metzelaars_lives

In many cases there is actually an inverse correlation between passing yardage and winning. The numbers that correlate with wins are rushing yards, yards per attempt, all things defense and SCORING.

You're aware I wasn't talking about you, right? You are the only one who was wrong about EJ that seems to have any sense of humility. I think I'm a little more encouraged about Taylor than you are but I am not ready to declare him the franchise QB either. I think you and I would agree though that it's kind of insane that there exist posters on this very website who were somehow encouraged by what they saw out of EJ after 14 games and are completely discouraged about what they've seen in Taylor through six games.

One thing I've found rather amusing is how there seems to be a handful of posters who are continuously wrong time and again in their assessment/predictions as far as who is and will be a good QB and then instead of eating a slice of humble pie, they come on the next time and assert their opinion on the next guy just as loudly and boldly as they did the last guy that they were wrong about. I have spent hours arguing with one guy in particular who I told this summer that Derek Carr had an encouraging rookie year and was primed to bust out this year with some new targets to play with. He said he'd rather have EJ Manuel. The same guy has started numerous threads telling everyone that EJ Manuel is/was better than Ryan Tannehill. The same guy (as did another guy on this very page) insisted that when Taylor went down, it was a blessing in disguise as Manuel would be a clear cut upgrade. The same guy (as did the same other guy quoted just above me) told everyone who would listen that while the jury is still out on EJ, the verdict is in: Tyrod Taylor is and always will be a "terrible" QB. I would encourage people who post on here regularly to start taking note of who says what. It took me a while but now I'm starting to learn who to listen to and who to tune out. Meanwhile, Taylor continues to impress. Besides holding onto the ball a little too long sometimes and being a little timid about making certain throws, could you be any happier so far? I mean, really, think about your mindset in June in terms of what you expected out of the QB position this season.

So a guy worthy of being drafted in the 20's has less of a chance of being successful than a guy worthy of being drafted in the 30's because of a few examples you just thought of off the top of your head? How about Dan Marino?

My only gripe with Taylor is that he takes his time back there and sometimes acts as if the norm is that you get ten seconds to pass, which results in a sack or two that he probably shouldn't take. That being said, I respectfully disagree with Gugny and Take You To Tasker that he is "terrible" and that Manuel was an upgrade over Taylor. I remain optimistic about his first six starts as a pro. He's basically a super conservative QB who can run as good as anyone and has a great deep ball. Part of his game is being careful not to throw passes that could get picked and as long as the rest of the team is playing good football, it works.

How is an above average starting left tackle less of a priority for most of you than a middling #2/3 receiver? I happen to like Woods but there are a hell of a lot more Robert Woods on this planet than there are Cordy Glenns. Is Robert Woods decidedly better than Chris Hogan? I guess this speaks to the ongoing TBD narrative that the OL always sucks. It doesn't. It's average and Cordy Glenn is above average. Kind of with this.

The pictures aren't nearly as bad as I had anticipated when I saw the headline. Not condoning the act but I'm not sure how there could be any sort of newfound greater outrage relative to what we already knew.

MehCoy. Now I've heard it all. You are simply not watching the games or, if you are, you don't know what an elite running back looks like. McCoy is the best runner the Bills have had since McGahee in 2004. Just watch on Sunday.

Yeah you can plug any running back behind that St. Louis offensive line and they'll look just like Todd Gurley. The dime-a-dozen thing only applies to backs like Dion Lewis on teams like the Patriots. I can't believe that more people don't think that McCoy looked great against Cincinnati and Jacksonville. It's sad that so many of you have accepted this narrative that all running backs are the same and forgotten how amazing it is to watch an elite running back in their prime. Perfect example of how fantasy football has become more important to most people than actual football. Just watch on Sunday. McCoy is going to freaking explode.

Dude Dion Lewis in a nice shifty little back, OK. I'm gonna go out on a limb though and say that his success has more to do with him being on the Patriots than it does him being some sort of revelation. Just think a) what a healthy McCoy would look like on New England and b) if Dion Lewis would've even made the Bills (hint: he wouldn't have).

Not seeing the same thing most of you are seeing. Since he's been 100%, McCoy has looked spectacular. He's going to have a huge game on Sunday. The "running backs are all the same" narrative got a little too oversimplified there for a minute- McCoy is a special back.

This can't be true. According to every poster on TBD ever, the Bills offensive line always sucks and has always sucked.

You got it!

I don't understand what's inconsistent about anything I posted. I do like to play devil's advocate with liberals all the time. I do watch Fox News to understand where the other side is coming from and there are certain things (I'd be happy to tell you what) that I agree with them on. And yes, George Bush was not an articulate speaker and was kind of an embarrassing figurehead. Call it childish of me to point out, I'm OK with that.

Of course I would. It's the number one issue with this country's economy. Not something the Republicans seemed to care about- EVER- until they decided it was one way to criticize the direction of the current economy. The fact of he matter is that the economy under Obama has been terrific for the top 1% AKA the Republicans' financial base. But God forbid a guy like Bernie Sanders try and address it- he is lambasted as a dreamer (which he probably is) and some sort of Communist. So what's the solution when the one guy who really wants to do something about it is mocked by the very people who insist that it's a problem. You don't really believe in trickle down economics do you?

Are you insinuating that this is where the masses will come out and insist that CNN, for example, is every bit as "left" as Fox News is right? I will not engage with anyone who actually believes that. So you can put your popcorn away.

I agree with you. The difference is that the left has, what, MSNBC? Look at its ratings. It is largely not an influential news outlet. Fox News on the other hand- I think we'd both agree its influence is dangerously far-reaching. Every other major media outlet there is has been critical of Obama and given Bush credit where credit was due. In fact, even MSNBC praised Bush for a lot of the work he did in Africa.

The motor industry, the economy in general (it's not perfect but if it was where it's at under Mitt Romney, you really think Sean Hannity would be nitpicking a few economic indicators and instead pointing out the good ones??), Bin Laden, the health care act (not perfect either but something needed to be done and it was a good first step in the right direction), a restoration of professionalism and complete sentences to the position...

Enough. Do you think that the general viewpoint held by most educated English, French and Germans is that the Clinton and Obama administrations were abominations but that the Bush administration was just the tops? Forget about what you think- let's say or the sake of argument, that's the case. Do you really think, as the poster intimated, that that is what most Europeans think? I already said that it appears the majority of posters on here are capable of looking at both sides of issues. I myself watch Fox News (until I start yelling at the TV) and watched the first two Republican debates in their entirety. I live for playing devil's advocate in these type of discussions. While most candidates are quick to jump on the Iraq War (or at least the ones who didn't vote on it because they weren't in politics at the time), I think it's fair to say that their much bigger gripe is with the Obama administration. And no, I don't think that just because Obama was elected twice that that is necessarily an endorsement of the job he has done. Nor is an increase in Republican House/Senate seats an endorsement of the job they have done. Republicans win elections when voter turnout is low, period. My point is that if you only watched Fox News and the Republican debates, you would think that this country is far worse off than it really is. Is that even debatable? I guess I can't really waste my time debating with someone who believes that the portrait that Sean Hannity paints of this country is an accurate one.

This is why I can't really dig PPP. It seems as if most people are fairly reasonable/examine both sides of issues but there's just too many of these brainwashed/clearly get every bit of their news from you know where types on here. So you are ashamed of the current administration and the Clinton administration but you make no mention of the administration in between? I mean, come on man. You don't need to apologize to anyone. If you go to any other modernized, westernized country in the world, an overwhelming majority (no, not everyone- please don't give an example of one guy you met in Belgium) of people were blown away by the fact that Bush got elected twice and are generally cool with the job Obama has done- by and large, that is. I mean, there isn't another such country on planet Earth that isn't to the left of us! But if you insist on living in your little fantasy bubble of yours, then yes, if you watch the Republican debates, you would think that everything was just fine and dandy until 2008 at which point this country went to s**t. It's such an incredible stretch to believe this, I can't believe that Republicans continue to get away with this narrative. But alas, their base has proven time and again to be so unbelievably gullible that it works. Wouldn't you question a news source that continually tells you that every last thing Obama has ever done is bad? I mean, you would think that once in seven years they might say, "hey not really an Obama guy but I'll give him credit for this one thing he did..." But instead, they do things like cherry pick a few economic indicators that are down and never once mention that the Dow has doubled.

I'm grateful to be an American. I consider myself lucky to be an American. I'm proud of my last name. I'm proud to be a Buffalonian. I don't really think I'm "proud" to be an American. I guess in some instances I am but not really overall.

You make a good point. The case of Ben Carson is indeed a puzzling one. Where I come from, we accept the theory of evolution as kind of a fact. Perhaps I am naïve. Personally, I never understood how creationism and evolution were necessarily mutually exclusive- as long as you were willing to consider the possibility that maybe Adam wasn't a 6' tall handsome white man with wavy brown hair.

Because it is indicative of a fundamental lack of deductive reasoning. You are right, there is no direct effect. If a candidate can't spell "potato" or makes up words in speeches as he goes, it has no direct effect on his ability to govern. But it speaks to the fact that he's probably not a very smart guy. And once again, denying evolution is almost always related to a literal interpretation of the Old Testament. And people who interpret the Old Testament literally tend to base their sociopolitical beliefs on the Bible and that absolutely affects one's ability to govern properly. Unless you think that basing opinions and policies off of the Old Testament (with respect to climate change, gay rights, what we teach our children in school, etc., etc.) is the proper way to govern in which case we're probably never going to see eye to eye on this one.

Well if that's what he actually said then I'd agree with him. My understanding was that he would be against any Muslim- extremist or not- even being eligible to run for President. I know that he backtracked on his original statement to make it a little more politically correct.

Listen man, we're all Bills fans and adults here. Can we ease off the "retard" talk? And AGAIN, yes, while I do think it would be INSANE for the leader of a modernized, westernized country in the year 2015 to not embrace Darwin's theory of evolution (there aren't any and there isn't going to be one anytime soon), I wouldn't deny the legitimacy of their position if they won an election fair and square. And I have expounded again and again on why I find that to be an insane notion. Let me ask you this: do you think a creationist is even electable (for president, specifically) in the US in the year 2015? I don't. Dude- just, no.