Tyrod to start vs Chiefs

[OrtonHearsaWho]

5 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said:

dennison has made sure this isn't the case.

 

Right.  And that's why Dennison is more of a problem than Tyrod.

[BuffaloHokie13]

3 minutes ago, 1billsfan said:

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 completely baffled by this 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 on of the biggest NFL myths ever? Is anyone else becoming tired of the outrage?

 

Phil Simms was a top 10 pick and Parcells started Scott Brunner over him for a full 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 a seven year veteran Tyrod Taylor being benched?! 

 

 

Yep total equals, except Taylor's better in CMP%, TD%, TO%, Passer Rating, and ANY/A, and that's before we even factor in rushing ability.

Edited November 22, 2017 by BuffaloHokie13

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, 1billsfan said:

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 this 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 on of the biggest NFL myths ever? Is anyone else becoming tired of the outrage?

 

Phil Simms was a top 10 pick and Parcells started Scott Brunner over him for a full 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 a seven year veteran Tyrod Taylor being benched?! 

 

 

 

Horrible comparison and the response was more than fair when considering the Bills' circumstances in addition to the alternative of Not Ready Nate. 

[Bill_with_it]

40 minutes ago, PeterGriffin said:

5 pics, constant checkdowns to 3 and out punts, is there really a difference?

There absolutely is. Ask any nfl coach they will tell you that turning over the ball isntantly puts you at a larger disadvantage than any thing else you could possibly do. Any and every NFL coach will tell you that. 

[Sweats]

6 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

 

 

 

And last weak in starting Peterman, "its right for our team"...............what kind of made-up, double-talk nonsense is this HC talking about?

 

Shameful.........just shameful. 

[Albwan]

1 hour ago, NoPlayoffs said:

 

Last game, TT played exactly the same way he has been doing all season.  There was no difference.  It just that now, people who can't admit they were horrendously wrong about Peterman are trying to move to a narrative that somehow the benching "fixed" Tyrod.  That's just a way for people to try and salvage a silver lining from their dumb opinions.  Just admit you were wrong.

lol. nice 12 posts there, lets please not act like they benched joe montana.

I hardly think you'll come back here if he has one of his usual games sunday

I don't care how bad the defense is you aren't winning anything in the nfl with

1 td and 120 yards passing, and i'm not talking about points scored against 2nd stringers

in garbage time.

[YesPlayoffs]

2 minutes ago, Albwan said:

lol. nice 12 posts there, lets please not act like they benched joe montana.

I hardly think you'll come back here if he has one of his usual games sunday

I don't care how bad the defense is you aren't winning anything in the nfl with

1 td and 120 yards passing, and i'm not talking about points scored against 2nd stringers

in garbage time.

 

Literally nothing you posted had anything to do with what I posted.  Nice job.

[OrtonHearsaWho]

1 hour ago, joesixpack said:

 

Great news Tyrod!

 

Will that chip help you not check down on 3rd and 20?

 

 

 

[K-9]

1 minute ago, Sweats said:

 

 

 

 

And last weak in starting Peterman, "its right for our team"...............what kind of made-up, double-talk nonsense is this HC talking about?

 

Shameful.........just shameful. 

Because last week, in his opinion, it was right for the team. A team that clearly needed a spark and the coach made a decision to try to light one. It didn't work. Nothing more. Nothing shameful about that at all. Unless you think a coach doesn't have the right to change his mind about personnel. 

[GoBills808]

20 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

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.

Look first don't you throw FootballPerspective in my face. I'm pretty sure I introduced you to that website.

 

And second, don't try to counter my bad joke with an equally bad equivalency of punt yards to opponent average starting field position.

[BadLandsMeanie]

6 hours ago, GG said:

Said there was dialogue with players council, but it was his decision

This makes an image in my head from one of the old westerns with McD sitting in a circle inside a teepee cross legged amongst  the Indian elders smoking a peace pipe.

[Billsfan1972]

21 minutes ago, 1billsfan said:

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?! 

 

 

Why because everyone knows Siemian stinks.......  Same with Osweiler and the Broncos know it too and finally ready to move on with a HIGH DRAFT PICK.  Denver is a big market and people watching the NFL care about the Broncos and yes barely a blip.......  Why?????

 

Because it was the right decision

 

Now Buffalo few care about, yet when Peterman was announced it was a big story.......  Why??????

 

Because it was a ridiculous move

 

The result was even worse then 95% of the media expected and thus the Bills were pretty much the lead story on Monday......

 

Do you understand it now?

[1billsfan]

24 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Yep total equals, except Taylor's better in CMP%, TD%, TO%, Passer Rating, and ANY/A, and that's before we even factor in rushing ability.

 

First 21 game starts…

 

Seimian:
11-10 QB record   60% comp   27 TDs / 20 INT  230 yards per game

 

Taylor:
12-9 QB record   62% comp   25 TDs / 8 INT   190 yards per game

Now, is throwing 12 more interceptions that big of a deal, when it was Taylor’s total lack of challenging defenses DNA that got him benched? Not for me. Taylor has a lot of support through out the league, but I think a lot of that comes from the familiarity and goodwill of being a seven year veteran and being a genuinely good guy and pro. But these stats say they are the same player, just different styles.

 

Edited November 22, 2017 by 1billsfan

[YesPlayoffs]

1 minute ago, 1billsfan said:

Now, is throwing 12 more interceptions that big of a deal, when it was Taylor’s total lack of challenging defenses DNA that got him benched? Not for me.

 

Then you really don't know anything about football.  Preventing turnovers and preserving field position is faaaaar more important that an extra 40 yards of passing per game.

[GoBills808]

Just now, NoPlayoffs said:

 

Then you really don't know anything about football.  Preventing turnovers and preserving field position is faaaaar more important that an extra 40 yards of passing per game.

Is this where we just pretend that extra yards per game somehow don't contribute to field position?

[Bangarang]

2 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

The change was made due to TT’s performance and 2.5 years of film on him playing qb in the nfl. They thought NP was ready and wanted to see if the offense would improve. He wasn’t ready. They were wrong in thinking he was. They switched back. It doesn’t mean they think think any more of TT than they did before last week’s game. It means they wanted to see if they had a better alternative. They don’t at this time. 

 

This approach worked for the Browns.

[HappyDays]

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Look first don't you throw FootballPerspective in my face. I'm pretty sure I introduced you to that website.

 

And second, don't try to counter my bad joke with an equally bad equivalency of punt yards to opponent average starting field position.

 

I googled “starting field position win correlation.” It wasn’t really hard to find.

 

The conversation started with someone saying “200 yards of field position.” I can’t find anything to correlate punt yards with wins, I am guessing it wouldn’t correlate well because you can’t control where you punt from. Opponent average starting field position is obviously what that post was getting at. So it is correct to say that field position yards correlate to wins and passing yards don’t.

 

This would have much been much easier if you just admitted you were wrong

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

2 minutes ago, NoPlayoffs said:

 

Then you really don't know anything about football.  Preventing turnovers and preserving field position is faaaaar more important that an extra 40 yards of passing per game.

 

If the goal of avoiding turnovers leads to indecision and or poor decisions and a lack of situational awareness...then you're wrong.

 

Not that that's a shock.

 

[BuffaloHokie13]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

Is this where we just pretend that extra yards per game somehow don't contribute to field position?

This is where we pretend Tyrod wasn't averaging 40 yards per game on the ground through those first 21 starts... Just like we're pretending he didn't rush for any TDs in those first 21 games either.

[YesPlayoffs]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

Is this where we just pretend that extra yards per game somehow don't contribute to field position?

 

Not when you're getting over 30 more yards per game on the ground (TT 37 rushing yards per game for the Bills - Siemian 6 rushing yards per game for Denver).