Why protect Yates?

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

I think Peterman is gonna get more then his share of snaps to show what he can do.

 

I think there is something to be said about veteran presense......Tyrod goes in as the starter but you have to figure out what you do if the worst happens.....and leaving it to a rook only makes sense if you are playing for next years draft selection.

 

....agree.....who knows what Yates may do?.......anybody see the Rich Gannon resurrection in their crystal bawls??.........

 

..drafted in 1987 but did not hit his stride until with the Raiders;, he achieved his greatest successes, including four consecutive seasons making the Pro Bowl (1999-2002), three consecutive postseason appearances for the Raiders (2000-2002), two All-Pro selections (2000, 2002), and an appearance in Super Bowl XXXVII played on January 26, 2003 at Qualcomm Stadium in San Diego, California.

[C.Biscuit97]

I agree with C.Biscuit. I am closer to him on TT than to Kirby but Kirby is one of our best posters and he is right that he has long, long, long been a "keep the possible upside guy" over a "take the safe option."

 

He won't, I am sure, mind me mentioning Hogan v D'Rick.... but he is also big enough to admit when that approach would in hindsight have been the wrong choice and he does not change his approach to roster building year on year to support or criticise whatever the Bills are doing. His 'agenda' to the extent he has one is just based on his own view of roster building not on trying to create a narrative one way or the other about the Bills.

Good post. And I was on the Hogan train FTR! . But Hogan didn't have years of film of him not being good enough like Yates doesn't. And Hogan had upside whereas Yates has none.

[BringBackOrton]

No, it's because Yates is a 30 year-old that's sucked. If you go back, you will see that this conversation started before Cardale got traded. You haven't been here too long but I have a longstanding disdain for wasting roster spots on guys that have no upside (I've been wrong before). If you needed Yates you could sign him back the next day. I don't see the team being any better with him playing than Peterman. I don't see a difference in wins or losses. So his value is that he's played? Big deal

 

Tyrod was also a former conference player of the year and a guy that had a massive college career. His size led him to be drafted later. When in Baltimore he was largely thought of as "an intriguing young option." There are guys like that every year (Trevor Siemian last year). That's not who TJ Yates is. He's a guy with a terrible resume that is familiar with the system. So what?

You're not answering my question.

 

Do you remember the, "Dennison must've liked what he saw in TT in Baltimore to retain him" argument?

 

Did you agree with that one? Why does that not apply to, "Dennison must've liked what he saw in Yates in Houston to get him?"

 

If you disagree with both, I get it. If not, why pick and choose?

[fridge]

Matt Moore and Fitz are guys i could see coming off the bench and winning games. Yates might not be in the NFL if we didn't sign him. He was bouncing around last year.

Does anyone disagree that Matt Moore and Fitzpatrick are better than Yates?

 

I agree with you 100% on Tyrod, but I'm having trouble caring as much about the backup situation. In a perfect world, I would have loved for Cardale to be the undisputed future of the franchise. In reality, we moved on and I'm fine with it. I understand that Yates is not the future and I hope we never need him to start games.

 

I would have tried to convince Washington to tag and trade Cousins for Tyrod and work out a long term deal there. But what do I know? Even Cousins has his faults. It seems nearly impossible to snag a legitimate franchise QB and they are rarely traded for 7th round picks as camp begins.

[Kirby Jackson]

You're not answering my question.

 

Do you remember the, "Dennison must've liked what he saw in TT in Baltimore to retain him" argument?

 

Did you agree with that one? Why does that not apply to, "Dennison must've liked what he saw in Yates in Houston to get him?"

 

If you disagree with both, I get it. If not, why pick and choose?

I don't disagree with that. Dennsion recruiting TT to Denver is a more similar argument. He was an unknown at that time though with an intriguing skill set and upside. He also had big production in college. Yates is a 30 year-old that has not played well and there is no upside. While Dennison may be fine with both guys there is definitely different goals with them.

 

Dennison keeping TT is a pretty easy decision too IMO. He is a decent NFL starter, that knows your system, and is cheap. It's not surprising that a team is comfortable with using him to buy time. That's a different case than Yates.

 

Yates is a guy that he trusts to be able to execute his system. The notion that I'm challenging (and this isn't just the Bills) is why do we trust guys that haven't been good? Knowing it and succeeding with it are two different things. Are we better off with the guy that knoews the system but has a career rating of 72 or the rookie? It's the same reason that I ended up backing Tyrod in the QB battle a few years back. I will take the unknown over a proven failure anytime. Experience is the most overrated thing in all of sports (except in a playoff environment). We are starting to see teams come around to this thinking and running guys out earlier in their careers.

[DriveFor1Outta5]

Because he played in a similar system in 2013 we just accept that gives them a better chance to win than someone that presumably has more talent?!? That's a lot of confidence in the system (and Yates).

 

I'm not sure how I'm being "pigheaded." I'm asking a question because I don't believe that guys like him "give you the best chance to win" yet they all keep getting jobs. Dan Orlovsky signed a contract recently. Why does a team feel more comfortable with a guy that stinks, that they've seen stink, a better option than the unknown?

 

We are starting to see teams turn to young guys earlier and earlier. It makes sense to do that. It was more meant to be a macro question and as I thought there really aren't good reasons for it. I was hoping for some football reasons, not because coaches are comfortable. That sounds more like a bad marriage than a good football situation. It was meant to be thought-provoking not to bash the guy. Why waste a roster spot on a guy that you can call tomorrow and add back to the roster? That's true at any position IMO. I've argued the point enough so I will leave the discussion. Thanks everyone for engaging!!

I agree. Any random rookie can play just as well as these journeymen backup players. However, NFL teams are very conservative by nature. They always go with the tried and true option. Why don't more coaches go for forth and short? The answer is the same.

[reddogblitz]

I used to be in that camp of if your starter goes down, you're probably screwed. Well, if you are competing for a wildcard, those couple of games could make or break your season. You can do better than a guy who has worse career numbers than EJ Manuel.

I was never in that camp.

 

Ask the Fish about either last year or 1972. Jeff Hostettler anyone?

 

This if your starter gets hurt you're done anyway assumes the injury happens in week 3 or so.

 

But what if we're 8-6? Trot out some rook who hasn't played just to see what he can do? With your coaching career on the line? I don't think so.

[Kirby Jackson]

I agree. Any random rookie can play just as well as these journeymen backup players. However, NFL teams are very conservative by nature. They always go with the tried and true option. Why don't more coaches go for forth and short? The answer is the same.

Yep and that's a great example.

[oldmanfan]

Let's just hope our backup doesn't have to play

[Straight Hucklebuck]

I agree, an absolute waste of a roster spot and you just traded a guy you took in the 4th for nothing.

[dubs]

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 pit 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.

I think it's pretty simple, the FO wants to be covered in all situations.

 

If the team is contending (like seriously contending not "in the hunt"), for a playoff spot and TT goes down, you want someone who can step in and not be in their first NFL game taking snaps behind center. You also need someone who knows the offense and been with the team for a bit.

 

That's the reason, I agree with it, but it's a pretty narrow scenario that it plays out this way.

[Kirby Jackson]

I think it's pretty simple, the FO wants to be covered in all situations.

 

If the team is contending (like seriously contending not "in the hunt"), for a playoff spot and TT goes down, you want someone who can step in and not be in their first NFL game taking snaps behind center. You also need someone who knows the offense and been with the team for a bit.

 

That's the reason, I agree with it, but it's a pretty narrow scenario that it plays out this way.

Yeah, I can see that as their reasoning. In fact, "the comfort level" is a big reason why. In that exact scenario though, say Week 17 in Miami, win and your in. Tyrod is out. Who gives you a better chance to win that game? That's the answer as to your #2. If it is Yates, it's Yates. The whole argument that I've been making is that "because you're comfortable with him" isn't how you make that decision. The guy that gives you the best chance to win is always the answer.

 

There is some tipping point out there where a guy that's never played is a better option than bad QBs. It's a moving line on both sides. The better the prospect is the more likely they are to overtake a better veteran. The worse the veteran is the lesser the prospect can be to get to this point. You are probably better off running out a Shaun Hill in that game than you are a Nate Peterman. You may not be better off running out Orlovsky than Peterman. Where's the tipping point?

[JMF2006]

If he sucks that bad he will get cut.

I agree, an absolute waste of a roster spot and you just traded a guy you took in the 4th for nothing.

 

Reached for in the 4th,I doubt any other team had a 4th rnd grade on him.

 

Most of the stuff I seen was 7th or UDFA.

[dubs]

Yeah, I can see that as their reasoning. In fact, "the comfort level" is a big reason why. In that exact scenario though, say Week 17 in Miami, win and your in. Tyrod is out. Who gives you a better chance to win that game? That's the answer as to your #2. If it is Yates, it's Yates. The whole argument that I've been making is that "because you're comfortable with him" isn't how you make that decision. The guy that gives you the best chance to win is always the answer.

 

There is some tipping point out there where a guy that's never played is a better option than bad QBs. It's a moving line on both sides. The better the prospect is the more likely they are to overtake a better veteran. The worse the veteran is the lesser the prospect can be to get to this point. You are probably better off running out a Shaun Hill in that game than you are a Nate Peterman. You may not be better off running out Orlovsky than Peterman. Where's the tipping point?

Yep. Totally agree and don't know the answer. I think they hope Petermen is that guy soon, but they want a "floor" guy just in case.

[3rdand12]

A very interesting topic. Been reading it at work where i cannot post.

Thanks Kirby for the Mental chew toy.

BTW i think Yates was brought in as asst to the asst Off and QB Coach for the transition. Not to play football. But if he has to, he can.

Edited July 28, 2017 by 3rdand12

[Kirby Jackson]

A very interesting topic. Been reading it at work where i cannot post.

Thanks Kirby for the Mental chew toy.

BTW i think Yates was brought in as asst to the asst Off and QB Coach for the transition. Not to play football. But if he has to, he can.

Thanks 3rdand12!! Just something a little different. It's fun to try to look from the inside out. If a coach or GM were put in a particular position what would and should they do? It's always easy to use hindsight and we LOVE to do that here. The conversation is more fun looking ahead. We are all geniuses with the benefit of hindsight. The Bills should have drafted Russell Wilson instead of TJ Graham. After Orlovsky signed the other day I asked myself "what am I missing?" Why is this guy employed?

[3rdand12]

Thanks 3rdand12!! Just something a little different. It's fun to try to look from the inside out. If a coach or GM were put in a particular position what would and should they do? It's always easy to use hindsight and we LOVE to do that here. The conversation is more fun looking ahead. We are all geniuses with the benefit of hindsight. The Bills should have drafted Russell Wilson instead of TJ Graham. After Orlovsky signed the other day I asked myself "what am I missing?" Why is this guy employed?

One of the features of a thread such as this is how well one maintains the dialogue. You have done a fine job in doing just that.

Thanks Kirby

[Tuco]

Yeah, I can see that as their reasoning. In fact, "the comfort level" is a big reason why. In that exact scenario though, say Week 17 in Miami, win and your in. Tyrod is out. Who gives you a better chance to win that game? That's the answer as to your #2. If it is Yates, it's Yates. The whole argument that I've been making is that "because you're comfortable with him" isn't how you make that decision. The guy that gives you the best chance to win is always the answer.

 

There is some tipping point out there where a guy that's never played is a better option than bad QBs. It's a moving line on both sides. The better the prospect is the more likely they are to overtake a better veteran. The worse the veteran is the lesser the prospect can be to get to this point. You are probably better off running out a Shaun Hill in that game than you are a Nate Peterman. You may not be better off running out Orlovsky than Peterman. Where's the tipping point?

I think it all depends on how you look at #2. And I think in our current situation #2 isn't about who will fill in if TT goes down for any length of time. Number 2 has to be the guy who dresses on game day and who can come in having taken very few snaps during the practice week. It's not just "knowing the playbook." In a typical week the coaches look at the defense they expect and add a dozen plays they think will work well and add it to the base offense. Then the starter gets almost all the reps during the week practicing against the expected defense, with the understanding that, just as you have said, if he goes down you're probably screwed anyway. But if he does in fact go down, who has the best chance to win off the bench without having practiced the game planned plays with the starters during the week? The rook who hasn't played a down yet? Or the guy who isn't great but has been around?

 

None of this means that if TT goes down for multiple weeks that Yates has to be the starter just because he's listed as #2 right now. You could easily give Peterman 90% of the reps in practice the next week and go into the game with him starting and Yates still #2 just like any other week. Given this scenario it makes sense to keep a Yates as he fills basically an emergency spot you hope you don't need for $815,000. And given this scenario he wouldn't do you any good to call him up on Monday since he's only really being kept around, not to be the starter, but to be the emergency fill in on game day. Monday is too late for that. Meanwhile, if at any point in the season you feel better about Peterman playing at #2 instead (I know you feel that way now but the coaches probably want to see a little more of him at the pro level first), you can still keep Yates around as emergency #3 since he's only here for $815,000 (and actually only costs $655,000 against the cap since signed a qualifying contract).

 

So sure, Kaep and Hoyer, Hill etc. might be a better option than Yates if TT goes down for an extended period. But Peterman being #3 doesn't mean Yates is the starter if TT is out. It just means right now the coaches think he would be better at coming off the bench with almost no practice. Bringing in Kaep or Hoyer for the money they will get would be a bigger sign to me that they don't think Peterman can eventually do the job. It's always a gamble. But they've already seen enough of Peterman to let Cardale go. So it's entirely possible Yates role is not to be the starter if TT goes out, but rather to start the season as the best off the bench behind TT, and also the best off the bench behind Peterman should it come to that. And also maybe finish the season at #3. That's a job for a $815,000 man, not what guys like Kaep and Hoyer will get.

 

My $.02.

[klos63]

I agree. Any random rookie can play just as well as these journeymen backup players. However, NFL teams are very conservative by nature. They always go with the tried and true option. Why don't more coaches go for forth and short? The answer is the same.

They don't? I think most coaches use good judgement on 4th and short.

[Kirby Jackson]

They don't? I think most coaches use good judgement on 4th and short.

Analytics say that coaches are WAY conservative on 4th down. Guys like Belicheck and Urban Meyer may be breaking that down some. It's easier to do what's always been done and fail than go against the grain and fail. Even if going against the grain is the better percentage play. You face less criticism if you make the universally accepted decision even if it is mathematically the wrong one. That's the old Mike Schopp debate (although he applies ridiculous hyperbole to it).

 

The 2 point conversion is heading that way too. If you convert them over 50% of the time why kick extra points? I know that's an extreme example but hear me out. If you score 50 TDs on the year and make 50% of you 2's that's 50 points. If you make 92% of your extra points that's 46 points. That's a dumbed down version and the margin isn't huge but we are starting to see teams with Urban Meyer, Chip Kelly, and Mike Tomlin challenging that some.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Kirby Jackson