hondo in seattle

Dennison took a good-but-not-great offense and made it inept. I can't think of any reason to retain him except the legendary "continuity."

Somewhere I warned "It could be worse" and sure enough it was. Tyrod hasn't been great but Peterman looked terrible out there. The NP experiment failed. Time to go back to Tyrod. IMHO. And I share the concern with Dennison. Sadly, Rex's coaching staff is starting to look better and better in hindsight.

If "terrible" means "Gary Marangi terrible," then I'm going to wish TT had never been benched. And I'll start wishing Tyrod was back in the starting lineup. While Tyrod had problems, we were in the playoff hunt with him under center. While things could be better, they could be much worse too.

Some of the comments and articles I've read ask the question: Did Tyrod deserve to be benched? It's the wrong question. The right question is: Will Peterman help us win more games? It didn't seem fair to Bledsoe when he was benched in favor of Brady. But when Brady turned out to be a superstar, no one retrospectively challenged Bledsoe's demotion anymore. I'd love a similar scenario to play out here.

Agreed. I don't know enough about Nathan Peterman to have a strong opinion. Tyrod has his strengths and weaknesses. Is Peterman better? Can he become better? Apparently the coaches have seen enough of him in practice to think the answer to one of those questions is "yes." I voted "good move" just to be an optimist. I'll watch the remaining games with intense curiosity.

My question is this... Which would score more points? A Peterman led Dennison offense or a Tyrod led Roman offense? The way we used Tyrod last year was ideal for his skill set. Not only did Tyrod gain a lot of yards on the ground, the threat of his running helped our backs lead the NFL in rushing. More importantly. we scored a lot of points. Instead of running a similar offensive system, Rico put Tyrod in a different kind of offense that hasn't been productive. So now instead of switching offenses he's switching QBs. Peterman might be the next-coming of Brett Favre as Micah suggests. Maybe Peterman's looked so good in practice that they just couldn't sit him anymore. But Rico's decision making has been interesting.

I'm more thinking out loud more than seriously suggesting this... Years ago, HOF coach Tom Landry played both Craig Morton and Roger Staubach as QB. Sometimes they QB-ed on different series; in one game they alternated every play. What if we alternated Peterman and Taylor? They have such different skill sets. Defenses try to stop Taylor by forcing him to stay in the pocket. Peterman, on the other hand, is at his best in the pocket. The disadvantages of having two QBs are obvious and I'll note that the Cowboys went on a long win streak once they decided to stop alternating QBs and stick with Staubach. But here are the advantages: * We continue to make use Tyrod's amazing athletic ability. * Peterman gets some playing time - he develops his game-time skills and the coaching staff gets to evaluate him in a live-game environment. * We keep defenses off balance.

It does seem odd that a team with a winning record could be 25th. But I can't say we don't deserve our poor ranking.

We all love a QB controversy and now we have one.

Thanks for posting, HappyDays. For the first time this season, I walked away from the TV before the game was over. Given it was garbage time, I don't think this is definite proof that Peterman is the guy. But he did look decisive, promising.

No worries, my next 29th will be my 30th. Happy Birthday "Mother of The Board!"

Here's what I think about the Saints game. If we lose, we're just another average team hovering around .500 with playoff pretensions. If we win, we're 6-3 and a real contender with a big victory under our belt.

Yikes, if that's the criteria to be a fan, I fail! I haven't attended a game in person in years and I don't have 3 jerseys. But I do root for every player who dons a Bills uni and I cheer for a Bills win every week. In my mind, anyone who hopes the Bills win is a fan.

I'm glad you're confident the team "responds in a big way." By why do you expect a 10+ point victory? Why wouldn't the Saints also 'respond in a big way'? Why wouldn't they be just as hungry? The Saints are 6-2 and determinedly fighting, as we are, for a playoff spot. This game is just as important to them as it is to us. So it comes down to coaching and talent.

This is a fine case of cherry-picking stats. Why does "under pressure" matter more than "not under pressure"? You have to look at Tyrod's overall body of work to fairly evaluate him. But given that our OL isn't great in passpro, I am glad that Tyrod statistically thrives under pressure. But look at Brady's numbers under pressure. Unreal. And I don't necessarily disagree with CF. Dennison might yet prove good for Tyrod - and the offense in general - though there have been some issues with the offense during Rico's first 8 games with the franchise. Excited to see how the second half of the season unfolds.

Gug, you're a little harsh considering you have no idea how serious the injury actually is or what medical advice he may be receiving.

I don't remember it that way at all. When I heard the over-the-hill narrative back then I started counting how many bad balls Jim threw each game. It wasn't many. He was in decline, for sure, but still a talented QB. Unfortunately, the whole team was in decline and that compounded the production issues with the passing game.

Jim came to Buffalo with more fanfare and excitement than any other football player before or since - with the possible exception of OJ. It defied logic. JK was just one player. But many, many fans believed his arrival signaled the end of the Bills Dark Ages. And they were right.

It's been a fun first half of the season. If we can go 5-3 for the second half, I'll be thrilled.

I'm with you 100%. You've captured my own worries. I'm hoping, though, that the Bills are actually getting better as the players learn to execute the schemes of the new offensive and defensive coaching staff. Theoretically, we're better now than when we beat what turned out to be weak Denver and Atlanta teams. But the NYJ games provides contrary evidence. I like McD and think Beane may turn out to be a good GM. But after all those years of soured hopes, it's hard to be very optimistic. I try to take it one Sunday at a time.

That's true but you know what I'm saying. Taylor, in general, isn't as willing to throw into tight windows as some other NFL quarterbacks. It may be a good thing. His pick percentage is low because of this tendency.

Somehow I feel like he's playing better - making more big plays. But maybe that's just because he's contributing to wins more now so his good plays seem more meaningful. So maybe it really is just the D that's better. Thanks for sharing Yolo. Good article.

This is surprisingly insightful coming from a national media guy. I don't think a lot of people in the national media know enough about the Bills in general - or Tyrod in particular - to know he prefers his receivers wide open. As 3rdand12 said earlier, Tyrod did throw to Sammy when Sammy had a CB draped over him. Maybe Tyrod will learn to trust KB the same way.

There were hints that Marcel was an inconsistent-effort, ill-disciplined football player. But not disrespectful. When you see the whole interview, he actually comes across as classy and gracious in an uncomfortable-in-front-of-a-mic kind of way. Nice find.

Here's how I think about it. Taylor is not a great passer. Yep, his passer and QBR ratings can look good but we all know he can't lead a team down the field with his arm the way a Brees, Brady or Rodgers can. But Taylor can be a cog in an efficient offensive machine. We saw that last year. We're seeing that again this year the past couple games. The guy does throw some beautiful passes here and there. His scrambling/running talent is spectacular. And he's a competitor. If we draft the next JK, great! If not, I'm good with TT under center. I believe we can get to the playoffs with a TT led offense.