K-9 Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 Just now, dave mcbride said: How can "trying to avoid injury in a laugh-worthy blowout" dangerous? Please explain. When a professional football player lets up in his effort he opens himself up to injury by opposing players still playing all out. Coaches have been saying that for decades, too. And at all levels. But I don't care to debate that minutia. Point is, Carucci was flat out wrong when he said the Saints were playing a prevent defense. He should figure out what that is before he seeks to diminish a player simply to satisfy his narrative. I think he owes that to his consumers.
dave mcbride Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, K-9 said: When a professional football player lets up in his effort he opens himself up to injury by opposing players still playing all out. Coaches have been saying that for decades, too. And at all levels. But I don't care to debate that minutia. Point is, Carucci was flat out wrong when he said the Saints were playing a prevent defense. He should figure out what that is before he seeks to diminish a player simply to satisfy his narrative. I think he owes that to his consumers. I think that injury argument is -- frankly -- BS and essentially sophistry. I don't buy it for a second. But I agree with you that it is minutiae. How was that not a prevent D, btw? They played soft zone the whole way down the field and had two deep safeties on the final possession (not the first one). Or so it looked to me. Edited November 17, 2017 by dave mcbride
billsfan1960 Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 IMO, Taylor was not going to be the be the QB next year as the GM Beane stated they want a pock passing QB which Taylor is not, have to try Peterman which nearly everyone states is a better fit for the system of the OC. Hopefully Peterman takes us to the playoffs. By the way, before the start of the season mostly everyone was saying that the Bills will tank and only win 3-6 games. GOBILLS!
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 48 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said: Exactly, this decision was probably made in camp. Bring TT back as a bridge qb and when he starts making the same mistakes he's made for over 2 yrs (not 2 games) you try out your drafted qb. This is an obvious move and not shocking in the least. There's no way they're resigning Tyrod next March, he's done. And this still gives the organization an option to draft a first-round quarterback this April. This is a win win no matter what the results are. Thanks seems the Bridge word had been temporary forgotten.
K-9 Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 Just now, dave mcbride said: I think that injury argument is -- frankly -- BS and essentially sophistry. I don't buy it for a second. But I agree with you that it is minutiae. How was that not a prevent D, btw? They played soft zone the whole way down the field and had two deep safeties. Or so it looked to me. Likewise. Especially on the sophistry front. But like Carucci, I understand your need to diminish Peterman's performance in order to satisfy your preconceived notion. Bottom line is, Peterman did what he had to do when he had to do it. It's not his responsibility to apologize for or explain what defenses the Saints were playing. On the prevent; tey were rushing four every down and sent six on two of them. No double safeties deep. There's a difference between playing prevent and keeping things in front of you. A prevent defense is just that; a defense designed to stop an offense from scoring quickly on anything deep. And even though it was loose zone coverage, that field gets awfully tight inside the red zone and it becomes a moot point.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, K-9 said: But like Carucci, I understand your need to diminish Peterman's performance in order to satisfy your preconceived notion. Bottom line is, Peterman did what he had to do when he had to do it. It's not his responsibility to apologize for or explain what defenses the Saints were playing. Agree ? % preconceived notions against a body of work 2.6 seasons long.
dave mcbride Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 (edited) 4 minutes ago, K-9 said: Likewise. Especially on the sophistry front. But like Carucci, I understand your need to diminish Peterman's performance in order to satisfy your preconceived notion. Bottom line is, Peterman did what he had to do when he had to do it. It's not his responsibility to apologize for or explain what defenses the Saints were playing. On the prevent; tey were rushing four every down and sent six on two of them. No double safeties deep. There's a difference between playing prevent and keeping things in front of you. A prevent defense is just that; a defense designed to stop an offense from scoring quickly on anything deep. And even though it was loose zone coverage, that field gets awfully tight inside the red zone and it becomes a moot point. See my revised note above, which I fixed while you were responding. I just went and watched that every play video. I was talking about the final possession, when it was 47-3. If that's not prevent, then we speak different languages. 4 guys rushed every play, and the rest occupied zones. Re "diminishing" Peterman's performance, please, man. Give me more credit than that. I have no preconceived notion of how good he is or whether he is the answer. I try to be reasonably objective, and I personally think that Taylor gives them a better chance to get to 9-7 and a playoff entry (which, to repeat, I regard as essentially a SB victory at this point). Prior to the bad Saints game (in which nearly everyone was bad), the team was 2-1 post-bye and he had a 102.9 rating with only one turnover (fumble) alongside 6 TDs. Maybe Peterman matches this, but I'm not betting on it. I do understand why they're doing this - they don't want Taylor because he's not a fit. That's logical. But I think it's not very plausible to argue that Peterman gives them a better shot at getting to the playoffs. He's a marginally drafted rookie with no experience at all, and he's being fed to the dogs (in the form of Bosa and Ingram) this week. It's a tough challenge. I'd prefer to go with the guy who has experience and a winning record. Edited November 17, 2017 by dave mcbride
K-9 Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 Just now, ShadyBillsFan said: Agree ? % preconceived notions against a body of work 2.6 seasons long. Look, I understand the angst. There is no way that NP is as good an NFL QB as TT simply on the basis of experience alone. But that's beside the point. It's a risky move like McDermott said but there's a reason for it and I can respect that.
dave mcbride Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said: Agree ? % preconceived notions against a body of work 2.6 seasons long. You guys are wilfully misreading my posts. I have no idea how Peterman will do. He may be great. But I want to get to the playoffs, and I think it's better to play the percentages. I realize you disagree.
K-9 Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 2 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: See my revised note above, which I fixed while you were responding. I just went and watched that every play video. I was talking about the final possession, when it was 47-3. If that's not prevent, then we speak different languages. 4 guys rushed every play, and the rest occupied zones. Re "diminishing" Peterman's performance, please, man. Give me more credit than that. I have no preconceived notion of how good he is or whether he is the answer. I try to be reasonably objective, and I personally think that Taylor gives them a better chance to get to 9-7 and a playoff entry (which, to repeat, I regard as essentially a SB victory at this point). Prior to the bad Saints game (in which nearly everyone was bad), the team was 2-1 post-bye and he had a 102.9 rating with only one turnover (fumble) alongside 6 TDs. That's not prevent so I guess we do speak different languages. No worries. And while I appreciate the effort you put into defending TT statistically, I don't put much stock in gross stats. You and I both know they can be made to say anything.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 10 minutes ago, K-9 said: Look, I understand the angst. There is no way that NP is as good an NFL QB as TT simply on the basis of experience alone. But that's beside the point. It's a risky move like McDermott said but there's a reason for it and I can respect that. My “angst” is against people implying Nate a failure with out him playing out the season. Christ everyone gave Taylor at minimum a full season before locking in an opinion. 12 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: You guys are wilfully misreading my posts. I have no idea how Peterman will do. He may be great. But I want to get to the playoffs, and I think it's better to play the percentages. I realize you disagree. Not willfully intentionall on my part. We don’t know one way or the other. Let’s end it at that. Cheers ?
K-9 Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 Just now, ShadyBillsFan said: My “angst” is against people implying Nate a failure with out him playing out the season. Christ everyone gave Taylor at minimum a full season before locking in an opinion. I get that, too. I just think it's wrong to diminish Peterman's performance vs. the Saints in order to satisfy a narrative as Vic Carucci blatantly did. People have good reason to be concerned with a QB switch just as people have reasons to be concerned with keeping TT in there. Personally, we have seen his ceiling. IMO he cannot now nor will he ever learn to operate from the pocket and that is IMPERATIVE in the NFL. You simply cannot have rollouts, moving pockets, read options, and bootlegs as the basis for an NFL offense because those passing game designs limit the playing field and make it too easy on defenses by giving them less field to defend. And a steady diet of read options is a good way to get your QB killed.
dave mcbride Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 Just now, K-9 said: I get that, too. I just think it's wrong to diminish Peterman's performance vs. the Saints in order to satisfy a narrative as Vic Carucci blatantly did. People have good reason to be concerned with a QB switch just as people have reasons to be concerned with keeping TT in there. Personally, we have seen his ceiling. IMO he cannot now nor will he ever learn to operate from the pocket and that is IMPERATIVE in the NFL. You simply cannot have rollouts, moving pockets, read options, and bootlegs as the basis for an NFL offense because those passing game designs limit the playing field and make it too easy on defenses by giving them less field to defend. And a steady diet of read options is a good way to get your QB killed. The thing is, it didn't kill Taylor. He plays like that all the time and is extremely durable. The only time he got injured was on a dirty play in TN, and he finished the game.
K-9 Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 Just now, dave mcbride said: The thing is, it didn't kill Taylor. He plays like that all the time and is extremely durable. The only time he got injured was on a dirty play in TN, and he finished the game. Not yet. And the number of designed runs has been greatly reduced as we started to see under Lynn last year. But there's the offensive design issue, anyway. It's all about operating from the pocket in the middle of the field. If you can't, you don't last as a starter in this league.
dave mcbride Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 Just now, K-9 said: Not yet. And the number of designed runs has been greatly reduced as we started to see under Lynn last year. But there's the offensive design issue, anyway. It's all about operating from the pocket in the middle of the field. If you can't, you don't last as a starter in this league. Well, you can if the offense is designed around that style of play and exploits it. Taylor definitely played well enough to get the team to the playoffs in 2015 and 2016. The defense was a disaster, however. But that's not the sort of scheme the Bills run now, for better or worse. I hope and expect that they marshal their resources and draft a blue chip qb in 2018 who can operate well in this scheme.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 1 hour ago, dave mcbride said: No offense, Dog, but I think this is crazy. If they were to make the playoffs, subsequently jettison Taylor, and settle into 6-10 next year, the optics (as they say) would be horrible. They are aware of this. Don't ever discount managers' sense of pr and how it relates to perceptions of forward progress or the lack thereof. Of course they consider it. But these two are extremely confident in themselves and their process and plan. Perhaps overconfident. And I think that’s already been shown if not proven. They don’t care what it looks like. This is a long term plan. And right now they haven’t failed yet. Just by this board and what is thought of Tyrod, the fan base or optics would not be bad if we backed into the playoffs and then lost right away, and then jettisoned Taylor not wanting to go forward or pay him 16 m or whatever it is. Regardless of what happened next.
dave mcbride Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 Just now, Kelly the Dog said: Of course they consider it. But these two are extremely confident in themselves and their process and plan. Perhaps overconfident. And I think that’s already been shown if not proven. They don’t care what it looks like. This is a long term plan. And right now they haven’t failed yet. Just by this board and what is thought of Tyrod, the fan base or optics would not be bad if we backed into the playoffs and then lost right away, and then jettisoned Taylor not wanting to go forward or pay him 16 m or whatever it is. Regardless of what happened next. This board is not Buffalo. There are no women on it! I can tell you that every woman I know who is a Bills fan loves Tyrod, partly for his style and partly because he's not a boring player. (Women make up 40 percent of the NFL audience too, btw.)
BarkLessWagMore Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 3 minutes ago, dave mcbride said: This board is not Buffalo. There are no women on it! I can tell you that every woman I know who is a Bills fan loves Tyrod, partly for his style and partly because he's not a boring player. (Women make up 40 percent of the NFL audience too, btw.) FWIW my wife was delighted when I informed her of the switch. Mostly because she has two eyes and a brain and even as a casual fan can see that TT is simply not good enough. Great guy and teammate but average QB.
dave mcbride Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 Just now, BarkLessWagMore said: FWIW my wife was delighted when I informed her of the switch. Mostly because she has two eyes and a brain and even as a casual fan can see that TT is simply not good enough. Great guy and teammate but average QB. We know different women! Literally every one I know who is a Bills fan (there are a bunch) love the guy. Not saying they're right.
Kelly the Dog Posted November 17, 2017 Posted November 17, 2017 Just now, dave mcbride said: We know different women! Literally every one I know who is a Bills fan (there are a bunch) love the guy. Not saying they're right. I agree. Vast majority of women I know like him too. For a lot of reasons. But that is not going to stop McBeane from carrying out their plan.
Recommended Posts