Comprehensive "Tyrod Taylor is Bad" Thread (VERY Comprehensive)

[Xerx]

13 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

If McDermott brings in utter garbage like Matt's Cassell or Schaub to start/mentor the 3rd or 4th best QB prospect in the draft...........start vetting offensive minded HC candidates for McD's replacment because the process will turn from Jauron Ball into the most boring tank team ever.

 

Josh McCown's health was an aberration this year........he's been solid when healthy for the past few years but 39 years old in 2018 and broken down.

 

Alex Smith is a lateral move from Tyrod,  doesn't appear to be at the point in his career where he is interested in mentoring a successor and will cost you a healthy contract in addition to eating Tyrod's dead money AND also cost you draft capital.

 

They are in yet another really precarious position wrt QB options going into this offseason which makes the "anyone but Tyrod" movement even more laughable.    Not exactly a destination gig being the QB in Buffalo.   Hell McCown might even turn them down AGAIN.......that's how they got Tyrod in the first place.

 

Those guys aren't who I'd want on the field, but with a clipboard and a presence in the QB meeting rooms. I'd take them every single day of the week over Tyrod in mentoring a rookie QB, just based on Tyrod doesn't do the things we want to be taught. When to throw it away, reading a defense pre-snap etc. Tyrod isn't good at these things at all.

[BringBackOrton]

17 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

This feels a lot like a misrepresentation to me.

 

Eagles - Traded up to #2 overall and still kept their vet (Bradford) until the Vikings offered a deal they couldn't refuse.

Rams - Traded up to #1 overall and still kept Keenum and sat their rookie until week 11. Only QB departure was Foles.

Seahawks - Hasselbeck was let go in 2010, 2 years before they drafted Wilson. They had Jackson on an existing contract and signed Matt Flynn before the draft. Nobody was jettisoned until Wilson clearly won the job through camp.

Raiders - Who was jettisoned here? Pryor (now a WR), Flynn (yes, same one from Seattle), or McGloin?

Bucs - #1 overal pick at QB. They kept Glennon as a backup because he was still on his rookie deal. Nobody was jettisoned here...

Titans - #2 overall pick at QB. Who was jettisoned here? Jake Locker retired and Mettenberger was kept on the roster when Mariota was drafted. Charlie Whitehurst?

 

Oh, so the Bradford trade is a "deal they couldn't refuse" but cutting TT and using his money for a starting high quality OL isn't?  Sounds like you're picking and choosing what's justifiable. 

 

Rams jettisoned Keenum the next offseason, where Goff had not proven to be superior.

 

Seahawks lost Hasselbeck in the offseason before 2011, 1 year before they drafted Wilson.  Ya'll would have said "Pay Hasselbeck just in case we don't find a QB who is better!!!!"  They got the ring.

 

Raiders had Pryor play in 11 games in 2013.  They let go of him before they drafted Carr.  Shouldn't scaredy cat Bills logic say they should've hung on to him just in case Carr wasn't an upgrade?

 

Bucs had McCown start 11 games in 2014, then launched him in the same offseason they got Winston.  Shouldn't they have hung onto him just in case Winston was "the next Jamarcus Russell?"

 

Titans, I forgot that Metteberger was there in 15.  Fair enough.

Just now, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

etc etc includes Jets, Cleveland And Chicago too. Don’t forget them. 

 

So what REALLY matters is how good the QB you draft is.  Exactly.

 

Worrying we're gonna take a step back from Taylor is like worrying our first round pick will bust.  It's a risk you have to take.  You take your shot, or you never get there.

[LABILLBACKER]

On 12/24/2017 at 8:58 PM, Buffalo Barbarian said:

Excellent post. Tt supporters will be mad.

All 12 of them.... tie Tyrod just doesn't pass the eye test. He doesn't have the "it" Factor. He has poor field vision. Mediocre and inconsistent accuracy. Mediocre leadership qualities (see towel over head). Crumbles in the 4th qtr. He did not generate one touchdown against a New England defense that realistically is not that dominant. The Tyrod Taylor posts need to end. The Tyrod Taylor era needs to end, and it doesn't take a long list of statistics to tell me that.  sometimes it just boils down to common sense.

[BuffaloHokie13]

12 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Oh, so the Bradford trade is a "deal they couldn't refuse" but cutting TT and using his money for a starting high quality OL isn't?  Sounds like you're picking and choosing what's justifiable. 

You really don't see the difference between saving under $9M in cap space and trading a player for a 1st and a conditional pick that was a 2nd-4th rounder?

13 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Rams jettisoned Keenum the next offseason, where Goff had not proven to be superior.

So they kept him and sat the rookie, like I said.

14 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Seahawks lost Hasselbeck in the offseason before 2011, 1 year before they drafted Wilson.  Ya'll would have said "Pay Hasselbeck just in case we don't find a QB who is better!!!!"  They got the ring.

Again, they still had a vet on the payroll until the rookie won the starting job.

15 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Raiders had Pryor play in 11 games in 2013.  They let go of him before they drafted Carr.  Shouldn't scaredy cat Bills logic say they should've hung on to him just in case Carr wasn't an upgrade?

Are you seriously going to say Pryor was a comparable QB to Tyrod? You're better than this, I think.

18 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

Bucs had McCown start 11 games in 2014, then launched him in the same offseason they got Winston.  Shouldn't they have hung onto him just in case Winston was "the next Jamarcus Russell?"

The Bucs were a 2-14 team that won 1 game with McCown at the helm. They got to pick a QB first overall. That's a completely different situation than what we have.

[BringBackOrton]

4 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

You really don't see the difference between saving under $9M in cap space and trading a player for a 1st and a conditional pick that was a 2nd-4th rounder?

So they kept him and sat the rookie, like I said.

Again, they still had a vet on the payroll until the rookie won the starting job.

Are you seriously going to say Pryor was a comparable QB to Tyrod? You're better than this, I think.

The Bucs were a 2-14 team that won 1 game with McCown at the helm. They got to pick a QB first overall. That's a completely different situation than what we have.

What I'M saying is that "we shouldn't get rid of our QB until we have an upgrade," is not how it's done in the NFL.  It's just not.  QB's who aren't good enough are ALL expendable.  

[The Big Cat]

My favorite responses are those saying he’s good because the Bills have had bad QBs in the past. ??‍♂️

[BuffaloHokie13]

15 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

What I'M saying is that "we shouldn't get rid of our QB until we have an upgrade," is not how it's done in the NFL.  It's just not.  QB's who aren't good enough are ALL expendable.  

Except it is, and basically every example you tried to give doesn't hold up for your argument. And that's before even mentioning that 4 of your 6 examples not only kept their established vets, if they had them, but also had a top 2 overall pick - which we do not at this time. If we're getting Darnold or Rosen I'm with you, but at this point in time we aren't and the team cannot operate as if we are. There will be a vet on the roster (not Peterman) before the draft ever gets here.

[BringBackOrton]

1 minute ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Except it is, and basically every example you tried to give doesn't hold up for your argument. And that's before even mentioning that 4 of your 6 examples not only kept their established vets, if they had them, but also had a top 2 overall pick - which we do not at this time. If we're getting Darnold or Rosen I'm with you, but at this point in time we aren't and the team cannot operate as if we are. There will be a vet on the roster (not Peterman) before the draft ever gets here.

This is wrong, you're just being disingenuous and/or you don't understand.

 

Not letting TT go because you're afraid your next QB may not be an upgrade is the exact same thing as not letting McCown go because you're afraid your next QB may not be an upgrade.

 

Guess what?  McCown was let go.  Sorry. Thanks for playing.

[BuffaloHokie13]

Just now, jmc12290 said:

This is wrong, you're just being disingenuous and/or you don't understand.

 

Not letting TT go because you're afraid your next QB may not be an upgrade is the exact same thing as not letting McCown go because you're afraid your next QB may not be an upgrade.

 

Guess what?  McCown was let go.  Sorry. Thanks for playing.

No, it isn't. An 8-7 team doesn't operate the same as a 2-14 team in regards to personnel and the assets at their disposal are generally different. When a team has a record of 1-10 in a QBs only 11 starts with them (and that QB is 17-32 over the past 9 years with 4 different teams) it is different than when a team is 22-20 with a QB that's started 42 games for them.

[twoandfourteen]

I can't believe I'm actually going to suggest this, but after reading all of this crap and thinking about it.... Fitzy might be the best guy to bring in here to work with both Peterman and the new kid they draft in April. He's on a 1 year deal with Tampa Bay, so won't cost anything to sign him as a FA. 

 

The guy definitely has the football IQ down and had a bit of "gunslinger" in him. He just didn't have all of the physical tools to successfully execute what he was seeing. 

 

His numbers were actually ok for a backup, 1103 yards/7TDs/3INTs/86.0 QBR and averaged 183.8 yards per game in 6 games, 3 as the starter (2-1). 

Edited December 27, 2017 by twoandfourteen

[BringBackOrton]

2 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

No, it isn't. An 8-7 team doesn't operate the same as a 2-14 team in regards to personnel and the assets at their disposal are generally different. When a team has a record of 1-10 in a QBs only 11 starts with them (and that QB is 17-32 over the past 9 years with 4 different teams) it is different than when a team is 22-20 with a QB that's started 42 games for them.

And neither of those situations are superseded by beng worried about not having an upgrade.

 

That's my point.

[Lfod]

I wouldn't worry so much about Tyrod anymore guys. Benching him at the time they did is all you need to know. People can say whatever about benching him but it doesn't take the weight from it happening.

 

They thought Nate Peterman could be a better answer in his rookie year. It does not matter how it turned out with Nate I don't think that suddenly changed thier view on Tyrod.

 

Then add in that he took a pay cut to stay here I would guess this was his year to prove his worth. The benching proves he didn't prove it, at least to the guys in charge. 

 

I don't think it matters if you love him or hate him to understand it. You don't take a pay cut then get benched in the middle of a playoff hunt because your good enough in the eyes of the HC who benched you.

 

I think if Nate didn't have a disaster of a start, Tyrod wouldn't even be starting. This isn't a random feeling. The HC benched Tyrod because he wanted Nate to do better and take the job. I can't think of another reason to do it.

 

Tyrod was interesting. I can see why he was pulled from back up duty to start in Buffalo. You just never know until you do know. The same goes for Nate Peterman or anyone. Tyrod has flashes and it was intriguing. I would take interest in a guy that can flash excellence. 

 

At some point you have to see it for what it was. A guy who can definitely have moments of greatness but not frequently enough to depend on. 

 

So like anyone I was interested to see if those flashes transformed into frequent moments of greatness. Some team next year may have that some wonder about him and take a shot on him. I wish him the best of luck. 

 

So no, Tyrod doesn't just suck like people want to lazily lable him. They do have solid points when pointing out some of his negatives. I can see why people like Tyrod and it's the same reasons I did. That potential to flash. The potential to become great. 

 

It's been a few years and I think the experiment is over. I have no crystal ball but looking at the big picture I can see the Bills are moving on next year. I think he's had enough time to become what he was gonna become. This is how it turned out. Might be good enough to limp into the playoffs. Not good enough.

 

You have to score points against the Patriots. Just good enough will never take the division. The team needs some real answers to beating the Patriots and that should be the biggest concern.

 

Edited December 27, 2017 by Lfod

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

3 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

So what REALLY matters is how good the QB you draft is.  Exactly.

 

Worrying we're gonna take a step back from Taylor is like worrying our first round pick will bust.  It's a risk you have to take.  You take your shot, or you never get there.

 

I know it’s challenging but not exactly.  What really matters is the understanding that picking QBs isn’t a science and you might hit or miss no matter how a prospect Looks. Hedging by having a floor at that position is critical to sustainable success. 

 

[BringBackOrton]

6 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

I know it’s challenging but not exactly.  What really matters is the understanding that picking QBs isn’t a science and you might hit or miss no matter how a prospect Looks. Hedging by having a floor at that position is critical to sustainable success. 

 

If you think Taylor's floor is synonymous with "sustainable success," well....

 

You keep Romo or Cousins or Smith to sustain success when drafting a guy. Not Halfrod.

Edited December 27, 2017 by jmc12290

[transplantbillsfan]

7 hours ago, Bills Pimpin' said:

Name one starting QB that would give the Bills a worse record than it is now.

 

This kind of hypothetical is really stupid.

 

Really stupid

[Thurman#1]

On 12/27/2017 at 11:56 AM, transplantbillsfan said:

 

 

Well what you're arguing doesn't matter, does it? We already know we're going to replace Taylor.

 

Yet, as it is...

 

Despite missing what translates to a full NFL game, he's still responsible for 54% of the offensive snaps, 61% of the offense's total yards, 58% of the offense's total 1st downs...and 65% of the offensive TDs.

 

We have the 8th worst defense by yards, 3rd worst run defense, and we're 18th in points given up per game. Yes we have an opportunistic defense, but even there we're tied for 8th in takeaways.

 

Yet somehow, despite a 5 interception half by Not Ready Nate, we're still 6th in our turnover differential and go into week 17 with a legitimate shot at the playoffs for the first time in 12-13 years.

 

 

Yeah, sorry to inform you, but Tyrod Taylor has been an important part to this team getting to this point this year.

 

Maybe you weirdos will get your wish and  this next game will be the very last game that you have to root for him. Or maybe, just maybe we make it into the playoffs for the first time this millennium and you have to keep rooting for Taylor and give him just a little bit of credit. Like I said, we can start searching for our new QB as soon as the season is done, but it's not

 

 

 

Yeah, Tyrod has been an important part of our team this year. So has Vlad Ducasse. And Jordan Mills. So has Deonte Thompson. So has Ramon Humber and Shaq Lawson. Doesn't mean we can't hope plenty of those guys are replaced by better players as soon as possible.

 

So, Tyrod was responsible for 54% of the offensive snaps, you say? If I only look at passing percentage, and pretend that not a single QB in the league except Tyrod ran a single down, that would still rank Tyrod 25th or 26th in the league in that stat (the Rams threw 54.32%of the time and I don't know if Tyrod was involved in more plays than that, but in real life Goff must have run at least a play or two, as did a few other QBs). So not real impressive.

 

Tyrod was responsible for 61% of the offense's total yards? In what world is it impressive that a QB only does that? The best rushing team in the league this year got 2,179 run yards and only four teams managed over 2000. How does that compare to pass yards? Twenty-five QBs got more passing yards than Tyrod and 19 got more passing yards than Tyrod got pass and run yards together. So again, assuming not a single other QB got a single run yard but giving Tyrod credit for all his run yards, Tyrod is still behind guys like Mariota, Dalton, Winston, Keenum, Bortles, and plenty of others. Don't know where it would fit compared to other teams, but well below average. Again, not impressive.

 

Tyrod got 58% of the offense's total 1st downs? Considering we're 28th in the league in first downs, I'm not real impressed there either. Throw in his 24 running first downs and he would leap all the way up to 20th in the league, tied with Dalton, for QB first downs by pass only. And again, a few other QBs had some running first downs too, but I'm not even considering those. Not noteable.

 

Tyrod got 65% of the offensive TDs? If only that amounted to being, you know, good. Throw in Tyrod's four running TDs and put him on the QB list - the list of passing TDs only - and Tyrod flies all the way up from 25th to a three-way tie for 20th with McCown and Winston. Again, not impressive.

 

 

 

So yeah, you're right, he was a big part of the Bills offense ... being extremely unimpressive. 

Edited December 28, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

10 minutes ago, ScottLaw said:

Yep.

 

The Bills offense fell off a cliff this season.. thanks to McDermott and Dennison. 

 

Top 7 in offensive TDs last season to what this year? Bottom 5? What changed? 

 

 

The run game got worse, that's what changed. Tyrod was still his usual somewhat below average self.

[transplantbillsfan]

7 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

What I'M saying is that "we shouldn't get rid of our QB until we have an upgrade," is not how it's done in the NFL.  It's just not.  QB's who aren't good enough are ALL expendable.  

 

I'm curious, but when has an NFL starter for one team for 3 consecutive years who's under 30 ever been cut without a viable replacement on the roster or in return? You say this kind of thing happens all the time so I expect finding something like this will be easy

 

And again, just so that you don't get confused, I am not saying that Taylor will absolutely be here next year.  However, I do think 0BD is going to have a very clear plan regarding the QB position if and when they do get rid of Taylor. And it's going to be a plan that's pretty solid. Where we are currently drafting, we can't say that we have any solid shot at any particular QB.

 

So, unless OBD decides and manages to trade up into the top five for a draft pick before Taylor's bonus is due, I think there is a strong likelihood that he is still on the roster all the way up through the draft and maybe beyond. 

 

[Thurman#1]

34 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I'm curious, but when has an NFL starter for one team for 3 consecutive years who's under 30 ever been cut without a viable replacement on the roster or in return? You say this kind of thing happens all the time so I expect finding something like this will be easy

 

 

"Viable replacement," in the sense of someone who could take the snaps? Never. There's always at least a viable replacement, someone like McCown or Fitz or Tyrod or Foles or Osweiler or Siemian or Savage

 

But he didn't say a "viable replacement." He said an upgrade. And that happens all the time. JaMarcus Russell was no upgrade from McCown and Culpepper, just as one quick example. Losman wasn't an upgrade from Bledsoe for another. Happens constantly. Tampa kicked Dilfer to the curb for Shaun King. The Steelers jettisoned O'Donnell for Tomczak.

 

When a team has a guy who simply isn't good enough, taking a shot at replacing him is the commonest response, even if there's no obvious upgrade.

 

Edited December 28, 2017 by Thurman#1

[transplantbillsfan]

7 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

This is wrong, you're just being disingenuous and/or you don't understand.

 

Not letting TT go because you're afraid your next QB may not be an upgrade is the exact same thing as not letting McCown go because you're afraid your next QB may not be an upgrade.

 

Guess what?  McCown was let go.  Sorry. Thanks for playing.

 

He wasn't wrong.

 

I think you just need to explain yourself a little bit better.

 

Re McCown: No, it's not the same thing. It's not the same thing because (and this is going to upset some of you) McCown is not as good or as consistentor as consistent a QB as Taylor.