Tyler Dunne: "Dennison Stays and Tyrod Goes"

[Not at the table Karlos]

10 hours ago, kota said:

Dennison isn't the problem.  It's Tyrod plain and simple.  I realize that Peterman threw 5 INT's.  That sucks.  Alot of it had to do with him being a rookie and terrible blocking up front for him.  

Dennison is the problem. He's a terrible play caller and idk how many times I've seen wr routes that end with all the receivers just standing there staring at tyrod with a defender standing next to them. Nate Hackett used to run trash like that with ej, 4 receivers running 5 yard curls on 3rd and 6 with eight defenders standing at the sticks. 

 

It's like dennison finds out the offenses strength and does the opposite.  He's very predictable as a play caller. The drive before the 2 min warning was one of the worst called drives I've ever seen amd dennison was happy about it.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Not at the table Karlos

[The Wiz]

Just now, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I tried finding a gif of a unicorn farting a rainbow, but the board didn't like the link for the image for whatever reason.

[CviewBills]

9 hours ago, Happy Gilmore said:

I can't agree with this flawed conclusion, and you're right, the logic does not make sense.  Starting Peterman against SD was Dennison's idea because he probably thought Peterman could execute his antiquated offense better than Tyrod.  And who ended up looking stupid for this?  McDermott.  If I'm McDermott, I'd be looking over Dennison's shoulder during preparations for NE and wouldn't trust him going forward.

I'm not so sure it was Dennison's idea to start Peterman.  I don't have the link, but shortly after the Chargers game Tyrod referred to Dennison as his friend.  He said he even gave Dennison pointers during the Chargers game. He never spoke so highly of McD.  Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it seems like his entire body language changes when the reporters ask questions about McDermott.

[BmarvB]

I would like to see Mike McCoy take over the offense. Unlike in Denver, he'll at least have a capable QB and running game to work with. And with an upgraded OL coach, the offense should at least be more productive

[JohnC]

10 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Dennison is terrible and has done a really poor job. Anyone that thinks differently isn’t paying attention. This offense has been a shell of what it was over the last 2 years with largely the same personnel. The receivers are different but of a similar quality. You can’t for a second convince me that he’s good but everyone else regressed. Rico was Kubiak’s Dennis Thurman. There is no reason that he deserves the opportunity to work with the young QB next year. 

It doesn't matter who the OC is because the mobile qb can't run a full range offense. Your criticisms of Dennison are valid but that doesn't change the reality that Taylor is a limited qb that the prior OCs had to contend with. Roman is a capable OC whose philosophy of stressing the running game was conducive to Taylor's talents. He was fired. Ask Lynn if he rather call plays for Taylor or Rivers?

 

The issue comes down to do you want a qb who has unique talents but also limiting abilities and have to conform to his limitations. Or would you prefer a qb who can run a full range offense that uses the whole field and a greater variety of passing routes. Getting another OC won't be much of a challenge. The real challenge that is more meaningful is getting a franchise qb (most likely from the draft) who is capable of running a more sophisticated offense. 

 

 

[Jobot]

10 hours ago, kota said:

Dennison isn't the problem.  It's Tyrod plain and simple.  I realize that Peterman threw 5 INT's.  That sucks.  Alot of it had to do with him being a rookie and terrible blocking up front for him.  

 

Is Tyrod the reason our run game has regressed 10-fold from last year?

[ROONDOGG55]

I personally think that we will completely overhaul the offense next year. TT will be gone and the Bills will try to move on from Shady, Clay and Glenn as well. Mathews will also be gone as I don't see us giving him a lucrative contract. So with that being said, why not start fresh at coordinator as well? We'll most likely have new starters at QB, RB, TE, T, and G. Might as well change schemes to a guy with more creativity (other than those ridiculous reverses) and a little more experience play calling.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

47 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

Roman says "what?".

Anyway, Dunne is referring specifically to the Peterson move.  It's not an astute observation.

 

Roman would be an example.  If he was doing as reported, he should have been released and replaced in the off-season.  Instead he was kept until it was clear to Rex his seat was toasty hot and he had to do something.

 

McDermott's seat won't be heated for another year or more.  He can keep his buds.

 

I understand Dunne is referring to the Peterman move.  His point (as I understand it) is that if an OC is so wedded to his QB profile/scheme that he's willing to hurl an unready untried rookie into the fire in the forlorn hope he will execute it better than an average-stats NFL-capable QB who does best when his unique skills are featured, that QB isn't staying no matter what.

21 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I tried finding a gif of a unicorn farting a rainbow, but the board didn't like the link for the image for whatever reason.

 

This may work.  I have more where that came from.  Heh.

[Happy]

37 minutes ago, CviewBills said:

I'm not so sure it was Dennison's idea to start Peterman.  I don't have the link, but shortly after the Chargers game Tyrod referred to Dennison as his friend.  He said he even gave Dennison pointers during the Chargers game. He never spoke so highly of McD.  Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it seems like his entire body language changes when the reporters ask questions about McDermott.

Haven't seen where Tyrod referred to Dennison as 'friend' but I'm also not sure how friendly they are toward each other.  They could be pals, I don't know.

I remember seeing Tweets from a few sports media writers that seemed to hint the QB change was something that Dennison convinced McD to do.  Also, McD stated 'Tyrod is our QB' after the Saints loss, then on Wednesday, did a complete 180.  Not saying that McD can't/doesn't change his mind, but doing an about face three days later doesn't seem like something McD would do on his own.

Edited November 28, 2017 by Happy Gilmore

[clayboy54]

The part that I really don't understand why you all don't seem to get, is that in the 1st season of a new staff and team rebuild, how do you know what they're trying to do? I believe they're trying to evaluate what they have and what they need, all while trying to win a few games. If you don't try fitting a square peg into a round hole, how do you know it doesn't fit?

 

Additionally, the staff needs to know which player can comprehend and execute certain schemes. These players for the most part are not rocket scientists. Some can get it, and some just cannot, for whatever reason. Part of it is physical. A lot of it is mental. So, in the 1st year you ask them to try this and try that, each for a few games. You see how they comprehend the mental concept of the play, and you see how they physically execute it. Then you start making decisions. In our case, I believe that at the highest level, you just don't have many players on offense that are complete players at much of anything.

 

So, I ask you, early in a rebuild, do you completely structure your concept around marginal players you have, or do you design a system that you believe will win in the long run and keep a few bridge players at certain positions until you can acquire complete players to properly execute the system over time?

 

I guess it depends on who you are.

[GunnerBill]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Oh, I think he's not thrilled with them and he wants to "test the market", but there's "not interested in principle" and there's "not interested under any circumstances whatsoever."  It would be hard to walk away from the right deal.  Sure there are differences - Washington's D is mediocre.  Their O is top-third, but not top tier.  There are better destinations, but many of the QB needy ones are also worse.

 

The GM who lets Cousins walk will face a lot of scrutiny and 2nd guessing if they have nothing decent at QB next year.  I could be wrong, but I think Stafford's deal will be the starting place and the pile o' cash will get deeper from there - Stafford did get a $50M bonus, but his deal overall seems relatively cap friendly for the next 3-4 years.  And eventually, you may be right, Cousins may walk anyway.

 

At the start of the year I'd have said Hokie was 100% right and Cousins was walking.  But that was largely because there were two situations I saw with potential vacancies that he would feel better walking into than he does staying in DC.  One was following McVay to LA the other was following Shanahan to San Fran. In both of those scenarios he would have been going into an offense he knows with an immediate chance of success.  With Goff's improvement and the Jimmy G trade I now see neither of those spots being open, which means his choices are stay in Washington with an offensive minded HC that he likes but a Front Office he has some grumbles with in a system he knows and can excel in OR walk into some less attractive unknown spots with new coaches and new systems.  Cleveland? Buffalo? Jets? Jacksonville? If they are his options I'd bet my bottom dollar that he "works out" whatever issues he has with the FO and re-signs in DC. The two spots that feasibly could be open and attractive are the Giants and the Cardinals..... but once feels that if the Giants ditch Eli they probably pick a Quarterback early and start a new cycle. That leaves Arizona with an old, veteran team trying to eek another year out of their window by replacing Carson Palmer with some whose body has not already failed him.  Is that a better situation than Washington at the moment? Not convinced it is.  

[Coach Tuesday]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

At the start of the year I'd have said Hokie was 100% right and Cousins was walking.  But that was largely because there were two situations I saw with potential vacancies that he would feel better walking into than he does staying in DC.  One was following McVay to LA the other was following Shanahan to San Fran. In both of those scenarios he would have been going into an offense he knows with an immediate chance of success.  With Goff's improvement and the Jimmy G trade I now see neither of those spots being open, which means his choices are stay in Washington with an offensive minded HC that he likes but a Front Office he has some grumbles with in a system he knows and can excel in OR walk into some less attractive unknown spots with new coaches and new systems.  Cleveland? Buffalo? Jets? Jacksonville? If they are his options I'd bet my bottom dollar that he "works out" whatever issues he has with the FO and re-signs in DC. The two spots that feasibly could be open and attractive are the Giants and the Cardinals..... but once feels that if the Giants ditch Eli they probably pick a Quarterback early and start a new cycle. That leaves Arizona with an old, veteran team trying to eek another year out of their window by replacing Carson Palmer with some whose body has not already failed him.  Is that a better situation than Washington at the moment? Not convinced it is.  

 

Arizona would, however, be a great landing spot for Tyrod.  Arians excels at creating deep route options which is also Tyrod's speciality.  They have a dynamic running back.  Tyrod's mobility can help take the pressure off of their sub-par offensive line, and the defense is stacked.

[Kirby Jackson]

53 minutes ago, JohnC said:

It doesn't matter who the OC is because the mobile qb can't run a full range offense. Your criticisms of Dennison are valid but that doesn't change the reality that Taylor is a limited qb that the prior OCs had to contend with. Roman is a capable OC whose philosophy of stressing the running game was conducive to Taylor's talents. He was fired. Ask Lynn if he rather call plays for Taylor or Rivers?

 

The issue comes down to do you want a qb who has unique talents but also limiting abilities and have to conform to his limitations. Or would you prefer a qb who can run a full range offense that uses the whole field and a greater variety of passing routes. Getting another OC won't be much of a challenge. The real challenge that is more meaningful is getting a franchise qb (most likely from the draft) who is capable of running a more sophisticated offense. 

 

 

They had a top 10 scoring offense and DVOA offense each of the last 2 years. Now they are totally inept. I’m sorry but that’s a him problem. We can deflect all that we want and the main thing that is different is him. Ockham’s Razor

[Happy]

1 hour ago, BobChalmers said:

I'm sorry - why do we need to keep either of them?

 

Fire Rico, tell him to take Juan with him.  Reassign DuCasse to front entrance security/ticket check at the stadium where he can be where he belongs hanging out with his own kind (the turnstiles).

 

Dump Tyrod and his $16M or so salary, use the money to keep KB and Matthews.  Draft a QB and MLB in the first, DT and OG in the second.  << as available.  Start a fully prepped NP week one and/or bring the rookie in as soon as he's ready.

I like (and agree with) your post, in general, but disagree with dumping Tyrod.  What if NP is not ready by the end of next August?  There is no insurance policy; we would have to go with a rookie QB and that is a huge risk.

[Marty McFly]

13 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said:

 

Arizona would, however, be a great landing spot for Tyrod.  Arians excels at creating deep route options which is also Tyrod's speciality.  They have a dynamic running back.  Tyrod's mobility can help take the pressure off of their sub-par offensive line, and the defense is stacked.

 

Right. I would think he could bring Denver, Jax, to the AFC championship game.

 

Either way ill bet anyone on here he gets a starting QB job next season. Just hope its not with the Browns

2 minutes ago, Happy Gilmore said:

I like (and agree with) your post, in general, but disagree with dumping Tyrod.  What if NP is not ready by the end of next August?  There is no insurance policy; we would have to go with a rookie QB and that is a huge risk.

 

Yuuuuuuuuuuge.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, The Wiz said:

Pink fluffy unicorns, dancing on rainbows?

those are the ones.  

1 hour ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I tried finding a gif of a unicorn farting a rainbow, but the board didn't like the link for the image for whatever reason.

or was this more your style?

 

[Coach Tuesday]

23 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

They had a top 10 scoring offense and DVOA offense each of the last 2 years. Now they are totally inept. I’m sorry but that’s a him problem. We can deflect all that we want and the main thing that is different is him. Ockham’s Razor

 

Nope, Tyrod. Tyrod Tyrod Tyrod, Tyrod and Tyrod.  Also, Tyrod.  Plus, Obama, and Hillary.  And Tyrod.

[THEHARDTRUTH]

42 minutes ago, clayboy54 said:

The part that I really don't understand why you all don't seem to get, is that in the 1st season of a new staff and team rebuild, how do you know what they're trying to do? I believe they're trying to evaluate what they have and what they need, all while trying to win a few games. If you don't try fitting a square peg into a round hole, how do you know it doesn't fit?

 

Additionally, the staff needs to know which player can comprehend and execute certain schemes. These players for the most part are not rocket scientists. Some can get it, and some just cannot, for whatever reason. Part of it is physical. A lot of it is mental. So, in the 1st year you ask them to try this and try that, each for a few games. You see how they comprehend the mental concept of the play, and you see how they physically execute it. Then you start making decisions. In our case, I believe that at the highest level, you just don't have many players on offense that are complete players at much of anything.

 

So, I ask you, early in a rebuild, do you completely structure your concept around marginal players you have, or do you design a system that you believe will win in the long run and keep a few bridge players at certain positions until you can acquire complete players to properly execute the system over time?

 

I guess it depends on who you are.

Sorry but your just thinking way to logically here. Much easier to just be an angry know it all blowhard and demand that everybody get fired or cut. Then your suppossed to follow it up by telling everyone that doesnt agree with you what a moron they are. The real problem is you dont play Madden 16 hours a day so you clearly dont have the qualifications to be commenting. Id suggest taking a step back. Keeping your well thought out logical posts that simply make to much sense to yourself and go develop some real anger. Kick a few puppies. Swear at some old people in the grocery check out. Get in your car and flip a few people off for going to fast or to slow. Then and only then will you have the suitable temperment to post here.

[clayboy54]

I'll take your suggestion to heart! :-)

[Albwan]

11 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Dennison blows.

 

So 11/26 rushes by RBs went for zero or negative yards yesterday is Taylor's fault?

 

His playcalling is so predictable it's almost sickening.

 

McDermott wanted McCoy... go get him!

dennison reminds me of me playing madden