transplantbillsfan

Really? Is there even 5% who still think Tyrod is the long term answer? I think you're seriously overestimating there. What comments indicate to you that they view him as a last resort only? This is the kind of ridiculous hyperbole that causes friction here. I think we can ALL acknowledge that Tyrod is not choice #1 as who to put under center in a vacuum in 2018. The problem is, this decision won't be made in a vacuum. So, while McBeane very likely would love to have Rosen/Darnold/Cousins/Mayfield/Luck/Brees under center in 2018 over Tyrod Taylor, there are things they need to consider and weigh in terms of their options... things that it sounds like you won't understand simply because you don't agree with these things, but just a couple of them include: - We have an aging team with plenty of holes and 5 draft picks in the first 3 rounds we could use to build a foundation for this team and make them younger... acquiring Rosen/Darnold/Mayfield would require us to sacrifice the youth movement for at least another year - Cost of signing/acquiring a vet QB like Cousins/Luck/Brees

I don't even think this coming year is harder on paper, but that's why they play the games, anyway, right? Why does McDermott need to be "all in" with Tyrod OR have a toxic relationship with him? Why is it one or the other?

Ummm... what about our schedule tells you we're going to regress? I expect this team to be better next year, no matter who is at QB.

You seem upset... do you want a hug?

Soooo... you don't understand it because you don't agree with it? Really? Bradford's a walking injury.

Wasn't it 95% just a few days ago? Note that the "not a CHANCE Tyrod is a Bill in 2018!!!" narrative has been slowly shifting for the last month. Do we need to go through the stages of grief and provide counseling for this message board if Taylor is retained?

Yeah, right. Clearly that's what it says. It's the time of season where people will hilariously dismiss things that are directly stated that they don't like while also reading the tea-leaves psychoanalyzing exactly what is said in order to twist it into something they do like.

This is awesome. Seriously

Scenario #2... what if the Browns draft Darnold but they had him graded out almost exactly equal to another guy (Rosen, Mayfield or Allen) and then saw whichever guy they viewed as equal fall to their spot at #4. At that point, do they take calls from other teams offering Darnold to another team to draft the guy they wanted at 4 while acquiring multiple 1st round picks from another team like Buffalo? Does it cost less at that point if you're a team like Buffalo trading for Darnold who the Browns drafted at #1? I really don't think we'll trade up, but I think when teams have so many draft picks, they're more likely to offer up picks for maybe more of a fair deal.

There's an argument to be made for your model... but damn some people are just going to be screaming their heads off breaking their TVs and making claims they're done with the Bills if that's what happens. The Bills have 5 picks in the first 3 rounds. Those picks are valuable. This team is certainly getting old. We're going to need to worry about RB, OL and DT in particular simply because of the age of the players in those positions, not necessarily because they need the upgrades. Shady, Kyle, and Richie are all going to be gone within the next 2-3 years. Wood obviously just retired. McDermott's statement of "we are not as far along as people may think" could be viewed as a warning sign to temper expectations about making huge splashes for a QB in this draft because he and Beane see all this draft capital as an opportunity to flood the team with some young talent. I'm going to be really surprised if the team doesn't draft a QB in the 1st round, but not absolutely shocked. I really want us to draft one because this QB class just looks so damn top heavy and I think even if we stayed put at #21 and drafted Jackson or maybe Allen (yuck!) if they fall to us, in any other year they could be viewed as guys who might go in the top 10 or even top 5. But at the same time, if 5 QBs are drafted say in the top 20, that's going to push a lot of blue-chip talent down. We have 2 first round picks and 2 second round picks, so draft a QB at #21 at least and you'll still have 3 picks remaining in the first 2 rounds. That's the route I think we take. But really, nothing is going to shock me in this draft at all.

Yep... but at some point he's gotta be right. What a funny example of dismissing what was said positively as a smokescreen, yet perusing individual words and phrases with a microscope claiming "he said this, it means this!"

Anyone have a list of all the posters who are "done" if Tyrod is still a Bill next year? #notBillsfans

Not a ton there... but I think more and more that Jackson ends up being the pick. Gonna be interesting.

If the team gets better this offseason, we could win in the playoffs, even with Taylor if he's our QB another year. If teams with Blake Bortles, Case Keenum and Nick Foles all won multiple playoff games, so could a team helmed by Tyrod Taylor.

Remember, something changed since that benching: McDermott fired the OC who asked for Tyrod to be benched. And so it goes... we console ourselves that what we want to happen actually will happen as we completely dismiss the words that come out of their mouths.

Who? I want Andrew Luck, Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield, Cousins, maybe Jackson... then Taylor. That's eliminating all those out-of-the-box guys like Drew Brees, who might be a UFA, but c'mon... anyone really think he's not resigning with New Orleans? Obviously I take Brees in a heartbeat. So honest question, who has Taylor as choice # 1 or even choice # 2? I think there's a delusion on this board that there are people who want the Bills to go this offseason without acquiring a long-term upgrade at QB over Taylor and I don't think I've seen any single poster say that. Have you?

When I see someone reference how long they've been around something conjoined with a statement like the rest of that, I think the connotations are "well I have a strong sense of what I want to and think will happen, but I've seen some crazy stuff in all these years."

So why not give the entire quote? Why leave those few words out?

This wasn't an opinion, it was a presentation of a direct quote where one quote left out a mere 10 words. Maybe the D & C has a word limit. Nonetheless, what McDermott literally said is not an opinion, but what people say can be twisted by taking words out of context or omitting certain parts of what was said. Why do you think that writer left those words out?

I think this is pretty funny... Here are how 2 different sources present a quote by McDermott... notice that one omits a mere 10 words from what McDermott says, for some reason: https://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/2018/02/28/buffalo-bills-nfl-scouting-combine-tyrod-taylor-future-nfl-draft/381999002/ “At this point in the process … it's way too early to take anything off the table other than cutting him at this point, which is not in our plans. He's a good football player who has been instrumental in getting us to the playoffs. Whether it's Tyrod or any of our players, you look at what's out there, you look at your options, and you make decisions based on the best interests of your football team.” vs. http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-1/Quick-Hits-II-Bills-see-Taylor-on-their-roster/381c9772-ebef-41e3-baa6-e95e7fe7d022 “At this point in the process I’ve learned being around this league around 20 years that it’s way too early to take anything off the table, other than cutting him at this point, which is not in our plans,” McDermott said. “He’s a good football player who has been instrumental in getting us to the playoffs. At this point in the process, whether it’s Tyrod or any of our players, you look at what’s out there, you look at your options and you make decisions based on the best interests of your football team.” That's a really interesting omission.

I'm good, brah. Sorry, I guess maybe you speak to people you meet in person the way you speak to me, so maybe it's not vicious from your perspective. Maybe you think you're completely justified with everything you post. Good for you. Perception is reality I called you an idiot? I said you didn't have anything to offer the board? Please direct me to the post where I said those things and I'll apologize. You said the latter to me. You've followed me around in threads and called me out time and again despite claiming you're ignoring me. You haven't apologized. And I don't really care. Why are you upset I gave you rep points? You made it clear you value those. I don't really give a crap about rep on an Internet message board. You mentioned someone was docked 100 rep points at some point... I wouldn't care. When you said you valued those rep points, it made me realize there are those who really care about all those "likes," so I started giving more out because you made me realize people care about them. Would you prefer that I took away all the rep points I've ever given you? If you want me to, I will and I'll never give you another rep point again. Feel free to take away any of the rep points you've given me. I really don't care. As I referenced a few weeks ago, watch Black Mirror, season 3 episode 1, "Nosedive."

Funny... DaBillsFanSince1973 mentions the idea of reporting me earlier in this thread because I'm giving Rep points out to people... as though giving rep points is just plain reprehensible... but you and him are 2 of the most vicious posters on this message board in terms of personal attacks. and if what you were thinking as you read that statement was "only towards you," then there's your clue that you should probably just put me on your ignore list, old man

Did I call you an idiot or say (your words) "you don't have anything to offer this board" to you? I've said millions of times, I'm not guilt free. But I won't lash out until lashed at. Like here, for example, in this very douchy post that never involved him in the conversation and has nothing to do with the OP.

I've always been ready for that, but I don't think you are with people who don't agree with you. Your choice to ignore me before was your choice. Trust me, if you play nice, I'll play nice. But if you're a jackass to me, I'll be one back. I won't strike first, though.

Well... the message board is divided into specific topics through threads, isn't it? Shouldn't each of those threads be about that topic? Don't I limit my Taylor discussion to Taylor threads? What's the problem here? I know you think I'm argumentative, and I can be, sometimes. But it's usually about the topic itself and isn't personal in the way some get super personal here... and I won't name any names, but they know who they are. Shady, believe me, I've tried many, many times to bury the hatchet and start fresh with you. But you're seriously one of the worst culprits on this message board when it comes to hyperbole or tunnel vision or purposefully confusing the issue. Plus, you can be just plain confrontational. You and some of your ilk want absolutely everyone to agree with exactly what you say and apparently you guys love to wallow together in your slamming of Tyrod rather than discuss the issue with people who disagree with you, and that's fine, but it doesn't change that there are people who disagree with you here and that they are free to interject at any point. And you're free to ignore them. And in this statement alone it's super ironic that you say something about "post(ing) some HARD data to refute your comments," yet you are one of the most adamant stat detractors on this message board any time people bring stats into a discussion regarding Tyrod... unless they're negative.