metzelaars_lives

No one on this board thinks or thought he was the next Montana. I am considered a "Taylor supporter" round these parts and the highest praise I've ever given him is saying I thought he might be a little better than Teddy Bridgewater.

I think that's exactly what a lot of people think when they see/hear a comment like this. I don't know, it doesn't really matter. This is one of these where you got the easily offended PC types on one side and then you got the "I don't care if Michael Sam is purple, green or yellow, can he play football?" guys on the other side who act like they're the ones above the prejudice when it's so blatantly obvious that they are the ones who it's eating up inside- not that that's you- on the other side. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.

If you want to contend that the average white guy in the US in 2015 is more articulate than the average black guy, then sure, it would be difficult to argue with that. But I think a) we've seen enough articulate black analysts through the years that it should no longer catch anyone off guard when they hear one and b) I would disagree with your contention that a regular, college-educated black guy sitting at home should somehow not get offended when they hear comments like this and should be able to say, "well enough of us are inarticulate so I guess I can see how someone would be surprised to hear an articulate one." Anyone who would still points out a black guy on TV as being "articulate" just reeks of someone who has never ventured outside of the suburbs and it just sounds naïve more than anything.

But at this stage, there have been enough good white basketball players that it shouldn't surprise anyone to see a good one at their gym. Similarly, there have been enough good black analysts that it shouldn't be noteworthy when one of them speaks well on TV. Again though, I don't think this is a huge deal but I think you are sticking your head in the sand a bit if you can't fathom how a black person could be offended by this- even in the slightest. And please (not you but someone else)- do not chime in with the big, bad Fox News, tough guy, "wussification of America" take. I am not really offended myself, I am trying to have an intelligent discussion and I think we are.

Ha good point. I have always maintained that you would never see a white guy on TV as inarticulate as Shannon Sharpe. Does anyone remember when Tim Hardaway was on ESPN for a while? I guess what I would say is this. Let's say you went to a gym and played basketball with a bunch of black guys one night. You weren't any better or worse than most of them but you held your own. Let's say after the game you went your own way and they went and got beers together. And over beers, a few of them said, "man, you know who can actually play? That white dude." Now if you heard this, you probably wouldn't be offended but you might think to yourself- 'of course I can actually play, I've been playing basketball since I was 5.' Not a big deal. But now that you are in those shoes, imagine being black and having white people talk about your brain that way. End discussion.

To put us up 12-3. First touchdown by... #30 Don Smith- a one yard plunge if I recall correctly. Then Stephen Baker Touchdown Maker made it 12-10 before the half, which was a huge momentum swinger. Not sure why I care to relive this. OK that's an argument. I didn't understand what you were saying was wrong. And BTMV was the one who laid out nice and neatly what the discussion here was so I was going off of his comment. Do you disagree with my contention that a higher percentage of black analysts are referred to as "articulate" when they are vs. white ones?

We usually agree on most things football, although it appears as if not most things sociopolitically. I realize with all that's going on in the world, this is not a big deal and I am sure that black people have 1,000 things to worry about that are more pressing than occasionally being called "articulate" when they are in fact articulate. But my question for you is that if you understand what BTMV said (which he stated very articulately himself by the way), what is it exactly that he is "wrong" about? I guess what I'm saying is that while this is not a topic that should really draw the ire of anyone and I would think someone would be more than a little sensitive for getting overly offended by someone else referring to Bruce Smith as "articulate," surely you wouldn't argue that a higher percentage of black sports analysts who are in fact articulate don't get dignified as "articulate" than white ones? I mean, regardless of how offensive or not offensive it might be to anyone, it's definitely a thing, right?

I think they have a better chance than most times they've played New England in recent memory but gun to your head, if anyone on this website would pick the Bills to win the game straight up, they need to be institutionalized.

So I have to think the Bills are probably going to win or I shouldn't be allowed to watch the game?

Bradham is another Searcy. Good enough to start in this league but Whaley will gladly let someone else overpay for him.

Ahh the "C word" again. My understanding is that he's having a pretty good season. Put it this way, franchise left tackles might be the second hardest position to find and secure after QB's (bringing this back to the original conversation). I'd rather stick with a proven above average starting left tackle who has shown an ability to stay healthy than start over with a new one- unless I'm using a first round pick on a left tackle and I don't think they should or would go in that direction. We disagree about Glenn but are definitely in agreement here. I have no doubt that Whaley could find a 3rd or 4th rounder in next year's draft who could start right away and give you Bradham's production. As far as left tackle though, you let Glenn walk, you must replace him with either a different (and proven) free agent or a 1st or 2nd round pick. Just like not everyone is Rodgers or Brady, similarly, not everyone is Anthony Munoz. Glenn is pretty damn good. And underappreciated around here it seems.

That's fair- I guess you can justify it by knowing you're getting elite CB play at a rookie salary on the other side for another 2-3 years. Gilmore is going to get overpaid wherever he signs though. And if Gilmore does stay, it's going to have be at the expense of someone else. Perhaps a Mario Williams? I am very much in the camp that they need to re-sign Cordy Glenn and he too is going to be expensive.

Anyone else starting to think that Gilmore might be a goner with the emergence of Darby? Look, I'd like to keep them both- maybe franchise Gilmore for a year- but long term, there's no way they can tie up big money in two CB's. Rather pay Darby a rookie salary for a few more years still and spend the money elsewhere. Glenn and Incognito are big priorities. Woods is easily replaceable (I'd keep him on the cheap- he's probably not worth much anyway) and Bradham isn't even very good.

Matt Flynn never had a good year, he had a few good games. Derek Anderson had a great year. How random was that?

Well stated. Exactly what I was trying to say.

Good for Cousins, he has proven to be a top 20 qb on the planet. The type of guy that no one wants to settle on and everyone wants to try out the next mid first round pick instead. But the fact of the matter is, it takes two years before you know what you have in the mid first round draft pick and more often than not, they're not gonna be as good as Kirk Cousins. All that being said, this thread is bound to turn into an argument over how good Taylor is. Personally, I think he has a lot more to prove before anyone is throwing that much money at him. But his career is on a trajectory where he could be in that position a year from now.

So am I. In fact, it would seem to me that there is nothing left to argue. I even resisted a very tempting 'I told you so' campaign. I myself have moved on.

Turned out he did. Although my suspicion is that Roman had come around to the idea of Taylor starting as well. Yes, EJ Manuel is the Bills backup. That is correct.

Contrived theories huh? Why don't you read my last post. Me: I never thought EJ was very good, I don't think he's going to win the job, I had heard he's not in the equation to start. Other people: There is a bias against EJ, people are just hating on EJ, he should've won the job, he got screwed, etc. Now who has the contrived theories? God why are we talking about freaking EJ?

What in tarnation are you talking about? There is nothing here to debate. How do you feel about his take on Ron Darby? Do you like Peter King as a writer? That is the conversation here. No one was wrong about anything. Just because someone has a scoop doesn't mean things can't play out a different way a month later. I had heard that Cassel was the presumed starter and that Taylor was all the hype and would most likely seize the job at some point. It's exactly what I wrote on here the next day. That's exactly what happened, except it happened before the season started rather than a few weeks in, as he predicted. EJ Manuel was never a part of the equation to start. You can blame Whaley, Ryan, Peter King, Roman, me, the guys on the WGR afternoon drive show, it doesn't matter. It is what it is.

No he told me this much earlier in the evening. I merely inquired about the Bills QB situation and that is what he told me. He told me very bluntly that he thought Cassel sucked and that he would soon be replaced by Taylor. Clearly, it happened sooner than he predicted. Now Cassel and Manuel are both backups. There is no vindication for EJ here. This isn't about EJ. Sorry man. Ha I didn't say anything about EJ! There is nothing to debate on the guy. I entered this thread to defend Peter King, who I happen to think is a good writer. Me being typecast as someone who is "hating" on EJ. How predictable. Well done. I can't either.

It was an awesome night. I didn't even know I was gonna get to hang with him until that afternoon and then before I knew it, I'm drunk talking greatest running backs since the merger with an also drunk Peter King in a booth in a bar in downtown Denver. Incidentally, he is the one who told me that Cassel was Roman's guy and the starter by default at that point (something I divulged on here). It was the night of the Cleveland preseason game, which we did not watch. He also said that there was a buzz throughout the league surrounding Taylor and he expected Taylor to seize the job by the end of September. He confirmed that Manuel was not part of the equation. He had just come from Bills camp. That was the night however, that Taylor emerged and won the job. Exactly. I think the consensus is that the "back, back, back..." shtick at the All Star game has kinda tainted Berman's legacy. Which I would go along with. He's awesome though. The original Primetime back in the day was the best football show ever. Never missed it once.

I agree that Tyler Dunne is excellent (although he has nothing to do with WGR). Do you disagree with me though, that virtually every football writer/analyst there is gets trashed on here by at least a percentage of posters? I think that's pretty clear. The only reason no one's trashed Tyler Dunne yet is because he's relatively new. And although I have not read the particular article in question, believe me when I tell you that Peter King is well versed in his football analysis.

Well if you want to claim to have just proven that sometimes journalists can't write everything they want to in order to not lose connections and access, then you have enlightened us all. Well done. I hung with him once at a Bills pre-party in Denver. Kind of a dork. Obviously.

Well you're not going to get invited back to Bills camp next year if you write about how Pegula is a terrible owner and Whaley sucks as a GM. If a team is having problems on the field, he's not going to sugarcoat it. I'm sure he's not similarly gushing about the Saints defense right now. And if he was some sort of "corporate shill" as you have intimated, I highly doubt SI would want him engaging in heated debates with twitter followers about gun control. Believe me when I tell you that SI needs Peter King more than Peter King needs SI.