Here you can admit that yes, it CAN get worse than Taylor

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

The part that’s concerning to me is the impact in the locker room. This wasn’t a divided locker room. They universally thought it was a bad decision. It was Dennison’s decision and ultimately he will fall on the sword for it. This year was about taking steps forward, not backwards. They got too trigger happy. They should have played until they were comfortably out of it (after NE) and then moved on.

 

If it was Dennison's decision he should go. I haven't heard that though.  Indeed Rob Ryan indicated last night on UK TV that ownership has always been sceptical of Tyrod and pushing for replacement.  

Edited November 20, 2017 by GunnerBill

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, CountDorkula said:

Interesting, but I strongly disagree. Who i think is better, bold I added.

 

Brady

Brees

Rodgers

Ryan

Cousins

Roethlisberger

Smith

Wilson

Luck 

Wentz

Goff

Prescott

Carr

Watson

Dalton

Newton

Winston

Mariota (?)

Bradford

Rivers

Stafford

 

 

I’d give you all of those but Bradford. He never plays. Mariota and Winston haven’t been good this year but I think they will be. Around 20ish seems right.

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If it was Dennison's decision he should go. I haven't heard that though.  Indeed Rob Ryan indicated last night on UK TV that ownership has always been sceptical of Tyrod and pushing for replacement.  

Check your PM

[Avisan]

4 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

Interesting, but I strongly disagree. Who i think is better, bold I added.

 

Brady

Brees

Rodgers

Ryan

Cousins

Roethlisberger

Smith

Wilson

Luck 

Wentz

Goff

Prescott

Carr

Watson

Dalton

Newton

Winston

Mariota (?)

Bradford

Rivers

Stafford

 

 

Statistically, you don't have much of an argument for the vast majority of those but I don't think any arguments we'd have about them would involve statistics so we can agree to disagree.

[unclepete]

18 minutes ago, JohnC said:

 

Both your responses are well thought out but I believe you are both wrong because I do not believe that this team as it was constituted was ever a playoff team. Certainly the record indicated that statistically this team was in the mix but the wins that we garnered didn't reflect how bad this team really was. Our defense is in a state of decay. It is a hollow defense that gets shredded with ease. That doesn't reflect a playoff caliber team. Our offense, especially in the passing game,  with TT as the starter is relatively simple/primitive. That's not a playoff caliber offense.

 

Especially Kirby overvalues how this staff publicly rates its team. Those rosy descriptions are simply attuned to the business side of the game. What do you expect the wrestling coach to say? That this team is bad and we are not directing most of our decisions for immediate success but rather long term success. Come on now. My recommendation is to watch what is being done and for the most part ignore what is being said. The first thing this new regime did is shed talented players for draft picks. What do you think that indicates? This team has been shedding payroll to open cap space. That's for future player acquisitions, 

 

This organization is rebuilding. It's not as haphazard as many are making it out to be. It's a painful process that is going to raise the cackles of many. Tough! The approach being done is the right approach to take. That's a reality that too many people are resistant to. 

I appreciate your response. And you're right. Every move has been a move looking toward the future. I disagree, however, that this is not a playoff team. The Ravens have looked just as bad or worse than we have. In fact, every team in the playoff race has looked as bad or worse than we have this year. So I hoped we'd put the QB out there that gave us the best opportunity to win. A culture of losing is why we're here. And you're right, it won'y happen overnight. But if you look at the NFL, you'll notice that good teams tend to stay good and bad teams tend to always be "rebuilding" or playing for next year. 

[JohnC]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If it was Dennison's decision he should go. I haven't heard that though.  Indeed Rob Ryan indicated last night on UK TV that ownership has always been sceptical of Tyrod and pushing for replacement.  

Sal C on WGR who is attuned to what is going on pointed out that the change to Peterman had more to Taylor's play than to the rookie being ready. The coaching staff, probably mostly Dennison, was frustrated with not only with the qb's inability to run the offense but his hesitancy in the passing game. 

 

You pointed out in another post that the owners are not enamored with Taylor. There is nothing surprising about that because it is apparent that the staff certainly isn't committed to him either. 

 

McDermott took a gamble and it became a boondoggle. So what? In the grand scheme of things the qbs under discussion are not going to be instrumental in the future of the franchise. This team has been hollowed out and it was done on purpose. That was the plan when the owner hired McDermott. It is a painful process but at least it is being belatedly done. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by JohnC

[unclepete]

3 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Statistically, you don't have much of an argument for the vast majority of those but I don't think any arguments we'd have about them would involve statistics so we can agree to disagree.

People look at teams that have been successful and associate all of that success to the QB. And likewise they associate teams that haven't been successful and associate all of the failures to the QB. Philip Rivers is an elite QB who's been on some bad teams. Andy Dalton and Joe Flacco or average QBs who've been on really good teams. It's a team game. The QB has a huge impact but isn't the only player on the team.

[CountDorkula]

2 minutes ago, unclepete said:

People look at teams that have been successful and associate all of that success to the QB. And likewise they associate teams that haven't been successful and associate all of the failures to the QB. Philip Rivers is an elite QB who's been on some bad teams. Andy Dalton and Joe Flacco or average QBs who've been on really good teams. It's a team game. The QB has a huge impact but isn't the only player on the team.

 

I look at teams who have good QB's. Are you trying to say Andy Dalton has zero to do with the Bengals success?

 

Joe Flacco was very good for a few years and then fell off the face of the earth.

[Avisan]

4 minutes ago, unclepete said:

People look at teams that have been successful and associate all of that success to the QB. And likewise they associate teams that haven't been successful and associate all of the failures to the QB. Philip Rivers is an elite QB who's been on some bad teams. Andy Dalton and Joe Flacco or average QBs who've been on really good teams. It's a team game. The QB has a huge impact but isn't the only player on the team.

I think Rivers was on the borderline of elite earlier in his career, but I don't think he's that guy anymore.  I did probably miss him in my list, though.  He's always been an up-and-down player prone to making boneheaded plays, his ups were just crazy up for a few years in there.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Avisan

[JohnC]

8 minutes ago, unclepete said:

I appreciate your response. And you're right. Every move has been a move looking toward the future. I disagree, however, that this is not a playoff team. The Ravens have looked just as bad or worse than we have. In fact, every team in the playoff race has looked as bad or worse than we have this year. So I hoped we'd put the QB out there that gave us the best opportunity to win. A culture of losing is why we're here. And you're right, it won'y happen overnight. But if you look at the NFL, you'll notice that good teams tend to stay good and bad teams tend to always be "rebuilding" or playing for next year. 

I strenuously disagree with you that the Bills are a playoff caliber of team, even in a weak conference. Our defense is wretchedly bad. On that basis alone this team would predictably fall by the wayside as the season advances. Being exposed is being exposed.  

[Avisan]

3 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

 

I look at teams who have good QB's. Are you trying to say Andy Dalton has zero to do with the Bengals success?

 

Joe Flacco was very good for a few years and then fell off the face of the earth.

Dalton has always had AJ Green as a safety net and has consistently played on solid, well-built teams.  I don't think he's a difference maker.  Same overall caliber as Taylor.

[Billzgobowlin]

1 hour ago, Jackington said:

Translation: At least Peterman lost the game with terrible plays.

 

Are these serious posts?

No at least he took chances while our defense was wearing down.  Look he needed to be better but Tyrod does as well.  I don't like seeing an offense that plays it safe all the time to the point of continually throwing away and handing the ball off.

[xRUSHx]

Thread title should say.

 

Here is where you can talk about this teams troubles that start with not good enough at QB.

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

He has a winning record this year and in his Bills career. They are actually winning with him. I think what yesterday showed is that they haven’t been winning “despite” him as some on here have claimed. They’ve won “because” of him in a lot of cases. 

Kirby, Was he winning against Carolina? Was he winning against the JETS int he 2nd game?

 

The Defense is horrid and we need a better QB.  

 

[transplantbillsfan]

3 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Yes it can

 

AND 

 

It can get a whole lot better.  

 

Ah the lovely crusade word from the Caped Crusader himself jm2009

 

Yeah, well, you don't keep better on the bench while a whole lot worse is killing your team on the field and legitimately losing games for you on the field.

 

You say how can we pretend that the outcome would've been different with Taylor? Are you saying that because you know somehow that the outcome would've been the same? If so, what a laugh

 

 

PS: You seem to be confusing the posters you have crusades against.

Edited November 20, 2017 by transplantbillsfan

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

3 hours ago, Billzgobowlin said:

We can't forget how bad he looked the past two games, can we?   I would also consider Bledsoe, Flutie and even Orton higher than Tyrod.

Agreed. Even though I wasn't a fan of Orton.  People let stats blind them.   

26 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Yeah, well, you don't keep better on the bench while a whole lot worse is killing your team on the field and legitimately losing games for you on the field.

 

You say how can we pretend that the outcome would've been different with Taylor? Are you saying that because you know somehow that the outcome would've been the same? If so, what a laugh

 

 

PS: You seem to be confusing the posters you have crusades against.

Come on transplant.   After 1 half game?   You are better than that.  Just last week you agreed Taylor wasn't the answer.  

In order to say Nate is the worst there is you need to see more games.   How many bad games did you excuse for EJ?  

 

We have absolutely no idea what Taylor would have done.

 

I did say pretend, because a lot of people who are also not sold on TT are the ones very giddy about Nates failure.    

 

crusade?  Again - You are better than that.  

 

did your friend 2009 tell you to say that.  

 

He's on ignore and the only thing I have said is he needs help with his obsession with the word crusade.  

 

Or are you referring to the other guy who was wrong and refused to admit it?  

How'd the Defense do?  

 

[TheFunPolice]

Some people are more Doug Whaley fans who want to be right, rather than Bills fans. The problem is that Whaley has a very low opinion of Tyrod as a starting QB. It's just the new regime is wrong, no matter what because Whaley was pushed out. So the new regime tried to find a way around Tyrod (which is exactly what Whaley was doing before he was sent packing) but suddenly all the new guys are all dumb and the old GM was such a genius.

 

Rex Ryan wanted Tyrod Taylor. Point blank. Rex is THE reason Tyrod is here, just like Richie. Thank or blame Rex for Tyrod, because he wanted him as his QB for years and finally got him here.

 

Yes, you can do worse. The problem is that Tyrod is not good enough to take you anywhere. Did we forget that he was the QB when the offense was totally ineffective for two straight blowouts prior to this one? Maybe the Chargers only win by 20. The defense sucks and looks like it quit, and the offense cannot do anything, no matter who is under center.

[ddaryl]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

The weird thing is, I don’t want to see more of him (even though it is probably best to keep losing). If the guy is capable of 5 picks in a half I don’t know that I can trust him. The Chargers did exactly what everyone knew they would do, jump routes. Peterman did exactly what he has always done, struggled under pressure. He may not be as bad as he was yesterday but there’s a reason he went in the 5th. He was probably worth the shot there but he is what he is. I know Blokes and Gunner didn’t like him at all coming out. They have probably seen him the most.

 

He has a chance to be a #2 in this league but he looked like #2 yesterday. It’s a little ironic that he wears that number. I don’t care to see him struggle through the end of the year. Let him develop in practice and if you believe that he can be your backup next year, so be it. If not it’s just another spot that you’ll need to fill. 

 

 

The only hope I have is seeing Peterman figure it out.. Watching this team for any other reaosn at this point is just not posisble for me I guess..

 

But I hear what you are saying...

[Albwan]

Its like comparing rotten apples with rotten oranges.

 

[Kirby Jackson]

2 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Kirby, Was he winning against Carolina? Was he winning against the JETS int he 2nd game?

 

The Defense is horrid and we need a better QB.  

 

No they lost those games. He was winning against Denver, Oakland, Tampa, Atlanta and the first Jets game though. He’s won more than he’s lost over the last 2.5 years. The other guys that started in that time frame have the same number of wins as me. 

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Come on transplant.   After 1 half game?   You are better than that.  Just last week you agreed Taylor wasn't the answer.  

In order to say Nate is the worst there is you need to see more games.   How many bad games did you excuse for EJ?  

 

We have absolutely no idea what Taylor would have done.

 

I did say pretend, because a lot of people who are also not sold on TT are the ones very giddy about Nates failure.    

 

crusade?  Again - You are better than that.  

 

did your friend 2009 tell you to say that.  

 

He's on ignore and the only thing I have said is he needs help with his obsession with the word crusade.  

 

Or are you referring to the other guy who was wrong and refused to admit it?  

How'd the Defense do?  

 

 

Yeah I agreed Taylor's not the long term answer.

 

How many bad games like that did EJ have?

 

No one's giddy about Nate's failure, Shady.

 

You're more extreme in your view on Taylor in the opposite direction you think I am on him.  That's why I used the word "crusade" because it's like you're blinded to the fact that Taylor is simply and clearly the better option than Peterman right now.

 

That does NOT mean that Taylor is our long term answer.  We're drafting a QB in round 1 next year and very possibly trading up to do it.  Taylor might even still be around in 2018, depending on what happens the rest of this season.

 

 

But dude, that was AWFUL!!!  Way worse than anything EJ's done and waaaAAAAAAaaaaayyy worse than anything Taylor's done.

 

That doesn't mean Taylor's great.  He's just not going to give you that kind of awful we saw yesterday.  And as I've been saying for a long time, that's Taylor's value. 

 

Somewhere in all of what I just said you're piecing everything I've said into a narrative that I think Tyrod Taylor should be our long term QB or that he's one of the best QBs in the NFL.  Here are some bullet points to help you understand my exact feelings on this whole QB situation as it relates to the 2017 Buffalo Bills:

 

- The 2017 Buffalo Bills are currently 5-5, the 7th seed, and share the same record as the 6th seed

 

- The 2017 Buffalo Bills are one of the oldest teams in the NFL with several vets who are starters nearing or at the end of their careers: Kyle, Lorax, McCoy, Wood, Incognito, etc. At least a couple of those guys reportedly contemplated retirement in the offseason, but were convinced to come back by a coach who sold them that this team was "Playoff Caliber" 

 

- Nate Peterman threw 5 interceptions, all giving the Chargers a short field, 1 a pick 6.  Of the 4 remaining interceptions the Chargers got a FG and 2 TDs and also missed a relative gimme FG.  That's 24 points off turnovers in the first half when it easily could have been 27.

 

- OH AND HEEEEEYYYYY!!!!  Ya know what happened on the 3 drives that didn't result in and interception for Peterman?  On our only scoring drive in the 1st half, McCoy runs on 2 plays for 64 yards and a TD and.... WHOOOOOOPS!!!!  Two 3 and outs by Peterman!!  (Are you seriously still throwing a silver lining out here for Peterman?)

 

- With Tyrod Taylor at QB through 9 games, the Bills were 5-4 and one of only 6 teams in the AFC with a winning record and the 6 seed in the playoff race.

 

- Taylor turned the ball over less times through 9 games than Peterman did in ONE FRIGGIN HALF!!!!

 

- Taylor in those 9 games was still completing over 64% of his passes

 

- Taylor in those 9 games was still responsible for 12 total TDs and 200 yards of offense per game for an offense riddled by injury and sometimes seemingly devoid of skill at skill positions with an OL that demonstrated how much of a sieve it truly is with a "traditional pocket passer" yesterday.

 

- Despite that crap show yesterday, this team has more than just some distant mathematical shot to make the playoffs as a wildcard

 

- The Head Coach talks about a leadership counsel he "listens to" that consists of a lot of those aging vets above.  What do you think they'll tell McDermott about QB preference?  How do you think those guys will react if Nate's named the starter on Wednesday?

 

 

Look, we all wanted Nate to succeed.  I actually believed he would.  I had these visions of him coming out and picking apart the Chargers D and becoming the next Brady.

 

Instead, it looks like my feelings from the preseason were right, at least at this moment.  There's a reason we waited until our 2nd pick of the 5th round to draft him.  Micah Hyde's "Nate Favre" might be a good description for the kid.  He's half of Favre.  He has the gunslinger mentality.  He doesn't have the arm strength to be a gunslinger.  That interception on the right sideline where the defender just anticipated his pass and strolled in front of the WR was exactly the type of interception I thought Nate would be prone to throw.  It's the exact same interception Jeff Tuel threw against the Browns for a pick 6 when he replaced EJ Manuel.

 

Like Jeff Tuel, Peterman looked good (not even all that good... not even as good as Tuel did, but acceptable) in the preseason, but was just exposed in regular season action.

 

If McDermott says Peterman's starting on Wednesday, I'll root hard for him to succeed on Sunday.  But I just fear he's going to lose whatever grip he currently has on this team if he doesn't announce Taylor is starting on Wednesday.  But it's okay, in the end, we'll draft our guy in the 1st round next year.

 

Taylor's not our long term answer.  Neither is Peterman.

 

At least we can win with Taylor.