All-22 of Bills-Jags from Cover1

[JohnC]

17 minutes ago, Boyst62 said:

I was watching all game and must say I was thrown off by the disguises by the Jags. No wonder Roethlisberger and others have difficulty

 

Several times I swore it was cover 1.  CB's walk to LOS. Or off it. Then it changed to cover 3 under.  

 

They dared us to go deep and I was !@#$ing going nuts to just keep trying to go deep. We did once.  

 

If I can see it from a corner end zone 20soemthing rows up... I'm fairly certain 10 yards in front of you or half a football field in front you at the most is easy.

 

 

Dennison is the biggest part of the problem and the one that needs to be corrected.  Taylor is a problem but I can with him and I'd have been going deep all day.

 

Dennison is a lot of things I dislike. One of them is a coward. He can't be that stupid to not try to go deep with his position. You can't rise to that position being dumb.

 

He and Eric Wood need to go.

There is little I can reply with as I agree with where you're coming from

 

My biggest frustration is why he wanted to start Peterman in that game.

 

After I return a PM to Hopless make sure I PM you some details of that that are not fit for open discussion

Let's not overstate how damaging the Peterman decision to start in the Charger game was. The Bills were going to lose that game no matter who started. They whipped us from the start. That type of game happens where a good or even poor team outplays a better or even lesser team. The Chargers were laughing and mocking us all through the game. In my view too much is made of that substitution. The OC and HC wanted to change the dynamic from an ineffective starting qb. They took a gamble that didn't work. I'm not bothered by it. The Jacksonville game should demonstrate why the staff did what it did, regardless if it worked or not. 

Edited January 11, 2018 by JohnC

[PolishDave]

4 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said:

i'm fairly certain I didn't use any names for you in either of my posts here that had anything to do with you. am I missing something? 

 

was it the Pollock calling the lot of you bastards? lol

 

Dude...

 

Pollock is a fish

 

You meant to call me a Polak.   Just so we're on the same page. 

[Stank_Nasty]

1 minute ago, PolishDave said:

 

Dude...

 

Pollock is a fish

 

You meant to call me a Polak.   Just so we're on the same page. 

HAHAHA. that would be correct. my intelligence shines bright once again.

[PolishDave]

Just now, Stank_Nasty said:

HAHAHA. that would be correct. my intelligence shines bright once again.

 

Hey I get to leave more smilies again!  Woohoo!   Earlier it told me I was out of them for the day.    Invision software lies! 

[mob16151]

16 hours ago, Coach Tuesday said:

Great stuff.

 

Mills was garbage in this game and shouldn’t be a starter in the NFL.

 

Benjamin is either very injured or incredibly disinterested.

 

These receivers and tight ends get zero separation and it was negligent of Beane to let the roster look like this.

 

Mills was so bad,I almost wanted the Bills to play Ducasse at RT. That's sad

 

[BuffaloRush]

21 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Haven't seen this linked here, excuse if I missed it.

 

Analysis of Bills-Jaguars by Cover1's Nate Turner

http://www.cover1.net/execution-comes-up-short-against-a-talented-jaguars-defense/

The bottom line doesn't change: Any time your defense holds the opponent to 10 points, you should win the game.  But some good stuff there I haven't seen elsewhere, such as the Jags using some obvious and snipeable defensive signals (Cover-3 and Palms) coverage that we missed.

 

He gives Dennison props for having enough in the game plan to win and puts a lot on the players for not executing.  On the one hand, sure - Taylor especially, the drops, the penalty calling back Shady's run.  On the other hand, if someone has been lacking at something all season, why ask them to do it in a playoff game?  If blocking assignments have been an issue for your OL all season and you haven't been calling traps, do you really want to dust off a trap just so's you can watch them mess it up?  Dance with what brung ya I say.   

 

Again, bottom line, our D came through, we had good enough talent and offensive game plan to win, we were just a handful of successful plays short.  Nate puts it mostly on Taylor, and maybe it belongs there.  OTOH, Nate is a clever analyst, and clever analysts appreciate clever play concepts by clever offensive coordinators - which is great provided the team has the right pieces to pull it off.  Sometimes it's better to KISS and stick to the things your men can execute really well.  Maybe that wouldn't have worked either.

 

Good read, have a look.

I thought his name was Erik Turner and I'm not a fan of that guy.  He doesn't take criticism well and will block you if you dare challenge him.  Lame.  Won't support Cover 1

[Hapless Bills Fan]

40 minutes ago, BuffaloRush said:

I thought his name was Erik Turner and I'm not a fan of that guy.  He doesn't take criticism well and will block you if you dare challenge him.  Lame.  Won't support Cover 1

 

You're right I'm wrong and I should have checked.  Me bad.

 

I know nothing about how he takes criticism or who he blocks when why.  But he knows his football. 

 

No obligation to read this thread.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 hours ago, JohnC said:

Your response is well thought out and clearly expressed. However, I strenuously disagree with the general theme of it. No one is making the case that the Peterman decision to start in the Charger game was in hindsight the right thing to do. But I'm one of the few posters here who had no problem with going with a different qb. The replacement wasn't a testament to Peterman's readiness as much as it was a testament to Taylor's struggles over the previous number of games. After seeing during the games and tape sessions the same mistakes the OC and HC tried something different. Was it an act of desperation? Absolutely!

 

 

I think there are two issues kind of being merged here.  One is "was it a problem to try a QB change?"  No, no it was not.  Taylor was struggling, the offense was stuck.  In the abstract, I have no problem with it, provided it's change that you think gives you at least as good or better a shot to win as Taylor (that was, and remains, the contention of McDermott and Dennison - Peterman gave them their best chance to win).

 

The second is "was Peterman realistically ready to start in an NFL game?".  In hindsight, the answer is no, but Boyst is saying he's got gouge that from practice, people in the facility knew he was not, and certainly not a normal, full offensive game plan.

 

That leaves us with two possibilities:

1) Either McDermott/Dennison knew he was not ready, and are lieing to us like rugs or

2) They're telling the truth, and one or both of them calls his competence into question if he couldn't recognize what other folks in the building knew and the rest of the nation learned

 

If they did want to try a change (or had to start him due to injury) do what other teams have done with rookies  - simplify the game plan, ask him to hand off the ball and make low-risk, high-probability throws.  I know, I know: we can't modify the Sacred System for One Player (Hapless bangs head on wall)

 

Look, if you're not a liar and you actually do have player personnel evaluation chops and you're fed up with Taylor, bring someone in.  Trade for someone before the deadline.  Snipe someone off a Practice Squad and check him out.  Sign Shaun freakin' Hill.  Just don't throw a not-ready rookie to the wolves.  It's not good for anyone - not the team, not the record, and not the rookie.

[Dadonkadonk]

15 hours ago, BuffaloMatt said:

O'leary wasn't just missed, it looked like he was throwing the ball to the third row. That play and the 1st and goal on the 1/2 yard line sealed our fate.

The game was zero zero and in the first half.

O’Leary drop on third down was more critical.

 

But dam that was a terrible seam throw too

Edited January 12, 2018 by Dadonkadonk

[JohnC]

9 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I think there are two issues kind of being merged here.  One is "was it a problem to try a QB change?"  No, no it was not.  Taylor was struggling, the offense was stuck.  In the abstract, I have no problem with it, provided it's change that you think gives you at least as good or better a shot to win as Taylor (that was, and remains, the contention of McDermott and Dennison - Peterman gave them their best chance to win).

 

The second is "was Peterman realistically ready to start in an NFL game?".  In hindsight, the answer is no, but Boyst is saying he's got gouge that from practice, people in the facility knew he was not, and certainly not a normal, full offensive game plan.

 

That leaves us with two possibilities:

1) Either McDermott/Dennison knew he was not ready, and are lieing to us like rugs or

2) They're telling the truth, and one or both of them calls his competence into question if he couldn't recognize what other folks in the building knew and the rest of the nation learned

 

If they did want to try a change (or had to start him due to injury) do what other teams have done with rookies  - simplify the game plan, ask him to hand off the ball and make low-risk, high-probability throws.  I know, I know: we can't modify the Sacred System for One Player (Hapless bangs head on wall)

 

Look, if you're not a liar and you actually do have player personnel evaluation chops and you're fed up with Taylor, bring someone in.  Trade for someone before the deadline.  Snipe someone off a Practice Squad and check him out.  Sign Shaun freakin' Hill.  Just don't throw a not-ready rookie to the wolves.  It's not good for anyone - not the team, not the record, and not the rookie.

What I am about to say is the same thing I have told Boyst62, the Carolina Rasputin. Too much was made of the decision and game. The potential HOF qb, Rivers, was making beautiful passes all day long. He was having so much fun that he was yucking it up all game long. The Bills were thoroughly outclassed in that game. It didn't matter who was going to start and who was going to be substituted. Rivers was dynamic while our qbs (collectively) were impotent. Those type of games happen throughout the league. Lesser teams dominating better teams and better teams playing at a higher level than normal.

 

What I also stated to Boyst62 that is missed when discussing that decision is the context. The backdrop to that desperate decision was that the running qb had a string of ineffective games where not only did he play poorly but he couldn't execute the offense. So a change was made. You can disagree with the decision but there was an understandable rationale behind it. Anyone who watched the play of Taylor in the Jacksonville should be more receptive and understanding to that desperate player change. I'll go even so far as to say that if Peterman started in the playoff game the Bills would have had a better chance to win. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Along with John I don’t disagree with the gamble to start Nate.  

 

The 3 game offensive slopfest was then matched with the 3rd defensive slopfest. 

 

The rookie was way overmatched and  imo Taylor wouldn’t have produced any points until the Chargers D let up later in the game. aka garbage time.  

 

 

[Stank_Nasty]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

 I'll go even so far as to say that if Peterman started in the playoff game the Bills would have had a better chance to win. 

oh my god. wow..... WOW WOW WOW. 

Edited January 12, 2018 by Stank_Nasty

[Hapless Bills Fan]

17 hours ago, Boyst62 said:

I was watching all game and must say I was thrown off by the disguises by the Jags. No wonder Roethlisberger and others have difficulty

(....)

Dennison is a lot of things I dislike. One of them is a coward. He can't be that stupid to not try to go deep with his position. You can't rise to that position being dumb.

 

I fervently hope Roeth is studying up and able to figure it out this weekend.

 

Taylor's deep ball is good, and he can really let it rip in windy conditions.  But last year I seem to remember Watkins and Goodwin having to slow a bit and come back for it.  This year I can't remember seeing that a single time - it was always over-thrown for the WR.  I'm kind of thinking we don't have a current WR on the roster who can consistently beat his coverage deep.  Either they get jammed up on the line so they're not where Taylor expects them to be during the game, or they just don't have the speed, or both.

 

Perhaps Dennison doesn't go deep this year not because he's a coward, but because he sees in practice it isn't working.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Coach Tuesday]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

What I am about to say is the same thing I have told Boyst62, the Carolina Rasputin. Too much was made of the decision and game. The potential HOF qb, Rivers, was making beautiful passes all day long. He was having so much fun that he was yucking it up all game long. The Bills were thoroughly outclassed in that game. It didn't matter who was going to start and who was going to be substituted. Rivers was dynamic while our qbs (collectively) were impotent. Those type of games happen throughout the league. Lesser teams dominating better teams and better teams playing at a higher level than normal.

 

What I also stated to Boyst62 that is missed when discussing that decision is the context. The backdrop to that desperate decision was that the running qb had a string of ineffective games where not only did he play poorly but he couldn't execute the offense. So a change was made. You can disagree with the decision but there was an understandable rationale behind it. Anyone who watched the play of Taylor in the Jacksonville should be more receptive and understanding to that desperate player change. I'll go even so far as to say that if Peterman started in the playoff game the Bills would have had a better chance to win. 

 

John, you've gone too far on this one.  Peterman would've "gotten debacled" in Jacksonville, as Emmitt Smith would say.

[Royale with Cheese]

17 hours ago, PolishDave said:

 

Dude...

 

Pollock is a fish

 

You meant to call me a Polak.   Just so we're on the same page. 

 

So a Pollock is a dumb fish?  Never knew until now!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

What I am about to say is the same thing I have told Boyst62, the Carolina Rasputin. Too much was made of the decision and game. The potential HOF qb, Rivers, was making beautiful passes all day long. He was having so much fun that he was yucking it up all game long. The Bills were thoroughly outclassed in that game. It didn't matter who was going to start and who was going to be substituted. Rivers was dynamic while our qbs (collectively) were impotent. Those type of games happen throughout the league. Lesser teams dominating better teams and better teams playing at a higher level than normal.

 

What I also stated to Boyst62 that is missed when discussing that decision is the context. The backdrop to that desperate decision was that the running qb had a string of ineffective games where not only did he play poorly but he couldn't execute the offense. So a change was made. You can disagree with the decision but there was an understandable rationale behind it. Anyone who watched the play of Taylor in the Jacksonville should be more receptive and understanding to that desperate player change. I'll go even so far as to say that if Peterman started in the playoff game the Bills would have had a better chance to win. 

 

You've certainly checked your judgement at the door with that last statement I bolded.  The Jags pass rush is every bit as potent (or more) as the Chargers, and the Jags secondary coverage is able to be even more confusing - this is the secondary that successfully baited Ben Roeth into 5 picks.  If you say Not-Ready-Nate would give us a better chance, you're either trolling or your football acumen is sunning itself on the beach while you're up north shoveling.

 

As to the rest, given the final statement I'm not sure there's anything here subject to logic and judgement, but for the benefit of anyone reading I'll try:

1) I tell my kid, you can't look at one aspect of a game and think if you change it, everything else is the same.  Per Boyst, the whole team knew from practice that Nate was Not Ready and was playing demoralized and demotivated.  Judging from how he played, it's not hard to believe that the team knew he would struggle, especially given the game plan he was given.  You can't mentally take Peterman out, plug Taylor in, and say otherwise it's the same game.

2) See analysis of N'Orleans game.  Seriously, you may not agree, but if you haven't read this, read it.

3) Ultimately, the point is not whether we dominated or were dominated in that game - it's the JUDGEMENT SHOWN BY BEANE McDERMOTT AND DENNISON in reaching the point to make what you (who support it) correctly term a "desperate decision".  Taylor's inability to execute Dennison's offense was not some new thing that sprung up in the Jets and N'Orleans game.  You must know that.  It was strongly evident in Game 2 and Game 4 (Panthers and Bengals).  In fact, the difference in the Jets and N'Orleans games was not Taylor, but the impotence of our rushing defense giving up 3-4x the yardage of previous weeks, and that's NOT on Taylor.  So why wait until Game 10 to discover that "hey, Taylor sucks in this O and we got to do something, anything, even throw a rookie QB who's known to be not ready into the shredder?" when people with eyes have seen it since Week 2?  That's my point.

 

I analogize a bit to piloting decisions.  I am an amateur pilot, and I study decision making and chains of causation in accidents.  Usually when a pilot makes a desperate decision that either saves the day or ends badly, it's because of a chain of faulty information and decisions that have put them in the place where they are "boxed in" and perceive themselves as having no choice but to make that decision.  But that's BS.  They had choices along the way.

 

PS when Coach Tuesday tells you you've gone too far, you've gone too far.

Edited January 12, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[PolishDave]

2 hours ago, JohnC said:

I'll go even so far as to say that if Peterman started in the playoff game the Bills would have had a better chance to win. 

 

What are you basing that guess on - his subpar "Fitzpatrick like" interception when he was put in as QB? 

 

How many interceptions do you think the Bills needed to throw in order to come out with a win against Jacksonville in that game?  8?  10?   more?

Edited January 12, 2018 by PolishDave

[HappyDays]

21 hours ago, JohnC said:

 

If Dennison had a credible qb to work with and it didn't work out then he is open to be criticized. That would be fair. But under the restrictive circumstances he had to deal with he had little chance to succeed. And so would any replacement coach who had to deal with the same circumstances!

 

He had the same chance to succeed that Roman/Lynn had. Last year we scored 2.9 offensive TDs per game which was good for 7th best in the league (this year it would be tied for 2nd). This year we scored 1.6 offensive TDs per game which is good for 28th best in the league.

 

Same QB, same elite RB, same offensive line. Receivers changed but considering the injuries last year the talent level was about the same. What causes a drop from 7th to 28th if not the coordinator? I don't know why everyone chooses to ignore last year's success when talking about this year's offense, it's as clear as day that there was major regression at every level.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

John’s statement while “out there” to some indicates to me that anyone but Taylor could have won that game.  

 

Maybe he should have said EJ would have won that game.  

 

You know it’s bad when fans want INTS over Taylors ineptitude.

 

 

 

It’s almost as if the only one not buying into the process was TT.  

[HappyDays]

I made my above post before seeing the news about Dennison. I'm glad to see the process can still be trusted. That level of regression needs to see consequences.