Why protect Yates?

[Kirby Jackson]

I've been preaching (maybe crusading) in other threads as to why you would waste a roster spot on Yates. Here are my reasons:

- If he is playing for an extended period you are losing anyways

- You miss the chance to get a look at Peterman

- You have one less spot to use elsewhere on the roster

- If cut you can probably call him on any given Monday and add him back

- Is he really better than Kaep, RG, Shaun Hill, Whitehurst, Or Ponder

 

We keep hearing that "the guy knows the offense." I guess that's a reason to bring him to camp but someone please convince me that he deserves a roster spot. Would the team be any worse with Peterman taking snaps than Yates? I'd rather win 3 games with the rookie than 3 games with a guy in his 30's. What am I missing (other than NFL teams like certain guys because they have played in games before)? Playing in games and being bad shouldn't be a prerequisite for a future job.

Edited August 11, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[mead107]

Why do you believe they are protecting Yates?

[Kirby Jackson]

Why do you believe they are protecting Yates?

That seems to be the general consensus. I'm not trying to go all Mike Schopp on this but it makes no sense to me. Everyone assumes that he will get a job (and others like him around the league). The question is really why do teams do that?

[CommonCents]

That seems to be the general consensus. I'm not trying to go all Mike Schopp on this but it makes no sense to me. Everyone assumes that he will get a job (and others like him around the league). The question is really why do teams do that?

Looking past future development and leaning towards protecting their own jobs in the short term. If TT goes down maybe Yates can execute the offense and win a game or two extra. It's short sighted but it's the way of life for an NFL coach, partly to blame for the lack of QB's getting developed around the league too.

[mead107]

If that is the general consensus because they got rid of cardale then they would. Be wrong in my opinion

[Miyagi-Do Karate]

I get the argument, but I would prefer to have a "safe" vet like a Yates or a Matt Moore as a backup. Can come in and hopefully play .500 ball if they have to; that's what you want in your no. 2.

 

You don't want to be forced into tanking the season if your starter goes down, which would Be more likely if you have a guy like peterman as the no. 2.

[Kirby Jackson]

Looking past future development and leaning towards protecting their own jobs in the short term. If TT goes down maybe Yates can execute the offense and win a game or two extra. It's short sighted but it's the way of life for an NFL coach, partly to blame for the lack of QB's getting developed around the league too.

I think that makes sense but it's not a good reason. A guy just got a job this week that is 33 years old, has a 2-10 record as a starter and averages 6.1 yards per attempt. Is a team better off giving a job to him instead of (insert young guy here)? That's my point. I'm of the belief that Hackenberg is awful. With that being said if my QB went down I'd rather give him the snaps than Yates (or some guy just like him).

If that is the general consensus because they got rid of cardale then they would. Be wrong in my opinion

Pretty much every roster projection that I've seen (even before this) has him there. It isn't just a Yates question though. It is more of a "Yates type" question.

[mead107]

I get the argument, but I would prefer to have a "safe" vet like a Yates or a Matt Moore as a backup. Can come in and hopefully play .500 ball if they have to; that's what you want in your no. 2.

You don't want to be forced into tanking the season if your starter goes down, which would Be more likely if you have a guy like peterman as the no. 2.

agree

[Johnny Hammersticks]

He knows the Kubiak/Dennison offense. Could come in and start week one in a pinch if he had too. Peterman will likely take some time.

[LI_Bills]

I don't think its about protecting against a prolonged or season-ending injury, it's having a guy with experience to fill in for a game or two and hopefully get a win.

Edited July 27, 2017 by LI_Bills

[Brianmoorman4jesus]

Yates is a solid vet that can make all the throws and will put the ball where it needs to be. He has been around and seen it all. If given an actual shot, Yates will push Tyrod a little. He is a borderline starter and excellent back up. Yates has won more play off games in his career then the Bills have in the past 23 years.

[Kirby Jackson]

I get the argument, but I would prefer to have a "safe" vet like a Yates or a Matt Moore as a backup. Can come in and hopefully play .500 ball if they have to; that's what you want in your no. 2.

 

You don't want to be forced into tanking the season if your starter goes down, which would Be more likely if you have a guy like peterman as the no. 2.

Is Yates more likely to go .500 than Shaun Hill, or Whitehurst, or RG 3 or Kaep, or Ponder? You can just sign any of those guys if that's the fear.

I don't think its about protecting against a prolonged or season-ending, it's having a guy with experience to fill in for a game or two and hopefully get a win.

See above

Yates is a solid vet that can make all the throws and will put the ball where it needs to be. He has been around and seen it all. If given an actual shot, Yates will push Tyrod a little. He is a borderline starter and excellent back up. Yates has won more play off games in his career then the Bills have in the past 23 years.

You must have never seen him play.

[DriveFor1Outta5]

I get the argument, but I would prefer to have a "safe" vet like a Yates or a Matt Moore as a backup. Can come in and hopefully play .500 ball if they have to; that's what you want in your no. 2.

 

You don't want to be forced into tanking the season if your starter goes down, which would Be more likely if you have a guy like peterman as the no. 2.

I agree, but the OP stated that he would rather win three games with Peterman than three games with a thirty something QB (Yates). Basically the OP believes that Yates and Peterman playing would yield the same result. The issues is that the Bills FO likely disagrees with that sentiment. They might simply think that Yates would give them the best chance to win outside of Tyrod at this time. I don't necessarily agree, but I don't think it's too ridiculous of an idea either.

Is Yates more likely to go .500 than Shaun Hill, or Whitehurst, or RG 3 or Kaep, or Ponder? You can just sign any of those guys if that's the fear.

See above

You must have never seen him play.

Yes, my cat is more likely to go .500 as a QB than RG3, Kaep, or Ponder. I agree with you regarding Hill and Whitehurst.

[fridge]

That seems to be the general consensus. I'm not trying to go all Mike Schopp on this but it makes no sense to me. Everyone assumes that he will get a job (and others like him around the league). The question is really why do teams do that?

I think a lot of teams value having guys with experience in depth positions, especially QB2. If we went with Peterman and Jones its not much different than the year we had Tuel and Lewis as our reserves.

 

Of the guess you listed (Kaep, RG, Shaun Hill, Whitehurst, Or Ponder), Yates is by no means the best, but if he knows the playbook I'd rather have him in if the coaches feel comfortable.

 

I should clarify that I'm not excited by Yates either, but I agree with you that if we need to see him in extended action we're in trouble. If Tyrod is out for multiple games and we're not in a playoff race, I'd expect Peterman to get some playing time.

[Kmart128]

He knows the system. He could help Peterman and Tyrod learn the system faster. Not to mention he is a solid vet backup.

[Kirby Jackson]

So far I've heard, "solid vet," and "knows the playbook." He's a 30 year-old QB that averages 6.8 yards per attempt and has 6 TDs vs. 8 INTs IN HIS CAREER!! That's a "solid vet?!?" Does anyone really believe that Peterman can't equal that production?

Edited July 27, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[Johnny Hammersticks]

So far I've heard, "solid vet," and "knows the playbook." He's a 30 year-old QB that averages 6.8 yards per attempt and has 6 TDs vs. 8 INTs IN HIS CAREER!! That's a "solid vet?!?" Does anyone really believe that Peterman can't equal that production?

It is conceivable that Peterman could win the #2 job in camp. Yates is just a good insurance policy.

[JoeF]

He's a TarHeel.....and didn't take any fake classes (as far as we know). That right there counts for something.

 

I think I get your point Kirby...This team likely is a 4 win or less team if Tyrod misses significant time. I think McD and Beane know this and Peterman will get a shot if TT goes down later in the year.

 

Yates is a known, cerebral (read weak-armed), below average game manager who happens to know this playbook. If Shady has a series of outstanding games and the D and Special Teams are lights out -- the Bills maybe win 2 of 6 with Yates as a longer term starter. Read--no playoffs. In this case -- I am on the Peterman bandwagon, particularly if this happens the second half of the season.

 

Would I prefer Taylor, Jones and Peterman to Taylor, Yates and Peterman...yes because the Bills aren't making the playoffs if TJ Yates starts more than a couple of games...and there is no harm in learning more about Peterman and Jones both of whom seem to have some upside...

Edited July 27, 2017 by JoeF

[NoSaint]

I think it boils down to if week 8 we are 4-3, and leading 17-10 in the second half and TT rolls an ankle (can't finish the game, and missing week 9).... who do you want in THAT very specific window?

 

If peterman hasn't taken the #2 job, I'd by a mile take Yates on the roster over a street free agent

 

If it's week 2 and taylor blows an ACL, I don't really want Yates winning 4-5 instead of 2-3 by a rookie that flops though.

Edited July 27, 2017 by NoSaint

[Kirby Jackson]

It is conceivable that Peterman could win the #2 job in camp. Yates is just a good insurance policy.

Is he? Why not just sign Shaun Hill? He has MORE experience and has had MORE success. You could sign him tomorrow for the same money as Yates. That's the point. It isn't protecting you from anything. NFL teams continue to do it because they fear for their jobs. That's the thing that I agree with most on here. That's not a very good reason for a roster decision.

He's a TarHeel.....and didn't take any fake classes (as far as we know). That right there counts for something.

 

I think I get your point Kirby...This team likely is a 4 win or less team if Tyrod misses significant time. I think McD and Beane know this and Peterman will get a shot if TT goes down later in the year.

 

Yates is a known, cerebral (read weak-armed), below average game manager who happens to know this playbook. If Shady has a series of outstanding games and the D and Special Teams are lights out -- the Bills maybe win 2 of 6 with Yates as a longer term starter. Read--no playoffs. In this case -- I am on the Peterman bandwagon, particularly if this happens the second half of the season.

 

Would I prefer Taylor, Jones and Peterman to Taylor, Yates and Peterman...yes because the Bills aren't making the playoffs if TJ Yates starts more than a couple of games...

This guy gets it!!

I think it boils down to if week 8 we are 5-3, and leading 17-10 in the second half and TT rolls an ankle (can't finish the game, and missing week 9).... who do you want in THAT very specific window?

 

I can buy an argument for Yates. If it's week 2 and taylor blows an ACL, I don't really want Yates winning 4-5 instead of 2-3 by a rookie that flops though.

So we are talking about 1 half of 1 game (because you can sign Yates or a Yates the next day)? If that specific situation happens though do you still believe "I trust Yates to protect that 7 point lead a lot more than I do Peterman?" If they are going to win that game it's not because of the QB in the 2nd half.