eball Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 All I'm going to say about this is that friends of mine who are fans of other teams but have watched the Bills don't think Tyrod is the answer at QB. Bills fans who are still Tyrod supporters are blinded by their fandom.
Gugny Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 More balanced attack, more turnovers, less effective running game, less effective offense. Count on it. You know how a lot of turnovers happen? By taking chances; primarily over the middle. That's what separates the men from the boys and the good offenses from bad ones. Christ, even Sammy Watkins said it when he was talking about EJ!! I'll paraphrase - "He might throws an INT or two, but he'll be taking chances." You want safe passing and flashy scrambles? Good. Get ready for the 7-8 win/season trend to continue with that crap. And how the good holy !@#$ does a balanced attack create a less effective run game or offense? It doesn't matter. Whaley isn't that stupid. Lynn is gone (along with his dumbed down Roman offense) and so is Tyrod. He can go be the black Flutie somewhere else. Good riddance.
K-9 Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 If Taylor is a backup then a majority of starters in the league are backups too. This is a true statement. The sad fact is that the majority of starters in this league are interchangeable and don't possess high end talent and only a handful can win games on their own.
NoSaint Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 Does he even have a choice? I thought the NFL required players to be available to the media. Worst case he pays a modest fine and I'd say it's still a smart choice
YoloinOhio Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 All I'm going to say about this is that friends of mine who are fans of other teams but have watched the Bills don't think Tyrod is the answer at QB. Bills fans who are still Tyrod supporters are blinded by their fandom. Same. I still would be ok with TT as a bridge QB if they had another long term plan at the position. But I think comparing him to other Bills QBs of the last 20 years and saying he's the best is a big crutch because they are all pretty bad.
NoSaint Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 All I'm going to say about this is that friends of mine who are fans of other teams but have watched the Bills don't think Tyrod is the answer at QB. Bills fans who are still Tyrod supporters are blinded by their fandom. That's overwhelmingly the sentiment I've seen. That said, I don't think they weigh intricacies of the situation -- just broad strokes of is he the guy or not
BADOLBILZ Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 All I'm going to say about this is that friends of mine who are fans of other teams but have watched the Bills don't think Tyrod is the answer at QB. Bills fans who are still Tyrod supporters are blinded by their fandom. Hardly. He's a highly productive bridge QB. This isn't the NHL, it isn't necessary to bottom out to re-build.........but this season would have been ugly if the offense wasn't scoring a lot of points and almost never turning the ball over.
BarleyNY Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 All I'm going to say about this is that friends of mine who are fans of other teams but have watched the Bills don't think Tyrod is the answer at QB. Bills fans who are still Tyrod supporters are blinded by their fandom. Same. I still would be ok with TT as a bridge QB if they had another long term plan at the position. But I think comparing him to other Bills QBs of the last 20 years and saying he's the best is a big crutch because they are all pretty bad. I agree on all counts, but I don't think it's in the cards for Tyrod to be a bridge here. He's going to want to move on to the highest bidder after the Bills don't pick up his option. That's not going to be the Bills. It's very difficult for a guy who wa slimed up to be the long term answer to step back into a bridge role for the same team. Too much controversy and too many bad feelings. Just look at the reaction from many fans to what is coming to light. Honestly, it's not fair to him either.
Wayne Arnold Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 This is a true statement. The sad fact is that the majority of starters in this league are interchangeable and don't possess high end talent and only a handful can win games on their own. Three categories of quarterbacks in the NFL: 1. Elite/Very Good (Top 9 or 10 QB's) 2. Average - Won't carry team, but won't lose games 3. Terrible - Will single-handedly lose games consistently and prevent a good team from winning more than they lose Tyrod is category #2 The only time you get rid of a category #2 is if he is beaten out by a guy already on the roster. Otherwise, you're begging to replace that #2 with a category #3.
Hapless Bills Fan Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 Same. I still would be ok with TT as a bridge QB if they had another long term plan at the position. But I think comparing him to other Bills QBs of the last 20 years and saying he's the best is a big crutch because they are all pretty bad. Agree on both points. The question I have is whether they can find or build a better "bridge" QB. If they let Taylor go without another "bridge", thereby repeating the mistakes of 2013, I will be disappointed. Three categories of quarterbacks in the NFL: 1. Elite/Very Good (Top 9 or 10 QB's) 2. Average - Won't carry team, but won't lose games 3. Terrible - Will single-handedly lose games consistently and prevent a good team from winning more than they lose Tyrod is category #2 The only time you get rid of a category #2 is if he is beaten out by a guy already on the roster. Otherwise, you're begging to replace that #2 with a category #3. Sounds as though we have a bunch of folks in violent agreement here
BarleyNY Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 Three categories of quarterbacks in the NFL: 1. Elite/Very Good (Top 9 or 10 QB's) 2. Average - Won't carry team, but won't lose games 3. Terrible - Will single-handedly lose games consistently and prevent a good team from winning more than they lose Tyrod is category #2 The only time you get rid of a category #2 is if he is beaten out by a guy already on the roster. Otherwise, you're begging to replace that #2 with a category #3. Gotta be honest, I see Taylor as between average and terrible. (Spoiler alert! There are also below average QBs.) He's helped by his running, but that's not sustainable and his passing game is seriously lacking. Both recognition and accuracy (except for his deep, sideline pass) are substantially below average. So is his ability to consistiently throw from the pocket.
K-9 Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 Three categories of quarterbacks in the NFL: 1. Elite/Very Good (Top 9 or 10 QB's) 2. Average - Won't carry team, but won't lose games 3. Terrible - Will single-handedly lose games consistently and prevent a good team from winning more than they lose Tyrod is category #2 The only time you get rid of a category #2 is if he is beaten out by a guy already on the roster. Otherwise, you're begging to replace that #2 with a category #3. I appreciate the thought process, but can't agree. I see only two categories; those who can win games by themselves and those who can't. Those who can't are all interchangeable imo. A bit simplistic, yes. But until we get "that guy" it's all just treading water and no swimming.
Rico Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 Whaley is going to get the "figurative" dildo Monday and he brought it on himself. He's right where Donahoe was going into Mularkey's second season.......no more excuses permitted. If this team doesn't make the playoffs next year there will be a Whaley mutiny in the small but angry fanbase. Ralph really didn't want to fire Donahoe but he had no choice. It will be the same next year with Doug if he doesn't get results. This isn't time for a complete roster sweep so I think Lynn and Whaley get one shot.........sans Tyrod that gets a lot harder, IMO. Never fear, EJ's here! Can't wait for Monday, see how long it takes before he runs away back to the weight room.
BADOLBILZ Posted December 30, 2016 Posted December 30, 2016 I appreciate the thought process, but can't agree. I see only two categories; those who can win games by themselves and those who can't. Those who can't are all interchangeable imo. A bit simplistic, yes. But until we get "that guy" it's all just treading water and no swimming. More than a bit simplistic..........A LOT simplistic.......nonsense actually. The team that won the SB last year had a QB that couldn't win a game by himself if his life depended on it. Bridge quarterbacks that are effective can allow you to build identities on offense and defense while remaining competitive. Made the point earlier today about Donahoe: He couldn't bare to watch Bledsoe for another season so he cut him and inadvertently set his entire regime ablaze in the process. Parcells picked him up and used him as a bridge for a year and a half and in the process Romo emerged and the roster got stronger.
Rico Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 I couldn't bare to watch Bledsoe either. He wouldn't have made a difference in that 2005 season either. Their defense was a train wreck as well that year. Exactly. IMO TD's bigger mistake was extending him after 2003
BADOLBILZ Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 I couldn't bare to watch Bledsoe either. He wouldn't have made a difference in that 2005 season either. Their defense was a train wreck as well that year. Losman blew. Holcomb was actually better then both Bledsoe and Losman. Donahoes mistake was letting Pat Williams walk. Dumb. It's a similar situation EXCEPT Tyrod is much more effective and his arrow is either level or pointing up. Bledsoe was nearly done......but he didn't play too badly in Dallas. Not franchising Gilmore would be the near equivalent of letting Pat Williams go......which played a big part in that defensive decline in 2005. Ron Edwards wasn't up to the task, it seemed. The D started mailing it in because of the frustration with the horrible offense. It was awful.......the most disjointed Bills team in a long history of them. The following year the D made a big leap back........because they still had talent.
bobobonators Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 All I'm going to say about this is that friends of mine who are fans of other teams but have watched the Bills don't think Tyrod is the answer at QB. Bills fans who are still Tyrod supporters are blinded by their fandom. Meh. Regardless of who the QB is next season we'll all be back. Tyrod supporters. Tyrod haters. Doesnt matter.
Gugny Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 Meh. Regardless of who the QB is next season we'll all be back. Tyrod supporters. Tyrod haters. Doesnt matter. True.
eball Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 Meh. Regardless of who the QB is next season we'll all be back. Tyrod supporters. Tyrod haters. Doesnt matter. 100% true. And I'm not sure there are really Tyrod "haters" anyway. I mean, really -- hate? He's just a QB with deficiencies.
FLFan Posted December 31, 2016 Posted December 31, 2016 i would like him back as a bridge QB but I think he will be elsewhere next year. I'll be pleasantly surprised if he's brought back. Then again, none of us are privy to their plan at QB. People keep saying there is no option or plan aside from TT but what they really are saying is they don't know what it is so they assume there isn't one. The team isn't going to share the plan at the end of December. Fans and media can keep looking behind them at former "plans" from former coaches and GM tandems and project what they think will happen (or won't happen) but all it is is message board fodder. We do not know. Unfortunately, I think we can conclude that there is really no good plan to replace Tyrod, based in past history. Personally, I hope all the speculation that the decision to cut Tyrod loose is incorrect as I believe he is the best team option in the near term for this team.
Recommended Posts