transplantbillsfan Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 Agree on the last statement 100%. The drive-by negative-no purpose post. I love that! Drive-by! Awesome! I think that's gotta be the tag line for that poster and others when the throw out those one-liners... "OS with another drive-by!"
Big Gun Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 Brandon, is that you?! Come on man....add SOMETHING to the board. Gotta love the negativity and skepticism though....carry on. Ok chief what makes you think he will be here in 2018?
DaBillsFanSince1973 Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 Ok chief what makes you think he will be here in 2018? can't say he will or wont be. can you say with certainty, he wont be? if so, then asking for the lottery numbers may be in order here?
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted August 15, 2017 Posted August 15, 2017 (edited) can't say he will or wont be. can you say with certainty, he wont be? if so, then asking for the lottery numbers may be in order here? .....isn't everything LOGICALLY predicated on what Dennison develops for an offense and how well TT adapts UNLESS some just do NOT want him here?....I think he struggles with processing the entire field in <5 seconds (MANY DO; it it NOT just him); so Dennison needs to design a shorter & quicker passing game offense to reduce his process time...RB's, TE's & WR's are all in the mix....and there IS some talent there....build the kid's completion confidence, reduce solely depending on his wheels to keep him healthy......the long ball WILL be there.....wasn't the catch phrase "dink 'n dunk"?.....defenses would take away Peyton's long ball and he could "dink 'n dunk you to death" to get the "W"..he was a master at taking what defenses would give him....NO, I'm not comparing TT to Peyton, but rather the concept of a diversified passing game.......... Edited August 15, 2017 by OldTimeAFLGuy
transplantbillsfan Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Ok chief what makes you think he will be here in 2018? First and foremost, we aren't likely going to be bad enough to be in the top 10 in next year's draft unless Beane does more stuff and demonstrates he's actively tanking. If we aren't drafting in the top 10, even with all of our other draft picks, it's not exactly easy to trade up for the best or even the 2nd best prospect in a supposedly strong draft class at QB. I suspect we might get the 3rd or 4th best QB and he'll be a guy who isn't ready to start immediately. Or who shouldn't start immediately. That's the biggest reason. Also, Tyrod Taylor is clearly the best QB on the Bills roster in 2017, so why would you think it'd be so obvious he'd be gone when we have nothing better?
Big Gun Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 can't say he will or wont be. can you say with certainty, he wont be? if so, then asking for the lottery numbers may be in order here? yup, he won't 1 2 3 4 5 6 are your lottery numbers
grb Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) yup, he won't I think there's a big chance he will - provided he plays well this season. Reasons? First, he'll be relatively cheap as quarterbacks go, particularly given the payout the Bills have to make to void his '18 contract. Second, Beane and McDermott will have a bright shinny new first round quarterback and might be skittish about starting him too quickly. Remember the Pottery Barn Rule? You break it, you own it. Well, they will definitely own this new QB and their careers may hinge on not breaking him. Now, perhaps they'll be satisfied with Peterman by that point - or look for a cheaper interim solution on the open market. But Bills coaches last an average plus-minus two years; Bills GMs do little better. These guys are not going to want to see their second season blow up, particularly given winning was obviously not Priority Number One this season. Dumping the team's best receiver & corner in a firesale was sold as leading to a god-like quarterback. If things go Jared Goff-ish, it could get ugly. Tyrod might look pretty good for '18. Imagine all the heads that would explode then !! Edited August 16, 2017 by grb
John from Riverside Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 yup, he won't 1 2 3 4 5 6 are your lottery numbers Do you realize how idiotic these posts make you look
Hapless Bills Fan Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 I think Beane wants a guy he is confident can be a franchise QB. At the moment he isn't there with Tyrod and I don't think he ever expects to be so he is planning for the 2018 draft. This is Beane's first shot at being a GM. These days very few get 2 shots. He is not going to make the mistake others do of plodding along without trying to find his franchise QB early. He is planning and preparing to use our first pick of the 2018 draft on the face of the franchise. The heir to Kelly. That doesn't mean he is completely shut off to Tyrod breaking out and proving him wrong. But I suspect he, like I, put the % chance of that quite low. I certainly hope this is correct. There's a saying "good is the enemy of great". The Bills have certainly been hampered by management/coaching thinking "well this QB seems like he might become good", and thereby not pursuing QB options while they wait to find out. I am "all in" with the Bills drafting the best QB they can in 2018, even if Tyrod does have a stellar year. Lots of QB have a stellar year. Bring in a rookie and let him sit, if Tyrod takes a step. There's the cold hard football fact that even at the top of the 1st, a rookie will turn into a player 2 times out of 3. If he doesn't, keep someone who can play on the roster. If he does, 2 good QB, or a good QB and an emerging great QB is a great problem for a GM to have
Figster Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 I think there's a big chance he will - provided he plays well this season. Reasons? First, he'll be relatively cheap as quarterbacks go, particularly given the payout the Bills have to make to void his '18 contract. Second, Beane and McDermott will have a bright shinny new first round quarterback, and might be skittish about starting him too quickly. Remember the Pottery Barn Rule? You break it, you own it. Well, they will definitely own this new QB, and their careers may hinge on not breaking him. Now, perhaps they'll be satisfied with Peterman by that point - or look for a cheaper interim solution on the open market. But Bills coaches last an average plus-minus two years; Bills GMs do little better. These guys are not going to want to see their second season blow up, particularly given winning was obviously not Priority Number One this season. Dumping the team's best receiver & corner in a firesale was sold as leading to a god-like quarterback. If things go Jared Goff-ish, it could get ugly. Tyrod might look pretty good for '18. Imagine all the heads that would explode then !! Post makes sense
GunnerBill Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 I think there's a big chance he will - provided he plays well this season. Reasons? First, he'll be relatively cheap as quarterbacks go, particularly given the payout the Bills have to make to void his '18 contract. Second, Beane and McDermott will have a bright shinny new first round quarterback and might be skittish about starting him too quickly. Remember the Pottery Barn Rule? You break it, you own it. Well, they will definitely own this new QB and their careers may hinge on not breaking him. Now, perhaps they'll be satisfied with Peterman by that point - or look for a cheaper interim solution on the open market. But Bills coaches last an average plus-minus two years; Bills GMs do little better. These guys are not going to want to see their second season blow up, particularly given winning was obviously not Priority Number One this season. Dumping the team's best receiver & corner in a firesale was sold as leading to a god-like quarterback. If things go Jared Goff-ish, it could get ugly. Tyrod might look pretty good for '18. Imagine all the heads that would explode then !! I am not generally with grb on Tyrod - he is much more of a believer in him than I - but I absolutely agree with him here. For me Tyrod should be back in 2018 so long as he doesn't totally stink up the joint this year. You still draft your guy in the 1st and you let them compete in camp. If the rook beats Taylor out - great - you know he has beaten out a genuine NFL starter (not Kevin Kolb mk2). If the rook doesn't win the job outright in camp you can start Taylor and bring the rook along with the view to him probably taking over mid season and then releasing Tyrod at the end of 2018. That is just sensible long term planning to me. I doubt Tyrod is the starter for the whole of 2018 and I very much doubt he is on the team beyond 2018 but ditching him and then having to bring in another vet placeholder/backup for the rookie makes no sense to me.
Thurman#1 Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 The only QB for which most fans ended up complaining that he threw two bombs for TDs in a game. People go on about his great deep ball, but while he was terrific at throwing the deep ball in 2015, he didn't do nearly as well in 2016. He could easily look better again this year in that part of his game, or not. But it's not a given as many seem to want to imply.
WideRightRevenge Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 Just click this link https://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/comebacks_active.htm (2) 4th quarter comebacks in his career ... he and Yates have something in common ... think this says it all ... I was rooting for Tyrod ... but this stat shows why its time to move on. In these situations a QB needs to lead the team down the field and make chicken salad out of chicken #*%&. Check out all the other QB's ahead of him .. with our record the last few years .. there should be more than 2. And this was with the much heralded Sammy W (when he was on the field).
Thurman#1 Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) I think it's funny that you pro-rate Young's stats from 3 games to 16 games. That's absolutely ridiculous. I've been criticized for pro-rating Taylor's 2015 season from 14 to 16 games and you're going from 3 to 16... I think it's even funnier (and stranger) that Young didn't only play in 3 games in his 5th year... Young was really up and down for his first 4 years in the league and then came in with "spot duty" in his 5th and 6th years. The guy threw 154 passes, less than 1500 yards passing, 10 TDs and 3 INTs and that was him somehow "absolutely prov(ing) himself" after (or are you now saying before? ...that was a typo, right? ... I hope so, because saying anyone proved themselves in less than 100 pass attempts is preposterous) his 6th year? Revisionist history... Two. Yeah, it's strange that Young didn't start but three games in his fifth year ... behind Joe Montana in his prime. Hard to figure that out. That is one sad and pathetic argument you've got there. Young was playing at a franchise level from his fifth year on, in camp, in the preseason and when he got his chance. The Niners were thrilled to see they had successfully found Montana's successor and would be able to let Montana go before his game went downhill. Oh, and the criticism you took for pro-rating Tyrod's stats in 2015 from 14 to 16 games is because he was injured and that's the reason he missed those games. Injury is a concern with smaller running QBs. And you were pro-rating quantitative stats (and therefore adding imaginary yards and TDs to his stats) so they got better by adding those two extra games that he never played in. Whereas I was using qualitative stats (passer rating and YPA), which didn't change. Young actually got those stats. Tyrod actually did NOT get the stats you were daydreaming about due to his injury. The last bit of your post maybe rescues it. Yup, Tyrod'll have to improve a great deal. And it would be far better for the Bills if he does improve a whole ton and becomes a franchise QB. It would be great to see, It's just very unlikely. Edited August 16, 2017 by Thurman#1
Thurman#1 Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) question. since you find yourself here off to the side, quite a bit I may add, where do you place yourself here in isolation? "the weirder tyrod fanatics" or the "genuine hater"? surely it says you must have as much obsession with the discussion as well as others or you wouldn't be here...just an observation, from the other side... Go count my posts in this thread. Then count Transplants. Check that, I'll do it. Went back and counted through the last 200 posts of this thread, including this one. 31 posts by Transplant.18 by me. Almost double. He's accounted for more than 15% of the last 200 comments. Without him, this thread would've been dead weeks ago. More, in the last month or so, since July 13th - the first two pages of my "content" record - I've posted in 50 threads. About a ton of different topics, from Ragland to Chad Kelly, to the salary cap to tanking to Gary Barnidge to Dr. Omalu on concussions, etc. Now, check Transplant's. To go back 50 threads, two pages, you have to go back to April. Yeah, I have enough interest in this discussion to enter it periodically. But I enter a lot of discussions on unrelated topics. As for your other question, I'm neither a Tyrod fanatic nor a hater. I'm a doubter. Which outside of Bills fandom is by far the most common stance. There are plenty of non-Bills fans who like Tyrod's personality a ton and like watching him play as well. But not so many who don't get why the Bills made him re-negotiate to give back $10 mill and his bizarre Whaley-era contract guarantees. They understand why Beane's stockpiling picks next year in a strong QB draft and in fact think it's a smart move. A few, but not many. Edited August 16, 2017 by Thurman#1
grb Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) Yeah, it's strange that Young didn't start but three games in his fifth year ... behind Joe Montana in his prime. Hard to figure that out. Are we still at this wacko argument ?!? It would make equal sense to spend scores of posts debating whether a Sagittarius can ever become a franchise quarterback. Who knows? Maybe Steve Young IS a Sagittarius. That way you could kill two birds with one stone. With a couple of seasons starting in the can, is it really profitable to devote dozens and dozens and dozens of posts on the theoretical mathematical a priori possibility of his skill level? Granted, it's your dime, but still it seems pretty weird...... Also : Yeah, it's strange that Taylor didn't start but one game in his first four years ... behind Joe Flacco in his prime - particularly given Joe never missed a game to injury during all of TT's years there, was the face of the team, a Super Bowl hero, the idol of Baltimore, a franchise quarterback ........ Hard to figure that out, huh? Edited August 16, 2017 by grb
Thurman#1 Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) Are we still at this wacko argument ?!? It would make equal sense to spend scores of posts debating whether a Sagittarius can ever become a franchise quarterback. Who knows? Maybe Steve Young IS a Sagittarius. That way you could kill two birds with one stone. With a couple of seasons starting in the can, is it really profitable to devote dozens and dozens and dozens of posts on the theoretical mathematical a priori possibility of his skill level? Granted, it's your dime, but still it seems pretty weird...... Also : Yeah, it's strange that Taylor didn't start but one game in his first four years ... behind Joe Flacco in his prime - particularly given Joe never missed a game to injury during all of TT's years there, was the face of the team, a Super Bowl hero, the idol of Baltimore, a franchise quarterback ........ Hard to figure that out, huh? You're comparing Joe Flacco ... to Joe Montana? Seriously, dude? Good lord. Outside of first names and the position they play, there's no comparison there. Can't believe I'm bothering, but in the four years Tyrod was in Baltimore, Flacco's passer ratings were 80.9, 87.7, 73.1 and 91.0. He did have the Super Bowl win season, but Flacco was ripe for the picking and Tyrod couldn't do it. Beating out Montana at the height of his reign as arguably the best in history and certainly top three or four is not something anyone who wants to be taken seriously should compare to beating out Joe Flacco. Yeah, the Ravens wanted Flacco to succeed. But if Tyrod had outplayed him consistently they'd have noticed. Edited August 16, 2017 by Thurman#1
BuffaloHokie13 Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 You're comparing Joe Flacco ... to Joe Montana? Seriously, dude? Good lord. Outside of first names and the position they play, there's no comparison there. Can't believe I'm bothering, but in the four years Tyrod was in Baltimore, Flacco's passer ratings were 80.9, 87.7, 73.1 and 91.0. He did have the Super Bowl win season, but Flacco was ripe for the picking and Tyrod couldn't do it. Beating out Montana at the height of his reign as arguably the best in history and certainly top three or four is not something anyone who wants to be taken seriously should compare to beating out Joe Flacco. Yeah, the Ravens wanted Flacco to succeed. But if Tyrod had outplayed him consistently they'd have noticed. In that same span the Ravens were 6-2 in playoff games. And the Super Bowl year was Tyrod's 2nd year. They gave Flacco a 6 year $120M deal after the Super Bowl. You can think whatever you want, but that job was not up for the taking.
Thurman#1 Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 (edited) In that same span the Ravens were 6-2 in playoff games. And the Super Bowl year was Tyrod's 2nd year. They gave Flacco a 6 year $120M deal after the Super Bowl. You can think whatever you want, but that job was not up for the taking. Yes, THE RAVENS were 6-2 in playoff games. Not Joe Flacco. The Ravens. What Flacco did during those two years you're talking about is he didn't play especially well in the playoffs in 2011, played very very well in the playoffs in 2012. And I like Joe Flacco. I think he's widely underestimated. But there's a reason he's never been picked for the Pro Bowl except, as with Tyrod, as an alternate. Six other players were either injured or in the Super Bowl before Flacco got the call and turned it down. And that's bull **** that that job was not up for the taking. Every job in the NFL is up for the taking. Every one. If you play better than the other guy, consistently, you'll get a shot. Teams love to light fires under asses in this way. But there simply was never a controversy there because Flacco played better. I definitely grant you it wouldn't have been easy to take that job. Especially after that contract. Of course you're absolutely right about that. But if you play better consistently, the coaches will notice it. Having a better player take over reflects well on the coaches. You've got to outplay the guy consistently and significantly. Tyrod didn't. In fact, his preseason stats just weren't especially good in Baltimore. 2011 37 for 60 6.8 YPC 1 TD, 3 INTs Passer Rating 66.5 2012 31 for 60 5.4 YPC 2 TDs, 1 INT Passer Rating 71.9 2013 21 for 36 7.3 YPC 4 TDs, 2 INTs Passer Rating 95.0 2014 35 for 55 7.7 YPC 3 TDs, 2 INTs Passer Rating 84.3 The one year was a bit of an uptick, but then back towards mediocre. He just didn't outplay Flacco and certainly not consistently and significantly. He didn't put any pressure on the coaches to make them think of him that way. Whereas Young was performing terrifically ... but so was Montana. Montana at that time was elite. Top two or three in the league. Probably top one, to be honest, as in 1989 and 1990, Young's fifth and sixth years in the league, Montana was not just Pro Bowl but first team All-Pro. Edited August 16, 2017 by Thurman#1
grb Posted August 16, 2017 Posted August 16, 2017 In that same span the Ravens were 6-2 in playoff games. And the Super Bowl year was Tyrod's 2nd year. They gave Flacco a 6 year $120M deal after the Super Bowl. You can think whatever you want, but that job was not up for the taking. Thank you. I should have included the $120M deal in the list, but was flustered over the sheer inanity of this whole debate ........
Recommended Posts