Billsfan1972 Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 1 minute ago, GoBills808 said: I was objecting to your observation of Manning's play since Beckham Jr went down as a 'dumpster fire'. He has been very pedestrian and the Giants are not scoring or moving the ball and the defense was atrocious and then beat KC...... Sound familiar? Yep grasping at straws and have hope.
GoBills808 Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 Just now, PeterGriffin said: It's been said over and over and over that yards don't mean a damn thing. When it comes to QB passing yards, they don't. But those punting yards are huge!
BuffaloHokie13 Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 Just now, joesixpack said: Sorry, i was late with the follow-on question. Depends on the prospect and how far we have to move. The standard offer over the past 2 years. 2 1sts, a 4th, and a 1st next year. If it's the Broncos or Giants maybe you look to package Tyrod in the deal and bump one of the 1sts down to a 2nd? I'd do either of those for Rosen, but I also don't see a way to fix the OL while making that move which is bothersome. The Rams trade with Tennessee seems doable with the right partner and jumping up from 15 to 1 feels about like what we'd need to do. Rams got Pick 1, Pick 113 (4th), and Pick 177 (6th) Tennessee got Pick 15, Pick 43 (2nd), Pick 45 (2nd), Pick 76 (3rd), Future 1st, Future 3rd
moshermw Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 4 minutes ago, PeterGriffin said: It's been said over and over and over that yards don't mean a damn thing. Ok. At the very least it woulda taken NO and LAC longer to score at least - so the final is 35-14ish instead of 47-10 and 54-24.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: Depends on the prospect and how far we have to move. The standard offer over the past 2 years. 2 1sts, a 4th, and a 1st next year. If it's the Broncos or Giants maybe you look to package Tyrod in the deal and bump one of the 1sts down to a 2nd? I'd do either of those for Rosen, but I also don't see a way to fix the OL while making that move which is bothersome. The Rams trade with Tennessee seems doable with the right partner and jumping up from 15 to 1 feels about like what we'd need to do. Rams got Pick 1, Pick 113 (4th), and Pick 177 (6th) Tennessee got Pick 15, Pick 43 (2nd), Pick 45 (2nd), Pick 76 (3rd), Future 1st, Future 3rd Now the question you have to ask yourself: Is it more palatable to do that Rams deal or than to lose the last 5 and lessen the load? me, i'd trade 5 losses to save 2 picks. Edited November 22, 2017 by joesixpack
BuffaloHokie13 Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, joesixpack said: Now the question you have to ask yourself: Is it more palatable to do that Rams deal or than to lose the last 5 and lessen the load? Problem is losing the last 5 doesn't get you out of needing to move up. And I'd prefer to develop a habit of winning, if possible. Give me the Rams deal, I find it plenty palatable. For RG3, Washington gave up 3 1sts and a 2nd to move from pick 6 to pick 2... Edited November 22, 2017 by BuffaloHokie13
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: Problem is losing the last 5 doesn't get you out of needing to move up. And I'd prefer to develop a habit of winning, if possible. Give me the Rams deal, I find it plenty palatable. Well, suppose the last five games are a difference of 7 spots draft position? Say from 15 to 8. Now you only need to move up maybe three spots. Should be doable with a swap of firsts and a second, preserving a first and a second for use in other areas. Short term pain for long term gain. Edited November 22, 2017 by joesixpack
BuffaloHokie13 Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 1 minute ago, joesixpack said: Well, suppose the last five games are a difference of 7 spots draft position? Say from 15 to 8. Now you only need to move up maybe three spots. Should be doable with a swap of firsts and a second, preserving a first and a second for use in other areas. For Washington, 6 to 2 was 3 1sts and a 2nd. For Philly, 8 to 2 was 2 1sts, a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 4th
paulbills Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 The fact of the matter is that Tyrod simply did not get it done against NYJ and totally laid an egg against the Saints when we really needed those two wins, the decision was warranted after the starting QB passed for 56 yards in a brutal effort in a must win game at home, although whoever told McD that Peterman was ready is just flat out wrong. I honestly I think even if Peterman threw 3 picks and had a decent outing with 1 td and 200+ yds he would still be starting again, to be fair, no one in their right mind thought it would go down how it did on Sunday, and it does leave the coach in a bad predicament, it ultimately shows the debacle that has been the QB position on this team and how there is no prospect moving forward, nor has there been any real commitment to one guy. I don't know what to expect from Tyrod nor do I think I even care or that it matters at this point, even if Tyrod proves he can mount a successful run now at the end of the season and make the playoffs, what do you do at that point? Do you stick with him after the message is clear you're trying to move on from him? This is just a horrible situation all around.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) 1 minute ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: For Washington, 6 to 2 was 3 1sts and a 2nd. For Philly, 8 to 2 was 2 1sts, a 2nd, a 3rd, and a 4th I'm talking moving 8 to 5. Don't need to get to 2, I don't think (hope not). But suppose we split the dolphin games and win the colts game...now, we've won two entirely meaningless games and end up 7-9. Now the cost may be BOTH our firsts and possibly a second. Ouch. Edited November 22, 2017 by joesixpack
Scott7975 Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) Here is my take.... If you want to try and win start Tyrod. Seems to me they still want to win. If you want to give up on the season ala half baked tank attempt then start Peterman. I don't think the coaches could look at their vets in the eyes and say we are playing for draft picks. That's how you lose locker rooms and you don't come back from that. As to the people that want to evaluate Peterman... They don't need to. Its simple... keep Peterman, do whatever with Tyrod. Go after your QB during the draft. Put QBs in rookie camp, mini camp, training camp, and preseason. There is your evaluation period. Start best QB. They don't need to evaluate Peterman at all this year. Edited November 22, 2017 by Scott7975
BuffaloHokie13 Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 2 minutes ago, joesixpack said: I'm talking moving 8 to 5. Don't need to get to 2, I don't think (hope not). But suppose we split the dolphin games and win the colts game...now, we've won two entirely meaningless games and end up 7-9. Now the cost may be BOTH our firsts and possibly a second. Ouch. I don't know man. I really like the Rams move and they went from 15 to 1. If we could repeat that I think I'd take it (assuming they're as sold on Rosen as me). If it went identically we'd have: 1st overall pick KC's 1st rounder 2 4ths 2 5ths and a 6th Could be a lot worse, plus we'd have a late 1st to snag one of the high end Guards/DTs
GreggTX Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 5 hours ago, Woodman19 said: Peterman will be back when we are officially out. Probably after the Patriots game. Tyrod isn't a bad choice for the next two games. Exactly. With our run defense looking like it did when Reggie Torbor was our best LB and guys like Torell Troupe and Michael Jasper our saviors, we aren't going anywhere. All in for 2018!
Scott7975 Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 7 minutes ago, joesixpack said: Well, suppose the last five games are a difference of 7 spots draft position? Say from 15 to 8. Now you only need to move up maybe three spots. Should be doable with a swap of firsts and a second, preserving a first and a second for use in other areas. Short term pain for long term gain. They aren't moving from 15th to 8th just by swapping picks and tossing in a second.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 Just now, Scott7975 said: They aren't moving from 15th to 8th just by swapping picks and tossing in a second. Read it again. I asked the question if they lose out, it's likely the difference between finishing with the 8th or 15th pick.
Scott7975 Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 Just now, joesixpack said: Read it again. I asked the question if they lose out, it's likely the difference between finishing with the 8th or 15th pick. My bad I misread it. You're talking moving from like 8th to 5th. Makes more sense now. Long day that started at 4am and wont be ending until about 7am tomorrow. Sorry lol.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) Just now, Scott7975 said: My bad I misread it. You're talking moving from like 8th to 5th. Makes more sense now. Long day that started at 4am and wont be ending until about 7am tomorrow. Sorry lol. no bigs. Edited November 22, 2017 by joesixpack
Scott7975 Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 Just now, joesixpack said: no bigs. Get some sleep. If only I could haha. To re-respond to your post.... I agree but don't agree. In the long run and in reality losing out now would be the best for the Bills. Would be even better if they haven't won 5 games already. On the flipside... Vet players don't like losing. No one does actually. At least one of these vets was going to retire but was talked into coming back another season. Players also don't like being embarrassed. While other play has been embarrassing too... nothing is more embarrassing than having a starter that was playing ok... not great.. not terrible... but ok getting pulled to put in a rookie who throws 5 picks in a half of football. This coach would completely lose the locker room doing that for the rest of the season. That's all just my opinion.
1billsfan Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) Trevor Siemian got benched this year and there was not one single blip on the “how dare the head coach do that” outrage meter anywhere. Siemian and Taylor are total equals in the QB performance department (look up the stats) and Taylor has had four extra years in the league. Is anyone else baffled by the completely overboard fan and media outrage of McDermott’s benching Taylor? Has the seemingly occurring narration of Tyrod Taylor being a well-established starting QB become one of the biggest NFL myths ever? Is anyone else becoming tired of the outrage? Phil Simms was a top 10 pick and three year veteran and Parcells started Scott Brunner over him for his fourth season. Terry Bradshaw was benched by Chuck Knoll. What would today’s 24/7 media and fans say about those moves?...and we’re seeing a melt down over seven year veteran Tyrod Taylor being benched?! Edited November 22, 2017 by 1billsfan 1
HappyDays Posted November 22, 2017 Posted November 22, 2017 (edited) 29 minutes ago, GoBills808 said: When it comes to QB passing yards, they don't. But those punting yards are huge! Correct. Passing yards have a 0.16 win correlation which essentially means no correlation: http://www.footballperspective.com/correlating-passing-stats-with-wins/ Opponent average starting field position has a 0.45 win correlation which is a moderate positive correlation: http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2011/12/how-important-is-opponent-starting.html?m=1 I know you don’t care about stats but this one is actually inarguable. Edited November 22, 2017 by HappyDays
Recommended Posts