Vic Carucci's Interesting Take On Why Tyrod Was Benched

[CodeMonkey]

11 hours ago, BuffaloRush said:

http://buffalonews.com/section/sports/bills/podcast/

 

I'd encourage everyone to listen to the Bills Blitz podcast.  Even though I don't like the BN Sports business model, the coverage is top notch as is this podcast from Vic Carucci and Jay Skurski.  I have always respected Vic and he's an extremely reliable source.  Keep in mind he brought up rumblings about Rex and Whaley getting fired nearly a year in advance.

 

Vic's take on Tyrod getting benched for Peterman is that it was more of a big picture move.  Not necessarily a few years down the road, but next year in particular.  His take is the Bills realized that 8-9 wins will get them in the playoffs and there was a very good chance that they get there with Tyrod as QB.  If they get to the playoffs with Tyrod that makes it harder for them to move on from the QB who led them to the first playoff appearance in 17 years.  So at point in the year the team realized they didn't want to be stuck with Tyrod for the 2017-2018 season.  Considering the fact of how poorly Tyrod has played in losses and the fact that they don't want him next year, they made the move to start Peterman.

 

It's an interesting thought.  Skurski argues that the coaching believes Peterman will run the offense better than Tyrod.  It's an interesting listen for sure.

 

So what are your thoughts on this?   Does Vic' idea seem plausible?  

You mean as opposed to being the first year head coach and GM who led the Bills to their first playoff appearance in 17 years?  They give that up for a nonsensical needing to keep TT as the starter?  Vic 's theory, IMO, is sprinkled with horse ****.

Edited November 17, 2017 by CodeMonkey
When I had the last 2 words together, it didn't censor the second one :)

[Marty McFly]

16 minutes ago, BigBuff423 said:

I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive of each other.....it could very well be that McD and Beane didn't have any intentions of bringing Tyrod back next year and considering the team is still in the playoff picture, they decided to give Peterman the reins to see how he plays, and to have a better decision-making capability about what to do at the QB position next year. 

 

It's likely McD and Beane believe Peterman is better suited for the Offense and had half a season to get adjusted to NFL so now is the time to move him in and get him experience. The two issues could be linked, they could be separate ideas altogether or none of these things could be right. But, about Tyrod's future, that I don't think was really ever in question except to the national media. 

 

 

Sounds like it was mostly this. This FO does what they want with no 2nd thoughts about what media and fans think. That could be a good thing. Still think we need a new OC togo with the QB we draft 1st.

[BuffaloBill]

8 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

It sounds like that in retrospect, Chris Simms cannot understand why Tampa would have benched the career mediocrity that was Brian Griese in favor of the awfulness that was Chris Simms.

 

 

This^^^^

 

On top of which Simms said plainly that TT does not throw to receivers in the middle of the field unless they are obviously wide open.  This has been consistent for TT across his whole body of work.  He additionally said the offense is not imaginative.  What none of us know is how much is this the case because TT limits the opportunity for the coaching staff to be creative.

 

I’ve personally come to terms with the idea that making the playoffs this year is not relevant.  Finding the long term solution at QB is what matters to this franchise right now and if not solved now it must be addressed in the offseason.

[Gugny]

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

This isn't a tank, disguised or not. There's no such thing in football.

 

And the one thing you can say about this administration is that they don't disguise things. They're open.

 

They've openly said is that their main goal is building a team that can consistently compete for a title but at the same time they're trying to win this year. Their actions back this up exactly. It's also quite clear that if there is a conflict and they must choose either long-term or short-term, they choose long-term. Which is a very very good thing.

 

 

 

They openly got rid of the majority of young talent on the team.  They openly became the oldest team in the league.  They openly cleared some cap space and got rid of "me first," players.  That's not what teams do when they're trying to win "this year."  It was a tank and it was a necessary tank.

[DefenseWins]

I don't see any mystery here at all... I think that McD and Beane knew when they came here that the plan was going to be to draft a better QB in the offseason to replace TT... I don't think they wanted it to be an obvious tank though... I also think it is pretty obvious that no other team was too anxious to sign TT last offseason as he reportedly took a pay cut to remain here... None of us knows how Peterman has been looking in practice or how much time he has been putting into film studies and/or how well he really understands the offense... With this being a road game though in front of a fairly neutral crowd and the fact they have lost their last two games badly now seems like a good time to give the kid his shot assuming that he may have impressed McD with his preparation skills and knowledge of the offense... I don't see starting Peterman as hurting the team's chances of making the playoffs... If anything he may actually increase their chances of doing so. Win-Win I'd say...

[simool]

1 hour ago, cd1 said:

 

Not for nothing - WHO on here uses a REAL name,  SIMOOL? 

 

Read the whole post for FFS.  I don't claim to have sources do I?  John Wawrow who does occasionally post here and is a legitimate journalist with sources I get it.  But when someone that has been doing nothing but stirring the pot here for 6 months, is anonymous, claims to have sources, and portrays themselves as some sort of authoritative source, you are just going to consume that and take it as fact?

 

 

And technically, simool is my real name.  Very simply obfuscated.

[DefenseWins]

7 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

They openly got rid of the majority of young talent on the team.  They openly became the oldest team in the league.  They openly cleared some cap space and got rid of "me first," players.  That's not what teams do when they're trying to win "this year."  It was a tank and it was a necessary tank.

 

"Young Talent"? I'd say they got rid of players expecting big paydays who had failed to justify such paydays with their play over the last few years... 

[BigBuff423]

11 minutes ago, Gugny said:

 

They openly got rid of the majority of young talent on the team.  They openly became the oldest team in the league.  They openly cleared some cap space and got rid of "me first," players.  That's not what teams do when they're trying to win "this year."  It was a tank and it was a necessary tank.

 

To your last point, I have to disagree Gug....to me, "tank" insinuates they're intentionally trying NOT to win. However, I DO think they said basically, "We're adjusting the roster to reflect our values and to get guys we believe have the specific skill-set and mindset we need to turn this sinking Titanic into a cruise liner worth its weight" and knew it would lead to a rough first season...and, IMHO that's why the Peterman makes so much sense now. If he wins and does well, fine problem at QB solved, if he's terrible, then you know you need to get another one somewhere in the 1st 2 rounds or via FA, ala Cousins (if available), and if you still don't know whether he's any good because of what Rookies do - up and down, some bad - some good, then you know that too and can decide accordingly. But, he is also seemingly a good fit for the Offense and Tyrod no longer factors into the present or the future....JMO

[cd1]

9 minutes ago, simool said:

 

Read the whole post for FFS.  I don't claim to have sources do I?  John Wawrow who does occasionally post here and is a legitimate journalist with sources I get it.  But when someone that has been doing nothing but stirring the pot here for 6 months, is anonymous, claims to have sources, and portrays themselves as some sort of authoritative source, you are just going to consume that and take it as fact?

 

 

And technically, simool is my real name.  Very simply obfuscated.

 

What sweat is it off your nose if he does or does not have sources? Certainly that claim could have been made for every "legitimate" sports writer last off season.

 

 

[dave mcbride]

8 hours ago, The Frankish Reich said:

It sounds like that in retrospect, Chris Simms cannot understand why Tampa would have benched the career mediocrity that was Brian Griese in favor of the awfulness that was Chris Simms.

Regardless, it's a very good take by Simms. Bear in mind that I regard getting to the playoffs this year at 9-7 as the equivalent of back to back super bowls. 

9 hours ago, HardyBoy said:

For what it's worth, they make the same point here (interesting well informed discussion from a national point of view as well): 

 

This is a really good discussion that will satisfy all sides in this debate. Florio takes the side of the Taylor skeptics and is quite articulate; Simms criticizes the organization from an informed perspective.

Edited November 17, 2017 by dave mcbride

[Gugny]

10 minutes ago, BigBuff423 said:

 

To your last point, I have to disagree Gug....to me, "tank" insinuates they're intentionally trying NOT to win. However, I DO think they said basically, "We're adjusting the roster to reflect our values and to get guys we believe have the specific skill-set and mindset we need to turn this sinking Titanic into a cruise liner worth its weight" and knew it would lead to a rough first season...and, IMHO that's why the Peterman makes so much sense now. If he wins and does well, fine problem at QB solved, if he's terrible, then you know you need to get another one somewhere in the 1st 2 rounds or via FA, ala Cousins (if available), and if you still don't know whether he's any good because of what Rookies do - up and down, some bad - some good, then you know that too and can decide accordingly. But, he is also seemingly a good fit for the Offense and Tyrod no longer factors into the present or the future....JMO

 

I will agree with you that the purpose of the player purge was not to try and lose games.  I guess what I believe is that they simply didn't care if they won or loss games; they were making moves for the future of the team and if it ended up making the team uncompetitive, then so be it.

 

So I don't know what else to call it, other than a tank.  Even though they're not "trying" to lose games, they're certainly not making roster moves that would help them win many.

[dave mcbride]

9 hours ago, Freddie's Dead said:

Just....wow.  I used to respect Vic Carucci, but when he came back to Buffalo, he was a shadow of his former self.  This is tin foil hat stuff.

 

2 hours ago, eball said:

Vic is trying too hard to be insightful.  There is no way in hell the Bills were "afraid" Tyrod would get them to the playoffs and then they'd face a tough offseason decision.

I disagree. I think this makes a ton of sense and is a rational move by the Bills given that they've decided to dump Taylor. Watch the Florio clip for more info on this.

 

btw, Vic has been a lot more right than wrong the past two years despite what critics at the time said.

[apuszczalowski]

12 hours ago, Paul Costa said:

Disagree with Vic. Peterman is playing because he gives the Bills the best chance to win the game. I drove 6 1/2 hours each way to go to the Saints game Sunday. Tyrod was brutal and hurt the defense by not being able to keep the offense on the field. It was awful!! 56 yards in 3 quarters!! I like Tyrod he’s a average QB that’s a class act in my opinion. I truly think that McDermott and staff really believe Peterman can make a difference. 

While tyrod and the offence didn't help the defence, the defence didnt help the defence in the Saints game. You do realise right from the start the Saints werent getting stopped by the defence. They did not force a punt all game. So unless Tyrod was doing something with the defence pregame that wore them out, it doesnt matter what the offence did, the defence couldnt stop the Saints.

 

It's no conspiracy or alterior motives behind the move. They made a change because the offence wasnt getting it done and needed a shake up. Since the coaching staff is trying to win games, no matter what everyone thinks, they had to do something to spark the offence. Its either change QBs and see if that makes a difference, or change OCs and try to run a changed offence which would be more difficult because they wouldn't have time to make the changes.

 

Let's hope the armchair GMs here are right and Tyrod was the problem with the offence and Peterman is some hidden gem. Although I'm sure that still won't satisfy fans around here who thrive on misery.....

[BadLandsMeanie]

12 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Makes sense and is in line with what I've been saying... Tyrod got hosed.

 

They wanted nothing to do with him after this year and were basically setting him up to fail.

If the Bills "hosed" him, then they hosed him the same way the Saints did. By making him be a quarterback. Those bastards!

[ROONDOGG55]

They made the switch because they believe that Nate will take a chance on 50/50 balls more than TT. We have large bodied possession receivers that will in most cases win the contested catch battles. And by win I mean they will either catch it or defend against the interception. TT showed that he was ineffective without his mobility, which is also a contributing factor. If you can't run, then we need you to throw. He has not shown the ability to throw down the field effectively. While Nate should have the advantage throwing, he still has enough mobility to scramble and be an effective running threat if needed.

[JohnC]

11 hours ago, Kelly the Dog said:

I think it's a ridiculous theory. These guys had no trouble trading away one of the three most talented players on the team for a second round pick. Then had no problem trading away another one of the three for a sixth round pick. They obviously have no problem disrupting the locker room or caring what the fans think, and they shouldn't care what the fans think. Even if we made the playoffs backing in and TT did not play well they would have no qualms or hesitance getting rid of him before next year, saying he has taken them as far as he could.

This is a smart post. Basically what you are saying is that this new regime has their own vision on how to build a team with respect to not only talent but the type of players/people they want to do it with. It's obvious that Taylor was never going to be their franchise qb for a number of good reasons. So they are going with Peterman as a short term option and possibly longer term option. It would not be smart for McDermott/Beane to go into in the draft without knowing what their qb situation is. 

 

Where I have a slight disagreement with your take is with the Watkins situation. Although without a doubt he is a superb talent there were questions as to whether they wanted to financially commit to him due to injury and personality concerns. While acknowledging his talent I don't think the return of a second round pick and a probable CB starter was a bad return for this staff that wanted to reshape this roster. It's certainly not an even deal from a talent standpoint but it is a reasonable deal relative to the circumstances. 

 

Badol goes crazy on me when I say this is a rebuilding operation.  It is. If that is the case then it is better to make the many tough decisions called for sooner rather than later. In my mind that is what is happening here. Many people don't agree with what is going on. I do. I'll take a more thoughtful, conceptual and coherent approach to roster building over the patchwork approach that has gone on for a long time only to keep us stuck in the muck of mediocrity. 

 

 

[eball]

1 hour ago, dave mcbride said:

 

I disagree. I think this makes a ton of sense and is a rational move by the Bills given that they've decided to dump Taylor. Watch the Florio clip for more info on this.

 

btw, Vic has been a lot more right than wrong the past two years despite what critics at the time said.

 

Dave, it doesn't make sense at all and your comment basically proves that.  They made the decision to dump Taylor -- not because they were afraid that keeping him and sneaking into the playoffs would make for a tough offseason, but because they believe Peterman gives them a better shot now.

 

Everybody is always looking for a conspiracy or nefarious motive.  Maybe it's simple x's and o's.

[PolishDave]

2 hours ago, BigBuff423 said:

I don't think the two have to be mutually exclusive of each other.....it could very well be that McD and Beane didn't have any intentions of bringing Tyrod back next year and considering the team is still in the playoff picture, they decided to give Peterman the reins to see how he plays, and to have a better decision-making capability about what to do at the QB position next year. 

 

It's likely McD and Beane believe Peterman is better suited for the Offense and had half a season to get adjusted to NFL so now is the time to move him in and get him experience. The two issues could be linked, they could be separate ideas altogether or none of these things could be right. But, about Tyrod's future, that I don't think was really ever in question except to the national media. 

 

I mostly agree.   I doubt they had their minds made up on whether Taylor was going to be part of this team next year.    I think the last couple games swayed their opinion towards a new Qb being a more urgent need.

 

I am thinking that the play of the last game especially firmed their line of thinking that Tyrod should be a backup and not a starter.    And with half a season of bench time now under Nate Peterman's belt, they probably figured it was time to give him a shot and see how he responds.    Then they will have a better idea of what they have in Peterman.

 

Maybe they get lucky and he catches fire and becomes the guy.   Or if not, they then know they need to move up in the draft and get their guy.

 

So many holes to fill on this team right now.   Well, unless they miraculously turn it around in a big way.

[K-9]

Like I said in another thread, I couldn't get past the first 10 minutes. Vic and Skurski literally didn't know what they were talking about in terms of football knowledge and insight. Vic threw shade on Peterman because he looked good facing NO's prevent defense when the Saints didn't play one down of prevent defense the entire time Peterman was in there. That's just one example. They have little credibility. 

[JohnC]

11 minutes ago, eball said:

 

Dave, it doesn't make sense at all and your comment basically proves that.  They made the decision to dump Taylor -- not because they were afraid that keeping him and sneaking into the playoffs would make for a tough offseason, but because they believe Peterman gives them a better shot now.

 

Everybody is always looking for a conspiracy or nefarious motive.  Maybe it's simple x's and o's.

Sal C was on WGR yesterday and stated what made the staff resort to the change was TT's inability to makes throws without hesitancy even when they were significantly behind. Taylor played himself out of the starting job (as you noted). He was not in the long term picture and his recent play made earned him a spot on the sidelines. The coaching staff simply got frustrated with his inability to cut loose when there was a play to be made. That's on the player. 

Edited November 17, 2017 by JohnC