somnus00

The Ravens' fan base appears to be somewhat upset with this Dean Pees fellow. By the way, is it poetic justice that it was the Ravens who provided the Bills with a "surcease of sorrow?"

Considering our history, I'd expect the Ravens, Titans AND Chargers to lose...everything going our way...then we blow a late lead in Miami and still miss the playoffs.

Even the guys during the CBS halftime report said that they couldn't believe that wasn't a touchdown. So it's not just Bills fans.

A healthy Tony Boselli was an amazing tackle. But did he play enough games make it to the Hall? I can see arguments for and against.

"Teams that win find a plan and stick with it." I don't think anyone would disagree with that statement. The question here is, "Is Tyrod the winning plan, and should we stick with him?" By playing Peterman, McDermott is telling us that he doesn't think Tyrod is part of the long term winning plan. So he starts Peterman to see what the kid has. Anyone who sees Tyrod as a long term franchise QB will be upset by the move to Peterman. I happen to think that Tyrod would make a fantastic back-up QB. So I wasn't upset with his benching.

"It's just skin, Steven."

I couldn't agree more. I like Tyrod as well. I think he's a great guy, and he can play in this league...as a good back-up QB. He'd be an ideal fit for this. He rarely does anything to lose you the game. He rarely does anything to win you the game. He'll manage the offense and keep your team at .500 while the starter is out. Peterman had a horrendous game. But with our defense playing the way it is, we're not making the playoffs with Tom Brady behind center. It was worth seeing what Peterman could do. We already know what we have in Tyrod.

Let me see if I understand the logic of this thread. Peterman had a horrible game, so that automatically means Tyrod isn't terrible? Okay.

People find the oddest things on which to focus. Being from sunny states isn't what made Trent and Losman bad quarterbacks.

I haven't seen an arm like Peterman's since Rico back in '82.

I like Tyrod more than a lot of people on this board. He's a guy with great character. Hard worker. He rarely does something to lose you the game. But he'll also rarely do something to win you the game. He's a game managing QB that can keep your team at .500 while the starter is out. Tyrod is an ideal backup despite people talking up his rankings. I mean, if the defense gives the offense the ball inside the opponents 20, does anyone here have faith that Tyrod will put the ball in the endzone? I'm interested to see what Peterman can do because we still need a starter, in my opinion. But we have to temper our expectations here. We're likely going to see some good QB play mixed in with some bad QB play. I guess this would fit in with the Favre comparison.

Does my opinion change? No. I love this team and where it's headed. They're well coached/prepared. They seem to play better as the game goes on. A lot of positives. But there are weaknesses too. The offense worries me. This offence only scored 1 touchdown last game. Only 3 touchdowns in the last 3 games. We're lucky that the defense and special teams have been playing lights-out. Yes, I know we played some tough defenses. But we still have to start punching it into the endzone. Besides Shady, we don't have big play threats (no offense to Clay and Tyrod). Having said that, I think we go on a run. I expect Week 12 against the Chiefs to be a very interesting game. Go Bills!

This is why we can't have nice things.

"What you want to do is throw a 60 yard bomb. If your guy isn't open down the field, just skip it off the turf on the 5 yard cross." Seriously though, he was a cool dude who embraced the city of Buffalo. His bombs to Lee Evans were fun to watch.

The best Applebee's in the country.

Well stated. Tyrod has great character so that makes it easy to cheer for him. But if he doesn't pull it together this year, we have to be ready to move on.

I know a lot of people here wanted the Bills to clean house, but I really wanted us to keep Monos.

You don't understand. Logic 'round these parts is that when a "dumb" decision is made, Whaley is in charge and needs to go. When a good move is made, Whaley didn't make the decision because he isn't in charge and will be gone in a week. TBD logic (such as it is).

Loud noises!!! Whaley needs to go. How could he pick this guy in the 5th round when Player x** and or Chad Kelly*** was there? Rabble rabble rabble... ** Player x equals a guy I've never watched play, I just fell in love with him as a sleeper when I read an obscure scouting report. *** Chad Kelly equals Ryan Leaf.

He could've gone pro. If coach put him in 4th quarter, they would've won state. No doubt in my mind.

I didn't say talented Wrs don't matter. I'm saying that taking one in the top 10 has rarely helped a struggling team get over the hump. Specifically because struggling teams usually don't have a franchise QB. Additionally, I didn't advocate, in my comment, that we take one of the top rated QBs in this years draft. I was just mentioning that there are still questions about Tyrod being that franchise guy. If we're staying put at 10, I want an impact guy. A rookie WRs ability to impact our team will rely on our questionable QB getting him the ball. Jeez, having Terrell Owens didn't impact our passing game because we had Trent Edwards throwing him the ball. I want Tyrod to succeed. I like him. But I'm not sold that he can be the guy. And I don't think you can just say that Tyrod hasn't succeeded because he doesn't have the weapons. Not with certainty any way. If bad receivers were the problem, there would he a good chance that this would reflect in Tyrod having a low completion percentage, or high interception rate. Taylor had neither. Sure there's a chance that Tyrod just needs more weapons. There's a chance that Williams/Davis/Ross will be able to make the transition to the NFL right away. But you have to put those odds against the chance that one of the top defenders will have an immediate impact. I'd say that history is on my side. But if the Bills take one of the WRs, I'll be cheering for them on Sundays, hoping for the chance to eat crow.

How many times over the past 20 years has a team selecting a WR in the top 10 gone on to post season success? It's very rare. Atlanta is one, but they had their franchise QB, plus they were already a good team that gave away a draft class to move up for Julio Jones. Mike Williams and Corey Davis are really good. But this team has needs. A receiver will not take us over the top when we don't have a sure franchise QB. Bad teams in our position take WRs in the top 10. Can we please stop with the calls for the Bills to take a receiver at 10?

Almost word for word what I was planning on writing.

Agreed. You are right. To your point, I'd like to see what Ragland has at mike before adding another.

I'm not a scout, but I don't see what everyone else see's in Foster. To me he looks like he's slowed down on the field because he's thinking too much. As a result, he seems to play smart, but reactionary football. On the other hand, watch someone like Haason Reddick play. That guy attacks the offense and just plays faster. Cliche to say this, but Foster has a higher floor, Reddick has a higher ceiling. But I'd take Reddick over Foster all day.