tell his team they're in the hunt. He can't stand in front of them and say "We suck. We're just trying to figure out how not to embarrass ourselves again." Can't say that. So if he can't say it to his team, he can't say it in public.
Until they're mathematically eliminated, he has to say this stuff.
I'm really scared. There's a good chance that KC will roll over the Bills on Sunday. They're home, they're desperate, they have better talent and they're better coached. It's a real good bet that the Pats will roll over the Bills, too. It's quite possible that the Bills put together the ugliest five-game stretch in the history of the league. It's possible they'll give up 200 points in five games.
Let's see what McDermott has to say when THAT happens.
-
2
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
I'm sorry that you had to endure the horrors on the road to where you are at Shaw. But I like this change in you!
Wouldn't you prefer if the Bills were 7-3 and we all were happy?
Next week I drive 6 and half hours to see the Patriots. What a joy.
-
1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:
May we re-name New Era Field and try to take it viral?
New Era Field is now Pit of Misery.
Dilly Dilly.
I like it! We can start it right here. From now it's the Pit of Misery for me!
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Mike in Horseheads said:
Can't stay on topic can you? OP's was this years draft
Look at the post I was responding to. His post was about next year's draft.
2x1st Round Draft Picks
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
This is really the point. Unless Geno goes on a five-game winning streak, the Browns and Giants are both taking QBs. I'll trade up for the best QB in the draft, but not the third best. If he falls to me, fine.
And I doubt that the Bills and Chiefs picks alone will get you up to 5.
However, I keep Taylor until I have someone better.
That's why benching him was so costly. It almost certainly means that he's gone after next season (because Taylor isn't going to stick with these coaches) and that, in turn, forces the Bills to find a QB in this off-season. That's why they may feel compelled to trade up, and trading up probably means using both first round picks and maybe a second or next year's first.
If they hadn't burned bridges with Taylor, they would be much more comfortable taking a good QB when it was their turn and used other picks to fill holes.