Thurman#1

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

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.

It's not fixed, it's not influenced, it's nothing. The risk/reward ratio for doing something so stupid would be so far out of whack. Just wouldn't make sense. It would be like taking the risk of murdering someone for the potential reward of a half a piece of toast. The fan base of nearly every team is convinced that the league hates them. The league doesn't hate anyone. They just make a ton of mistakes, which will happen in nearly any huge organization. Another good point.

Me either. Not sure he'd even notice. And there's no particular reason why he should.

Sigh. Team stat. QBs should be evaluated on how he plays QB, not how well the weak-side LB plays, or the field goal kicker or the head coach, or, well, anybody. Wins is a team stat. It just is.

If you think averaging sixteen INTs a year is "occasionally," your thinking is a bit clouded on the issue. 80 TDs and 64 INTs, that was Fitzy's Buffalo legacy. Precisely an INT per game. In the modern NFL that was never going to work, and especially not with only that number of TDs. I liked the guy, same as I like Tyrod. But both were always unlikely to be the answer and their play quickly supported that likelihood. Again, Tyrod is better than Fitzy, but that's not any badge of honor.

Please. I inserted the bold text in your post above. Fitzy's in Tyrod's neighborhood. Both below average. Both tempting enough to make coaches think they can fix him and thus getting chances (I'm assuming in Tyrod's case) when better options aren't available. But Tyrod's better than Fitzy. That's not saying much.

He's a below-the-middle of the league QB. Somewhere around 20th. And in that range, teams are unanimously looking to upgrade except if their guy is extremely early in his career and thus might still see a light come on. Everybody's production teeters either way based on their supporting casts. But Tyrod is still below average. He's a guy who can maybe get you to a playoff game with a good supporting cast or a bad group of competitors for the AFC wild card spots. But who cares? Plenty of QBs are good enough to get you a wild card spot when surrounded by good players. Last year Osweiler and Savage managed it with the Texans, Tannehill and Moore with the Dolphins. In 2015, Hoyer, Mallett, Yates and Weeden got the Texans in. And Bridgewater got the Vikes there too (he's young enough that I still have some hopes, actually). In 2014, Drew Stanton started nine games for the Cards and got them into the playoffs. The same year Newton, still not a sure thing and managing only an 82.4 passer rating that year, got the Panthers in with a 7-8-1 record. Any Lombardi trophies in that group? Leading a team to a one-and-done in the playoffs is less of a big deal than most Bills fans are remembering. As for Taylor vs. Cutler vs. McCown? If healthy, McCown. Higher ceiling. Assuming Josh would be injured, it's a tossup, sad to say. If I'm a coach in a make or break year with Tyrod or Cutler as my QB I"m saying - with justification - to my management, "Hey, look at who I have at QB here. What do you expect?"

Yeah, shocking to see fans excusing McDermott for not picking DeShone Kizer, Davis Webb, CJ Beathard, or Joshua Dobbs. Boy, it just makes my blood boil when I think .... zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Ah, nice little nap. And yeah it's easy to blame the QB when he's not playing below average, which is consistently the case with Tyrod. Most fans are highly aware that Tyrod isn't the only cause. Your post and the OP are basically straw men. Almost nobody blames the whole season on Tyrod. It's obvious to everyone that this team has a lot of problems. But yeah, Tyrod is one of them.

I can imagine someone trading for Tyrod. Not that they'd give a lot, but if you want him trading eliminates all competition for him. Don't see the Giants at all interested, though, they wouldn't want him as a starter and they've got a backup. You're underestimating Glenn's value, IMHO. He's been healthy as a horse his whole career. Yeah, this one injury has lasted a long time, but it's not usually a career destroyer. He'll bring back value from someone if they trade him. Might be nice to have really good tackles on both sides of the line, though, and keep both Glenn and Dawkins.

It certainly is not all the Bills need. They do need one but they need plenty of other things too. Another serious pass rusher for one, but anyone who couldn't come up with needs two, three, four and five just hasn't been watching. As for what they can do, I don't see them able to trade up to pick one or two. Maybe if one of the big two falls just a bit to #4 or #5 we'd have a shot. Less so if we win the next game and the Chiefs win a playoff game.

No. "... especially if the team intends to commit to offensive coordinator Rick Dennison." I'd love Smith as a bridge / insurance guy. Don't want just him and not a high draft pick. Tyrod is slightly below average. Smith is slightly above average. And has actually been better than that this year.

Start of the season? McCown. Maybe Bridgewater if they decide to go FA and draft. I'd love Cousins but I'd guess he'll be very popular out there.

We've had nine new coaches for the years since 2001. Of course that includes Perry Fewell and Anthony Lynn, coaches only for a few games. Still seven new coaches in seventeen years. If we did just fine with new coaches, our overall numbers would be pretty good. They aren't. A new coach isn't necessarily anything that upsets the tendency.

Hunh. I knew it was a trend but didn't realize what a powerful one. Interesting.

You don't throw out all the good games. You count em up and total them and you find there are more mediocre and bad ones. The good ones absolutely count. Unfortunately for Tyrod, so do all the rest. And again, winning percentage is a team stat, not a QB stat. Anyone not getting that is ... well, not getting it. Pretending that a QB is either a winner or loser because a field goal kicker misses or makes a game-winner is flat-out clueless. If an RB fumbles five times does the QB who played well suck because the team lost? The whole idea is dumb. You evaluate a QB based on how the QB plays. Period. And Tyrod has played inconsistent and slightly below average overall. And more to the point, he hasn't played well from the pocket during the regime of a head coach who has said that the requirement for his QBs is that they have to play well from the pocket.

Winning now and planning for the future in this case each require different, opposed actions. Like getting a consistent deep dark sun tan while protecting yourself against future skin cancer. Winning now by not teaching the offense they'll use in the future would mean starting all over again next year. That will hurt next year's team. Dennison may not be here, I have no clue. But his offense isn't a quirky and unusual one, unless he had adjusted it to coddle Tyrod. Assuming Rico's gone they can bring in a guy who will require his QB to pass from the pocket. Great. Get the OL used to that now, and the skill position guys who'll be here next year as well.

It wasn't using Tyrod differently that caused the drop in scoring. It was changing the blocking scheme on run plays. Tyrod's been about the same all three years after the first eight or nine weeks of his first year, when they started catching on as to how to play him. He's on track to rack up maybe 200 yards less this season than the last two. That's not a big deal. Maybe a couple of passing TDs less than last year. Again, not a big deal. Whereas we have scored 11 rushing TDs so far this year (14th in the league, not bad) while last year we finished with 29, an insanely good number and by far the highest in the league. Second-best last year? Dallas with 24. 3rd-best last year? The Cardinals and Falcons, who tied with 20. That's where the drop came from. Not from not adjusting how we use Tyrod. Again, 29 rushing TDs last year and we're on a pace to not get half that this year.

No thanks, not in a year where the absolute ceiling is squeaking into the playoffs as a fodder team at the cost of performing well next year when with luck we might actually be good. Don't teach a scheme you're only going to use for a year. Teach the scheme you're going to be using for the foreseeable future. Bring in the guys who will make it work.

My druthers? 8-8 and a better shot at trading up.

Same way Tom Landry had four wins in his first two seasons. Sometimes it comes down to a bad situation. Sometimes not. But sometimes coaches lose because they're hamstrung. I don't know how good a job Hue is doing but if people close to the situation figure he's doing a good job, I'd be willing to believe it.

Disagree. They've got a lot of young talent. They're in a great position. It all depends on QB, but I could easily see them very good two years from now if they get a QB playing well. I think you raise an interesting point about Dorsey, though. I'm not sure he's as slamdunk as many assume, so if that doesn't work out they could be in for a lot of years of hell. My guess is he's good enough, but time will tell. 1969. 1-13. Since then they've never had less than five wins.

No. He's often had a good game or two in a row. Point is he's inconsistent and has major holes in his game that aren't going to change. He's who he is, and who he is ... is not a franchise QB and certainly not a pocket QB. I wish he was. But he's not. I can imagine a slight chance ... 5%? ... that they bring him back next year as a bridge but I doubt they even do that. My guess is that if they feel they need a bridge that they bring in one who fits the QB pre-requisite that McDermott laid out. They said before the season that a QB in their system must be good from the pocket. Given a chance to show he could be that, Tyrod didn't manage it.

The reason why most scoring throws from distance are outside the hashes now ... is that ... wait for it ... outside the hashes is most of the field. Inside the hashes is 18.5 feet. The hash itself is two feet long. The field is 160 feet wide. So outside the hashes is 160 - 22.5 feet. Of course most of the long TD passes are outside the hashes. So are most of every kind of pass thrown, at any distance, TD or not. But the idea that Benjamin's fit only for a west coast offense is ridiculous. He wasn't in a west coast scheme in Carolina. And plenty of tall but not super-fast WRs do very well in the NFL right now, in a variety of systems.

I imagine the Steelers are pretty happy they took the third-best guy a few years ago in the first. Last year, Watson was the #3. This is apparently a year where there may well be more than two guys with a pretty good shot at being a franchise guy. Being after the first two picked doesn't make you a middle of the road prospect, especially not this year.