Why protect Yates?

[JoeF]

This guy gets it!!

Its all based on the premise of this Bills team being nowhere near a playoff team without Taylor starting. There is a shred of hope with #5 back there. If Taylor goes down you have to focus on 2018...be real..find out what you have in Peterman.

 

TJ Yates is not even Jake Mccown or Brian Hoyer..he is not the future. TJ Yates is not going to be the Bills starting QB in 2018.

[Kirby Jackson]

Its all based on the premise of this Bills team being nowhere near a playoff team without Taylor starting. There is a shred of hope with #5 back there. If Taylor goes down you have to focus on 2018...be real..find out what you have in Peterman.

 

TJ Yates is not even Jake Mccown or Brian Hoyer..he is not the future. TJ Yates is not going to be the Bills starting QB in 2018.

He's not even a stop gap. There are better guys on the street now. If Tyrod goes down even for a half you aren't in much better shape with Yates than Peterman. If it were a Hoyer or McCown I couldn't say that. I agree 100% with you.

 

I didn't start this thread to just shout people down. It's widely accepted than NFL teams do this. I'm asking why? If anyone wants to go back and read the arguments for keeping him they aren't very compelling. If you gave those snaps to Peterman would you be less likely to win? I don't see it. It's just an idiosyncrasy of roster building that is universally accepted. It's pretty stupid.

[hondo in seattle]

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.

 

This seems pretty obviously true.

 

Plus Yates will be a good presence in the QB room and on the practice field. He'll help the other two QBs learn the Dennison offense faster/better.

 

The Bills are, after all, a running team. We don't need a gunslinger as a backup - a smart game manager will do.

[C.Biscuit97]

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 is 100 % right. What is safe about a guy with a career of 7 tds, 11 INTs, & 55% passing? https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/Y/YateT.00.htm Yates is a guy with worse stats across the board than EJ Manuel. So why are people content with this guy being the #2 guy?

 

I get Yates helping learn the playbook in OTAs and training camp. But he serves no purpose after that. Peterman and Jones (RIP) may suck but I know 100% that Yates sucks and I feel no better with him in a game than them.

 

That said, I'm sure he's a nice guy.

 

This seems pretty obviously true.

 

Plus Yates will be a good presence in the QB room and on the practice field. He'll help the other two QBs learn the Dennison offense faster/better.

 

The Bills are, after all, a running team. We don't need a gunslinger as a backup - a smart game manager will do.

If our qbs need help with the playbook past training camp, they are not going to be good qbs. A guy with 7 career tds doesn't have a lot of wisdom to impart.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

This seems pretty obviously true.

 

Plus Yates will be a good presence in the QB room and on the practice field. He'll help the other two QBs learn the Dennison offense faster/better.

 

The Bills are, after all, a running team. We don't need a gunslinger as a backup - a smart game manager will do.

So basically, he knows the playbook? Does Peterman not?

 

I will buy a little of the presence in the QB room. If he can act as another coach it holds some value. Without being too much of a devil's advocate why not just hire another coach? You can get them for less than $815K.

[LI_Bills]

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?

 

I don't want Peterman to equal that production, I want him to exceed it. Question to me is whether he's ready to do either. I look at Yates as a short-term insurance policy. Ideally Peterman moves past Yates on the depth chart quickly, but the kid is a late rounder who's never been to camp. I have no particular love for Yates but having a vet with a playoff win under his belt as a care-taker is fine with me.

[Bangarang]

Maybe Yates isn't being protected at all and he will battle it out with Peterman for the #2 job.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

I don't want Peterman to equal that production, I want him to exceed it. Question to me is whether he's ready to do either. I look at Yates as a short-term insurance policy. Ideally Peterman moves past Yates on the depth chart quickly, but the kid is a late rounder who's never been to camp. I have no particular love for Yates but having a vet with a playoff win under his belt as a care-taker is fine with me.

What would "being ready" look like? The bar isn't high. I think that he was capable of a Yates level performance a year ago.

[LI_Bills]

What would "being ready" look like? The bar isn't high. I think that he was capable of a Yates level performance a year ago.

 

That's been said of a lot of college QB's. I am by no means a talent evaluator and have no idea when he will "be ready" or if he already is. Ideally he comes to camp, impresses and moves up the food chain. In the meantime I like a vet at #2.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

That's been said of a lot of college QB's. I am by no means a talent evaluator and have no idea when he will "be ready" or if he already is. Ideally he comes to camp, impresses and moves up the food chain. In the meantime I like a vet at #2.

So we like him because he has played before? That's the notion that I'm challenging. Brian Brohm and Jeff Tuel have played too. Are we more likely to win with them than Peterman? If a guy stinks, he stinks. Being forced into action doesn't turn him into an asset. It's the Dan Orlovsky theory (which was the impetus for this thread). "I'm glad that we have a guy that has played before. It doesn't matter if he played well it just matters that he's played."

 

So his best qualities are that he's played before and had a similar playbook 4 years ago? I'll sleep well tonight knowing that the offense is in good hands if TT goes down.

[LI_Bills]

So we like him because he has played before? That's the notion that I'm challenging. Brian Brohm and Jeff Tuel have played too. Are we more likely to win with them than Peterman? If a guy stinks, he stinks. Being forced into action doesn't turn him into an asset. It's the Dan Orlovsky theory (which was the impetus for this thread). "I'm glad that we have a guy that has played before. It doesn't matter if he played well it just matters that he's played."

 

So his best qualities are that he's played before and had a similar playbook 4 years ago? I'll sleep well tonight knowing that the offense is in good hands if TT goes down.

 

I don't like Yates per se...or any of the other guys you've mentioned. But yes, I do like having someone who has played before to be ready for a game or two if needed if there's no confidence that the guy who has never taken a pro snap is ready.

 

I get your point, but look at last year when the Bills would only let CJ play one quarter in an utterly meaningless game (that they would be better off losing anyway) or a team like the Jets who didn't even let Hackenberg dress (let alone play) when everyone went down. I take that to mean those two were just not ready.

 

Let Peterman come in and win the #2, I'm all for it...in the meantime I'm OK with the mediocre vet backup.

[KD in CA]

Its all based on the premise of this Bills team being nowhere near a playoff team without Taylor starting. There is a shred of hope with #5 back there. If Taylor goes down you have to focus on 2018...be real..find out what you have in Peterman.

 

TJ Yates is not even Jake Mccown or Brian Hoyer..he is not the future. TJ Yates is not going to be the Bills starting QB in 2018.

So every guy on the roster needs to be the 'future'? No room for a competent vet in a backup role?

 

All this gnashing of teeth is really over Cardale Jones, right? You guys would really rather see him in a game over Yates?

 

The Bills had two young, mid-round QB projects and picked the better one.

 

Obviously they can't have no veteran and two guys who are essentially rookies.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

I don't like Yates per se...or any of the other guys you've mentioned. But yes, I do like having someone who has played before to be ready for a game or two if needed if there's no confidence that the guy who has never taken a pro snap is ready.

 

I get your point, but look at last year when the Bills would only let CJ play one quarter in an utterly meaningless game (that they would be better off losing anyway) or a team like the Jets who didn't even let Hackenberg dress (let alone play) when everyone went down. I take that to mean those two were just not ready.

 

Let Peterman come in and win the #2, I'm all for it...in the meantime I'm OK with the mediocre vet backup.

I'm obviously hoping Peterman wins the job. I know you aren't a Yates guy. It is just interesting to me. The NFL (and fans) trust "vets" more than guys that haven't played. The reason that they trust them is because they've played. Orlovsky got a job this week and is 2-10 with 6.1 ypa. Does a team really feel like he give them a better chance than any other NFL QB? I'd rather take my chance that the guy that has never played can be as good as him. If we know a guy stinks I just don't see any reason to keep him around. You can always find another guy that's played (and sucked) on the street. Guys like Yates, Orlovsky, Gradkowski, etc... kick around the league forever because they were thrust into action a few times. That doesn't mean that they are better than guys like Aaron Murray or a rookie. It just means that they've played.

So every guy on the roster needs to be the 'future'? No room for a competent vet in a backup role?

 

All this gnashing of teeth is really over Cardale Jones, right? You guys would really rather see him in a game over Yates?

 

The Bills had two young, mid-round QB projects and picked the better one.

 

Obviously they can't have no veteran and two guys who are essentially rookies.

Define competent. Is he better than Shaun Hill? Charlie Whitehurst? Ponder? His numbers haven't been yet they are on the street. If the goal is "competent vet backup" Kaep is the best option. I don't want to turn this into a political thread but what he has done in his career dwarfs that of Yates. Use Shaun Hill though. He has been a better (and more experienced) player than Yates. You could sign him tomorrow if you had to. Yates isn't keeping the "ship afloat" more than pretty much anyone else. You could plug any guy with NFL talent in and get the level of up and down production that he provides. Why not explore the unknown whose floor is what Yates is capable of and has a ceiling of ____?

 

I do agree there is room for a competent backup but 6.8 yards an attempt with 6 TDs and 8 INTs isn't that competent backup IMO. That's just a guy that's played. We often start thinking of guys as veteran or competent backups because they've played. If I said Drew Stanton, we'd all think competent backup. I've never looked at his numbers and have no idea if he is good but in my head he's "competent veteran backup."

Edited July 27, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[LI_Bills]

I'm obviously hoping Peterman wins the job. I know you aren't a Yates guy. It is just interesting to me. The NFL (and fans) trust "vets" more than guys that haven't played. The reason that they trust them is because they've played. Pel sky got a job this week and is 2-10 with 6.1 ypa. Does a team really feel like he give them a better chance than any other NFL QB? I'd rather take my chance that the guy that has never played can be as good as him. If we know a guy stinks I just don't see any reason to keep him around. You can always find another guy that's played (and sucked) on the street. Guys like Yates, Orlovsky, Gradkowski, etc... kick around the league forever because they were thrust into action a few times. That doesn't mean that they are better than guys like Aaron Murray or a rookie. It just means that they've played.

 

I get your point. I think the fear is if you throw a guy into the fray too soon you could ruin him. But that mentality probably prevents some talented guys from ever getting a chance.

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

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?

We the fact is Peterman has done none of those things and has a questionable arm at the NFL level. So by all means Yates is clearly ahead in the depth chart as of today.. could change but doesn't mean it will

[KD in CA]

I'm obviously hoping Peterman wins the job. I know you aren't a Yates guy. It is just interesting to me. The NFL (and fans) trust "vets" more than guys that haven't played. The reason that they trust them is because they've played. Pel sky got a job this week and is 2-10 with 6.1 ypa. Does a team really feel like he give them a better chance than any other NFL QB? I'd rather take my chance that the guy that has never played can be as good as him. If we know a guy stinks I just don't see any reason to keep him around. You can always find another guy that's played (and sucked) on the street. Guys like Yates, Orlovsky, Gradkowski, etc... kick around the league forever because they were thrust into action a few times. That doesn't mean that they are better than guys like Aaron Murray or a rookie. It just means that they've played.

Define competent. Is he better than Shaun Hill? Charlie Whitehurst? Ponder? His numbers haven't been yet they are on the street. If the goal is "competent vet backup" Kaep is the best option. I don't want to turn this into a political thread but what he has done in his career dwarfs that of Yates. Use Shaun Hill though. He has been a better (and more experienced) player than Yates. You could sign him tomorrow if you had to. Yates isn't keeping the "ship afloat" more than pretty much anyone else. You could plug any guy with NFL talent in and get the level of up and down production that he provides. Why not explore the unknown whose floor is what Yates is capable of and has a ceiling of ____?

 

I do agree there is room for a competent backup but 6.8 yards an attempt with 6 TDs and 8 INTs isn't that competent backup IMO. That's just a guy that's played. We often start thinking of guys as veteran or competent backups because they've played. If I said Drew Stanton, we'd all think competent backup. I've never looked at his numbers and have no idea if he is good but in my head he's "competent veteran backup."

Ok, so find a better vet, though none of the guys you mentioned is a clearly better option. Backups are flawed, comes with the territory. Comparing highly specific stats among part time players isn't very helpful.

 

Competent means you know he can operate an NFL offense. Bills have two guys who can do that. That leaves room for one unknown.

 

Is it just coincidence all this boils over the day Jones is traded?

[Buffalo Barbarian]

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?

If Tyrod goes down we need a capable back up. Of course we could tank with Peterman.

[Kirby Jackson]

Ok, so find a better vet, though none of the guys you mentioned is a clearly better option. Backups are flawed, comes with the territory. Comparing highly specific stats among part time players isn't very helpful.

 

Competent means you know he can operate an NFL offense. Bills have two guys who can do that. That leaves room for one unknown.

 

Is it just coincidence all this boils over the day Jones is traded?

You keep saying that but go back days and you will see this same argument from me.

 

If you put the blind resume of Shaun Hill next to that of Orlovsky or Yates you'd be surprised. We are literally calling them competent because they have played before. It isn't because they've played at a competent level. Jeff Tuel started a game but i don't believe that he can operate an NFL offense.

 

There still isn't ONE valid argument that the guy deserves a spot. My intial post were the reasons that I didn't think that he, or anyone like him around the league, should have a job in the NFL. No one has disputed or debated any of that. All we've heard is that "he's solid" or "a vet." He hasn't been good when he's played. There are guys (Orlovsky again) that have been worse that just got picked up. I'm looking for a reason that an NFL team feels more comfortable with a guy that's been bad vs. an unknown? That only happens at QB. You never see some awful OT kick around because he's experienced. They will try new guy after new guy. The only other place that it consistently happens is with kickers.

 

If it was a McCown or Hoyer that has had successful stretches I'd be all for it. It's a guy that has played 7 games and been mostly poor. He has a job because he played in this system in 2013 and has played in those 7 games. That's not a good reason. If the Bills played tomorrow and had an option of Peterman or Yates would the result of the game really be that much different? If that gap isn't closing every day, it is a problem. The second that you think that a Peterman performance won't be worse than a Yates, he's useless. Personally, I think that we are already that but it speaks to my larger point. Why would a team sign an Orlovsky instead of picking up Aaron Murray?

If Tyrod goes down we need a capable back up. Of course we could tank with Peterman.

We will tank with Peterman or Yates. I'd rather see the young guy and fail than see the old guy and fail.

[Domdab99]

You have Yates because he's going to help TT with the offense. He's a great "3rd eye" and a perfect clipboard/sideline guy.

 

If he's playing, he has at least a shot at winning the game.

 

He's the perfect back-up.

[Dragonborn10]

Kirby, I agree with all your points. If Peterman looks ok in camp, I think they will cut Yates and go with just two QBs to start the season. If TT gets hurt the season is lost anyways. There was no point in wasting further time on Jones. They can focus all their attention on TT and Peterman. Yates already knows the offense. If he looks great in camp, go ahead and keep him. If he is terrible as we suspect, just cut him late in camp.