BADOLBILZ Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 6-11 96 Yards. Not trash. Not great. Dude played less than a quarter. Meaningless playing time that would tell neither the organization or fans about him either way; which is why they preferred not to play him at all. 6-11 O TD's 1 INT and a couple other throws that could have been intercepted. He was really bad. All the yardage came on a badly under thrown deep ball where the CB fell down. I like Cardale as a long term project.....he came out hot early in the preseason but then turned awful by the end.......looked the same in the Jets game.......he's just a crosseyed gunslinger at this point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
D. L. Hot-Flamethrower Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 (edited) Yes because this team probably goes 2-14 with him at Qb as he is playing right now. It would be a completely wasted season. Well, it's pretty hard to become a billionaire in business if you have no idea on how to run a business. 100%. I'm tired of this type of statement made by people who think you become that successful because of all luck. I bet everyone one of these NFL owners have made mistakes they wish they hadn't. People over reacting to everything. At least Pegs have shown the ability to learn from mistakes and change. To me the problem is been to stubborn to admit you made a mistake. Edited January 8, 2017 by horned dogs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
May Day 10 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Remorseful for the most correct decision Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Sounds like they don't think they should have told him to bench him. But rather that they should have given the decision to Lynn. Sounds to me like Lynn not happy with the decision made for week 17. I don't read much into it for what it means next year. If they aren't keeping taylor and lynn is offered and wants the job,he will have to accept that. Unless he truly has a say in the decision. Yeah, the Pegulas originally seemed to think of this entirely as a business decision. They didn't want to aggravate Tyrod's injury. They wanted to see if EJ could perform as well in a game as he does in practice. Maybe they also wanted to give Cardale some reps. All rational reasons. But they're dealing with people here, not just products for sale. Players and coaches are emotional. TT wanted to play - even though it was a meaningless game - and Lynn wanted him to play. I'm glad the Pegulas expressed remorse. They should have discussed the situation with both TT and Lynn before making the decision. I think - with better communication - they could have still sat Tyrod but without the bad feelings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Frankish Reich Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Sounds like they don't think they should have told him to bench him. But rather that they should have given the decision to Lynn. Sounds to me like Lynn not happy with the decision made for week 17. I don't read much into it for what it means next year. If they aren't keeping taylor and lynn is offered and wants the job,he will have to accept that. Unless he truly has a say in the decision. Exactly. I read nothing into it. "Dear Coach Lynn: I'm sorry we have to do this to you, giving you the interim HC job and then tying your hands by not letting you play our best QB." And they're probably sorry about doing this to TT too, given that he played hard (and through pain) all year, not missing a game. But that's why it was called a business decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 (edited) Why do people seem to be surprised that this came up in an interview with a potential HC? Wouldn't it be natural for a candidate to have concern about this (and other things for that matter)? P.S. To those people bringing up the groin, do you really believe that he was benched for that reason? Come on. Edited January 8, 2017 by Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YoloinOhio Posted January 8, 2017 Author Share Posted January 8, 2017 But Whaley said that Lynn was in on the decision.they made the decision before Rex was fired. Lynn was not there. He was "involved" in it.. because he was consulted after he was named interim. So yeah - it was "our decision" ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 (edited) Remorse would have been in order if they had let him play and he suffered a serious injury. Other than that, who cares? Edited January 8, 2017 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iinii Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 No. Lynn hasn't been involved in any conversations regarding personnel(upcoming FAs/possible draft targets/vision of team in future). If the new coach has a hand in the future of the franchise and is not just tasked with winning the next game on the schedule regardless of its overall importance, it's a good thing. Then, you don't get things like Marrone playing Orton in a meaningless game in NE or Ryan trying to play a hurt Sammy Watkins to start the year and getting him hurt even more in a walkthrough. Seems to make my point Lynn hasn't been and wasn't involved in the conversations. I understand the business side but Pegs should have had that convo with his HC upfront, man to man/face to face, not say I am sorry after the fact. If all of this is true and I am Lynn, trust just left the building and so have I. Lynn's small body of work speaks for itself, he took the groceries in the cupboard and produced a quality meal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
baskingridgebillsfan Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 The Bills and Steelers both scored 399 points but Tyrod's the "problem" Oh Taylor is a problem he is not the only one but he is not good. once the Bills were officially eliminated from the playoffs the only responsible thing to do was to bench Taylor. He had a small injury and if he ended up with a large injury the team owes him the money and has to find a new qb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cripple Creek Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Remorse would have been in order if they had let him play and he suffered a serious injury. Other than that, who cares? Well, pissed maybe. The right decision was made, the mistake, if there was one, was not having Lynn in the room while it was made. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Sounds like they don't think they should have told him to bench him. But rather that they should have given the decision to Lynn. Sounds to me like Lynn not happy with the decision made for week 17. I don't read much into it for what it means next year. If they aren't keeping taylor and lynn is offered and wants the job,he will have to accept that. Unless he truly has a say in the decision. I do not mind they are saying this now. Looks like they are learning from mistakes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
#34fan Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Remorse for what? -Not doing it sooner? TT will never be a quality NFL starter... That said, he is without a doubt, the BEST backup in the league... I want him to stay... I DO NOT want him to start. -Not for us... Not anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 I gotta' disagree with this somewhat. Mara and Rooney inherited SB winning franchises with strong organizations in place. It's been easy for them. Their fathers bumbled GREATLY before finally finding the right stewardship for their teams. If you werent so cocky most of the time, you would be one of the best posters here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 (edited) Winning that game does nothing to help the team, but there were several things that could help the team by benching him. So benching him was absolutely the right decision. He had a groin injury. They needed to evaluate EJ. The game was essentially a preseason game. The only reason to play him is if he was within reach of meeting some performance-based bonus. If Lynn or Tyrod can't understand that, then i'm not sure what it says about them. I think how it was handled internally is the issue. Made some people look foolish, and perhaps Whaley could have smoothed it better with TT ? Yeah, the Pegulas originally seemed to think of this entirely as a business decision. They didn't want to aggravate Tyrod's injury. They wanted to see if EJ could perform as well in a game as he does in practice. Maybe they also wanted to give Cardale some reps. All rational reasons. But they're dealing with people here, not just products for sale. Players and coaches are emotional. TT wanted to play - even though it was a meaningless game - and Lynn wanted him to play. I'm glad the Pegulas expressed remorse. They should have discussed the situation with both TT and Lynn before making the decision. I think - with better communication - they could have still sat Tyrod but without the bad feelings. Good post, another one, respected hondo . Edited January 8, 2017 by 3rdand12 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 This is consistent with my gut feeling. Whaley would greatly prefer not to hire Lynn. Two clear reasons: 1) Lynn made Tyrod look very effective this season while Tyrod was missing a lot of opportunities in the passing game. Opportunities that would not have even existed for guys like EJ or Cardale or Brian Hoyer( ), who would have had too much instant pressure in their grills to do anything behind this OL. But NONETHELESS.......WR were running wide open that weren't thrown to or thrown accurately to. Keeping Lynn without Tyrod will set Whaley up for massacre with fans and media if Lynn fails to replicate his offensive success of 2016. 2) The likely understanding that Lynn represents continuity and Whaley is hoping to entirely re-set his GM employment clock with HIS OWN hire....not the residual of the Russo-Pegula hire Rex Ryan. I personally just don't feel Doug deserves a re-boot. Yeah, he's only been GM for Marrone and Rex but he's been here 7 years and his personnel work has been average with the exception of QB and much worse if you factor in his inability to find a QB, which I do. Not entirely on board with this reasoning behind why Whaley may not want Lynn. But I see the logic. As of the names being considered, I would think Goodwin and Lynn would be the top 2 choices. Goodwin cos if his reported attention to detail (and the good Lord knows we need that) and Lynn cos of continuity and ability to mask deficiencies. In any case, I am not sure Lynn would be a full go on TT even if given the latitude to decide. He would certainly not have to be handicapped at the QB position to start his HC career. His hand may be forced by the lack of options though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Malazan Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 (edited) I think they're unhappy that EJ and Cardale got exposed and now the fanbase will be unhappy going into next year The fanbase saw the future. It was not bright. EJ won't even be on the team...his contract is up..so why would they be concerned about him being "exposed"? I'm also confused why he would be "exposed" when he's already played and started in games..there was nothing new there... I'm also not sure they're too upset about a late round flyer QB looking poor in his 1st game ever in which 90% of the team was already gone upstairs to the post season with an interim coach in his 1st week.. but I'm pretty sure you're right and you've gleaned the truth... Edited January 8, 2017 by jeremy2020 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 2) The likely understanding that Lynn represents continuity and Whaley is hoping to entirely re-set his GM employment clock with HIS OWN hire....not the residual of the Russo-Pegula hire Rex Ryan. I personally just don't feel Doug deserves a re-boot. Yeah, he's only been GM for Marrone and Rex but he's been here 7 years and his personnel work has been average with the exception of QB and much worse if you factor in his inability to find a QB, which I do. If Whaley doesn't understand that his "employment clock" does not reset with this head coach hire (and should not), he's really not sharp enough to be anywhere in an NFL FO. I personally think Doug Whaley is a pretty astute guy - lacking in media skills, but smart enough. There will be no "reboot", so the question of whether or not Whaley deserves one is moot. It's hard to evaluate exactly what his personnel work was before he became GM (hate it when people are all so positive he deserves blame for pick A in 2012 and pick B in 2013 but he doesn't get credit for pick C and D who are good to great players or for trades/FA signings in the same timespan), but I would grade his work since as "above average" myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 Remorse for what? -Not doing it sooner? TT will never be a quality NFL starter... That said, he is without a doubt, the BEST backup in the league... I want him to stay... I DO NOT want him to start. -Not for us... Not anymore. So you think we're going to pay our backup 20 mill a year? Either he stays, gets paid and starts 1-2 years or he cuts cut. We aren't going to pay him 20 mill a year to be the backup. He isn't going to renegotiate for much less than 17 a year if at all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted January 8, 2017 Share Posted January 8, 2017 So you think we're going to pay our backup 20 mill a year? Either he stays, gets paid and starts 1-2 years or he cuts cut. We aren't going to pay him 20 mill a year to be the backup. He isn't going to renegotiate for much less than 17 a year if at all His cap hits are 16M & 17M, not 20 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts