THE ROCKPILE REVIEW - Good Gets Bad, Bad Gets Good

[Happy]

33 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, we don't know which coach is responsible.  Early in the season McDermott said things that suggested to me that they weren't going to go away from what they want to do until they had to.  That's the way the Bills seem to play.  

 

I think he's very conservative.  All season long they've stuck to the run if they were within 10 points.  If it were Dennison and McDermott wanted more passing, McDermott would tell him to pass more.  So I don't think it's Dennison. 

 

Which ever coach dictates the offensive philosophy, he apparently cannot (or will not) make an adjustment during the game.  We really should have tried to open up the run with quick passes in the first quarter (not give up on running at this point), and should have gone quick pass first in the third quarter when the game started to get away from us.  Hopefully the Jets debacle was a rookie HC learning experience, and adjustments/flexibility can be done at points other than halftime.

 

Not advocating a gunslinging approach, but a very conservative approach tends not to win over the long haul without an '85 Bears or '00 Ravens defense; which we do not have at this point.

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, Happy Gilmore said:

 

Which ever coach dictates the offensive philosophy, he apparently cannot (or will not) make an adjustment during the game.  We really should have tried to open up the run with quick passes in the first quarter (not give up on running at this point), and should have gone quick pass first in the third quarter when the game started to get away from us.  Hopefully the Jets debacle was a rookie HC learning experience, and adjustments/flexibility can be done at points other than halftime.

 

Not advocating a gunslinging approach, but a very conservative approach tends not to win over the long haul without an '85 Bears or '00 Ravens defense; which we do not have at this point.

I agree. I'm hoping Benjamin will help them adjust to what you're talking about. 

[BadLandsMeanie]

I'm back! One thing I didn't have clear in my head til now Shaw.

 

I think Tyrod is hot and cold. The way Fergie was. Don't do the stats please I bet his stats look just wonderfully steady.

 

Just remember down the road that I say hes inconsistent please. You can point it out to me that I was wrong in a year or two if you like!

 

[Shaw66]

11 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

I'm back! One thing I didn't have clear in my head til now Shaw.

 

I think Tyrod is hot and cold. The way Fergie was. Don't do the stats please I bet his stats look just wonderfully steady.

 

Just remember down the road that I say hes inconsistent please. You can point it out to me that I was wrong in a year or two if you like!

 

I won't remember, because I can't remember anything these days.  

 

But I would suggest to you that although stats aren't the be all and end all, to say you're concerned about Taylor's consistency but don't cite stats is to leave "consistency" un measurable.   How are we supposed to have a discussion about consistency if not with stats?   Am I supposed to be convinced simply because you think he's inconsistent?  What does that mean?   

[BadLandsMeanie]

15 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I won't remember, because I can't remember anything these days.  

 

But I would suggest to you that although stats aren't the be all and end all, to say you're concerned about Taylor's consistency but don't cite stats is to leave "consistency" un measurable.   How are we supposed to have a discussion about consistency if not with stats?   Am I supposed to be convinced simply because you think he's inconsistent?  What does that mean?   

Well, I am not expecting it it but "because I say so" would be agreeable to me..

 

You sir can prove much of anything you wish with stats. Or so says I. Also Tyrod just has a way with stats that don't match up with my eyeballs. My eyeballs arent what they used to be, but they could be right.

 

Go ahead with your math if you wish. But haven't you notice he is not consistent? Some games he can throw some he misses easy passes, and so on?

[Shaw66]

7 hours ago, BadLandsMeanie said:

Well, I am not expecting it it but "because I say so" would be agreeable to me..

 

You sir can prove much of anything you wish with stats. Or so says I. Also Tyrod just has a way with stats that don't match up with my eyeballs. My eyeballs arent what they used to be, but they could be right.

 

Go ahead with your math if you wish. But haven't you notice he is not consistent? Some games he can throw some he misses easy passes, and so on?

Agreeable to you!   That's great!

 

Stats then eyeballs.   Four games with a passer rating over 100, six games over 90, two below 80.   One might argue that's inconsistent, I think it's what you get from most QBs.   Rodgers was under 80 for three games last season.   QBs have bad statisctical games from time to time because (1) they have bad days and/or (2) their teams get outplayed, outplanned, outschemed.  I think it's unrealistic to expect that your QB is over 90 in passer rating every game.  Matt Ryan was under 80 only once last season, but he was the player of the year.   He was under 80 five times in 2015.  Brady was under 80 once in 12 games last season, three times in 16 games in 2015.   So Taylor over 90 in 6 of 8 and under 80 in 2 of 8 isn't dramatically more inconsistent than the very best in the league. 

 

Eyeballs:  He had one game this season that I saw where he missed a lot of throws.   I didn't see Cincy, and he might have had that problem then, too; I don't know.  But in the other games I've been struck by how consistent, how accurate he's been on his throws.   My eyeballs would have agreed with you last season, but not this season.  

 

I was hoping that Taylor would  take a step forward this season, and it looks to me like he has.   Let's see what the second half brings. 

[Foxx]

On 11/3/2017 at 9:22 PM, Shaw66 said:

I gave the stats. At the end of the third quarter he was 15-21, 163 yards, 1 TD no INT. Extrapolate that to a fourth quarter and he's 20 for 28, 217 yards. Nothing wrong with that at all. He was playing competitive football, completing 75% of his passes, and they weren't checkdowns. He completed passes at the same percentage in the fourth quarter - he completed more because he was throwing more.

 

I just don't see what there is to complain about in that kind of performance. Maybe you do. I can't help you with that.

apparently noone can help you with what you don't see either.

[JPP]

thanks for the write up...enjoyed it again.....solid true perspective on the game....

[Billzgobowlin]

I think you really have to chalk this game up to anamoly.  Nothing looked like it has all season, penalties, tackling, turnover battle.  Now with the weather getting colder let's see if the Bills understand how to use it to their advantage.

[Shaw66]

8 minutes ago, Billzgobowlin said:

I think you really have to chalk this game up to anamoly.  Nothing looked like it has all season, penalties, tackling, turnover battle.  Now with the weather getting colder let's see if the Bills understand how to use it to their advantage.

Anomaly, yes, but I think there's more to it than that.   Maybe Hughes's complaint was correct, and they just had a lot of trouble preparing on a short week.   Whatever, a lot of things were uncharacteristic. 

 

But I also think the Bills' talent on the offensive and defensive lines is below average and susceptible to getting pushed around.   We haven't seen that exploited until the Jets game, and I think we will see more of it.   It makes sense that one guy or another might not be mentally prepared, but for both lines to get manhandled like that suggests that talent has something to do with it.  

[Figster]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Agreeable to you!   That's great!

 

Stats then eyeballs.   Four games with a passer rating over 100, six games over 90, two below 80.   One might argue that's inconsistent, I think it's what you get from most QBs.   Rodgers was under 80 for three games last season.   QBs have bad statisctical games from time to time because (1) they have bad days and/or (2) their teams get outplayed, outplanned, outschemed.  I think it's unrealistic to expect that your QB is over 90 in passer rating every game.  Matt Ryan was under 80 only once last season, but he was the player of the year.   He was under 80 five times in 2015.  Brady was under 80 once in 12 games last season, three times in 16 games in 2015.   So Taylor over 90 in 6 of 8 and under 80 in 2 of 8 isn't dramatically more inconsistent than the very best in the league. 

 

Eyeballs:  He had one game this season that I saw where he missed a lot of throws.   I didn't see Cincy, and he might have had that problem then, too; I don't know.  But in the other games I've been struck by how consistent, how accurate he's been on his throws.   My eyeballs would have agreed with you last season, but not this season.  

 

I was hoping that Taylor would  take a step forward this season, and it looks to me like he has.   Let's see what the second half brings. 

Taylors eyeballs can't see very well over O / D lineman and the opposition will continue to press him until Tyrod Taylor learns to get the ball out of his hands faster.

Sacks are negative plays that takes the team backward by way of field position.

 

Thats what I see...

[Shaw66]

2 minutes ago, Figster said:

Taylors eyeballs can't see very well over O / D lineman and the opposition will continue to press him until Tyrod Taylor learns to get the ball out of his hands faster.

Sacks are negative plays that takes the team backward by way of field position.

 

Thats what I see...

Personally, I think that's an overdone concept.   I don't think his height is much of a disadvantage.  

 

If, and I think it's a big IF, he knows where his receivers are going and who should be open,  he should be able to slide to find a sight line to the receiver or spot he's interested in.   I still can't argue with people who say he doesn't make those decisions fast enough.  I can't argue because I just don't know if he's slow or not.   

 

The reason I question whether he's slow is that when he's completing 65-75% of his passes, he's being as efficient as the other good QBs in the league.  If he really was so slow at scanning the field and making decision, he'd be nearer 50%.  And that argument goes to the height issue, too.   If he can't see, how come he's completing all those passes?  How many passes a game is he missing because he can't see?  Two?  Three?   I doubt it's five.

 

What about the sacks?   Most of the sacks Thursday were on the d-line.   How many could he have avoided by throwing it away or completing a pass if he were four inches taller?  One?  Two?  

 

And the most important question, for the long term, is if you have a QB who's doing all the things right that he's doing, are you going to burn a bunch of draft picks on a rookie who's taller, who doesn't run as well and may never learn to be a quality starter?   

 

People have their list of flaws for Taylor:  Height, slow decision maker, lousy footwork, doesn't scan the field, probably a few others.    But when you look at the CAREER passer rating list, the leaders in order are Rodgers, Wilson, Brady, Romo, Young, Brees, Manning, Cousins, Rivers, Warner, Roethlisberger, Ryan.   If Taylor had enough attempts, he'd be next on that list.   I just have to keep asking, myself and everyone else, if he's passing that well, how real, or how important, can those flaws be?  

[Billzgobowlin]

1 hour ago, Shaw66 said:

Anomaly, yes, but I think there's more to it than that.   Maybe Hughes's complaint was correct, and they just had a lot of trouble preparing on a short week.   Whatever, a lot of things were uncharacteristic. 

 

But I also think the Bills' talent on the offensive and defensive lines is below average and susceptible to getting pushed around.   We haven't seen that exploited until the Jets game, and I think we will see more of it.   It makes sense that one guy or another might not be mentally prepared, but for both lines to get manhandled like that suggests that talent has something to do with it.  

I agree and I think why "the process" has been so important is because McDerm has known the talent is not fully in house.  I am curious what becomes of Dawkins and Conor McDermott, are they the future Bills tackles.  McDermott has been untouchable with cuts yet he doesn't play any games or is even dressed.  I also tend to believe most of the LBs on our roster might not make it to next year.  I don't see Brown staying as our MLB, in fact the surprise first round pick I could even see being the replacement.

[Shaw66]

1 minute ago, Billzgobowlin said:

I agree and I think why "the process" has been so important is because McDerm has known the talent is not fully in house.  I am curious what becomes of Dawkins and Conor McDermott, are they the future Bills tackles.  McDermott has been untouchable with cuts yet he doesn't play any games or is even dressed.  I also tend to believe most of the LBs on our roster might not make it to next year.  I don't see Brown staying as our MLB, in fact the surprise first round pick I could even see being the replacement.

Yeah, I agree with this completely.  McD knows he isn't likely to get another Keuchly, but he needs someone who moves better than Brown.  That position is almost as important to his defense as QB is to the offense.  

 

I know absolutely nothing about Conor McDermott - don't even recognize the name, but you make a good point.   I think Glenn and Wood will stay, and probably Richie.   Th right side of the line will be changing.   

[HappyDays]

3 minutes ago, Billzgobowlin said:

I agree and I think why "the process" has been so important is because McDerm has known the talent is not fully in house.  I am curious what becomes of Dawkins and Conor McDermott, are they the future Bills tackles.  McDermott has been untouchable with cuts yet he doesn't play any games or is even dressed.  I also tend to believe most of the LBs on our roster might not make it to next year.  I don't see Brown staying as our MLB, in fact the surprise first round pick I could even see being the replacement.

 

Our LB corps needs to be completely redone. A couple mid/late 1st round prospects are Josh Allen from Kentucky and Roquon Smith from Georgia.

[Stank_Nasty]

11 minutes ago, Billzgobowlin said:

I agree and I think why "the process" has been so important is because McDerm has known the talent is not fully in house.  I am curious what becomes of Dawkins and Conor McDermott, are they the future Bills tackles.  McDermott has been untouchable with cuts yet he doesn't play any games or is even dressed.  I also tend to believe most of the LBs on our roster might not make it to next year.  I don't see Brown staying as our MLB, in fact the surprise first round pick I could even see being the replacement.

 

6 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Yeah, I agree with this completely.  McD knows he isn't likely to get another Keuchly, but he needs someone who moves better than Brown.  That position is almost as important to his defense as QB is to the offense.  

 

I know absolutely nothing about Conor McDermott - don't even recognize the name, but you make a good point.   I think Glenn and Wood will stay, and probably Richie.   Th right side of the line will be changing.   

is anyone else already having nightmares of seeing brown running with that super odd and choppy stride of his trailing 5 yds behind alvin kamara  while being horribly out of position everytime kamara releases out of the backfield on every third down this week?

Edited November 7, 2017 by Stank_Nasty

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

 

is anyone else already having nightmares of seeing brown running with that super odd and choppy stride of his trailing 5 yds behind alvin kamara  while being horribly out of position everytime kamara releases out of the backfield on every third down this week?

No, but only because I'm not good at imagining things.   And I haven't seen Kamara.    

 

To Brown's credit, he's coachable, and the team gets him prepared every week.   That limits the damage that gets done in the middle.   He was drafted where he was because he didn't have good speed for the position.   We're seeing it now.  

[Stank_Nasty]

1 minute ago, Shaw66 said:

No, but only because I'm not good at imagining things.   And I haven't seen Kamara.    

 

To Brown's credit, he's coachable, and the team gets him prepared every week.   That limits the damage that gets done in the middle.   He was drafted where he was because he didn't have good speed for the position.   We're seeing it now.  

he's really good and really quick.... on pace for 74 catches, 10 td and 1200 scrimmage yds out of the backfield.

[Figster]

2 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

Personally, I think that's an overdone concept.   I don't think his height is much of a disadvantage.  

 

If, and I think it's a big IF, he knows where his receivers are going and who should be open,  he should be able to slide to find a sight line to the receiver or spot he's interested in.   I still can't argue with people who say he doesn't make those decisions fast enough.  I can't argue because I just don't know if he's slow or not.   

 

The reason I question whether he's slow is that when he's completing 65-75% of his passes, he's being as efficient as the other good QBs in the league.  If he really was so slow at scanning the field and making decision, he'd be nearer 50%.  And that argument goes to the height issue, too.   If he can't see, how come he's completing all those passes?  How many passes a game is he missing because he can't see?  Two?  Three?   I doubt it's five.

 

What about the sacks?   Most of the sacks Thursday were on the d-line.   How many could he have avoided by throwing it away or completing a pass if he were four inches taller?  One?  Two?  

 

And the most important question, for the long term, is if you have a QB who's doing all the things right that he's doing, are you going to burn a bunch of draft picks on a rookie who's taller, who doesn't run as well and may never learn to be a quality starter?   

 

People have their list of flaws for Taylor:  Height, slow decision maker, lousy footwork, doesn't scan the field, probably a few others.    But when you look at the CAREER passer rating list, the leaders in order are Rodgers, Wilson, Brady, Romo, Young, Brees, Manning, Cousins, Rivers, Warner, Roethlisberger, Ryan.   If Taylor had enough attempts, he'd be next on that list.   I just have to keep asking, myself and everyone else, if he's passing that well, how real, or how important, can those flaws be?  

Thanks for the response.

 

My list is short...

[transplantbillsfan]

On ‎11‎/‎4‎/‎2017 at 4:36 PM, Shaw66 said:

I'm sold on him meaning I would plan on him being my starter for the next five years.   Meaning, I wouldn't trade up to replace him with a gilt-edged rookie.   Meaning, if a QB I really really liked turned up late in the first round on in the second, I'd probably take him. 

Taylor looks much better to me this year than last year.   I think he's playing like a top 15 quarterback.   As much as I'd like to have a top 5 quarterback, the chances of getting one are slim.   

I don't buy your measure - he has to air it out for 400 yards in a head to head battle like Wilson and DeShaun Watson had a couple weeks ago.   That can't be the measure of your QB, because it's too arbitrary.   To have one of those duels you have to be on a team with good to great deep receiving threats, like Houston has.   Your team's run game has to have failed., so you're throwing 45 times.   

I don't mean I don't want one of those guys.   It would be great.   

I look at it differently.  I think it's a sucker bet to keep looking for the Hall of Fame QB.   If you have to look for a good quarterback, and when you find one you have to figure out how to win with him.  What's a good QB?   I think it's a guy who's regularly in or around the top 10 QBs in the league.  When you have one of those, he's the guy you ride, trying to build a winner around him. 

I've been saying since he finished his first season in Buffalo that Taylor COULD be the guy.   He did an awful lot right that first year; the only thing he didn't do was pile up yards, because his team didn't pass.   The last two games he's looked improved to me, and that's what makes me think he's worth riding.   The last two games he's been finding open receivers, open enough, and delivering catchable balls.   Against Tampa he was conservative and threw a few balls out of bounds.   Against New York there was little of that.   He looked like a top-10 guy on the TDs to both Jones and Thompson.   His throw up the sideline to Holmes was beautiful.   He was consistently making throws that I admire when I see Brady and Brees and Rodgers make.   He just looks good.  

I think he's looked better in the past couple of weeks because he's playing in a well-designed offense and he's starting to get comfortable in it.  And I think it's likely to get better now that he has Benjamin to throw to.   I like speed guys, but I also like the big guys, and the Bills have gone from Watkins and Woods - not tiny, but not big guys - to Matthews and Benjamin, with Clay coming back too.  I'm expecting to be very happy with the second half of Tyrod's season.  

I said it a few weeks ago.  Tyrod's contract is going to renegotiated in the off-season, and he's going to be five years, $100 million, minimum.  With five picks in the first three rounds, I'm expecting the Bills to draft at least  two offensive linemen.

 

Very well stated, Shaw.