metzelaars_lives

Bledsoe in '02 was better and he is probably comparable to Flutie in '98-99 but yes, I am very encouraged by his start. You got me on this one. EDIT: are you saying he is being defensive about something when there's nothing there? You yourself have been extremely critical of Taylor.

One poster has been conspicuously absent since the Miami game after leading the "Tyrod is terrible" campaign for weeks. After the Jacksonville game, he was in the shoutbox telling a Browns fan that he hasn't given up on EJ entirely but that the verdict is in and Tyrod Taylor is a terrible QB. Those were his exact words. There aren't that many of them left but they're out there.

Answering the question as to whether or not the Jacksonville loss is on EJ is not going to get you banned. I think it is. I'm also over that game and expect the Bills to make the playoffs as I've stated throughout this thread.

Exactly. Are people even looking at the standings? I have already stated in this very thread that 9-7 probably gets the Bills in the playoffs this year.

Are you implying that the Jaguars game was in fact not EJ's fault? Look, I know you guys got all cute after the Bengals game with the whole "the run defense- that must've been EJ's fault too, right?" If a pitcher completely sucks in a game and gives up 9 runs in 2 innings but a batter on his team also goes 0-5 with 5 strikeouts, would you say, "oh those 5 strikeouts- I guess those were the pitcher's fault too, right?" No they weren't. But that doesn't change the fact that the pitcher also sucked. EJ sucks. No one ever blamed EJ for something not having to do with EJ. Get over it.

OK but you're assuming that if Romo comes back they're immediately going to be playing on that level? I don't assume that at all. I think they're going to suck even if/when he comes back. They're going to be like 2-8. You think they're going to start playing balls out and kicking everyone's asses?

If they can take 2 out of 3 at KC, Was and Philly, they'll make the playoffs. That would put them at 8-6 going into the last 2 at home and at that point, I would be extremely confident in their chances. Go Browns on Sunday by the way. First non-Bills game this year where I really have a rooting interest. I typically don't really pay too much attention to that stuff earlier in the season (people were all in a fuss over who Bills fans should root for in week 3 between the Dolphins and the Jets, give me a break) but this is a big one for us. The Raiders are still a year away.

I have played this over in my head a dozen times now. So let's assume they lose at New England (for the sake of argument- they win, they're going to make the playoffs). They're 5-5. They're going to beat Houston at home. That gives you 6 wins. I think they're going to have to and should win their last 2- including the game against Dallas, which inexplicably people are saying is going to be an impossible task. For one, Dallas wasn't even playing that well with Romo and secondly, do not be surprised if Romo does not play if they're out of it- which they pretty much are. Why would you play a guy who's my age with an extensive injury history coming off another one in meaningless December games? It makes zero sense. Anyway that gives you 8 wins. That leaves the 3 road games against beatable/mediocre opponents- KC, Was and Philly. They are not going to win all 3. They win 2 of those they are at 10 wins. 10 wins is a playoff ticket this season, no question about it. They win 1 of those, they're at 9 wins, which I think might even give you a better than 50% chance right now. Anyway long story shot, they have to win 3 out of 5 against KC, Was, Philly, Dal and NYJ to get to 9 wins and 4 out of 5 to get to 10. I think they'll win 3, finish at 9-7 and MAKE the playoffs. You heard it here.

What? Dallas is done for dude. They're going to suck even if/when Romo comes back.

Ikard has been healthy scratch most all season. Nothing new there.

ready (adj): does not suck as bad as EJ Manuel

#only16games Yeah anyone know anything about this?

Forget about the stupid third jerseys that teams wear (and they are stupid); the Jaguars primary jerseys are an absolute disgrace to the league. Been a proud uniform lover with respect to all sports since I was a kid and every time I see the Jaguars' (and the Bucs for that matter- whose 80's creamsicle uniforms were amazing by the way, even though everyone loves to make fun of them) uniforms and helmets, it actually makes me a little bit sad.

It's just fine the way it is right now. I really hope they do not change it because then it would become kind of cheap to get in as the third wild card. As it stands though, only 12 out of 32 make the playoffs as opposed to 16 out of 30 in the NHL and NBA so I don't think there's any shame in getting in as a wild card at this point. As far as the occasional 8-8 team that wins a division- eh whatever, I'm OK with it.

Isn't it funny how when a QB playing for Buffalo is ever discussed, someone insists on talking about them "being able to play in the conditions?" Aside from the fact that half their games aren't in Buffalo anyway, how often are there games played in Buffalo with legitimate "conditions?" Maybe once a year? Maybe?

Not one of your better efforts. If the Bills can run the ball effectively and make the tackles they're supposed to, they'll win. Fitz is gonna be good for one nice, juicy, ill-timed pick that will help the Bills' cause.

Not saying it wasn't but the Bills line was great that year too. You know what year the Bills QB's had all day? 2007- the year Jason Peters really busted out. I wrote a letter to The News that got published before the season started in 2008 and Peters was holding out about how the previous year was the best pass protection I had ever seen from a Bills team- including the Super Bowl era.

Without looking it up weren't the 2012 Bills 1st or 2nd in the league in both (least) sacks allowed and yards per carry? I think your post speaks to exactly what the other poster was talking about- how many games did you really watch and scrutinize the 2012 Cleveland Browns' offensive line? I think we agree that this year's line is average. But so many people on this website insist it sucks and we need to go OL with our first three picks next year, etc. It's almost as if people do not watch other football games and understand that not every other QB in the league has ten seconds to throw every time he drops back. Oh and how about the biggest fallacy of all- that Whaley hasn't addressed the offensive line! 2nd, 5th and 7th round picks in 2014 (both the 5th and 7th rounder were guys who graded way higher but had extenuating circumsta'nces) and then Incognito and 3rd rounder this season. It's unbelievable the way most posters think every line should look like the Cowboys. 'The OL sucks, the OL is the most important unit, we need to spend all our top draft picks to address the OL' has become almost as tired as the 'just plug and play any old running back, they're all the same' narrative.

One of the more outlandish statements I've ever seen on this website was last week when, in a thread also devoted to Woods, a prominent poster said that he would rank his order of re-signing priorities: 1. Gilmore, 2. Woods, 3. Bradham and 4. Glenn. How about 1. Gilmore, 1a. Glenn... hold on I gotta run to the grocery store, I'll be back in an hour so... oh yeah, Bradham/Woods.

Excellent post. So true. Been saying this for years with respect to our offensive line. According to 90% of the posters on this website, our offensive line always sucks and has always sucked. "Oh imagine how much better (x running back) would have been if he had a decent offensive line..." Someone last week even intimated that Losman and Edwards were doomed and never got a fair shake because the line was so bad. The only year in recent memory that the Bills line really sucked was last year. In 2012 it may have been the best in football! People act as if every other line in the league is like the Cowboys current unit. People still talk about this year's line as if it sucks. It doesn't suck at all. It's at least average if it isn't above average.

I'm not sure what your point is exactly. I would concede that Taylor has had a more ideal situation leading up to him becoming a starting QB in the NFL than EJ Manuel. But Dan Orlovsky has had even more years of all that stuff than Tyrod Taylor (this is Taylor's fifth season by the way and Manuel's third so it's not like he's some old, wise grey-haired veteran and EJ is some young wide-eyed kid who just left his parents' potato farm in Idaho and got off the bus in LA for the first time). Would Taylor be as good if he were handed the reins in his second or third season as a pro as opposed to his fifth? I don't know. Probably not. I guess your answer to my question though, of what made you confident that Manuel would be an improvement THIS season over a guy who was top 5 in the NFL in passer rating, comp pct and YPA at that time that "well it's usually in a guy's third season that he all of a sudden becomes good" is still a little puzzling.

That's the thing. At no point does he come close to acknowledging that he was wrong and most were right. And like I said, I'm getting sick of people on here who are wrong time and time again (there is one guy in particular- not TYTT- who is like 0 for his last 6) about QB's continue to loudly and boldly insert their opinion on the next QB in question when they are always wrong. And to the other guy's point, what did TYTT see in Manuel that led him to believe his array of problems could be fixed after 14 games but that Taylor can't develop better pocket presence after six games??

Glad you came around. But just a few weeks ago, you insisted that Manuel would be an upgrade going into Cincinnati. I said he would not be. Then you said you'd bet me that the Bills would have more first downs against the Bengals under Manuel than they did against Tennessee under Taylor. They did. They also got McCoy and Watkins back for that game. I could have countered by saying I bet they have less first downs than they did against New England but I was suspended for ten days before I could respond.

I am not in the business of going back to pull up past threads but I am quite certain that prior to the Cincinnati game there was a thread about why we should have optimism about that game and you said something to the effect of "I expect EJ Manuel to be an upgrade at QB." Am I wrong? I myself did not expect that. To my knowledge, he never insisted Carr sucked and EJ was better. That was a different guy. There are certainly people on this website who felt better about EJ's chances going into this season than they do about Taylor's chances now. There are also plenty of people who believe that EJ got "screwed" in the preseason and deserved to win the job (even though all they saw was a few preseason quarters and the coaches watched every second of practice over and over and unanimously decided on Taylor in a landslide).

That's why I said "in many cases." New England is obviously a different type of machine. That being said, I don't think there is a correlation between Brady's passing yards in a given game and their likelihood of winning. If you told me they were going to lose one game this year and he'd have either 400 passing yards or 250, I'd bet they lost the game in which he had 400.