Apparently the offense is holding Tyrod back

[Hapless Bills Fan]

On 11/29/2017 at 11:45 PM, Thurman#1 said:

I like Tanier overall, but assuming that the situation is making Goff and Wentz is ignoring the obvious, that plenty of young QBs suck big-time in their first year and improve a great deal in their second as they begin to understand what goes on around them. Same thing for many young QBs he's talking about here ... the second year is often a time when there is huge improvement, but the third and fourth years often see lights coming on for guys who will make it as franchise guys in the NFL.

 

Of course the surrounding players and systems will affect QB performance. It goes without saying. But the best QBs still show advanced skillsets and abilities even in poorer situations. Their overall numbers can fall and they might not look as good, but they still show advanced abilities. Same with guys who don't have the talents. Put a Trent Dilfer in one of the best situations in NFL history and he still looks like a guy who will never be a franchise QB, which is why the Ravens dumped him in the offseason in the year after the SB, an unheard of move for a QB on a team that won the SB.

 

The bolded statement is quite simply not supportable by evidence unless (that weasel word) you define "best" in a limited way that makes it true..

There are a number of QB who later proved to be very good QB, or at least QB who have successfully run a capable effective offense with good stats, who looked like absolute crap  in poor situations.  It's simply not true that "the best QBs still show advanced skillsets and abilities even in poorer situations".   Examples would be Steve Young in Tampa, more recently arguably Sam Bradford his 2nd year in the league with Josh McDaniels as OC (the guy knows how to call plays, but what he was trying to do in StL didn't work), Alex Smith his first 4-5 years in SF etc etc.  These guys did NOT look as though they had advanced skillsets and abilities.  

I have a little hunch that if Brady were playing for B'lo or the Giants this year, he would look like an absolute hot mess.  No OL and no WR will do that to the best QB - honest.

That's not to compare Brady with Eli Manning or Tyrod Taylor, just to address the generalized point above.  Football is a team game, and a certain level of skill or at least competence is necessary for the QB to succeed.

(Aside: you kind of make it sound as though the Ravens were auditioning Trent Dilfer as a franchise guy and cut him because "not good enough".  Not true; he was brought in as a 1-yr backup to Tony Banks, and when you look at who started for them next year, in hindsight it was one of the poorer personnel decisions to cut him loose and possibly cost them a 2nd SB)


 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

18 hours ago, Buffalo30 said:

I don't think they are...I'm not changing the offense for one guy that's not gonna be here.  They are giving him an opportunity to win in their system so he can stay, he's just not good enough.  You don't change the offense to go around one average player.  

 

I actually don't want Buffalo to trade up but take a guy where they are and fill in the holes around with the other picks.  There's not one worth trading up for in this class IMO.  If we trade up, I hope we keep most of our picks this year.

 

You do realize this "their system" is total BS, right?  Successful OCs adapt their system to the skills of their players and to their opponent.  Or they are not successful.  Period.

Playbooks are thick.  Even if a guy wants to run a specific system as far as terminology, route trees, etc he can choose from it plays that will suit the skills of his players and successfully create mismatches with his opponent.  Failure to do so is failure as an OC.  I'm getting a theme "it's OK to make excuses for the OC but not the QB"?

Example: here is an article about the NE Pats** offense under Josh McDaniels (OC effectively 2005, 2006-2008, 2012-present) .  TL;DR the Pats** change the offense to go around the skill sets of the players they have that season, and even the opponents they have that game.  It's why they win with Cassel, Garoppolo, and Brisset.

Expecting that an OC who WON'T change his approach game by game and season by season to create mismatches, will somehow win, is simply unrealistic. 

[Xerx]

23 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You do realize this "their system" is total BS, right?  Successful OCs adapt their system to the skills of their players and to their opponent.  Or they are not successful.  Period.

Playbooks are thick.  Even if a guy wants to run a specific system as far as terminology, route trees, etc he can choose from it plays that will suit the skills of his players and successfully create mismatches with his opponent.  Failure to do so is failure as an OC.  I'm getting a theme "it's OK to make excuses for the OC but not the QB"?

Example: here is an article about the NE Pats** offense under Josh McDaniels (OC effectively 2005, 2006-2008, 2012-present) .  TL;DR the Pats** change the offense to go around the skill sets of the players they have that season, and even the opponents they have that game.  It's why they win with Cassel, Garoppolo, and Brisset.

Expecting that an OC who WON'T change his approach game by game and season by season to create mismatches, will somehow win, is simply unrealistic. 

 

That right there is nail on the head.

 

Dennison has shown ZERO ability to create mismatches, get players in positions that best suit the talents they do have.

 

As an OC, you can't run the same "plays" with Tolbert in the game as you do with Shady, but Dennison does. 

 

You CAN run the same alignment, movement, etc, but the actual playcall needs to be suited to the player in the game.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, SoTier said:

Really?  They let both Woods and Goodwin walk in FA and then they traded Watkins.  Benjamin and Matthews are NOT the equivalent of any two of the three receivers the Bills got rid of simply because they cannot stretch the field.  Zay Jones isn't a deep threat, either, and it's only been recently that he's been able to catch the ball.  The Bills have absolutely no deep threat ... for a QB who has demonstrated that he can and will throw long in the past.     Benjamin, Matthews, and Jones are nothing special, and together, they're a joke as an NFL caliber WR corps -- and Benjamin has barely played.

 

This assessment is right on.  Benjamin might be a good player for us - but he's played 2 games and had zero chance to establish rappore.  Zay Jones has a catch percentage of 37%.

 

Pardon me while I try to inject a bit of data into the discussion.

 

Tyrod Taylor's best YPG in 2015 (when we had #11 scoring offense; he played 14 games) and 2017 differ by 32 yards.  That's right, 32 yards.  Projecting Clay from 8 games to 11 gives 12 YPG.  Zay Jones catching 10% more than half the balls that hit his hands would be another 12 ypg.  It's kind of hard to argue that the talent drop off from Watkins, Woods, and Gilmore to Matthews, Thompson, and Holmes isn't more than 10-12 ypg.

 

But where this offense has really fallen off is in the run game.  The esteemed Tolbert brings home 20 ypg vs Gillislee's 39 ypg last year.  McCoy has fallen off 16 ypg.

 

Point being, anyone who looks at this year's offense and lays it at mumble mumble Tayor mumble timing routes mumble, simply isn't looking at the big picture.  We have less talent at WR and RB and we're using what we have less effectively.  I watched the Wash/Dall game last night and shook my head.  We simply don't have guys who can do what those WR were doing, make the plays they were making.

 

Personally, I go with BadlandsMeanie after his careful analysis of the San Diego game: I don't know crap about how Taylor could or couldn't perform in this offense, because the OL is not getting it done, and the WR aren't getting separation enough of the time.  EDIT: that may be on, or partially on, the scheme and playcalling and not the quality of the players, as well.

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Hapless Bills Fan]

7 hours ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Tyrod gets us a chance at the playoffs. You understimate how bad quarterbacks make a game impossible to win. I'm all for better talent at quarterback. Let's bring in our guy and keep tyrod and see who wins the starting job. Tyrod isn't preventing us from drafting a quarterback. He's just great insurance. And don't rookies benefit from adjusting to the NFL as backups? That is a long-term solution;  knowing we can field a competitive team.

 

I hate your screen name - the guy screwed the pooch but it's one game, let it go - but you're right on in this point.

 

Plainly put: the 17+ year playoff failure of the Buffalo Bills is the failure to invest sufficiently and wisely at QB.  We have a repeated pattern of picking up bargain-basement QB in the draft or FA (Edwards, Fitzpatrick, Taylor), seeing some flashes, and investing in them - then cutting our losses and moving "on to the next".

 

As a pattern for how to successfully find adequate QB play, I give you Seattle (TJax, Flynn, Wilson), Minnesota (Bridgewater, Bradford, Keenum, even Hill), and Philadelphia (Foles, Sanchez, Daniels, Bradford, Wentz).  The point isn't that all of these QB are great; the point is they needed a QB, and they all invested in QB to the point that pundits tugged their beards and opined wisely: "they're craycray".   They got what they deserved based on their investment. $16M to Taylor next year is not outrageous money.  Keep him, draft the best QB we can, and look for a good FA as well. 

 

(And no, for those with this viewpoint, we don't need to "evaluate" our 5th round rookie in multiple games to tell whether or not we need to follow this course of action)

Edited December 1, 2017 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Scott7975]

4 hours ago, Air it out Fitzy said:

 

??‍♂️??‍♂️??‍♂️.    Worst idea ever 

Why? How does it hurt the team?

[The Now Moment]

3 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

Really?  They let both Woods and Goodwin walk in FA and then they traded Watkins.  Benjamin and Matthews are NOT the equivalent of any two of the three receivers the Bills got rid of simply because they cannot stretch the field.  Zay Jones isn't a deep threat, either, and it's only been recently that he's been able to catch the ball.  The Bills have absolutely no deep threat ... for a QB who has demonstrated that he can and will throw long in the past.     Benjamin, Matthews, and Jones are nothing special, and together, they're a joke as an NFL caliber WR corps -- and Benjamin has barely played.

 

Oh, and stuff the excuses for the Bills FO and the " so-and-so probably wasn't coming back next year ... ".   We've heard this bull manure every single time the Bills get rid of a good player in order to replace him with a cheaper, less talented player.   The Bills FO has spent the last 17 years religiously shedding good players rather than pay them and paying certain very average players for reasons known only to the suits at OBD, and what they did under the supposed "new regime"  is exactly the same kind of thing they did regularly under the "old regimes".  

Woods was gone in March and Beane didn't arrive until May...

To you those players aren't equivalent because they don't matchup to Tyrod's needs as a QB.  Both Mathews and Benjamin have had 1,000 yard seasons or pretty close to it.  And the Goodwin part of this just makes me laugh.  They have had injuries no doubt but to say they are a joke...I'm done with this conversation because there is no chance we will remotely come close to agreeing on anything or having a decent chat about it. Just a waste of time at this point. Good day

 

[GoBills808]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You do realize this "their system" is total BS, right?  Successful OCs adapt their system to the skills of their players and to their opponent.  Or they are not successful.  Period.

Playbooks are thick.  Even if a guy wants to run a specific system as far as terminology, route trees, etc he can choose from it plays that will suit the skills of his players and successfully create mismatches with his opponent.  Failure to do so is failure as an OC.  I'm getting a theme "it's OK to make excuses for the OC but not the QB"?

Example: here is an article about the NE Pats** offense under Josh McDaniels (OC effectively 2005, 2006-2008, 2012-present) .  TL;DR the Pats** change the offense to go around the skill sets of the players they have that season, and even the opponents they have that game.  It's why they win with Cassel, Garoppolo, and Brisset.

Expecting that an OC who WON'T change his approach game by game and season by season to create mismatches, will somehow win, is simply unrealistic. 

Since when did the Patriots win with Garoppolo or Brisset? I mean I GUESS you could say they won with Cassel, but he went 11-5 one season removed from a 16-0 team, meaning they actually reverted -5 wins once Brady went down. 

[Billsfan1972]

10 minutes ago, Buffalo30 said:

Woods was gone in March and Beane didn't arrive until May...

To you those players aren't equivalent because they don't matchup to Tyrod's needs as a QB.  Both Mathews and Benjamin have had 1,000 yard seasons or pretty close to it.  And the Goodwin part of this just makes me laugh.  They have had injuries no doubt but to say they are a joke...I'm done with this conversation because there is no chance we will remotely come close to agreeing on anything or having a decent chat about it. Just a waste of time at this point. Good day

 

Matthews is a complementary receiver who played in a throwing offense.  Benjamin is a possession receiver picked up when the Bills were 5-2 and realized just how bad the wrs were.  

 

Again if Matthews signs a contract within $3,000,000/yr vs. Watkins, given both uninjured the rest of the season you'll see how 31 other teams view the receivers.

 

We get it you are all in on this front office and coaching staff and dislike Taylor.

[The Now Moment]

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You do realize this "their system" is total BS, right?  Successful OCs adapt their system to the skills of their players and to their opponent.  Or they are not successful.  Period.

Playbooks are thick.  Even if a guy wants to run a specific system as far as terminology, route trees, etc he can choose from it plays that will suit the skills of his players and successfully create mismatches with his opponent.  Failure to do so is failure as an OC.  I'm getting a theme "it's OK to make excuses for the OC but not the QB"?

Example: here is an article about the NE Pats** offense under Josh McDaniels (OC effectively 2005, 2006-2008, 2012-present) .  TL;DR the Pats** change the offense to go around the skill sets of the players they have that season, and even the opponents they have that game.  It's why they win with Cassel, Garoppolo, and Brisset.

Expecting that an OC who WON'T change his approach game by game and season by season to create mismatches, will somehow win, is simply unrealistic. 

I'd agree with this if Tyrod was coming back.  He's not.  Why make the rest of the team wait another year to learn a new system because one guy doesn't know how to throw a football without holding onto it for 7 seconds?  I'm not just looking at one player here.  The entire team is affected when you do something like this, especially the young players on the team.  I don't want to have to change the scheme next year when Tyrod's gone and potentially hurt the young players development.  Constantly switching schemes needs to stop.  They just decided to do it this past offseason instead of next year to try and speed things up.  Tyrod doesn't get it but Zay Jones has seemed to pick it up and Dawkins...those are their guys.  They don't want to hurt their development by appeasing Tyrod's plentiful needs and changing the scheme.  

 

So they punted away a year on offense where we wouldn't have been much better even if we played to his strengths.  If you are gonna change anyway and get rid of Tyrod, does it make sense to create the offense he needs and make everybody else wait a year?  To me it doesn't.  Maybe I just look at things differently.  Tyrod isn't their guy.  They absolutely will do this when they get their QB but not with Tyrod.  It just doesn't make sense if you are looking for long term success

[Billsfan1972]

1 minute ago, Buffalo30 said:

I'd agree with this if Tyrod was coming back.  He's not.  Why make the rest of the team wait another year to learn a new system because one guy doesn't know how to throw a football without holding onto it for 7 seconds?  I'm not just looking at one player here.  The entire team is affected when you do something like this, especially the young players on the team.  I don't want to have to change the scheme next year when Tyrod's gone and potentially hurt the young players development.  Constantly switching schemes needs to stop.  They just decided to do it this past offseason instead of next year to try and speed things up.  Tyrod doesn't get it but Zay Jones has seemed to pick it up and Dawkins...those are their guys.  They don't want to hurt their development by appeasing Tyrod's plentiful needs and changing the scheme.  

 

So they punted away a year on offense where we wouldn't have been much better even if we played to his strengths.  If you are gonna change anyway and get rid of Tyrod, does it make sense to create the offense he needs and make everybody else wait a year?  To me it doesn't.  Maybe I just look at things differently.  Tyrod isn't their guy.  They absolutely will do this when they get their QB but not with Tyrod.  It just doesn't make sense if you are looking for long term success

And you are sure about this.

 

The best thing to do if you ask anyone with a brain is draft that QB and slowly bring him along.  If he is so far ahead of the curve like Philadelphia thought with Wentz, you trade him like the Eagles did with Sam Bradford, who's #'s were very similar to Tyrod and get a 1st & 4th........

 

Tyrod's contract is cheap for a QB......

[buffalobloodfloridahome]

Do I think Tyrod could be more effective in an offense that fits him better. We have seen him do well in a run first offense with limited reads and the ability to run on a whim. He excels in the option game and his escapability is unquestioned. He does not fit Dennison's system he never will and we need to make either a conscious decision to get rid of the OC or get rid of Tyrod because they cannot effectively coexist. The fact that Tyrod's ceiling is only a step above average and he's shown he cannot come from behind and win games makes my decision for me that he is not the future for this team. All the supposed national pundits saying he is unappreciated obviously don't watch the entire games they watch the highlights or look at the int/td ratio its so pretty. 

 

When other qbs are throwing for 4,000 yards or more and 25-30+ tds. We have to sit here and appreciate an overly cautious more athletic Dilfer clone.

[Teddy KGB]

39 minutes ago, Scott7975 said:

Why? How does it hurt the team?

 

Why pay a guy for 180 yards and a TD ? 

 

Mccown and Keenum and the other no namers can do the same.  

 

And the offense lulls me to sleep with Tyrod.  

[CardinalScotts]

here is the biggest thing to de-bunk any of this - he's late with the ball and has been for 2 1/2 years. He's an okay quarterback and if you get everything else to go well you can win with him (to a point). The minute there is anything that doesn't go as planned its a jail break that said Bills win Sunday

Edited December 1, 2017 by CardinalScotts

[grb]

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

I have a little hunch that if Brady were playing for B'lo or the Giants this year, he would look like an absolute hot mess.  No OL and no WR will do that to the best QB - honest.

That's not to compare Brady with Eli Manning or Tyrod Taylor, just to address the generalized point above.  Football is a team game, and a certain level of skill or at least competence is necessary for the QB to succeed.

 

The latest example is the downturn w/ Dak. Up to now he's been in quarterback heaven, with a stellar offensive line, good receivers and a great running attack. So people all last year wailed over the Bills passing on him in the draft. But how well would he perform in Buffalo? He's still in a much better situation than Taylor, but looks decidedly more mortal with just some of his supporting cast gone. Another example is Case. You can find any number of posts from people convinced the Bills should sign him - as if his massive improvement could be lifted up from its ideal setting of Minnesota and dropped into place in Buffalo. I'm skeptical that would prove true.

 

3 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This assessment is right on.  Benjamin might be a good player for us - but he's played 2 games and had zero chance to establish rappore.  Zay Jones has a catch percentage of 37%.

 

Pardon me while I try to inject a bit of data into the discussion.

 

Tyrod Taylor's best YPG in 2015 (when we had #11 scoring offense; he played 14 games) and 2017 differ by 32 yards.  That's right, 32 yards.  Projecting Clay from 8 games to 11 gives 12 YPG.  Zay Jones catching 10% more than half the balls that hit his hands would be another 12 ypg.  It's kind of hard to argue that the talent drop off from Watkins, Woods, and Gilmore to Matthews, Thompson, and Holmes isn't more than 10-12 ypg.

 

But where this offense has really fallen off is in the run game.  The esteemed Tolbert brings home 20 ypg vs Gillislee's 39 ypg last year.  McCoy has fallen off 16 ypg.

 

Point being, anyone who looks at this year's offense and lays it at mumble mumble Tayor mumble timing routes mumble, simply isn't looking at the big picture.  We have less talent at WR and RB and we're using what we have less effectively.  I watched the Wash/Dall game last night and shook my head.  We simply don't have guys who can do what those WR were doing, make the plays they were making.

 

Personally, I go with BadlandsMeanie after his careful analysis of the San Diego game: I don't know crap about how Taylor could or couldn't perform in this offense, because the OL is not getting it done, and the WR aren't getting separation enough of the time.  EDIT: that may be on, or partially on, the scheme and playcalling and not the quality of the players, as well.

 

 

Everything here is spot-on, but one caveat : When Taylor had Watkins and Woods to throw to he was much more efficient : A higher completion percentage, more td passes, and over 8yds per attempt. I think there have been two parallel developments : The talent around TT has gotten a lot worse / dysfunctional (ie, running game), but Taylor has gotten a degree better (though not as much as even his supporters would wish). I think the Taylor of '15 would have been much less successful transplanted to the situation of '17

 

 

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

$16M to Taylor next year is not outrageous money.  Keep him, draft the best QB we can, and look for a good FA as well. 

  

As I understand it (tho I'm notoriously weak on NFL contract stuff), cutting Taylor saves about 9.4 million in cap. But McBeane probably won't stake next season on Peterman and a rookie, which means they'll have to sign a journeyman veteran. That will chew-up 3-4 million of the savings from cutting Taylor - so is it really what's best for the team? The question is probably moot, as McBeane will cut Taylor for no other reason than to justify their recent embarrassing clumsiness.

Edited December 1, 2017 by grb

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, grb said:

Taylor has gotten a degree better

He's getting worse, not better. I think this is fairly well established.

[grb]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

He's getting worse, not better. I think this is fairly well established.

 

"I think this is fairly well established."

 

In your mind maybe. I'm generous enuff to grant you that........

[Billsfan1972]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

He's getting worse, not better. I think this is fairly well established.

No Dennison is useless and has done everything he can to undermine Taylor & the offense.

 

To see him come out slinging with Peterman (after the first two runs) and the disaster with every ensuing possession (save 2 runs back to back for a TD), told me exactly where Dennison stood.

[BADOLBILZ]

11 minutes ago, Air it out Fitzy said:

 

Why pay a guy for 180 yards and a TD ? 

 

Mccown and Keenum and the other no namers can do the same.  

 

And the offense lulls me to sleep with Tyrod.  

 

There will probably be fierce competition for serviceable QB's like McCown......he got $6.5M this year so figure that plus.......which virtually negates any gains from cutting Tyrod.

 

We haven't been in the market for a McCown past couple seasons but people forget that the Bills had to trade a 5th round pick just to get a Matt Cassell.

 

Guys with even a little success in their past are going to cost the Bills awfully close to what the savings for cutting Tyrod is.

 

And none are likely to be as accomplished or consistently productive.

 

 

[Teddy KGB]

4 minutes ago, Billsfan1972 said:

No Dennison is useless and has done everything he can to undermine Taylor & the offense.

 

To see him come out slinging with Peterman (after the first two runs) and the disaster with every ensuing possession (save 2 runs back to back for a TD), told me exactly where Dennison stood.

 

Say it 88 more times please ??‍♂️

 

Dennison is sabotaging himself is a story that makes no sense btw. 

 

Undermine, ?????‍♂️

 

Edited December 1, 2017 by Air it out Fitzy