grb

Admittedly, I do go overboard at times. It's the whole Internet Thing. Apparently Taylor is unique in all of the NFL and it's history. It makes no difference what quality of defense he plays against. It makes no difference whether the offensive line he plays behind is excellent or terrible. Put him behind one of the the best pass blocking lines in the league (like Dallas) and what result? No difference at all. Of course, the same is true about his targets. He's playing with one of the worst set of receivers in the NFL, if not the worse. Does that hamper him? Not a bit....... It makes no difference. But back on Planet Earth, common sense still reigns. Yes, Taylor has good & bad days independent of a defense's ranking, but so do all quarterbacks. With only a sliver of a difference between Taylor and Dak Prescott in average Time to Throw, the former has been sacked 18 times, the latter 7 (on more attempts). Because the offensive line matters, as does the quality of receivers to throw to. In the past two years Taylor has had a legitimate number one and two receiver starting together only fifteen games. Taylor's play then : 63.6%. 8.25 ypa. 27 tds. 6 int. Whoda thunk it? Apparently it makes a difference after all......

Holding up Taylor's skull (I suspect) would give you an unseemly satisfaction.......

Lighten up dude. Remember : "The amity that wisdom knits not folly may easily untie" Troilus and Cressida, Act II, Scene III, lines 48-49.

I agree Taylor's inconsistency is baffling. After all, he's throwing to a hopeless head case (who we all hope will get better), multiple punt returners and rejects scrapped off the scrap heap. He's dealing with a running attack which has ranged from poor to nonexistent. He's behind an offensive line which regularly implodes even while Taylor waits for receivers who can't get separation. He was in the top quarter of the league in +20yd pass plays using just a running back and tight end - and then lost the tight end. So you can see why Taylor's inconsistency is so damn puzzling...... How in the world has he managed to play so well so often? Given all the wreckage around him, isn't that the real inconsistency?

Wow. It's like you're there in Vick's head........

You don't get it, do you? Here, let me give you a hint : I'm describing Taylor's record over a virtual season of games. Despite all those "faults" that make the quality of his receivers irrelevant, Taylor performed well above average when given just decent targets. I don't know where you'd rate Watkins & Woods as a receiver pair, but a hell of a lot of teams would surely rank higher. Didn't matter. With just a solid set of receivers to throw to, Taylor did fine over fifteen games. That's what's called a solid case. You wanna know a weak case? That would be if I picked out two games in two years and tried to build an argument from that. You see, that would be embarrassing. But not totally humiliating. Nah, we reserve that for people who can't do better than "numbers don't count" Special Tyrod Exception arguments. There are so many variants of this lame-o-crap it's hard to keep track. Numbers Don't Count because Taylor was in a super special offensive system. Numbers Don't Count because they were all in garbage time. Numbers Don't Count because Taylor didn't throw often enough. Numbers Don't Count because Taylor didn't win enough. Numbers Don't Count because they were all against bad teams. Numbers Don't Count because ..... wait for it .... Taylor didn't pass their "eye test". You can almost smell the desperation in all that nonsense, can't you?

After all, Army beat Hitler with zero yards passing, so there is that precedence...... (had a heck of a ground game though)

I read your posts with my best James Earl Jones voice - adding a touch of Laurence Olivier erudition on the side. Damn things can still get problematic at times........

And yet, w/ Watkins & Woods to throw to : Fifteen games of : 63.6%. 8.25 ypa. 27 tds. 6 int. Some faults, huh?

On the other hand, let's review most yards : (1) Trevor Siemian - 376 yds, loss (2) Josh McCown,- 354 yds, loss (3) Kirk Cousins - 330 yds, Win (4) Matthew Stafford, 312 yds, loss (5) Ryan Fitzpatrick, 290 yds, loss And even Kirk was a near-run thing against lowly San Francisco......

Let's work this out amicably, shall we? Taylor, as you know, already has three good games this year. I might stretch a point and call Denver "great", given 20-26, 77%, 213 yds, 8.2 yards per attempt, and a passing ranting of 126.0 ain't chopped liver, but we all know there are people so lackbrain they think "great" only means lots & lots & lots of attempts. Just let it slide. So say Taylor has another seven good games and we boost his "great" games up to three. Throwing to punt returners, back-up tight ends, and a head-case, mind you, but who does more with less? We'll save one game for another clunker, and the first round playoff game can be good or great as the whim bites. So how about those numbers?

The only solution is to hijack the sucker and make it into an Anti-Anti-Anti Taylor thread !!!!

As noted, the (15) games where Watkins and Woods played. The remainder of Taylor's starts in his first two years one or both were injured and out. Thus the Brandon Tates, Walter Powells, and Justin Hunters of yore. Now, if someone really wanted to quibble, he might point out half of those Watkin's games were played on a broken foot. But that would be gilding the lily, point-wise.

Is it time again? Oh heck; why not : No one can say Watkins and Woods were close to being a premier pair of receivers in the NFL. They were decent - even good - but not anything exceptionally special. But yet in the (15) games where both Watkins and Woods played, Taylor had : 63.6% completions, 8.25 yards per attempt, 27 touchdowns to only 6 interceptions. So you see the problem, right? Poor Mr. Taylor supposedly can't do anything right - not even the most basic quarterbacking skills - but just give him a medium-grade pair of targets, and suddenly it seems he can do pretty damn right after all. Kinda makes you think, huh?

Damn thing kept getting in the way.....

Yes.

Does Taylor have cause to feel frustrated how his performance is perceived? I'd say yes, but for a variety of reasons. But leaving aside the question of race in that, one general observation on black athletes : They seem to have an easier time embodying any number of undesirable traits - such as "selfish" or "arrogant" or "obnoxious" - than their white peers. Given human nature, that sorta thing is never far off - so it's a bit unfair black athletes appear to have an inside track. My favorite example is "thug". I've see that term thrown around a lot in sports talk, but can't ever remember a white "thug". A few year back Virginia Tech had a very-white (honest-to-god) "thug" kicker. But I don't think anyone ever called him that.......

Hope is a waking dream : Aristotle Not to be a sourpuss, but there are three problems with Petermania : (1) Never has so many back-up dreams been based on so little. Usually the backup makes a splash in preseason with big-time plays and gaudy numbers - by (yes) facing third-stringers, future Sears salesmen, and vanilla defenses. But Peterman completed just 54% of his passes for 5.4 yards per attempt. His longest throw was only 28 yards. Petermanics thrill to the memory of a ten yard slant (it was soooooo perfect), forgetting the wildly inaccurate throws it was sandwiched between. Taylor's bad outtings playing meaningful games against some of the league's most brutal defenses are barely worse than Peterman's entire preseason record. (2) Right now the Bills have no running attack, an offensive line which frequently implodes, a (temporary, we hope) head case for one receiver, several punt returners for other receivers, and the very definition of a journeyman pulled off the scrap heap topping the group off. Prior to Cincinnati, Taylor was in the top-quarter of the NFL making plus-twenty yard pass plays with pretty much a tight end and running back alone. Then, of course, he lost the tight end. Instead of dreamily believing Nathan can make more of this dung hill, why not ask how Taylor 's been able to accomplish what he has? Setting aside raw attempts, who has made more with less? And here's a question : How exactly is poor NP going to stretch the field? If you found the 4.7 ypa Bengal's game ugly, what do you expect Peterman to produce? Ya ain't seen nutt'n yet, dink and dunk-wise. (3) Taylor and Peterman were both late-round picks for a reason. In both cases there were / are problems with their game. Believe it or not, Taylor is at least an average quarterback today. Given decent NFL-grade talent to play with, he's looked pretty solid. But that has been an accomplishment of years of hard work on both his strengths and weaknesses. If Flacco had gone down Taylor's rookie year, I'd bet anything TT would have flamed-out years ago. Peterman has a chance to beat the odds too, but I don't think it will come from being dumped into the Bills' cesspool offense. The Petermanics' dreamy best wishes may kill their man with kindness.....

Definitely true. After all, Taylor takes two-tenths of a second more on average to throw the ball than Mathew Stafford or Aaron Rodgers. A little over one-tenth more than Dak, who strangely enuff has only been sacked seven times to Taylor's eighteen. That's a mighty potent one-tenth a second !!! Stranger still? Taylor has Jared, Russell, and Deshaun all beat in time-to-throw, and they have seven, eight, and twelve sacks respectively. Gosh. If so many people hadn't convinced me the Bills' offense line was perfect - the sack problem all Taylor's fault - I might be tempted to see the evidence as suggesting otherwise.......

I'm curious : Do we get time-and-a-half for that?

Good list.....

Powell has produced more than any wide receiver currently playing - judging the latter by both this year and entire careers. That is why everyone expected him to be brought aboard. But invest a little more effort in reading comprehension and you'll see the real point was the front office did something to address a glaring defect in the defense and nothing to address a glaring defect in the offense. That's clearly my "take", along with suggesting that disparity is at least partially the result of how much McBeane has invested in the respected units going forward into next season. Agree or not? You could at least try to say something intelligent, one way or another......

After the Atlanta injuries everyone expected Walter Powell would be brought in, since he had some limited impact in the past. Instead they gave him a cursory glance before cutting him to add another cornerback to the team. Of course the corners were thin, so that was needed - but so are the receivers. The team currently has (1) one rookie who is (hopefully, temporarily) a head case, (2) two punt returners, and (3) the dictionary definition of a cast-off journeyman. Now, maybe Powell was in no shape to help the team, or maybe this is an real case of the character issue people now see automatically after every front office move. But there's probably another factor too. The team was always going to draft Taylor's replacement, no matter how well he plays or how far the team goes. They did not build up a hope chest of draft picks to chose a new tackle or back-up running back. It's doubtful the fan base would abide passing on a shinny new first-round qb, even if Taylor was to finish top-ten in passing. So McBeane has no overriding interest in supporting Taylor - with even some pluses in seeing him fail. If he can produce something with what he has, I'm sure that's fine. But there's no indication they'll take one extra step to help him out, even with a playoff spot still within reach. With the defense, I'd bet they'll continue to patch and repair as required. That's a unit they see as going forward. But McBeane has nothing invested in Taylor; he's on his own.

Given the Bills always win the offseason I'm sure they can triumph over a paltry little bye....

We're talking about differences between Brady's production with Edelman in and out of the lineup - and you quote Brady's 17 year career numbers vs Edelman's 7 year career numbers. So right away we know you're a troll. But, hey, let's be fair. Maybe you're just confused over the topic, so I'll lay it out simply : As a subset of the general Taylor Debate, there is the theory that wide receiver quality is irrelevant to quarterback play. This "theory" usually arises when people point out Taylor performed pretty damn good these past two years when he had a legitimate pair of NFL receivers to throw to. How can he be so embarrassingly deficient in every single basic quarterback skill with that being true? There are three responses : (1) Ignore the numbers and continue to rant ("can't see the field...can't make decisions....can't throw with accuracy....etc"). (2) Say numbers don't count with Tyrod (a popular choice). (3) Say "if he was a real quarterback" it wouldn't matter his receivers are the dregs because he would "elevate" them. It's popular for people making the last point to say "Brady doesn't need receivers". Well, some people have pointed out even his GOATness suffered a noticeable drop in performance when missing a favorite target (I wasn't the first to make this point). Now, they aren't saying Brady isn't a premier QB regardless. Likewise, even missing Edelman, the receivers TB was throwing to were surely miles better than the Bills' misfits these past two seasons. It should just be common sense. Of course Brady's performance was dinged. How could it be otherwise? But here we are, debating the point.......