MPT

We didn't play the Chiefs, and the other three games you mentioned are examples of some of the worst defensive performances of the year by any team. Solid argument. How is a success considered an excuse? Premium doublethink going on there.

The Falcons could have run the ball on literally every play after they were up 28-3 and they would have won that game, or simply knelt for three downs and kicked a field goal after Julio's outrageous catch. Granted, Brady is probably the only one who could have won that game, but he needed a LOT of help from the Falcons. This says more about the hubris of passing than the need for passing.

Add a proper diet and exercise to that, and add the qualifier "in practice" and the answer should be no. Always boggles my mind to see the "top athletes" in the country getting injured doing mundane drills.

This requirement is always pretty absurd. There isn't a quarterback in history who can perform as well with practice squad receivers as he can with true starters. Brady has Gronk & Edelman, Matt Ryan has Julio, Roethlisberger has Antonio, Brees had Jimmy Graham and Brandin Cooks and Marques Colston. All of those quarterbacks have also had top defenses and/or top running games when their teams have been successful. GM's and coaches and analysts all talk about getting their franchise QB's "weapons" and a defense to help them be successful, and yet some people around here act like these weapons are only something that great QB's need. Tyrod isn't a true "franchise" QB, so don't worry about the state of his receiving corps or the defense. They're both irrelevant excuses. Please. We don't have to worry about Tyrod, barring his susceptibility to injury as a mobile quarterback. He's not elite, but he is good enough to win games. We need a defense first and foremost, and then we need a #1 pass catcher who can play a whole season. If you don't believe me, just look what our top-5 defense did with Kyle Orton at the helm. Pretty impressive. Look what Tyrod has done with a healthy Sammy. Also pretty impressive. Put those two together, add a healthy Shady, and BAM! Contender.

If Taylor gets injured, I don't think they'd bring in another veteran. I think they'd roll with Yates until we were eliminated from the playoffs and then see what Jones and Peterman can bring in a real game.

Yeah I really like the versatility he'd bring, despite his age. We need depth at TE and WR, and he can help alleviate both of those needs. His intangibles as a professional could also be a huge benefit to a young team with a new head coach. He may have lost a few steps, but his abilities as a first down / TD specialist would be invaluable to Tyrod as well. It also can't hurt to have a guy with some grit to complement Sammy.

Two QBs drafted in the last two years.

Case in point. Thanks.

Love to see posts like this. Might as well be a white flag. Maybe instead of insulting people and bashing Tyrod, you should form an actual defense of your opinion that involves things like facts and statistics and evidence. And if those things don't support your argument, maybe you should think about revising your opinion.

QB's don't "pants" other QB's. They "pants" defenses. Unless you also think Tyrod will be switching to cornerback?

Also true. Although he'd probably also blame Tyrod for the second loss to the Jets last year.

That's some really groundbreaking analysis, John Madden. It's the "team" aspect that you repeatedly fail to take into account. To you, nothing affects wins and losses except Tyrod Taylor. Show me a halfway decent defense, and I'll show you a playoff team.

There is a reason that evidence is more reliable than eyewitness testimony.

Read: "I've never said anything or put in any effort to back up my claims that Tyrod can't throw to an arbitrary section of the field, and I reject everyone else's fact-based research." Like a kid who keeps making up nonsense qualifiers to his argument when he's proven wrong over and over again.

He left a team with a 17-year playoff drought to go play for a perennial contender and he got paid a boatload more to do it. Tell me again: Who is butt hurt about it? The multi-millionaire with a legit shot at a Super Bowl ring, or you?

Disagree. He may be the one of the most prolific RB's of all time in yds/c or yds/g but he doesn't get points for "what could have been." He may be the most underrated RB who ever played only half of four seasons, but he's certainly not underrated when compared to backs that came close to the same production for their entire careers. Totally agree there. Yeah Thurman > OJ in today's NFL for the simple fact that he could catch the ball. Running backs need to have that in their repertoire these days if they want to be considered a feature back or a high profile star.

Not sure why, but this made me chuckle.

They would be downright nasty if they had any semblance of a running game.

With respect to the bolded, I disagree. Players will follow the money because they have a very short window to do so and they sacrifice a lot to do it. The rest of your post only enforces this. If Tyrod could have gotten a better deal, with a better situation, elsewhere, he would have taken it. He doesn't have any roots here with respect to family, and he is definitely the type of guy to want to prove his mettle. But the fact remains that he is still hovering around the bottom of the league in terms of passing. We know it. The coaches know it. And Tyrod and his agent know it. I really like Tyrod and his overall performance in Buffalo, but a quarterback will never be able to break the bank unless he has proven he can win big games. The people who say, "Tyrod isn't a real NFL QB," are short-sighted in my opinion, but they have a very valid point when it comes to compensation. Although, one could argue that the reason McCoy wasn't ranked a top-10 player and the reason he doesn't get the respect he deserves is because he has benefited immensely from the presence that Tyrod brings in every. single. play. Phew! That was too long and probably didn't get my point across very well, but as they say "nothing good happens after 2am"

Maybe someone from Ohio can clear this up, but I'm pretty sure the issue is that a conceal carry does not apply to a handgun that is visible while inside a vehicle. So they're basically getting him with a technicality that won't result in any legal ramifications besides a fine. So, in that case, I don't think it would result in a suspension either. Also, and I may be wrong again, but didn't Ohio just pass a law that closed this loophole? i.e. handguns in vehicles will now fall under the legal domain of conceal carry? Maybe it hadn't taken effect when he got nailed, but I thought this was a recent legislation. Anyway, brandishing your handgun in a parking lot in front of cops is seriously stupid, but not necessarily illegal. When it comes to NFL players during the off-season, sometimes that's the best you can hope for.

A lot of Pats fans I know barely watch the regular season. Like they can't be bothered until it's time for the playoffs. They are near the bottom of the barrel in terms of fandom. But sure, if you want to measure a fanbase solely by its purchasing power, knock yourself out.

You talk about bias in the same breath that you ignore single-game 200-yard rushers. Self awareness, buddy. Don't let the door hit you on the way out. Nope, no correlation. Defense doesn't matter and Tyrod sucks. (Nice analysis)

How fitting that you chose two of the biggest defensive meltdowns of the year to, yet again, bash Tyrod. I'm sure you are even aware of the fact that, while he did not do well against the Raiders, he outperformed future HOF'er Ben Roethlisberger. Also fitting that an internet troll would assume someone is pissed about their trolling. Otherwise, what's the point, ya know?

If there is any truth in that post, it is that Tyrod haters will see a positive (albeit irrelevant, in this case) aspect of his game and mock it without adding anything of value to the discussion.

Please explain this "math" you're going on about. As far as I can tell, the only math that matters is O - D > 0 It has been firmly established that "O" is high enough to produce a sum >0. So logically, that means "D" needs to be decreased. Your turn, professor.