OldTimer1960

Are you saying that if the Bills had a top 1/3 of the league QB and good WRs playing that they would still have turtled on offense? I disagree with that assertion- but given who they have, I don’t really fault the offensive play calling.

But they go hand in hand - scoring only 16 points doesn’t work when the D is giving up 35

What are you talking about? If they pass and it is incomplete, KC retains a timeout. They judged that it was better to force KC to use TOs than it was to take a chance on an incomplete pass. I guess I could make an argument that they could have had Taylor roll out and eat the ball if there was no sure completion available. Still, you have to recognize that available personnel has a lot to do with what plays you can reasonably call.

That is exactly what he did. He didn’t have confidence that the players he has could complete a pass, so he called 3x runs.

Agree with this. A 15 yard penalty should be called only when obvious. There was almost no contact and he gave a 15 yard gift

It is time to stop blaming Dennison. The offense lacks the talent to do much with. Benjamin out, Mathews not fully healthy, OK OL and Taylor is OK, but bottom 1/3 of the league as a starter. if you start with mediocre ingredients, you can’t really blame the Chef for how the meal turns out.

Calls are dictated by the players - coaches didn't have confidence that Taylor would complete a pass, so chose to run 3x to force KC to burn TOs. High backfire probability, but I understand why they did what they did.

I don't think this is Dennison being conservative to be conservative, he is not confident in Taylor. What a GREAT offensive series that was....

Boy, I hate that we look like we will run 3 times and punt. KC has to sell out to stop the run, but we won't take advantage of that.

Watching this game slip away. The D played well up till now, shame the O couldn't put up more than 16.

Taylor has been OK today, but that last series where he robbed O'Leary of the chance to run with an inaccurate pass is one reason they are looking to do better than him. Please don't start a flame war over this post. I give Taylor his due, but he is really a guy who the team needs to replace in order to become a serious playoff contender. If they are satisfied with trying to hover around .500 and maybe squeak into the playoffs if they build a solid D, then he is the guy.

Are you thinking of Derek Carr of the Raiders not being a bust? Derek’s brother David was the first overall pick the year he was drafted and established himself as a good starter.

I think that they want to make sure that Garoppolo has time to learn the offense before they put him in a game. Even if he is good, he could look terrible if he doesn't know the offense when he is put in the game.

There is room to say that Taylor doesn’t suck and also to say that he isn’t a long-term answer for a team aspiring to be serious contenders. It isn’t binary “sucks” or “great”. i appreciate and recognize Taylor as the best QB that the Bills have had in a long time, but I still don’t think he is good enough to not be looking for an upgrade. That is not disrespectful to Taylor, just hoping for better.

IF you can find a genuine very good starting QB in the draft, then you have a 5 year window to build around him ia the draft before he gets paid big and you have to skimp on other positions.

It sounds crazy, but it just may work...

My thought on this is that they didn't really believe that they have a competitive playoff team this year to begin with, so they are installing what they believe will be a more typical NFL offense vs one that would maximize Taylor's skills and de-emphasize his weaknesses. I don't think it is a conspiracy to make Taylor look bad. If they don't think that Taylor is the long term answer, then it makes sense not to tailor the offense around him for short-term gain. Taylor is a bit unique - he has some skills, but not ones that fit a normal NFL offense. If they ran the offense around Taylor's strengths this year, there would be little carryover to the offense that they will run next year with a different QB. if they believed that Taylor was a long-term answer at QB, they WOULD design the offense around him.

Ok, maybe two deep. Taylor's contract represents what the leagu thinks of him - it is stop-gap starter money. Look at the 32 starting QBs in the league and see if you can find 10 that you would pick Tyrod over. Keep in mind on young guys like Mariota that they may improve, whereas after 7 years in the NFL and 2.5 as a starter we have likely seen Tyrod's best or very close to it. To be clear - I respect Tyrod Taylor and acknowledge that he is a decent stop-gap starter. That isn't anything to disparage, but any team in the league that has Tyrod would be really looking for his replacement.

I respectfully disagree with "middle of the road starter"'. I have a lot of respect for Taylor - he works hard, seems to be a leader and has maximized his talent. However, we saw last offseason that the line of NFL teams desiring him to be their starter was 1 deep (Bills). He is certainly good enough not to be an embarrassment as a starter, but his passing is very limited. That really isn't good enough if you are trying to be a serious threat in the playoffs. The Bills do not have a dominant defense and they have won zero game because Taylor carried them to victory. The way the defense is playing, the coaches did not think Tyrod could keep up on offense, so they took a chance on Peterman. That failed, but those portraying that the Bills would have beaten the Chargers "if only Tyrod had started" are wrong.

Why is that a joke? They can try to win today AND try to build for the future. I understand that those are competing priorities, but they are not mutually exclusive as some in the media and here suggest.

Agreed - if there is anyone on that team that thinks they lost solely because of playing Peterman instead of Taylor, then they need to take a long look in the mirror. The defense overall and the OL are a shambles. I know KC is struggling, but I’ll be very surprised if KC doesn’t score at least 30. I think 3-3 is optistic with the way the defense has been exposed.

I agree with most of what you stated, but I disagree that the move away from Tyrod was made in panic. I think that the coaches saw that: 1. The defense has been exposed and will be giving up huge amounts of points most weeks for the remainder of the season. 2. Tyrod's unwillingness to take any sort of chance on thows down field is not compatible with the defense giving up huge points. I think that they thought that Peterman would be more willing to throw downfield which would at least provide a hope for scoring enough to keep up with what the defense will give up. Obviously, that worked out very poorly in Peterman's lone start, but I don't think anyone should delude themselves into thinking that the Bills would have won that game if Tyrod had started. I still think the defense would have given up at least 35 points, even if the offense had zero turnovers. I don't think the defense is being out-coached as much as it is getting out-manned in talent. They do not have the talent to hold up unless they get lucky on a few picks/fumble recoveries.

I think that CB is probably the least of their needs. DL, LB, OL are the big needs...

It is a fantasy to think this team was in the playoff hunt, despite their 5-4 record going into today. the defense is awful - can anyone really suggest that the Bills offense could have put up the 40 points necessary to beat the Chargers with Taylor at the helm and no turnovers?

I don't think anyone argued that it could not get worse than Taylor. That does not mean that Taylor is the answer. Taylor cannot carry an offense in any way. He can succeed at a mid-level, if surrounded by very good talent and supported by an exceptional defense - neither exist here today.