Was the move at QB a good move or bad move?

[Mat68]

I understand the sentiment that the timing makes this a bad move.  Timing being in the playoffs.  After the last 2 weeks what would change on offense with Taylor under center?  Imo that is why the change is made.  Mcdermott is not going to Petterman unless he thinks the offense has a potential to be better.  That is really the biggest fix needed.  Move the ball eat up clock and score points all helps the defense.  Now here is to hoping Buffalo found their QB. 

[dlonce]

2 hours ago, Real McCoy said:

Sorry to say, 16 years has proven you wrong and that is what should be comprehended with the win now mentality.  Knowing who to properly use/spend your many drafts picks next year to build a team can change everything for the future of our team. 

 

I'm just glad to see we have a coaching staff and FO that actually understands what needs to happen going forward to make the team better overall. Actually, while typing this I finally now "Trust the Process" seeing what we are trying to do. It's 180* different from all the failed regimes we have entertained post Wade.

 

Lastly, I personally think Nate will play 3X better than Tyrod but that will come in time. 

Exactly.

 

We finally have a management team with the balls to look forward instead of attempting to sneak into the playoffs with a guy that wasn’t going to be here anyway.

Now we get to see what we have in NP and where we need to go from there.

 

[Senth]

Great move period.

[JPP]

Good because its a west coast offence......could be very very bad if he gets steamrolled this weekend.....my hope is he doesnt perform like a 5th round rookie vs 2nd best QB sack team in the league standing behind a very pitiful O line......

Edited November 17, 2017 by JPP

[Starr Almighty]

I vote that it's a great move for the sole fact that we knew Taylor wasn't the guy. Now Peterman may not be either BUT instead of standing pat, they are putting the kid out there to be evaluated. If he lights it up we've got our man, if he wets the bed you go after a top QB prospect. I rather this than letting TT finish out the season and trying to find out if Peterman is the guy next season while passing on drafting a QB 

Edited November 17, 2017 by Starr Almighty

[tonawandarock]

With Tolbert out who’s he gonna throw to?  

[Boatdrinks]

55 minutes ago, dlonce said:

Exactly.

 

We finally have a management team with the balls to look forward instead of attempting to sneak into the playoffs with a guy that wasn’t going to be here anyway.

Now we get to see what we have in NP and where we need to go from there.

 

I couldn't disagree more. This move was made to try to win a football game THIS week because the Coach (es) didn't believe the current guy would get it done. Sure , they get to see NP and all , but if that was the motivating factor they would have played it safe and started Taylor. They would in all likelihood have lost and could switch to NP down the road. The difference? They didn't want to sink the season without giving it their best shot, and that meant sitting Tyrod down. 

[Foreigner]

Good

1. Maybe the O gets a spark with the new guy.

2. Before Tom Brady there was no Tom Brady, so is it possible we are looking at the new man?

 

Bad

1. INTs all day long.

2. The OL gets Peterman injured, and he can not make it through the game.

[Real McClappy]

1 hour ago, Boatdrinks said:

I couldn't disagree more. This move was made to try to win a football game THIS week because the Coach (es) didn't believe the current guy would get it done. Sure , they get to see NP and all , but if that was the motivating factor they would have played it safe and started Taylor. They would in all likelihood have lost and could switch to NP down the road. The difference? They didn't want to sink the season without giving it their best shot, and that meant sitting Tyrod down. 

And you honestly don't think Lynn wouldn't tear Tyrod a new ass knowing every weakness and way to stop him? Lynn might even know that Tyrod has no peripheral vision for all we know. Tyrod was benched because he does not give the Bills a better chance to win on Sunday. Why is this fact so hard for many to understand? When teams force him to be a real QB he straight craps the bed. 

Edited November 18, 2017 by Real McCoy

[Young34]

Personally, I think that this move was not a great one. Our O-line is terrible, and it will be even more evident without an elusive QB IMO. Prepare for a season long sack fest if he doesn't get the ball out early.

[Boatdrinks]

19 minutes ago, Real McCoy said:

And you honestly don't think Lynn wouldn't tear Tyrod a new ass knowing every weakness and way to stop him? Lynn might even know that Tyrod has no peripheral vision for all we know. Tyrod was benched because he does not give the Bills a better chance to win on Sunday. Why is this fact so hard for many to understand? When teams force him to be a real QB he straight craps the bed. 

I'm not sure if this was directed at me McCoy but I'm pretty sure we are in agreement here. McD felt he couldn't win with Tyrod at this point and particularly vs Lynn. I agree with the decision . 

[Nihilarian]

 

This move was needed!

 

How many times have we all seen Tyrod Taylor go invisible against good teams for most of the game and then when the game is mostly out of control he manages to score in garbage time which makes his overall grade look not so bad. This last game he was benched in the fourth so he had to live with that horrid performance.

 

Having a QB that will push the ball downfield will open up the run game more so they can't run blitz, stack the box or they will get burned. A QB that can get the ball out quickly will help negate the pass rush and take pressure off the lines right side which isn't as good as the left. That Jets game in giving up seven sacks shouldn't happen again even though the Chargers have some good pass rushers.

 

Peterman doesn't need to be an elite QB like Tom Brady as all he needs to do is move the chains and make first downs. This Bills receiver corps was so underutilized and now have a thrower that will get them the ball. I'm excited about the young man and hope he does well in his first start.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours ago, Mike in Horseheads said:

Was move at QB a Good Move or Bad Move

 

I think you should add an option for "makes little difference"

In theory, if there's a better pass offense it will open up the game for Shady, and if the Bills have the ball, it will help the D by keeping them off the field (since they don't seem able to get off of it on their own)

In practice, I expect the gains in pass offense to be offset by turnovers (ints) that seem inevitable with a rookie QB.  Which will put the D back on the field.

 

24 minutes ago, Young34 said:

Personally, I think that this move was not a great one. Our O-line is terrible, and it will be even more evident without an elusive QB IMO. Prepare for a season long sack fest if he doesn't get the ball out early.

 

It does seem likely Peterman will get the ball out more quickly, which will make the OL look a bit better.

 

[JPP]

8 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think you should add an option for "makes little difference"

In theory, if there's a better pass offense it will open up the game for Shady, and if the Bills have the ball, it will help the D by keeping them off the field (since they don't seem able to get off of it on their own)

In practice, I expect the gains in pass offense to be offset by turnovers (ints) that seem inevitable with a rookie QB.  Which will put the D back on the field.

 

 

It does seem likely Peterman will get the ball out more quickly, which will make the OL look a bit better.

 

That right there is key......hopefully he does so with good precision.....

[Fadingpain]

9 hours ago, Bill Murray said:

i said "bad move" because we are in the thick of the playoff race.  Maybe Peterman is a total stud, but its just so unknown and so it is very risky by definition.  If we started TT and lost, then you can move on w Peterman and have plenty of games left to evaluate.  If you win w TT you are in very good shape for the wild card.

 

Everyone quick to say "so what if we get in, we wont do anything so will be one and done and be a waste..." tell that to the Tebow led Broncos.  Need to get in, then anything can happen.

People who know a lot more about the situation than I do thought about this and concluded they prefer taking their chances with a rookie rather than continue on with Tyrod.

 

Tells you all you need to know.

 

The idea of Tyrod winning a playoff game, on the road, in a hostile environment, against one of the best teams in the conference, with the other team trying really hard to win, is a joke.

 

I personally don't think he would have even gotten us into the playoffs, but that is now something we will never know.

 

Anyway, bring on Peterman. Let's see what he can do so we know how much deal making we have to make prior to the draft next year.  

 

[SinceThe70s]

5 hours ago, NewEra said:

It was a tough call to make a switch to a rookie qb with no experience  in the midst of a playoff run during an almost 2 decade long playoff drought. Eager to see how he deals with bosa and Hayward. This d is solid.  Kudos to McD for pulling the trigger.  Whether or not it was the best move to make the playoffs is TBD. ??

 

EDIT:  misread NewEra's reference to the Chargers D, thought he meant ours

Agreed with everything except for the unbolded which I'm not sure about. Our run D has been shredded to the tune of around 500 yards in 2 games since 99 problems was jettisoned. Is that a coincidence? Maybe. Hopefully.

 

The current staff has made a number of bold moves. The timing of this one was surprising to me since (as NewEra mentioned) we're in playoff position and personally I'd give Tyrod a pass on the Jets game. 

 

Overall I like the decisiveness of the current regime, I'll have to wait to judge their effectiveness.

 

Back to OP's question.  Was this a good or bad move? I'm a wait and see guy, but unless I missed it there hasn't been a major uproar from the players which may be telling. So I'll go with good move until proven otherwise.

Edited November 18, 2017 by SinceThe70s

[NewEra]

1 minute ago, SinceThe70s said:

 

Agreed with everything except for the unbolded which I'm not sure about. Our run D has been shredded to the tune of around 500 yards in 2 games since 99 problems was jettisoned. Is that a coincidence? Maybe. Hopefully.

 

The current staff has made a number of bold moves. The timing of this one was surprising to me since (as NewEra mentioned) we're in playoff position and personally I'd give Tyrod a pass on the Jets game. 

 

Overall I like the decisiveness of the current regime, I'll have to wait to judge their effectiveness.

 

Back to OP's question.  Was this a good or bad move? I'm a wait and see guy, but unless I missed it there hasn't been a major uproar from the players which may be telling. So I'll go with good move until proven otherwise.

I was referring to the ChargersD

[ricko1112]

10 hours ago, RoyBatty is alive said:

I dont know the lottery numbers but  I know for a fact it was a good move, if nothing else Peterman gets some experience, we get to see what he has, and I dont have to watch Tyrod anymore.

Many Bills fans on this site defended TT to ridiculous ends before the season began and when things were going well. Eventually though, most Bills fans realized what everyone (not being politically correct) has known for a couple of years. TT is a 6-9 win QB. 6-9 wins won't make the playoffs and won't give you a top 10 pick. A change HAD to be made and should have been made before the season started. Buffalo had no chance of making the playoffs with TT.  

[Lfod]

In my opinion it was the best move coach could of made. Before I give my reason let me say that I don't think Tyrod couldn't win the next game, but I do think it was very possible to lose with him in there as well. The season is on a thread.

 

Yes you start the rookie. The most exciting thing in my last two weeks of football was a streaker and Nate coming into the game scoring a touchdown in garbage time. Let's be honest or at least in my view Tyrods game was getting boring. 

 

I want my football entertaining. I'm not the type to be upset when we lose but when we suck it's not entertaining. I was very entertained at 5-2 and was fine. If I was being honest though I felt all year that Tyrods game was kinda boring. He never truly lit the field up in dominant performance.

 

Although I can't say the reason it's a good move is because Nate will play amazing. He could totally suck but it has that unknown mystery to it that will keep me entertained. 

 

Once you see that it was more for an entertainment standpoint you can agree with that move. I didn't think coach would do it right at the same time I would have. So I had already agreed with the choice before I was actually made.

 

Only if I was coach, I've of done my trademark clap when I told him Nate was starting and we are now gonna win. Then we would look at Nate's garbage time film scoring the only TD of the game.

Edited November 18, 2017 by Lfod

[tonawandarock]

9 hours ago, Bill Murray said:

 

...The divisional round of the playoffs

And where did Tebow play the next year?