BuffaloHokie13

Washington - The D allowed 35 points in the first 3 quarters. 5 of Washington's first 7 drives were TDs, one was a punt, and one was the end of the half. Eagles - One of the 3 offensive letdowns that I outlined in another thread Ravens - Another of the 3 O letdowns Patsies** (D held Patsies** to 14 points and got football back late) - I'm guessing you mean the one where we held them to 20, not 14. That would be the 3rd of my offensive letdowns. Fish (several times) - by several do you mean 2? Because we swept them in '15. And in week 16 we scored the go ahead TD with 1:20 left in the 4th. D couldn't hold, went to OT. First drive of OT we drive to FG range and the kick is missed. Hawks - D allowed 28 points in the first half. Also, the end of the half was a major killer. Carp gets mugged, then makes kick but refs call it off for their own clock error, then he misses. That kick goes through and the final drive is for a FG to force OT instead of going for it on 4th & 15. Pittsburgh - We scored TDs on both of our final 2 drives, dunno how many more in a row should be expected.

I haven't actually looked it up for this situation specifically, but generally when your defense is good they keep more games close enough for comebacks to happen. It's part of why Russ Wilson was able to make a comeback in that playoff game where he threw 4 picks to start the game, for instance. When your defense can keep you in it you just need one of your final drives to be successful. When they can't you make the go ahead score with 1:20 left on the clock and somehow end up in overtime anyway

Amazing what's possible when you're backed up by the #4 and #2 Defense by DVOA vs #24 and #26!

2 30+ yard TDs called back on penalties too

Giants vs Bills - 18 carries for 40 yards 0 TDs

I'm HC now, and if you don't like it then don't worry. I'll walk out on the team on New Year's Eve.

You mean like the Jets? link Or the Browns? link1 link 2 Or the 49ers? link And no, nobody was trading for him. They wanted to go forward with their own deals. So you meant to say he isn't a long term solution for anyone at QB and you accidentally said no team was interested in him as a starter. It's an understandable mistake, but it doesn't change that the statement I took issue with was false.

And again you are confusing contracts with roster roles. A handful of teams were interested in Tyrod as their starter if he were to be released. A couple of them would have offered more than Buffalo did. None were offering his original contract, and I have never alluded to that. That doesn't change that the teams wanted him as their starter, which you definitively said no team did. That's my point!

You've revised your stance pretty heavily since the piece I took issue with from what I can tell. 'There were no other teams interested in him as a starter.' I agree, but who said anything about him playing under his original contract? Certainly not me. The statement I took issue with mentioned nothing about bridge vs. long term. You said no team was interested in him as a starter. There are a handful of teams that would have been quite happy if Buffalo cut ties with Tyrod because he would be their starter. None of them could have put in an offer because he was under contract the entire time. So again I'll ask, what 'actual response' were you expecting to see? Yes, you did exactly that... So we went from 'No teams were interested in him as a starter.' to 'No teams were interested in him as a starter under his original contract.' to 'He's a bridge, not a long term option.' to 'I'm not denying teams had interest in him.'

Right. Should've said they don't set the lines based on what they expect to happen in the game. It is all about what they expect people to put their money on.

Again, not commenting on his role whatsoever in this topic. I simply wanted to provide context to someone who was using incorrect information. The teams who wanted him as their starter are generally who you'd expect, Kirby's gotten them all before plus or minus one. The couple teams that were interested who people here wouldn't expect were teams that wanted him to sit 1 more year, and they were offering more over the contract than the teams with bad QBs looking for a quick fix. What sort of 'actual response' are you expecting, by the way? They can't say they talked numbers with his agent and no teams were trying to trade for his contract at the time.

That's not what I'm talking about. Relax, it's okay.

Exactly. I can tell you the teams, but to what end? So you can see them and ask for more proof of some other kind? It's a pointless request. Buffalo was the best fit for him because they brought in an OC he is familiar with that is also familiar with him, and they have some quality (when healthy) skill position players that he is already familiar with.

This is false. I'm not going to go further than that because I prefer to keep private conversations private.

Pro Football Focus ✔ @PFF No quarterback in the NFL forced more missed tackles in 2016 than Tyrod Taylor.

In 2016, Fitz's INT% (4.2) was higher than Tyrod's TD% (3.9), which was higher than Fitz's TD% (3.0), which was higher than Tyrod's INT% (1.4)

FWIW (very little), of all the 32 starting QBs listed in the article (No rookies were slotted as starters) Tyrod had the 10th highest grade from '16. Found it very odd.

Ha ha. It wasn't my intention, but the grades are based off of last year. I won't pretend to understand McCoy's grade, but Watkins and Dareus both only played in 8 games.

You've got Tampa and Bucs listed, but otherwise I agree.

Vegas sets lines based on public perception, not what they expect to happen.

It's like the Browns last year. Didn't they start like 5 or 6 different QBs throughout the season?

Still, at that time that pairing was the GOAT QB and the GOAT HC together at the same time.

In the ESPN thing I posted in the other topic it went: 29. Browns 30. 49ers 31. Rams 32. Jets

Montana/Walsh?

I don't think so, necessarily. Titans at 3 also have 3 rookies slotted as starters.