Nathan Peterman to Start this Week.

[ColoradoBills]

I just finished watching McD's presser.  One thing he said, that is not being discussed much, is he emphasized how this move is a "calculated risk".

He weighed all the possibilities and pulled the trigger.  He knows this is risky and did it anyways.  I like that.

 

At the very least we will see what Dennison's play calling looks like with a pocket QB.

Also, we can see what our WRs can do (or not do).

 

Should be interesting Sunday afternoon!

[jkirchofer]

Making the mistake of listening to WGR...after weeks and weeks of criticizing Tyrod, they are now bashing Peterman and praising Taylor as the second coming of Jim Kelly. 

[nucci]

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2744427-by-benching-tyrod-taylor-bills-are-committing-the-cardinal-sin-of-coaching

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

more food for thought... 

 

[Kelly the Dog]

59 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Not sure I follow the logic here. Are you suggesting that because he hasn't shown much of anything in the way of fixing a broken run defense that he shouldn't make a QB switch? 

 

As for highs and lows, I think he's been pretty steady. That loss hurt on Sunday; it was of historic proportions so I can understand the low there but I suspect he made the film study in a rational way and didn't make the switch out of some sense of desperation. Perhaps I'm wrong about that, but I just don't get the vibe that he's a knee-jerk reactionary. 

 

Not sure I follow the idea of changing the offensive strategy a few times in one season, either. Game plans tend to be different each week for every team as it is. I think he made a good decision to consult his OLine about using more of the zone concepts they preferred from last season as that helped the running game afterward for a few games and they've continued to try to establish the run game. They didn't get away from wanting to establish TT as a pocket passer so they've been consistent in that regard, too. Maybe I'm not understanding your comment so if you can point to a couple specifics it might help. 

For example the first couple games they ran what seemed like what they ran the last few weeks. My guys and others here were screaming to play to TT's strengths a little more and run what I called the Jake Plummer offense. In the games 3-5 or so, they started to do that and we did pretty well. They ran a lot of boots and rollouts and some designed QB runs. We didn't score a lot but our offense moved. Then for an unknown reason they abandoned it. We did pretty well against the Raiders from the pocket. Then the first play of the Jet game they tried a naked boot and he got killed. And from then on pretty much everything has been from the pocket, with disastrous results. They should have ran the Jake Plummer offense from the start and continued it on. It was ridiculous to not let TT do what he does best and help the offense best, regardless of their plans for 2018 and beyond. 

[KD in CA]

Great news and sound decision.  See what they have in Peterman before having to decide on a QB strategy in the off season.

 

It’s clear they are going nowhere but down with Taylor.

 

[Maine-iac]

If Dennison is just a horrible 0C I'm not sure benching QB's is going to help matters.  Suppose it's too late.

[Kelly the Dog]

4 minutes ago, dneveu said:

more food for thought... 

 

Interesting and surprising. Thanks. 

[folz]

1 hour ago, Chris66 said:

Gillislee sat because he wasnt part of this particular gameplan. There will be games where he will be used quite often. Pats gameplans are team specific. They dressedb4 rbs and 4 te's last week

 

Sorry dude, that is not true. In the last 7 weeks of the season (that is all but 2 games this year) MG has averaged 34 yards/game. He has had 0 TDs in 7 weeks and his

biggest game in that 7-week span was 54 total yards from scrimmage. Not to mention that he has hardly played since fumbling the ball 3 or 4 weeks ago. BB doesn't like fumbles. It had nothing to do with the gameplan...MG just has not been good in NE.

 

 

As to the switch to Peterman, earlier this week I was going to post that "despite having been a Tyrod supporter, after watching both QBs play against NO, I too finally admit that it may be time for a change." I was just so disgusted with the loss that I didn't even bother posting anything. So, I am totally on board with this move at this point.

 

Looks like its time to change my avatar again. (I should try putting Tom Brady as my avatar because whoever I have chosen over the last few years ends up failing).

 

It really comes down to, as most people have said, Tyrod's risk averse nature (I'd rather see Fitz throwing INTs while attempting a comeback, than a QB who doesn't even try to make a comeback) and teams realizing that if they keep him in the pocket, he'll struggle (CAR, CIN, NYJ, NO). Maybe not every team has the front 7 to do that, but enough do who can make Tyrod disappear. Which means if we fall behind, the game is over.

 

His main assets have been low turnovers, his running ability, and his deep ball. The last two years he was averaging 40 yards rushing a game. This year he is averaging 26 yards a game and he only has two games where he rushed for 50+ yards. He was on pace for 5 throws of 40+ yards or more this season, in 2016 he had 7 and in 2015 he had 11. So, his strengths have been minimized this season, while his weaknesses (holding the ball too long, not anticipating throws, not allowing his receivers the ability for YAC, inconsistency on intermediate throws) have continued or gotten worse. I really expected Tyrod to take a step forward this year and up until the Jets game was still hoping he could...I was wrong!

 

It's a tough move to make at this point in the season, but really, it's the only chance to keep this season alive. I give McD credit for having the guts to pull the trigger.

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Kelly the Dog said:

For example the first couple games they ran what seemed like what they ran the last few weeks. My guys and others here were screaming to play to TT's strengths a little more and run what I called the Jake Plummer offense. In the games 3-5 or so, they started to do that and we did pretty well. They ran a lot of boots and rollouts and some designed QB runs. We didn't score a lot but our offense moved. Then for an unknown reason they abandoned it. We did pretty well against the Raiders from the pocket. Then the first play of the Jet game they tried a naked boot and he got killed. And from then on pretty much everything has been from the pocket, with disastrous results. They should have ran the Jake Plummer offense from the start and continued it on. It was ridiculous to not let TT do what he does best and help the offense best, regardless of their plans for 2018 and beyond. 

I'll agree to disagree but I understand the point about playing to TT's strengths more often. I just don't think you can make a consistent living doing that and it's a good way to get your QB killed, too. Especially after getting rid of his only legit deep threat on the outside. And I happen to think getting rid of Sammy was a big mistake at least in terms of talent; he's a star, imo. But I can see the money question being a concern there.  Bottom line? The coaches prefer a better fit for their preferred offensive vision and I can respect that. Their desired playbook is too limited when the QB can't operate from the pocket and get the ball out on time. I can't be too critical of their decision to seek a better fit if they're convinced it's the best move at the moment. 

 

 

[26CornerBlitz]

53 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

  No,         Thank You. 

 

26 owes us all a big apology.   

 

I don't owe you or anyone else anything, so don't hold your breath. 

[Maine-iac]

Well Dennison averaged 22 ppg  with Manning and 20 ppg without so our whopping 20.4 ppg isn't probably going to rocket up towards 25 anytime soon.

[THEHARDTRUTH]

19 minutes ago, dneveu said:

more food for thought... 

 

So Tyrod who never throws to his receivers throws more to his receivers than Mariota. And Im suppossed to care about this why exactly? It tells me Mariota is even more conservative than Tyrod? Why dont we figure out what Tyrod does in the 6th minute of the 2nd quarter. Maybe that will tell us why hes great.

[K-9]

8 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

I don't owe you or anyone else anything, so don't hold your breath. 

Damn right, 26CB

[Maine-iac]

27 minutes ago, nucci said:

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2744427-by-benching-tyrod-taylor-bills-are-committing-the-cardinal-sin-of-coaching

Wow ........... read it.  Seems many will not like it.  Change for change sake is frequently not a good idea.  We should have kept the offense and fixed the defense.  Now we are fixing everything and seemingly have little idea what actually works.

[GETTOTHE50]

6 hours ago, jkirchofer said:

I think what sealed Taylor's fate was talking to the press after the game. Also, its nice to be excited about a Bills game again!

agreed. the fact he said that he didnt play for the fans or the city of buffalo, or the entire organization, was bizarre. Showed his immaturity and lack of leadership. 

Edited November 15, 2017 by GETTOTHE50

[Maine-iac]

Looking at Dennison and Roman it is easy to see who's better at scoring points.  Roman's offenses have frequently been 24 or better ppg and Dennison had one season over 23.  We are essentially moving away from a higher scoring offense.  Even with frequently injured WR's, RB's, and TE's the offense of the last 2 years outscored every single offense Dennison has ever fielded except one.

 

[Juice_32]

I just watched NP's presser and I was impressed. He just doesn't come off to me as a rookie and it got me to thinking.

 

The majority of the discussion (nationally and locally) has been about Tyrod. He is a polarizing player and statistically the decision to bench him doesn't make sense if looked at in a vacuum. Many in the national media are shouting that the Bills have no idea what they are doing. I think this decision has less to do with Tyrod and more to do with Peterman.

 

If you go back and watch the preseason games, NP outplayed TT. I know he was playing against 3rd and 4th's but he came in early in the Ravens game and played very well. The guy has an MBA from Pitt, played in a pro-style offense in college and the only real knock on him coming out was that he had a weak arm. McD and his crew have been able to evaluate him for over 3 months and even though they have an average (statistically) starter they are making this move.

 

McD himself called this a calculated risk. You do not take a risk like this unless you have seen the potential reward. McD believes that this kid is our best QB and I can not wait to see how it unfolds.

 

 

[26CornerBlitz]

TAYLOR TAKES ROLE OF GOOD SOLDIER IN WAKE OF QB CHANGE

Tyrod Taylor was disappointed by the news he was handed on Tuesday that he was being benched, but he's committed to handling it like a true professional.

TAYLOR: "I WANT TO SEE THIS TEAM DO WELL" (10:52)

Bills QB Tyrod Taylor talks to the media prior to the team's practice and discusses his thoughts on Nathan Peterman being named the starting QB for this week's game against the Chargers.

 

NATHAN PETERMAN: "KEEP GETTING BETTER" (10:09)

Quarterback Nathan Peterman addressed the media following practice topics include; being named the starting quarterback, looking to veterans for help, and what he expects in his first start.

 

MCCOY: "WE'RE GOING TO SUPPORT HIM" (8:42)

Bills RB LeSean McCoy talks to the media following the team's practice. McCoy discusses Nathan Peterman being named starting QB against the Chargers and what it will be like facing former coach Anthony Lynn.

 

NATHAN PETERMAN: "I HAVE TO EARN IT EVERYDAY" (6:27)

Bills QB Nathan Peterman joined us in-studio to talk about learning he'd be the new starting quarterback, his journey getting to this point, and preparing for the game this Sunday against the Chargers.

[Royale with Cheese]

Sal C on WGR was asked by Schoop is this more about Taylor or Peterman?

Sal said Taylor.  They don't like where the offense is at with Taylor under center.