Bills clueless about Tyrod Taylor article

[xxxxxxxx]

2 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

Is it just me, or does that article not make...sense? Like terribly written and contradictory all the time?

 

Shady not running much out of shotgun? Well, that would be a problem except his YPC under center is better this year...so...fire Dennison? Article is rife with these.

 

Also rambles through racial undertones of benching Taylor. 3/10 would not read again.

Its nuanced, not contradictory. Its the  contradictory assessments of Taylor's play that Dom is taking issue with.

Consider the following quote from Andy Benoit, which is a common critique of Taylor's play echoed by folk on this board and members of the Buffalo media.

According to Benoit,

Stats can never measure throws that are open but not attempted. Tyrod has too many of those for an offense to be consistent.

 

This statement makes no sense because its impossible to have too many of something that can't be counted. And  it is rarely, if ever made about white quarterbacks with similar game tape. His point is that alot of stupid things get said about quarterbacks based on what they look like on the field, as opposed to the results that they get on the field. Sean's talk about how gutsy and resilient Peterman is falls into a similar category, in that it makes no sense. He's didn't praise Tyrod for being gutsy (or resilient), as far as I can tell, for coming off the bench and running for a TD (which is, like, the definition of being resilient, if resiliency is understood as an ability to withstand or recover from difficult conditions).

 

Referring to Petterman as being resiliant without extending the same compliment to Taylor is ridiculous in the eyes of many, as there is evidence to support usage of that term with regard to Taylor's play, and none to support it in regard to Petterman's play ( or did you not see him completely melt down).

Edited November 21, 2017 by MURPHD6

[YesPlayoffs]

25 minutes ago, Heitz said:

many of us want that guy FIRST before we start to add a supporting cast.  Obviously you need a solid line (and we have lots of picks and dollars to spend in FA), but more than anything we need a QB! 

 

Here's the problem with that...if we go get a great QB prospect, he's going to have to play in this garbage offense with no protection when he gets here.  It's a lot harder to develop potential when you've got nothing to work with.  Fix the other issues first to give a young guy a stable environment.  That's the only way this is going to work.

[GoBills808]

13 minutes ago, MURPHD6 said:

Its nuanced, not contradictory. Its the  contradictory assessments of Taylor's play that Dom is taking issue with.

Consider the following quote from Andy Benoit, which is a common critique of Taylor's play echoed by folk on this board and members of the Buffalo media.

According to Benoit,

Stats can never measure throws that are open but not attempted. Tyrod has too many of those for an offense to be consistent.

 

This statement makes no sense because its impossible to have too many of something that can't be counted. And  it is rarely, if ever made about white quarterbacks with similar game tape. His point is that alot of stupid things get said about quarterbacks based on what they look like on the field, as opposed to the results that they get on the field. Sean's talk about how gutsy and resilient Peterman is falls into a similar category, in that it makes no sense. He's didn't praise Tyrod for being gutsy (or resilient), as far as I can tell, for coming off the bench and running for a TD (which is, like, the definition of being resilient, if resiliency is understood as an ability to withstand or recover from difficult conditions).

 

Referring to Petterman as being resiliant without extending the same compliment to Taylor is ridiculous in the eyes of many, as there is evidence to support usage of that term with regard to Taylor's play, and none to support it in regard to Petterman's play ( or did you not see him completely melt down).

I won't do the white/black quarterback thing because I'm not interested. If your point is that it's unfair of McD to use complimentary language toward one QB without extending the same courtesy toward the other, I guess...I don't read much into what coaches say to the press myself. 

 

And if your point is that Peterman played terribly, you get no argument from me at all. But if it's contradictions you're really concerned with, I'd start with why a rookie should get written off after a bad 30 mins while a 7 year vet is somehow afforded the 'still developing' label and just needs a system that's adapted to his particular needs, as if that couldn't be said for every quarterback in the league.

[JM2009]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

I won't do the white/black quarterback thing because I'm not interested. If your point is that it's unfair of McD to use complimentary language toward one QB without extending the same courtesy toward the other, I guess...I don't read much into what coaches say to the press myself. 

 

And if your point is that Peterman played terribly, you get no argument from me at all. But if it's contradictions you're really concerned with, I'd start with why a rookie should get written off after a bad 30 mins while a 7 year vet is somehow afforded the 'still developing' label and just needs a system that's adapted to his particular needs, as if that couldn't be said for every quarterback in the league.

My goodness, TT is 20-18 and comparing him to Peterman is ridiculous. This will never end. And TT has unique talents that most QBs do not have. You should know that, I hope.

[Billsfan1972]

39 minutes ago, NoPlayoffs said:

 

That's because they see Brady and think, "That's all we need!  A Hall of Fame quarterback!" without any understanding that finding one is a crapshoot.  They also don't understand that Brady is successful because he has a brilliant head coach who builds schemes to suit his players' talents.

 

Even if we were fortunate enough to actually draft the next great quarterback, we still have McChuckleNuts on the sidelines.  He'd end up ruining the guy anyway with his moronic coaching.

And the next Brady is only available after the 4th round!!!!!!

10 minutes ago, JM2009 said:

My goodness, TT is 20-18 and comparing him to Peterman is ridiculous. This will never end. And TT has unique talents that most QBs do not have. You should know that, I hope.

Because he's not ready, was a 5th round pick and needs a lot more coaching.  Fifth round rookies do not start for NFL teams in a playoff position or when the starter is healthy........

 

Never ever happened until the Bills genius coach did it!!!!!!

 

And you wonder why the national media was laughing before the 5 ints!!!!!!

[JM2009]

4 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

And the next Brady is only available after the 4th round!!!!!!

Because he's not ready, was a 5th round pick and needs a lot more coaching.  Fifth round rookies do not start for NFL teams in a playoff position or when the starter is healthy........

 

Never ever happened until the Bills genius coach did it!!!!!!

 

And you wonder why the national media was laughing before the 5 ints!!!!!!

Yep. If this is what McDermott is all about, he sure isn't the answer here.

[Kelly the Dog]

3 hours ago, dave mcbride said:

It makes sense to me. What he's saying is that because of how college offenses are run now, o-lineman and qbs come in woefully unprepared to operate in a pro-style offense. Smart coaches realize this and gameplan accordingly. The "traditional deficiencies" are substandard o-line play and weak quarterbacking beneath the elite tier, which is a product of all the spread offenses (which are very, very simple and succeed because of terrible secondary play at the college level).  

Yup. Very good article. 

[xxxxxxxx]

1 hour ago, GoBills808 said:

I won't do the white/black quarterback thing because I'm not interested. If your point is that it's unfair of McD to use complimentary language toward one QB without extending the same courtesy toward the other, I guess...I don't read much into what coaches say to the press myself. 

 

And if your point is that Peterman played terribly, you get no argument from me at all. But if it's contradictions you're really concerned with, I'd start with why a rookie should get written off after a bad 30 mins while a 7 year vet is somehow afforded the 'still developing' label and just needs a system that's adapted to his particular needs, as if that couldn't be said for every quarterback in the league.

I never said that Peterman should be written off, nor did Dom. And the point is not that Taylor deserves more time to develop: its that he has clearly developed into an average QB and thus deserves the respect from the coaching staff that the rest of the average QB's in the NFL get, which are plays drawn up to accentuate his strengths. The entire team deserves to be put into the best possible position to succeed, for that matter, including Peterman. Dude wasn't announced as the starter until Tuesday, so he didn't even have a full week to prepare for hist 1st NFL start. And the idea that a rookie should be developed when an average starter is already on the roster and the team is in playoff contention is what rubs most people the wrong way about this whole deal.

[Heitz]

3 hours ago, NoPlayoffs said:

 

Here's the problem with that...if we go get a great QB prospect, he's going to have to play in this garbage offense with no protection when he gets here.  It's a lot harder to develop potential when you've got nothing to work with.  Fix the other issues first to give a young guy a stable environment.  That's the only way this is going to work.

 

I hear what you're saying, though it could also go the opposite way - we draft and use FA to put together a killer O line, great WRs, now we take a swing at a QB and he sucks.   I'm just at the point where I'd rather go all-in to get the ONE guy right that can make the others look good, than the 10 right that aren't going to help that one guy (as much, IMO).

 

Either way, we need a lot of pieces!

[Wayne Arnold]

5 hours ago, Comebackkid said:

https://deadspin.com/the-bills-have-been-clueless-about-tyrod-taylor-1820609446

 

Decent article from deadspin.   Talks about McDermott being the one almost anal about playing safe, avoiding turnovers.

  Not playing to taylors strength,   Shady not running out of shotgun much this year compared to last.  

 

 

If McDermott was "the one almost anal about playing safe, avoiding turnovers" then wouldn't he love Taylor? And isn't playing safe playing to Taylor's strength?

 

Seems very contradictory to me.

3 hours ago, MURPHD6 said:

Its nuanced, not contradictory. Its the  contradictory assessments of Taylor's play that Dom is taking issue with.

Consider the following quote from Andy Benoit, which is a common critique of Taylor's play echoed by folk on this board and members of the Buffalo media.

According to Benoit,

Stats can never measure throws that are open but not attempted. Tyrod has too many of those for an offense to be consistent.

 

This statement makes no sense because its impossible to have too many of something that can't be counted. And  it is rarely, if ever made about white quarterbacks with similar game tape. His point is that alot of stupid things get said about quarterbacks based on what they look like on the field, as opposed to the results that they get on the field. Sean's talk about how gutsy and resilient Peterman is falls into a similar category, in that it makes no sense. He's didn't praise Tyrod for being gutsy (or resilient), as far as I can tell, for coming off the bench and running for a TD (which is, like, the definition of being resilient, if resiliency is understood as an ability to withstand or recover from difficult conditions).

 

Referring to Petterman as being resiliant without extending the same compliment to Taylor is ridiculous in the eyes of many, as there is evidence to support usage of that term with regard to Taylor's play, and none to support it in regard to Petterman's play ( or did you not see him completely melt down).

 

Andy Benoit is definitely a racist.

 

We should spread the word.

[LA Grant]

Yep. Deadspin nailed it. So does this post here.

 

4 hours ago, grb said:

Remember : Taylor's stats in the 15 games with both Watkins and Woods playing?

63.6% comp. 8.25 YPA. 27 TD passes. 6 INTs

 

That was with good, not elite talent. The offensive line played better than now, but still had problems with pass protection. Obviously there was an excellent running attack, as opposed to this year's off and on thing. But just think how many Taylor Memes don't stand up looking at those numbers :

• Needs an elite supporting cast?  Nope
• Checkdown Charlie?  Nope.
• Won't throw to receivers?  He did when he had NFL quality targets.
• Afraid to throw downfield? Are people's memories really that short?
• Not accurate / can't process at game speed / not a starting QB? The numbers suggest otherwise.

With only a little luck, Taylor will find himself on a team a little more talented and a lot less dysfunctional.

Don't be surprised if he then performs as per the numbers above.

 

 

[The Jokeman]

52 minutes ago, MURPHD6 said:

I never said that Peterman should be written off, nor did Dom. And the point is not that Taylor deserves more time to develop: its that he has clearly developed into an average QB and thus deserves the respect from the coaching staff that the rest of the average QB's in the NFL get, which are plays drawn up to accentuate his strengths. The entire team deserves to be put into the best possible position to succeed, for that matter, including Peterman. Dude wasn't announced as the starter until Tuesday, so he didn't even have a full week to prepare for hist 1st NFL start. And the idea that a rookie should be developed when an average starter is already on the roster and the team is in playoff contention is what rubs most people the wrong way about this whole deal.

Yet one could argue when we did play an offense to Tyrod's strength we weren't winning anymore than we were now so that's why we changed the offense?  

[GoBills808]

48 minutes ago, MURPHD6 said:

I never said that Peterman should be written off, nor did Dom. And the point is not that Taylor deserves more time to develop: its that he has clearly developed into an average QB and thus deserves the respect from the coaching staff that the rest of the average QB's in the NFL get, which are plays drawn up to accentuate his strengths. The entire team deserves to be put into the best possible position to succeed, for that matter, including Peterman. Dude wasn't announced as the starter until Tuesday, so he didn't even have a full week to prepare for hist 1st NFL start. And the idea that a rookie should be developed when an average starter is already on the roster and the team is in playoff contention is what rubs most people the wrong way about this whole deal.

I think you need to define 'average'...the whole debate around Taylor is whether he in fact is or isn't a viable (I guess I'll use that as the 'average' threshold) option at quarterback and warrants all the lengths a team will go to accommodate their QB that entails. The pro-Taylor crowd will point to his passer rating and DYAR (maybe not this year), and anti-Taylor crowd will complain about his yardage and usage stats. Rex Ryan thought he was, Sean McDermott apparently doesn't.

 

So...as far as designing and implementing plays drawn up to accentuate his strengths goes, yes. Obviously you do that for your QB. I think every team tries to build their offense around their QB's strengths. The other side of the coin is whether that level of commitment to an 'average' QB is worth suffering the limitations Taylor's skillset (or lack thereof) places on an offense as a unit and a team as a whole. My take is his lack of vision and indecisiveness with the football and the resultant problems those deficiencies place upon a team when manifested in your starting QB will never be offset by what small potential benefit a system designed around Taylor might confer. In terms of fielding a consistent, competitive (talking championship quality) team.

 

I don't care about Peterman, at all, outside finding out exactly how bad he is until there's absolutely no doubt about whether we draft a QB in the first round in 2018. That's it. But I'm also not enthused about the idea of building a team around a quarterback who IMO suffers from such glaring deficiencies as Taylor.

[Comebackkid]

1 hour ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

If McDermott was "the one almost anal about playing safe, avoiding turnovers" then wouldn't he love Taylor? And isn't playing safe playing to Taylor's strength?

 

Seems very contradictory to me.

 

Andy Benoit is definitely a racist.

 

We should spread the word.

You would think,  but then there were sources saying Dennison was the one wanting the change.  

[JM2009]

Joel Jackson‏ @jjjacks17

FollowFollow @jjjacks17

More

Joel Jackson Retweeted Cover 1

Tyrod’s mobility was doing a lot to disguise deficiencies on the offensive line. Yet, he’s being ripped about for running too often

[Bills757]

1 minute ago, JM2009 said:

Joel Jackson‏ @jjjacks17

FollowFollow @jjjacks17

More

Joel Jackson Retweeted Cover 1

Tyrod’s mobility was doing a lot to disguise deficiencies on the offensive line. Yet, he’s being ripped about for running too often

 

 

Exactly on point

[JPP]

6 minutes ago, JM2009 said:

Joel Jackson‏ @jjjacks17

FollowFollow @jjjacks17

More

Joel Jackson Retweeted Cover 1

Tyrod’s mobility was doing a lot to disguise deficiencies on the offensive line. Yet, he’s being ripped about for running too often

Yeah but some dummies on here just think with their tin foil hats on (got this one from 26) and think oh just change the QB and presto we will start winning again because football is only because of the better QB and everything else is just gravy....sheesh....tell that to drew brees his last few seasons.....took them long enough...they finally gave him a solid running game and an actual defence this season.....i think they may go all the way......

[JM2009]

6 minutes ago, JPP said:

Yeah but some dummies on here just think with their tin foil hats on (got this one from 26) and think oh just change the QB and presto we will start winning again because football is only because of the better QB and everything else is just gravy....sheesh....tell that to drew brees his last few seasons.....took them long enough...they finally gave him a solid running game and an actual defence this season.....i think they may go all the way......

Any one who thinks TT has not been the best choice since 2015, with the other options on this roster, is wrong. NO is very good.

[The Jokeman]

3 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

I've said it since last year.

 

Ill never understand the Tyrod hate. He's solid. He had one **** game against the Saints and the pitch forks were out. 

 

Keep him until you have something better.

Solid isn't getting it done, we've seen that ever since Kelly, Thurman, Andre and Bruce left. As at times Bledsoe, Losman, Edwards, Fitzpatrick have all been solid but where'd it get us? This team either needs to magically unearth a QB or bottom out so we can start getting elite talent instead of average or slightly better. 

Edited November 22, 2017 by The Jokeman

[JM2009]

3 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

I've said it since last year.

 

Ill never understand the Tyrod hate. He's solid. He had one **** game against the Saints and the pitch forks were out. 

 

Keep him until you have something better.

This is commonsense and correct.

Just now, The Jokeman said:

Solid isn't getting it done, we've seen that ever since Kelly, Thurman, Andre and Bruce left. As at times Bledsoe, Losman, Edwards, Fitzpatrick have all been solid but where'd it get us? This team either needs to magically unearth a QB or bottom out so we can start getting elite talent instead of average or slightly better. 

TT has been better overall than those QBs listed.