metzelaars_lives

Are you suggesting that Taylor has a "hand" in the two losses in which he didn't play as well? Are we there now?

Pretty sensible post actually.

And also, the bills' OL does not "suck." In fact the left side of the OL is one of the very best in football. Cordy Glenn is quietly having an excellent season and meanwhile, half the posters on here were saying two weeks ago that they would prioritize re-signing Woods over Glenn. This site really makes me wonder sometimes.

The degree to which certain posters are bending over backwards to cherry pick stats that reflect Taylor in a negative light when those same exact posters did the same exact thing to defend EJ Manuel and somehow try and portray him in a positive light is so utterly blatant and comical at this point.

*in 6 starts and only 107 pass attempts. Johnson did not even qualify as a passer that year. But keep spinning numbers if it makes you feel better guys.

Not nearly this good. He does not have 10 turnovers this season. He doesn't have 6 lost fumbles. 2 of the 3 NE INT's were on the last plays of the half and games, respectively and the one against NYG was a miraculous play by the LB that wasn't even a poorly thrown ball intended for Clay.

Of course this is true but for whatever reason everything has to be a controversy around here. We see other guys' highlights only and then we see Jeremy White's All 22 of Taylor not seeing an open Watkins on a crossing route in the 2nd quarter and before you know it, we would rather have Colin Kaepernick than Tyrod Taylor. If Tyrod Taylor had put up the same numbers he has on the Bills but he did it in San Francisco this season and Kaepernick played as sh***y as he did but for the Bills this season, I can assure you we would be questioning what it would take to get our hands on Taylor next offseason. Not me, but most of you. I am still encouraged by Taylor's play. Seriously, I want all of you to think about that for a second. Imagine if a guy named Tyrod Taylor had 14 TD's and 4 INT's on San Francisco this year and all you saw of him were the dime long balls he's hit all year and the insane runs he had earlier in the year before he hurt his knee (which is obviously still nagging him) on highlight reels. Yeah I bet you guys would be critical then. In the history of twobillsdrive, I have never heard anyone say of a QB on another team with 14 TD's and 4 INT's, "yeah the numbers look good but if you break down his game tape..." No, we think guys on other teams are good BASED ON THEIR NUMBERS! And a guy like Colin Kaepernick doesn't even have good numbers so I am just at a complete loss. Again, I give up.

In another thread this week, some of us were talking about how Bills fans have a tendency to overvalue their own players. Robert Woods and Nigel Bradham being two classic examples. I think the opposite is definitely true of quarterbacks. All you see are the highlights and no one seems to understand that quarterbacking is not an easy job. Every QB makes errant throws, poor decisions, etc. in between the highlights. Osweiler has looked OK. Good for two starts. He is certainly not playing at a level higher than Taylor has played for the majority of the season. Yet in this thread, some people are saying "the Broncos would never get rid of Osweiler, what are you nuts!?!" and then meanwhile, most Bills fans seem to be operating under the assumption that Taylor could never become our franchise QB. You can't have it both ways guys. The answer is that the jury is still very much out on both guys.

So to be clear, Tyrod Taylor is grading out the same for his Miami #1 game (21/29, 277 yards, 3 TD's, 0 INT's, 136.7 passer rating and a blowout win) as EJ Manuel did for the Cincinnati game (28/42, 263 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 81.7 passer rating and a blowout loss). Got it. Just wanted to make sure we're on the same page.

I will answer your question. Statistically, he is and was literally the worst starting QB in all of football. Eye test wise, he is and was also literally the worst starting QB in all of football. W-L record is simply not a good way to gauge a QB's performance. Yes he was 7-2. Look at every game individually. There were games they won where the offense didn't even score a TD. I believe they were the 30th ranked offense when they were 7-0. He let poor teams hang around. The only game they won handily and he played well in was the Green Bay game. It's over for Peyton Manning. Sorry man.

Hey man, no arguing here. I think I would respectfully disagree though, that EJ Manuel played a "complete game" against Cincinnati. I think he played somewhere between a "poor" and "average" game. He threw an absolutely horrendous INT in the first half that was intended for Hogan. He missed a ton of throws. He made a few plays as well. Even after the game though, after Taylor not showing a ton the previous few weeks and that being Manuel's big chance, I don't think even the most staunch EJ defenders were lauding his performance.

I actually read this and you're half right. It's not that Watkins is only good at catching deep balls and can't run a screen and gain yards after the catch. It's the Bills, absolutely inexplicably, refuse to use him in the screen game. What makes it all the more perplexing is that that was his bread and butter at Clemson. If not for the screens, he wouldn't have put up near the numbers he did in college. Surely, Whaley must have watched some footage of him at Clemson and thought, hmm maybe our coaches could use him like that. When the Bills did the same thing to Maclin that the Chiefs did to Watkins, the Chiefs threw screens to Maclin. The Bills continued to put Watkins outside alone and essentially render him a decoy. The Bills coaching is bad and often times, incomprehensible. Sammy Watkins was 100% right when he went on his rant earlier in the year. He is a complete stud. He would be wise to ditch the Bills the second his rookie contract is up UNLESS they figure out a way to get him the ball pronto. And also, dude, what are you talking about Watkins not going up strong for balls and playing physically. You clearly did not watch the game on Sunday.

I said "advanced stats." Yes, everyone knew about home runs and batting average before Moneyball. You should read the book. And just because of this adage you speak of, which is an old and often true one, doesn't mean that Peyton Manning should start when he's healthy. It would be ludicrous for him to start at this point.

How long have you been living?

Jacksonville is 4-7. We should be pissed at the Cincinnati game too I think. In all honesty though, at 36, I finally don't get as pissed as I used to.

They have beaten 2 >.500 teams.

Exactly. Me and my brother had an in depth conversation about this the other day. Ever since Moneyball, baseball has been all about advanced stats, logic and probability. Look at Tim Murray- all he does is talk analytics. Meanwhile, football is the lone major sport that still relies on the old guard telling us about "Gruden's Grinders" and still punting on 4th and 3 from the other team's 43 yard line so they can give the other team the ball for free and save 25 yards in field position and not throw to Sammy Watkins when he is an unstoppable force and not pay a guy $50K to sit in a box and tell the coach exactly when to challenge and when not to. The same would go for anyone saying "when Peyton Manning is healthy, he's the guy" because he used to be really good. When the starting QB is literally the worst starting QB in all of football and the second string guy is clearly better, then they should be the fan favorite. This is not like when Jim Kelly in his prime would have one bad game and Biff from Tonawanda would call in and say that Frank Reich should be the starter.

Not now they're not. No one is saying that. Except a fringe contingent of loonies.

In Buffalo or Denver?

Either way, living in Denver and just listening to some sports talk radio on my lunch, it became apparent that in every NFL city there is always a fringe contingent of loonies who simply want to see things their way in the face of reality. In Denver, 99% of the media/fans are able to see reality: Manning is done for, Osweiler has played decent enough that he gives them a better chance to win and should remain the starter unless Manning returns completely healthy and Osweiler implodes. However there are still the loonies who insist that Manning should return as soon as he's healthy. Round these parts, 99% of fans can see that Taylor has played decently enough, sure the jury is still out but at least he's giving us a chance to win and let's just see what happens. And then there are the loonies who are trying to construct an argument that despite the numbers, Taylor is terrible and at that, not even much better than EJ Manuel. I'm sure there is a similar dichotomy in most every NFL city outside of New England.

Nope. Layup pick at the time. Analysts and fans alike were on board with it. They don't all work out. You hang it on the GM when they make the cute pick over the layup pick and it doesn't work. For example, Mike Williams was a fine pick. Nobody's fault. Whitner, Troup and TJ Graham were cute picks.

So after all the arguing and bickering we're pretty close. The only difference is I think you're slighting him by saying 20-25th best QB in the league, I think we both know he's more in the 15-20 range. Either way, as I was trying to tell you, we were never that far off. I was never worshipping at EJ's alter and as evidenced by this thread, no one is. But I think barring a complete implosion, he's done enough to warrant being the starter (or at least have the inside track to be being the starter) again next season- without a new contract. BFFE, No one is trashing EJ. What myself and a few other people have pointed out is that there is a glaring hypocrisy amongst those who defended EJ when he had played poorly and are now overly critical of Taylor who has played, at the very least, pretty good. So for me at least, this isn't about EJ necessarily but rather those who defended him.

Yes, we are in agreement. The Taylor detractors are insisting that what you see is what you get already. I am saying that even guys who sit for a few years still have room to grow. Rodgers is a good example.

Are you just trolling or are you so defeated that you can't respond to my post written directly to you? Once again, YOU are the one who continued to defend EJ Manuel after he sucked AND lost. But now a guy doesn't suck, is 5-4 through 9 games as a pro and all you can do is belittle him? Aaron Rodgers was way better in his 4th season as a starter than he was in his 1st season. This is exactly my point. Thank you for bringing him up.

OK fair. There is no question that Taylor is at an advantage vs. Manuel as a rookie. But I think most former players, coaches, etc. would tell you that you're not really getting real experience- especially as a QB- until you're actually thrown to the fire. Taylor has made his very first starts ever this year vs. Manuel last year having already started ten games as a rookie. I think it's a little naïve to think that Taylor has absolutely no room to grow from here and already is exactly what he is. Wonderful contribution. Pats lose on Sunday. Brady 3 TD's and no INT's. Yay for Brady. And you have perfectly illustrated my point! YOU were one of the ones constantly defending Manuel even after he LOST and didn't even have any stats to support his cause!