Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 I posted the stats. It doesn't matter if you break it down by game or by attempt. Hoyer is in no way a much better passer than Tyrod, and that's not even factoring in running and gamebreaking ability.What if I want it to be true though to validate a narrative I've been trying to construct? Does it make it true then? If I say it enough times can we just ignore the evidence and accept that what I'm saying is true?
Brianmoorman4jesus Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Sorry I don't follow Hoyer enough to know he got injured after 4 passes in game 6. I simply looked at his stat sheet which is every bit as pedestrians as Tyrods. You really are reaching man. Hoyer is every bit as bad as Tyrod. You got hot and bothered over yesterdays game while overlooking his first two.Hoyer is a hair above pedestrian. That's the point I'm making. When our guy is not even as good as him, we have no shot. Tyrod is not good enough. Plain and simple.
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 So it's ok to trade elite WRs away because your QB isn't great? What kind of logic is that? And last time Woods and Watkins played together in a Bills uniform.... over 600 yards of offense. Not accusing you John but its not surprise after last nights performance from Watkins and Wood the narrative from many around here is it's some how Tyrods fault. Ha ha ha, I have always loved that argument. "We have no QB so why bother having other good players?" Why do the Bengals keep Green or the Giants Beckham? At this point their QBs are worse than ours. What about Nuke in Houston or Landry and Parker in Miami? Fitzgerald in Arizona?
Call_Of_Ktulu Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 If Sammy can stay healthy he has the talent to be on par with the top WR's in the NFL. Goff broke all of Aaron Rodgers records at Cal and now it appears he will breakout in his 2nd year. We need a QB who can pass the football.
Gugny Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 I posted the stats. It doesn't matter if you break it down by game or by attempt. Hoyer is in no way a much better passer than Tyrod, and that's not even factoring in running and gamebreaking ability. Hoyer threw some really nice passes last night ... but he threw some really horrible ones, too. If nothing else, Hoyer might believe in himself (passing wise) more than Tyrod does. I wouldn't say Hoyer is clearly better than Tyrod. But I wouldn't say he's clearly worse, either.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 What if I want it to be true though to validate a narrative I've been trying to construct? Does it make it true then? If I say it enough times can we just ignore the evidence and accept that what I'm saying is true? Ha ha, yeah. That's become the norm these days. Hoyer threw some really nice passes last night ... but he threw some really horrible ones, too. If nothing else, Hoyer might believe in himself (passing wise) more than Tyrod does. I wouldn't say Hoyer is clearly better than Tyrod. But I wouldn't say he's clearly worse, either. Watch his 99 yard 1 INT week 2 performance and let me know if you still feel the same way.
plenzmd1 Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 If Sammy can stay healthy he has the talent to be on par with the top WR's in the NFL. Goff broke all of Aaron Rodgers records at Cal and now it appears he will breakout in his 2nd year. We need a QB who can pass the football. We need coaches and schemes that design creative ways to take advanatge of the talent we have, and that is not TT under center and throwing from the pocket
Gugny Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Ha ha, yeah. That's become the norm these days. Watch his 99 yard 1 INT week 2 performance and let me know if you still feel the same way. I'm remembering two years of TT. That's enough for me.
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Hoyer is a hair above pedestrian. That's the point I'm making. When our guy is not even as good as him, we have no shot. Tyrod is not good enough. Plain and simple. Since 2015 Hoyer has averaged .647 TDs per game and .824 turnovers for game. Tyrod has averaged 1.58 TDs per game and .548 turnovers per game. In addition Hoyer is 6-11 and Tyrod is 16-15. Carry on though you are making great points.
JohnC Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 So it's ok to trade elite WRs away because your QB isn't great? What kind of logic is that? And last time Woods and Watkins played together in a Bills uniform.... over 600 yards of offense. Not accusing you John but its no surprise after last nights performance from Watkins and Wood the narrative from many around here is it's some how Tyrods fault. You are missing the point. If you want to maximize the talents of your receivers you need a qb who can execute a well rounded offense where those receivers can thrive. I have never denied the sterling talents of Watkins. But he was never going to play to his potential here until the level of quarterbacking took a dramatic leap forward. Whaley invested a lot in maneuvering to get Watkins, a special talent. His rationale as he explained it was not only the appeal of the receiver's dynamic talents but also helping to make a limited qb more presentable. In my view that's backward thinking and limited thinking. Instead of getting a receiver to prop up a qb why not get a qb who is capable of maximizing the copious talents of a receiver. People don't want to here it but when McDermott took the job it was with the intention of significantly rebuilding not only the roster but the organization. That's why the franchise was accumulating picks. The mind-sent of McDermott isn't about getting better in one or two seasons. It was on reconstructing all aspects of the team and organization so that a few years down the road it will have a stronger foundation. When you look at the Watkins deal from a one year and more immediate time-frame it is clearly a losing proposition. But when one takes a wider perspective it makes more sense, at least to me. I'll take this more strategic approach over the patchwork approach of Whaley that got us nowhere.
26CornerBlitz Posted September 22, 2017 Author Posted September 22, 2017 You are missing the point. If you want to maximize the talents of your receivers you need a qb who can execute a well rounded offense where those receivers can thrive. I have never denied the sterling talents of Watkins. But he was never going to play to his potential here until the level of quarterbacking took a dramatic leap forward. Whaley invested a lot in maneuvering to get Watkins, a special talent. His rationale as he explained it was not only the appeal of the receiver's dynamic talents but also helping to make a limited qb more presentable. In my view that's backward thinking and limited thinking. Instead of getting a receiver to prop up a qb why not get a qb who is capable of maximizing the copious talents of a receiver. People don't want to here it but when McDermott took the job it was with the intention of significantly rebuilding not only the roster but the organization. That's why the franchise was accumulating picks. The mind-sent of McDermott isn't about getting better in one or two seasons. It was on reconstructing all aspects of the team and organization so that a few years down the road it will have a stronger foundation. When you look at the Watkins deal from a one year and more immediate time-frame it is clearly a losing proposition. But when one takes a wider perspective it makes more sense, at least to me. I'll take this more strategic approach over the patchwork approach of Whaley that got us nowhere. Once again if the plan is to acquire a franchise QB in 2018, then trading Watkins is a shortsighted move.
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Once again if the plan is to acquire a franchise QB in 2018, then trading Watkins is a shortsighted move. Quick hypothetical, Watkins has the massive year he is capable of here and you wisely picked up hos 5th year option? Do you think that if he has say 85 catches, 1,300 yards and 10 TDs you'd get more or less than a mid 2nd and EJ Gaines? You could have used him to move up for your QB if you didn't want to pay him!!! (Although you should have just paid him). That will haunt us.
GG Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Jared Goff's QB rating after three games is 119+. Which is more likely? Receivers making routes, catches and YAC for him, or Jared Goff just making pass after pass that any WR like Holmes, Matthews and Zay routinely make? Granted the truth is somewhere in the middle. But I think it's pretty obvious these guys were making plays our guys don't make. The question you should be asking is would these same guys be making the same plays if they were playing in Buffalo in the current offense for the current QB?
BuffaloRebound Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 For me it all comes down to how the rest of the NFL values Bills players. Other NFL teams were willing to either pay more than their Bills production suggested or give up high draft picks for Woods, Hogan, Goodwin and Watkins. Meanwhile Tyrod took a $10m pay cut to stay on the Bills in a QB starved league. Pretty obvious what rest of NFL sees as the major problem with the Bills passing game.
JohnC Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Ha ha ha, I have always loved that argument. "We have no QB so why bother having other good players?" Why do the Bengals keep Green or the Giants Beckham? At this point their QBs are worse than ours. What about Nuke in Houston or Landry and Parker in Miami? Fitzgerald in Arizona? You are not using relevant comparisons when you use the Bengals and Giants as examples. Both teams had very competitive teams for a long time. Now they are on a downward slope. The Bills haven't been at a serious competitive level for a generation. The Bills are rebuilding and their time-frame of being a contending team isn't this year or next year, or maybe the year following that. As I said in a response to Scot if you look at this Watkins deal from a short-term perspective then it makes little sense. But if you look at this deal from a longer-term perspective it makes more sense, especially if the added pick is used to get a franchise qb. I'm not asking you to agree with the Watkins deal but what I'm saying is that if you consider it from a longer perspective it makes some sense. Once again if the plan is to acquire a franchise QB in 2018, then trading Watkins is a shortsighted move. I don't agree with your comment. Getting a rookie qb on the roster doesn't necessarily mean immediate playing time or instant success. Goff is an example of that. The roster still needs to be bolstered and the new qb needs to be developed. Whether you want to admit it or not this is a McDermott rebuild. For some that is an unpalatable pill to swallow. Not for me.
GG Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Which begs another question... why did we change our previous good offense to a **** one that doesn't take advantage of the players it has? Goodwin & Woods were already gone because it was a wise move not to pay market price for their production. And again, the Sammy move was for reasons other than football. This season is a wash from an offensive perspective because the goal is to see if Tyrod can be an effective QB. While the Bills don't have the caliber of offensive talent that Rams added this offseason, it's not like there weren't plays to be made vs Jets or Panthers.
JohnC Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 (edited) A 24 YO stud WR? You don't trade them away for unknown draft picks. And we disagree. McDermott won't be here in three years if things go down the tubes the next two. What's the old saying? The NFL stands for Not for Long. The Pegulas aren't being surprised at what is going on with the rebuild because that was the plan that McDermott presented when hired. There was a complete re-make of the front office and scouting department. And there have been sweeping roster changes. Without a doubt the Pegulas' are all in on this rebuild. The Pegulas have made mistakes as novice owners. But they are not stupid. Edited September 22, 2017 by JohnC
Kirby Jackson Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 You are not using relevant comparisons when you use the Bengals and Giants as examples. Both teams had very competitive teams for a long time. Now they are on a downward slope. The Bills haven't been at a serious competitive level for a generation. The Bills are rebuilding and their time-frame of being a contending team isn't this year or next year, or maybe the year following that. As I said in a response to Scot if you look at this Watkins deal from a short-term perspective then it makes little sense. But if you look at this deal from a longer-term perspective it makes more sense, especially if the added pick is used to get a franchise qb. I'm not asking you to agree with the Watkins deal but what I'm saying is that if you consider it from a longer perspective it makes some sense. So a team looking to add a franchise QB is better off without a 25 year-old star receiver? Huh, I would think that would be near the top of the list of what you'd want for him. In terms of the Giants and Bengals their combined win percentage since 2015 is .522. Tyrod's is .516. Those don't look too different to me?
26CornerBlitz Posted September 22, 2017 Author Posted September 22, 2017 You are not using relevant comparisons when you use the Bengals and Giants as examples. Both teams had very competitive teams for a long time. Now they are on a downward slope. The Bills haven't been at a serious competitive level for a generation. The Bills are rebuilding and their time-frame of being a contending team isn't this year or next year, or maybe the year following that. As I said in a response to Scot if you look at this Watkins deal from a short-term perspective then it makes little sense. But if you look at this deal from a longer-term perspective it makes more sense, especially if the added pick is used to get a franchise qb. I'm not asking you to agree with the Watkins deal but what I'm saying is that if you consider it from a longer perspective it makes some sense. I don't agree with your comment. Getting a rookie qb on the roster doesn't necessarily mean immediate playing time or instant success. Goff is an example of that. The roster still needs to be bolstered and the new qb needs to be developed. Whether you want to admit it or not this is a McDermott rebuild. For some that is an unpalatable pill to swallow. Not for me. Your point might have more validity if Watkins was an older player, but we're talking about a guy who's just 24 years old.
Scott7975 Posted September 22, 2017 Posted September 22, 2017 Hoyer is a hair above pedestrian. That's the point I'm making. When our guy is not even as good as him, we have no shot. Tyrod is not good enough. Plain and simple. Well I know Tyrod is not good enough. The point I was making is neither is Hoyer.
Recommended Posts