Thurman#1 Posted March 13, 2018 Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) 16 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said: The point was to downplay the role of the qb while talking about a couple of subpar starters and how they played a role as well. It’s evident. Why else would you ever bring them up In reply to a post about tyrods Role. If not for a weak ass comparison, then why? You’re not gonna admit it. You’re being difficult for the sake of it at this point. We at least have one thing in common. We’re both happy with the way things are going now and hopefully the next qb never is never the subject of debate. Have a nice day. Well, congratulations, you've misunderstood me with terrific consistency. Admirable, I guess, in a way. Edited March 13, 2018 by Thurman#1 1
Stank_Nasty Posted March 13, 2018 Posted March 13, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said: Well, congratulations, you've misunderstood me with terrific consistency. Admirable, I guess, in a way. Well then I’ll take the statement at face value and respond like this.... sure. Those guys had a role. Not nearly as big as the qb’s. Good talk. Edited March 13, 2018 by Stank_Nasty
Thurman#1 Posted March 13, 2018 Posted March 13, 2018 27 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said: Well then I’ll take the statement at face value and respond like this.... sure. Those guys had a role. Not nearly as big as the qb’s. Good talk. No, it was a pretty crappy talk. But at least you finally got me. Yup, Tyrod had a role. So did everyone else. Football is a team game. You can have success with good players, medium players and bad players at spots important and less so. Depends how your team does as a team.
transplantbillsfan Posted March 13, 2018 Posted March 13, 2018 8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said: No, it was a pretty crappy talk. But at least you finally got me. Yup, Tyrod had a role. So did everyone else. Football is a team game. You can have success with good players, medium players and bad players at spots important and less so. Depends how your team does as a team. Thurm. Without question you are just incredible at evasive maneuvers. You were obviously and pretty clearly implying something by mentioning Duccasse, Humber and Zay Jones in the same breath as Taylor. So you respond to Stank's post that says this: 8 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said: Well then I’ll take the statement at face value and respond like this.... sure. Those guys had a role. Not nearly as big as the qb’s. Good talk. And try to act as though he finally gets you when you still imply, pretty obviously, that Taylor's role was minimal and could be fairly compared with players like Humber, Ducasse, and Jones, which is absolutely preposterous. You are the King of wiggling out of admitting you say stupid stuff, which makes you look even worse than when you initially say it. As for my previous predictions regarding Taylor. Yep, ya got me. I predicted Taylor would still be on the roster unless the Bills had a clear and obvious upgrade. But it looks like with all our draft moves it's clear we're going to be drafting that upgrade in the draft somewhere likely in the top 5 when we trade up. I also predicted he'd still be on the roster because I didn't think the McDermott and Beane would get good value in a trade for him and they weren't just going to give a capable starting QB away for peanuts, unlike what some wanted them to do. So yes, I was wrong predicting Taylor would still be on the roster (even though I said they would definitely try trading him before his bonus was due and probably in an effort to move up in the draft ) and wrong predicting Taylor would still be on the roster until we had a clear and obvious upgrade (I don't even know if I said that this guy had to be on the roster at the time he was let go of... but you clearly want to be right, so I'll give you that technicality... even though they're obviously arguing that clear and obvious upgrade in the draft ) to take over at QB. So good for you Thurm. You're right on technicalities even if you ended up making a "dumb-on-the-face-of-it" comparison between Taylor and Duccasse/Humber/Jones
Thurman#1 Posted March 14, 2018 Posted March 14, 2018 (edited) Well then I’ll take the statement at face value and respond like this.... sure. Those guys had a role. Not nearly as big as the qb’s. Good talk. 10 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said: Thurm. Without question you are just incredible at evasive maneuvers. You were obviously and pretty clearly implying something by mentioning Duccasse, Humber and Zay Jones in the same breath as Taylor. So you respond to Stank's post that says this: ["Well then I'll take the statement at face value and respond like this.... sure. Those guys had a role. Not nearly as big as the qb's.] And try to act as though he finally gets you when you still imply, pretty obviously, that Taylor's role was minimal and could be fairly compared with players like Humber, Ducasse, and Jones, which is absolutely preposterous. You are the King of wiggling out of admitting you say stupid stuff, which makes you look even worse than when you initially say it. Not wiggling out of anything here. I do admit to holding back and not attacking the dumber part of his post. Is that wrong? Yeah, I agree that that part of his post, "Not nearly as big as the QBs," was wildly missing the point. You're right about that. I mean, it's stupid on the face of it. Did more credit for the Ravens 2000 Super Bowl winning season fall on the shoulders of Trent Dilfer because he was the quarterback than belonged to Ed Reed or Ray Lewis? You're right. The idea's just plain dumb. Dilfer was on another team the next year for a reason. That's part of the reason I said in the same post that it had been a terrible talk. It really had. And it's also the reason I said, "at least you finally get me," rather than "Yeah, you completely get it" or something totally positive. Yeah, that part of his post was dumb. You're right. But at least he finally got the other part. "Those guys had a role," he said. Exactly. Tyrod had a role and so did everyone else. Wins and losses are team achievements. That was indeed what I'd been trying to say, and he hadn't even managed to hear that until that post. Then he did. That was good. I thought it would be nicer to compliment that than to point out the nonsense that came after. This is the final profound truth. The wins and losses go to the teams. Period. End of story. But some sad people keep on trying to forget this and say nonsense like, "Sure, it's a team thing ... but let's ignore that and stupidly and impossibly try to divide up the credit and the responsibilities so I can make my favorite guy look better." Like, "QBs get more credit ..." and that kind of codswallop. So since you managed to ignore the correct part of what he said and endorse the nonsense, I guess I have to go ahead and give the obvious and correct counter. Which is this: Tyrod gets more credit? Nah. No particular reason to think so. I compared his role to Ducasse's and those other guys? Yup. They were 2017 Buffalo Bills. Ducasse had a pretty good season actually. He was a better guard for most of the year than Tyrod was a QB. Once you start to say he gets more credit because he's a QB you have to also face up to the fact that for a starter, Tyrod was a below-average passing QB and passing is in the end what you need your QB to be good at. You have to look at the fact that the offense was weaker than the defense despite the fact that the run game was quite strong. That when the passing offense was arguably the weakest of the four phases and really weaker than the STs too, that that's not a real good argument that the quarterback deserves more credit than most other players. Maybe if you turn the word from "credit" to "responsibility" you have something nearer a decent argument. Dividing up the credit is a losing game. There's no reasonable way to do it. Tyrod gets his share of the credit / responsibility. So does everyone else, including the coaches. It's a team game. Who gets the credit / responsibility is the team. End of story. Edited March 14, 2018 by Thurman#1 1
Saxum Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 Via Zac Jackson of The Athletic, Hue Jackson told reporters Tuesday that the Browns had to come with a strong offer if they wanted to make a deal for Taylor. The Browns sent their third-round pick (No. 65 overall and the first pick in Round 3) to the Bills in exchange for Taylor in a deal agreed to in the days before the league year opened March 14. Jackson named Taylor as the starting quarterback the day he was officially acquired. He said Tuesday that he would like Taylor to start the entire 2018 season and that the Browns want the quarterback they select in the draft to essentially use 2018 as a redshirt year. Fake News by Buffalo News right? QB experts on the board state NO team would trade for Tyrod and at least three were interested. I checked the link figuring it was a fake news site since article was available on Buffalo News but it appears. http://buffalonews.com/2018/03/28/browns-coach-bills-had-multiple-offers-for-tyrod-taylor/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_campaign=puma&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1522255809
HappyDays Posted March 28, 2018 Posted March 28, 2018 That makes me think they really are going to draft Josh Allen. If they're already sure they want the rookie to sit the whole year it has to be him.
Recommended Posts