Bills bench Tyrod Taylor for rookie qb Nathan Peterman

[TheKillerNacho]

4 minutes ago, Tk3 said:

It's easy to look at the stats and see a 94.1 QBR and his highlights (avoiding sacks) and assume Tyrod is a good QB.

Those stats are padded by a low INT/attempt and high completion percentage. Don't get me wrong, those are both excellent things, but when it comes to the math of a QBR, it masks the clear flaws that prevent him from being an NFL QB. It is fools gold. He is Trent Edwards with the ability to scramble and avoid sacks.

Tyrod is 31st in the NFL in YPG.
Tyrod is 26th in the NFL in YPA.
The Bills top receivers (in order), LeSean McCoy, Charles Clay, Jordan Mathews, Nick O'Leary

Tyrod has low INTs and a high completion percentage because he doesn't actually make the type of pass attempts that help to win ball games.

If you think Nathan Peterman cannot replicate what Tyrod does by dinking and dunking to McCoy and Clay, then you are mistaken.

Isn't the point of this benching that the Bills don't want him to replicate this style of play?

Either way, I'm not saying Nathan Peterman cannot be better than Tryod, or be a good QB. I just think it is more unlikely than likely given the state of the Bills' offensive talent.

[LeeEvans]

12 minutes ago, TheKillerNacho said:

Granted, but Tyrod's hands have been tied this year with the lack of serviceable receivers. Frankly, I'm not entirely sure any QB could've posted many yards in that situation. And to subject a rookie to it... I think you're going to see more turnovers than anything... but we'll see.

Not going to be hard when compared to a QB who doesn't take any chances. For the record I don't think Peterman is going to be the savior for this team, it's just that I know that Tyrod isn't. Maybe Tyrod could have got us to the playoffs at 9-7 but he's just not good enough to be our starter after the season. I see a lot of talk about lack of receivers and there is certainly some truth to that but the Jets certainly have the same lack of talent at TE and receiver and McCown can actually move the ball down the field when he's needed to. The Bills are not a bad team solely because of Tyrod but he certainly is not part of the solution. For the record I'm actually pretty pro-Tyrod, I just think we've seen what his ceiling is in Buffalo and it's not enough to win games consistently. In the long term this benching makes sense, in the short term it's more questionable. 

[TheKillerNacho]

1 minute ago, LeeEvans said:

Not going to be hard when compared to a QB who doesn't take any chances. For the record I don't think Peterman is going to be the savior for this team, it's just that I know that Tyrod isn't. Maybe Tyrod could have got us to the playoffs at 9-7 but he's just good enough to be our starter after the season. I see a lot of talk about lack of receivers and there is certainly some truth to that but the Jets certainly have the same lack of talent at TE and receiver and McCown can actually move the ball down the field when he's needed to. The Bills are not a bad team solely because of Tyrod but he certainly is not part of the solution. For the record I'm actually pretty pro-Tyrod, I just think we've seen what his ceiling is in Buffalo and it's not enough to win games consistently. In the long term this benching makes sense, in the short term it's more questionable. 

This is a fair assessment.

[LeeEvans]

4 minutes ago, Carmen Cygni said:

Also of note, those are two top defensive units (Bengals top 3 vs the pass). Overall, I do see the point you are making in saying he's not a gamechanging factor.

The biggest problem with Tyrod is that he just can't get it done when you need to pass like on third and longs, two minute drills and game winning drives. He's not a bad QB but you can't win consistently with a guy who cannot beat you with his arm. I like Tyrod and think he could start with teams but he's not a guy who can win games without a great supporting cast, he's Alex Smith-lite.

[Tk3]

1 minute ago, TheKillerNacho said:

Isn't the point of this benching that the Bills don't want him to replicate this style of play?

Either way, I'm not saying Nathan Peterman cannot be better than Tryod, or be a good QB. I just think it is more unlikely than likely given the state of the Bills' offensive talent.

I guess my point was that the bar is much lower than non-Bills fans realize.

And if Peterman doesn't perform either, then we use our arsenal of picks to make a play for Darnold/Allen/Rosen/Lamar

[Forge]

I think this move makes more sense if you're not in a playoff chase, so I'm a little bit surprised. 

I remember hearing  an interview a while back, wish I could have remembered on what platform, but the guy talking was an analytics guy,  and said that if there was a stat for  "completions missed by not throwing", Tyrod would win the league. Indicated that Tyrod either just completely missed open receivers as he was looking downfield, or that he refused to throw it. Said that the bills had to simplify the offense around him to only focus on half the field, etc. I have no idea how accurate it all was...always thought he was doing an adequate job. Figured high end  back up or stop gap fringe starter. Definitely think it's more interesting now in the wake of this decision. 

[Tk3]

3 minutes ago, LeeEvans said:

Not going to be hard when compared to a QB who doesn't take any chances. For the record I don't think Peterman is going to be the savior for this team, it's just that I know that Tyrod isn't. Maybe Tyrod could have got us to the playoffs at 9-7 but he's just good enough to be our starter after the season. I see a lot of talk about lack of receivers and there is certainly some truth to that but the Jets certainly have the same lack of talent at TE and receiver and McCown can actually move the ball down the field when he's needed to. The Bills are not a bad team solely because of Tyrod but he certainly is not part of the solution. For the record I'm actually pretty pro-Tyrod, I just think we've seen what his ceiling is in Buffalo and it's not enough to win games consistently. In the long term this benching makes sense, in the short term it's more questionable. 

This is the crux of it.

I think Tyrod getting us to 9-7 is generous, but this is the point. Peterman may help us win, Peterman may be horrible.

But at this point, I don't see the reason to keep going with Tyrod.

[LeeEvans]

Just now, Forge said:

I think this move makes more sense if you're not in a playoff chase, so I'm a little bit surprised. 

I remember hearing  an interview a while back, wish I could have remembered on what platform, but the guy talking was an analytics guy,  and said that if there was a stat for  "completions missed by not throwing", Tyrod would win the league. Indicated that Tyrod either just completely missed open receivers as he was looking downfield, or that he refused to throw it. Said that the bills had to simply the offense around him to only focus on half the field, etc. I have no idea how accurate it all was...always thought he was doing an adequate job. Figured high end  back up or stop gap fringe starter. 

I'd say that is pretty far. He doesn't throw unless players are wide open. He's gotten better at getting through progressions and seeing more of the field but it's still more of a weakness than a strength. Last season was pretty bad, you could have made an hour long video of Charles Clay running wide open down the middle of the field and Tyrod just never seeing him. Tyrod would be an awesome back for anyone and he's a better starter than maybe seven or eight other guys in the league but he's not someone you can build around. Shame though, I like Tyrod and really wanted him to succeed, still do I suppose it just won't be in Buffalo. 

[MWil23]

2 minutes ago, Tk3 said:

I guess my point was that the bar is much lower than non-Bills fans realize.

And if Peterman doesn't perform either, then we use our arsenal of picks to make a play for Darnold/Allen/Rosen/Lamar

The Browns and Giants will probably have something to say about that, although I could see a scenario where:

*The Browns draft their QB with the #1 overall pick OR go and try to sign a competent/elite free agent.

Then, the Giants will be picking somewhere in the Top 3-4 range (most likely), and they draft their QBOTF...unless Buffalo knocks their socks off and they think Eli is good enough for one more run, they load up the OL, and make a go of things.

OR

The Texans pick turns into a top 5 pick and the Browns trade that pick (after getting their QBOTF with the #1 overall pick) with the Bills for another of their "moneyball trades" in 2018 and 2019.

[LeeEvans]

Just now, MWil23 said:

The Browns and Giants will probably have something to say about that, although I could see a scenario where:

*The Browns draft their QB with the #1 overall pick OR go and try to sign a competent/elite free agent.

Then, the Giants will be picking somewhere in the Top 3-4 range (most likely), and they draft their QBOTF...unless Buffalo knocks their socks off and they think Eli is good enough for one more run, they load up the OL, and make a go of things.

OR

The Texans pick turns into a top 5 pick and the Browns trade that pick (after getting their QBOTF with the #1 overall pick) with the Bills for another of their "moneyball trades" in 2018 and 2019.

The Niners will also be a trade option as well one would think. 

[Carmen Cygni]

12 minutes ago, Forge said:

I think this move makes more sense if you're not in a playoff chase, so I'm a little bit surprised. 

I remember hearing  an interview a while back, wish I could have remembered on what platform, but the guy talking was an analytics guy,  and said that if there was a stat for  "completions missed by not throwing", Tyrod would win the league. Indicated that Tyrod either just completely missed open receivers as he was looking downfield, or that he refused to throw it. Said that the bills had to simplify the offense around him to only focus on half the field, etc. I have no idea how accurate it all was...always thought he was doing an adequate job. Figured high end  back up or stop gap fringe starter. Definitely think it's more interesting now in the wake of this decision. 

That's actually more common then people think. And I must say that typically analytically focused assessments and those who provide them often do not understand passing concepts and how progression reads really work in relation to coverages.

[Forge]

Just now, Carmen Cygni said:

That's actually more common then people think. And I'm must say that typically analytically focused assessments and those who provide them often do not understand passing concepts and how progression reads really work in relation to coverages.

I'd agree with that, but I think in this case it was just being used to help support  Tyrods continued struggles at missing wide open receivers, or not being willing to throw it to an open guy who isn't "wide open". Basically just using it to say Tyrod is bad at seeing the field. It was a really interesting interview; wish I could remember where I heard it. 

[Carmen Cygni]

1 minute ago, Forge said:

I'd agree with that, but I think in this case it was just being used to help support  Tyrods continued struggles at missing wide open receivers, or not being willing to throw it to an open guy who isn't "wide open". Basically just using it to say Tyrod is bad at seeing the field. It was a really interesting interview; wish I could remember where I heard it. 

Gotcha. Appreciate the explanation.

[Tk3]

9 minutes ago, MWil23 said:

The Browns and Giants will probably have something to say about that, although I could see a scenario where:

*The Browns draft their QB with the #1 overall pick OR go and try to sign a competent/elite free agent.

Then, the Giants will be picking somewhere in the Top 3-4 range (most likely), and they draft their QBOTF...unless Buffalo knocks their socks off and they think Eli is good enough for one more run, they load up the OL, and make a go of things.

OR

The Texans pick turns into a top 5 pick and the Browns trade that pick (after getting their QBOTF with the #1 overall pick) with the Bills for another of their "moneyball trades" in 2018 and 2019.

Bengals, Colts, Bears, Bucs

There are a number of teams that could fall in that 4-8 pick range that could be willing to move down. We might not get the top guy, but with 4 legit QB prospects that might not matter.

Also reading a lot of rumors that 49ers will go hard after Cousins, which could leave them as trade partners.

 

[MWil23]

1 minute ago, Tk3 said:

Bengals, Colts, Bears, Bucs

There are a number of teams that could fall in that 4-8 pick range that could be willing to move down. We might not get the top guy, but with 4 legit QB prospects that might not matter.

Also reading a lot of rumors that 49ers will go hard after Cousins, which could leave them as trade partners.

 

Going hard after Cousins after trading a high 2nd rounder for Jimmy G? I find that extremely hard to believe. BEFORE with the Shanahan connection, sure, but after, no way.