transplantbillsfan

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.

I don't jump in every single time. Pretty sure it's a free country. Pretty sure this is a discussion board. Pretty sure good discussion arises from parties with differing opinions. Why is it so bothersome to you that I interject when people say stuff about Taylor that I disagree with?

Why... you're right... and then Taylor was retained after 2015.... and then Taylor was retained after 2016 with a brand new coach and regime, despite everyone thinking he'd be inevitably gone... and now people are saying Taylor will be inevitably gone... will history repeat itself? does our Head Coach repeat the offseason of 2016 and choose to stick with the QB he defiantly choose to stick with last offseason when everyone thought he wouldn't? stay tuned Well, I love the Buffalo Bills and I like talking QBs. Taylor is the Buffalo Bills QB. And it's not all I talk about, I talk about the draft prospects at QB, too, and once we draft one of them I'll talk a lot more about him. But I don't really enjoy putting a lot of effort into guessing games. Whoever we get at QB, I'm stoked. And I'll talk about him along with Taylor, if Taylor's still on the team. Don't you worry

Not fully answering a question I've answered dozens of times. But in part, it's because some of you are utterly and ridiculously hyperbolic when it comes to arguing how bad Taylor is.

You mad, bro? No ringing endorsement? All of this is, as Sal says, in how you parse the language. It's that simple. You're going to read what you want to read. One thing that's pretty undeniable, though, is the fact that a lot of folks here believed Taylor would be flat-out cut because paying him the $6 million would be ridiculous. Well, those people look like they're wrong. And those people are also likely now backtracking, which is fine. As for my own personal feelings on what I want to do with Taylor and the QB position specifically... I'd trade Taylor in part of a package to trade up to the top 5 so we can land Rosen/Darnold/Mayfield if I could. I don't care if Taylor is under center. I just want our offense and team as a whole to get better. I want Darnold or Mayfield or Rosen or even Jackson. I'd be happy if we landed Cousins in FA, I just don't think it's happening. Taylor would be my ideal option #5 or #6. Not the best, but unlike some of you, I view him (and I think McBeane and reality views him) as far from the worst option and one we can make a serious playoff run with... again

I hope we acquire a great QB in the draft, too. Sounds like you'd be upset if Lamar Jackson were the pick, though.

Yes, because using those phrases means it's very unlikely he will be back... those phrases couldn't mean exactly what they mean... like that the Bills aren't planning on cutting Taylor or trading him, unless something they feel worthy of doing comes up

Thank God this was a bunch of crap. Love Shady. I think he's the 2nd Bills jersey I ever buy. The first was Fast Freddy.

Is he hurt? If not, I want him!

Who are you and why should we care? I'd love to see a list of posters saying this so we can come back to it mid-September and see who's actually watching the games.

You did say the best running game in the NFL far and away. You're right, they were, especially for 2015, but that's largely because of Taylor's rushing yards. Yeah, they only drop to #3, but #3 certainly is not "far and away the best running game in the NFL." And I think it's funny that you neglect 2016 where Taylor heavily impacted the rankings of our running game, which drop precipitously without his rushing numbers. No, 78% of the voters think Taylor won't be back in a Bills uniform in 2018. It's not that 78% of the voters don't want him back. Those questions aren't the same. Many of those voters/posters actually believed Taylor would be cut and that the Bills would never consider paying him that $6 million bonus due after March 16th. It's still a few weeks away, but both Beane and McDermott publicly dismissed the notion that the bonus was even an issue at the combine today. And while both are still being coy about the QB chatter (and rightly so), it certainly doesn't sound like Tyrod Taylor should pack his bags over the next couple weeks. And it's already sounding like a bunch of people were just plain wrong already in saying Taylor would be cut.

Btw, Taylor was one of the biggest reasons the Bills had the #1 rushing attack in the NFL, particularly in 2015. 2016 without Taylor's numbers Bills drop down to #3. 2015 without Taylor's numbers Bills drop out of the top 10 to #11.

Yes, I put up net yards. Does it bother you that Taylor and Bradford were less than 15 yards apart in terms of per game production? Or does it bother you that purely as a passer Taylor was actually more efficient? Or does it bother you that Taylor had 8 more TDs and 12 fewer turnovers than Bradford in a 29 game span that you're evidently just raving over for Bradford? Just a bit confused... let's just stick a fork in Bradford already... he's not the QB you're looking for. That last phrase will only have the desired impact if you picture an old man in a robe named Obi Wan waiving his hand in front of you and saying that at the same time

Shady, I want to thank you for the advice. I use rep for others because I know there are those who value it and sometimes it's better to give rep than respond, is it not? Now that I've pushed you over 1000, are the balloons colorful and the kittens playful?

A bit of the problem here... no context, which I think is something all the anTy Taylor guys consistently argue is necessary. There's the Seattle game. The Miami game last year. The KC game in 2015 that involved a strange "drop" and non-challenge. A Zay Jones drop in Carolina. 2 reversed TDs on phantom penalties in a 2 TD loss against the Giants in 2015. Taylor's not great. He's not a Franchise QB. But he's probably going to be our best option as a Bridge QB in 2018 assuming McBeane want the rookie to sit to start the year. Bortles was just awful that day. Did you actually watch that guy pass the football? Good God... and that guy just got a 3 year contract for $18 million a year. Hey... we got Tyrod for the same contract... but one year and out... not too shabby

Weird, if we're going by QB/passing play in the Jags game, Taylor was better than Bortles if you actually watched that game. Nicely done

Sooo... only the negative stats matter... is that about right? No. He doesn't. But you do, at least as far as posters go.