Shaw66
-
Posts
9,724 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
1 minute ago, Happy Gilmore said:
NE got 0 points off passing, all their points were FG (9) and rushing (14). Overall, the defense did a good job getting to Brady. He was 21/30, 258 yards, 0 TD 1 INT, and a passer rating of 82.4, which is well below his career passer rating of 97.9. I don't think you're giving the DL enough credit this game; they outperformed expectations.
Tyrod had a terrible game, as you pointed out. Possible the injury sustained early in Q1 had something to do with that, but this was certainly one of his worst games this year.
Pressure is more important than sacks. The Bills got three sacks but very few pressures. The Pats got double digit pressures. There's a big difference.
But I agree with your basic point. The defense played well enough to win. Pass defense was better than the run defense. Pats completed several passes where you just had to shake your head at Brady's accuracy and the receivers', particularly Gronk's, ability to catch the ball every time. And even the run defense was pretty good except on the few plays where they totally lost containment.
As has been the case often this season, the offense lost the game, not the defense.
2 minutes ago, ColoradoBills said:Shaw,
If TT is healthy should he start against the Colts?
Yes. He's better than Peterman. Peterman is altogether too green.
-
10 minutes ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
I thought you went to the game?
Are you home already? or did you stay the night?
Bravo. Nice post Shaw.
This part was an especially good insight I think. I hadn't considered that.
"Taylor’s made a career, so far, of not taking risks with the ball and avoiding interceptions. When you don’t take risks, you don’t learn the difference between good risks and bad risks. Taylor clearly didn’t understand the difference on that play."
Thanks.
Spending the night in Binghamton, so I wrote while watching the Seahawks.
To that particular point. It's something I talk about from time to time. You can only be good at taking risks if you learn how to do it. Only way to learn how is to take the risks. So that throw was part of Tyrod's education. But he should have made that mistake two years ago and learned from it.
Highlight of the day was going to the CBS broadcast booth before the game and chatting with Jim Nantz for five minutes. Incredibly nice guy.
-
The Rockpile Review – by Shaw66
Pats Crush Bills
Things we learned (or already knew) watching the Pats crush the Bills on Sunday, 23-3:
1. The Patriots are really good.
2. The Bills aren’t as good as the Pats, but they aren’t the abomination that took the field against the Saints and the Chargers.
3. The Pats are as fundamentally sound as any football in memory, and they’ve been that way for a decade and a half or more.
4. The Bills are not a playoff team and THEY’VE been THAT way for a decade and a half or more.
5 The Pats have a Hall of Fame quarterback, and the game looks easy when you have one of those.
6. The Bills don’t have a Hall of Fame quarterback. On Sunday, the Bills would have been in the game if they’d had an average NFL quarterback. They didn’t have one of those, either.
In other words, it was a slow news day at New Era Field.
Taylor’s interception on the first possession may have been the worst throw in Taylor’s professional career. Taylor’s made a career, so far, of not taking risks with the ball and avoiding interceptions. When you don’t take risks, you don’t learn the difference between good risks and bad risks. Taylor clearly didn’t understand the difference on that play. It’s a completely different game if the Bills score 7.
Taylor made several poor throws to receivers who were closely covered. Accurate, well-delivered balls would have resulted in completions. His throws were at the feet of receivers, behind receivers, over receivers, just not good enough.
Taylor was injured on the first offensive play. Did the injury impact his play later in the drive and later in the game? Maybe, but it doesn’t change the conclusion. Taylor had a bad day in a game that a good quarterback could have won.
Could have won? You bet. That game was closer than the score. The Bills ran the ball effectively. The Bills were 15-34 passing, and with good quarterbacking could have been 25 for 34. It’s easy to see the Bills scoring a couple of touchdowns if their passing game had been as effective as their running game.
Would the Bills have won with better quarterbacking? Probably not. Why? Because the Bills’ front five on offense and front four on defense just aren’t good enough. Brady had all day to throw, and the Bills’ quarterbacks were under pressure constantly, including on Taylor’s interception. It’s too easy for Brady when he can wait and wait and wait for someone to get open. And it’s too hard for anyone when he’s at risk of getting hit on most pass attempts.
Among the things that amaze me about the Patriots are these two:
1. Patriots are always physically tough. They take hard hits on offense without fumbling. They take hard hits and break tackles. Over and over. Their offensive scheme involves a lot of finesse, but there’s no finesse involved when they hit you. They hit hard on defense, every play.
2. On defense, they rarely are out of position. They got fooled when Webb overthrew Cadet, but that was about it. Receivers may get open and make the catch, but the defender is in position to make the tackle. Running backs may find a hole, but they don’t find 30 yards of open field – a defender is always in position to make the tackle, to limit the damage. And these aren’t shoe-string tackles; these are straight on, drive the shoulder into the runner, wrap him up and take him down tackles.
The Patriots are really good. They always are.
A note about Gronk. The game was over, so an ejection wouldn’t have mattered. He’s probably correct that White was guilty of pass interference. That’s all beside the point. The point is simple: This is a violent game in which players are at risk on every play. In that environment, there must be zero tolerance for intentional violence inflicted on a defenseless player in a dead ball situation. Zero. Players trust their opponents not to do that. Gronk broke that trust. He could have broken White’s neck. He should be suspended for a game for the hit, and if White is injured or in the concussion protocol, he should be suspended for a second game.
Gronk apologized, and I believe he’s sincere. That has nothing to do with it. Would Gronk accept the apology of a linebacker who took out Gronk’s ACL on an intentional late hit to the knee out of bounds?
Zero tolerance.
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.
-
4
-
2
-
-
5 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:
...being in the .5% negative percentile, I vow to try much harder.............
I'll let you know when you're slipping up.
3 hours ago, Brianmoorman4jesus said:There was a lot more thread changing over there. The same threads will stay on page 1 here for days. Over there you would be lucky to get a full day of the same idea on page 1. The news seemed to flow in a lot more frequently over there as well. It was certainly growing chaotic towards the end. EJ Manuel pretty much ruined the last year or two. It just seemed like you could get ideas out individually without being merged. A lot of times here, very specific POV’s are merged into a very general topic. It makes it hard to get read. I have grown fond of TBD and it was a nearly seemless transition. I appreciate the general hospitality but still tend to take slight exception towards the negative comments about BBMB. It was a very solid message board and the non troll lifers that made it home, were often times very insightful and die hard Bills fans. This place has been a very soft landing spot and it is nice to not get blasted by a mod every time you push the vocabulary limit. If this first season here ends the drought, then the BBMB will serve as a sacrifice to the football gods. Go Bills!
There are pluses and minuses everywhere. Forums have personalities and cultures that are defined by their users and their moderators. It was different at BBMB. Some people liked it better there, some liked it better here.
I'm glad this place was here so that we had someplace to land.
-
1 minute ago, BadLandsMeanie said:
Anyway I do wonder why the closed it so abruptly. The Jags for one example gave a good long notice before they closed thiers.
I think they did it abruptly for a couple of reasons.
First, if they'd given notice, they would have been getting phone calls and emails and stuff asking them to reconsider. They didn't want to waste any time on it.
Second, I think they figured it was easier to just do it and live through the cries of outrage. They probably had a pretty good idea of how long the outcry would last, and then it would be over. Like a week. And there were only 2000 members, so what would you guess - 50 complained to the Bills. Maybe 100. No more. I didn't bother, and I think most other people didn't bother, either. So they got 50 irate emails and a few phone calls, then it was over.
If they'd given notice first, they weren't going to change their minds, and then people would have been pissed that no one did anything about their complaints.
SO they just pulled the plug.
Is my life different today because of it? No, because I started coming here more regularly. I"d been a member for a while.
And if this place pulled the plug? Then I'd have no place to go and I wouldn't waste so much time.
4 minutes ago, JMF2006 said:Who cares? let it go.
I don't know if anyone cares. But it's something to talk about while we're waiting for the game. Better than some thread about whether McDermott should have started Peterman.
-
Nice story. I like it a lot.
Still have to be able to coach.
We'll see.
-
1
-
-
57 minutes ago, Jay_Fixit said:
He ruined a lot of people’s enjoyment due to his “principles.”
He had his own COC. (Btw, he would have removed that last comment. For example).
Anyway, it’s in the past.
I won't argue with any of what you say.
-
1 hour ago, Drunken Pygmy Goat said:
I figured that with the Bills having new owners, and after Boyko was hired, that it was only a matter of time before it was shut down. The Sabres official site message board was suddenly shut down a few years ago. Transitioning into new NFL owners on top of being rather fresh as NHL owners probably delayed the process a bit, but i felt it was inevitable, especially when Boyko was hired.
The BBMB was probably a RB and company idea. It was created back when the internet (and interactions there) weren't quite as saturated as it is now with Facebook and Twitter, etc. MySpace probably didn't even exist yet. Interactions with other people across the internet came from message boards. Anyone with any niche could suddenly mingle with many others with the same interest at once, whenever they want.
Adding this feature to the Bills main site likely increased the amount of traffic to the site over time, increasing revenue. But 15+ years later, the internet is different, and people are much more openly vulgar and hateful towards others, and the players on the field are the focus of much of that as well. You could google something Bills related, and several threads from the BBMB would come up, many of them filled with misinformation and the hateful comments. If you're the "new Bills", you don't want anything like that associated with and representing your business. All those leaks and speculative reports that came out of Buffalo late last year was the straw that broke the camel's back IMO. The BBMB had already became a cesspool, and even though traffic may have still been higher for the site, it was just ugly all the way around. Besides, the we're very, very few informative, good "football" type threads, and too many beaten horses. And the traffic on team sites now comes more from video contact that is now more available and easily accessible than ever before.
I know there are many "fugees" here and at least one former mod (I'll read through later to see what they have to say).
This is mostly speculation but I think a reasonably good take at what was going on at OBD.
Simply put, the message board generated no revenue for the Bills. The front office may or may not have liked what was said on the board, but I know for a fact that they paid attention to it generally only when a problem arose, like when someone who had been banned complained to OBD about it. And when that happened, OBD always stood by the fan, which wasn't good for mod morale.
I'll give you some other speculation. I think there was a time last spring when someone, Russ or Terry probably, met with the publisher of the Buffalo News and told the News that it was time for them put a leash on Sully on the rest of those guys who were engaging more or less nonstop bashing of the Bills. I suspect the Bills made it clear to the News that certain companies that advertised with the Bills and also in the News didn't like having the Bills, their advertising partner, bashed by the News; i'.e, clean it up or some of your advertisers will leave you. The Bills and the NFL are more powerful, by a large measure, than the News.
One reason I think this happened was that when Rex was being fired, Anthony Lynn had his famous press conference, all that, the News was ripping the Bills horribly. "Dumpster fire" was a frequently used term. I know for a fact that the Bills had plans at that time to deal with the News.
The News did change. Some people left, others came in, and the reporting has been more balanced since the spring.
The fact that it was around the same time that the BBMB went down that makes think that OBD was paying more attention to the negative content about the news that was appearing in their market.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Jay_Fixit said:
Hey buddy. So you can agree that T&C was the worst mod in the history of the internet right? Because I’d love for him to know it.
I was a mod and I sometimes communicated with T&C because I thought his take on applying the rules was stricter than it needed to be. But I'll say this in his defense: He had principles and he stood by them. He had good reasons for why he saw it the way he did, and he stuck by his guns. He may have been the hardest working mod I saw on that board for the 13 years I was there.
It wasn't an easy job.
-
24 minutes ago, Billsfansinceday1 said:
This has come up a number of times both here and on other message boards so I thought I would chime in to answer some questions and perhaps correct some misconceptions. On the BBMB, I was known as MASH/BFID and was one of the mods for the last 3+ years of the BBMB's existence. I registered here under a new user name, to get a new start, but have been "outed" previously so I am comfortable stating the following things as far as I know them to be true.
1. The mods had as much advance notice of the closure of the board as everyone else (ie none).
2. With #1 stated, it was pretty clear for a very long time that OBD had lost interest in the BBMB. There was no support at all from OBD and tech support was non-existent. As a result, spambots were rampant. Being the early bird mod, I would routinely ban 50-100 spambots every morning so they could infect the board with trash or porn or whatever.
3. The mods were not picked per se nor were we compensated (we did receive signed mini helmets one year from Gregg Pastore...mine is here on my desk signed by Kyle Williams). Mods did come and go for a variety of reasons and one was even banned for being so extremely abusive (Teratoma, who was before my time as a mod). Essentially, we volunteered and had a clean posting history, and there was a need for additional support.
4. The BBMB was certainly read by some at OBD, although, we really didn't know who. I receive the Bills Digest and the last page of every episode was all quotes from members of the BBMB with comments from OBD staff to summarize the view of the topic from the top. They obviously knew who was good and who was bad.
5. There are a lot of comments here about the degree of moderation and I tend to agree with a lot of it but not all of it. Early on, I talked at length with Robyn (WYO) who was the lead mod at the time and the co-author of the Code of Conduct. Tom Donahoe, the previous Bills GM, was a regular reader of the BBMB and despised all the negativity toward him and the organization...to the point that he threatened to shut it down. As a result, a fairly stringent CoC was written to ensure the survival of the board.
6. Regarding #5, was there some abuse by mods, sure. Personally, I started out being too adherent to the CoC and infracted or banned some people who shouldn't have been. As time went on, I tapered my moderating style while others may not have. WYO tended to advocate for the "scalpel" approach rather than the "hammer". Once she was gone, we migrated toward our own personal styles for better or for worse.
7. Some members there did get extremely personal and abusive, especially on game day and around the draft. If it carried over, they may have gone away, many who returned under another name.
8. There was a fair amount of disagreement behind the scene about some of the infractions and bans, some of it quite accusatory. Without a strong lead mod, there was no "referee" so things tended to get more personal and vindictive, or at least that was my impression. Others would probably disagree with this, but se la vie.
9. I am not aware of any new member being banned, unless their IP address was that of a PBU (Previously Banned User) or an address identified as a spam address.
10. It was stated here that mods had 2nd accounts. The only occasion that I can think of was when we needed to test a new feature and needed an account other than our main user name.
11. I am also happy to be able to type "vague" without it hitting a language filter. No idea how that happened, but it was clearly unintended consequences.
That's about it. I really did enjoy the BBMB and there were a lot of very valuable contributors there, many of whom are now here. I do enjoy it here and appreciate the discussion.
Edit: Bills Chick was a mod.
Excellent, Fancy. I agree.
Mod s did tend toward more of a hammer approach toward the end, and some posters didn't like it. They thoightnoy was necessary because of the Spanish, pbus, etc and it was. But some of it was just unnecessarily harsh.
Being a mid is thankless. I always likened mod decisions to a nearsighted football ref making out of bounds calls without his glasses. If you went near the sidelines you were going to get some bad calls. But most of the posters anywhere stay near the middle ifnhe field and even nearsighted refancan tell they're in bounds.
A lot of people were happy at bbmb. The quality of discussions was excellent several years ago. It deteriorated some I've the years but there still were plenty of good threads.
This place is well run. Without the Bills looking over their shoulders the mods have more freedom to shape it the way they want. I have my quibbles with it, but that's just the near sighted ref problem - no place is.going to run exactly the way each member wants.
4 minutes ago, JoeF said:Tom Donahoe -- isn't he the one who drank babies blood?
The additional input and perspective have been great additions for the most part, even with the occasional Nate Peterman bad half posters...I bet it feels nice for the BBMB folks to be on freer site. Kudos to Scott again for giving us all a home.
John From Hemet...Kim Pegula is attractive and Terry is a lucky man. Like me -- he out kicked his coverage but he is making do....
I would bet that people aren't freer here. The fact that the Bills wouldn't give the mods the technical ability to truly ban bad actors meant that moderating over there was a constant guerilla war with some people who were just jerks. Here you have well behaved people posting - they feel free because they don't live in fear of being banned. At bmbb people were paranoid with good reason - the mods were tough. But you have to remember that the mods got rough because they were in this constant battle with a lot of.peoblem children they couldn't get rid of.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, BuffaloRush said:
It's been quite some time since the Buffalo Bills Message Board was shut down. In fact, that's how I landed here. My question is - how did it all go down. From my understanding the moderators were all volunteers and the head moderator was named Z-man. How they became moderators and who made them moderators? I have no idea. I believe that Chris Brown oversaw the BBMB at one time but had very limited involvement with it.
From what I can surmise, the board went down very shortly after Derek Boyko was hired. So my guess is that he evaluated the website and decided the website had to go. Clearly this was one area that Scott Berchtold must have not really paid much attention to.
All I know is that one day, I went to log in and then there was a message that it was gone.
Here are my questions:
- Who was from the Bills organization was responsible for the BBMB?
A guy named Gregg Pastore
2 hours ago, BuffaloRush said:- Who picked the moderators?
I think the other mods with Gregg's approval.
2 hours ago, BuffaloRush said:- Did anyone from the Bills even know or care that the BBMB existed?
They didn't care much. I think they considered it a nuisance. It just caused problems. Didn't earn any money.
2 hours ago, BuffaloRush said:- Who were the moderators exactly?
It varied overr time. Mods dropped out, became disinterested. I think once in a while Gregg wouldn't move a nod if he thought the mod wasn't doing a good job.
2 hours ago, BuffaloRush said:- How did the death of the BBMB occur and why was the decision made?
I think they just got tired of it and someone decided it was time. I don't think any event caused it.
2 hours ago, BuffaloRush said:-Who made the call and how were the moderators notified?
Don't know who made the decision. I was a mod and wasn't notified. There was usually a volunteer mad who was in touch with Gregg more than others and whoever that was may have gotten advance notice. I don't know.
-
On 11/28/2017 at 3:01 PM, Dr. Who said:
Yikes. That's a heavy price for a team with lots of holes to fill. You're not trading into Cleveland or the Giants' spot, so you're likely looking at the third best qb on the board.
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.
2 hours ago, teef said:this is the main point. i like taylor as a qb, but he's certainly not a guy you build a team around.
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.
-
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.
THE ROCKPILE REVIEW - Pats Crush Bills
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Agreed, on both points.
I live in New England, and I have an enormous dislike for many, many Patriots fan. But as a football fan, I have enormous respect for the Patriots. What they've done in era when parity rules is truly remarkable.
And yes, the Bills could have won.