transplantbillsfan

Yes. That's what he is. He's a QB who was in the NFL learning the game for 4 years before earning a starting job in year 5 when he began seeing any real regular season action. Oh, are you a teacher, too?

It's not that he's only going into his 3rd year. It's that he's going into his 3rd year as a starter. No, you don't look at him in comparison with other 3rd year starters like Mariota and Winston. He clearly has more NFL experience. BUT You also don't look at him in comparison with any 7th year starters drafted in the same draft like Newton. He clearly has less NFL experience. It's aggravating that people don't just talk about that reality.

Read it again. Let's see... Taylor's around 20. I said consistently a QB BETTER THAN TAYLOR would be CONSISTENTLY top 15. 20 does not equal 15, therefore, I did not say Taylor was a franchise QB. Unreal... and yes, I still point to reading comprehension issues.

I don't really know how to respond to this because it really doesn't have anything to do with what I posted...

Posts like this are just stupidly antagonistic and ultimately the reason all these Taylor arguments drag on. If Peterman is better than Taylor, who is good in the sense that, unlike QBs we've had in a very long time, he's an NFL starting QB, at worst. A QB who is "better than Taylor" would be likely at least a top 15 NFL QB since Taylor's, at worst, somewhere around 20. Consistently top 15 QBs are franchise QBs in my book. I don't know what your definition is.

You're right, people interpret things people post one way or another. Well, that's because it's based on what people say and the implications of what they say. Shaw corrected the assumption that Taylor's passer rating was super low in the 4th quarter because it somehow furthered an argument. Doesn't it stand to reason that if the cited passer rating was incorrect, the argument would be at least weaker, too? Also, and again, this has to do with interpreting what people say, but your 2nd to last sentence there sure does look like you're implying something about team wins as stronger indications of good QBs than stats. You're probably going to come back and say that's not what you mean, but it sure looks like that's what you mean. QBs with fewer wins than Taylor in 2016: Rivers Dalton Newton Palmer QBs with the same number of wins as Taylor in 2016: Brees Wentz Taylor's obviously not better than or as good as all those QBs, so this wins with QBs thing really needs to stop or be severely cut back.

Sorry. Teacher by trade. It's part of my daily practice to try to make the world less ignorant, however Herculean that task might be.

No. You're having a momentary reading comprehension problem.

Backup plan to compete with 2 other backup plans.

So you think Buffalo's intentions are for him to be the starter and savior of the franchise? I'm sure Buffalo has intentions for every single draft pick to be an All Pro. That's not what they (or any sane person) is expecting, though.

C'mon man... what a thoughtless response to a pretty thoughtful post, even if it's one I don't 100% agree with, either.

Dude, it's about how incredibly rare it is to find a QB who's even fairly consistently "starter level" in the NFL, not about anyone great. This isn't about propping Taylor up. It's saying that if he doesn't improve, Peterman is almost certainly NOT our long term answer. And it seems clear that's not McDermott's plan either considering the acquisition of a 2nd 1st round pick for next year so we have some ammunition to move up in the draft for our guy if need be. We should all be happy and we'll be lucky if Peterman becomes a good long term backup.

41 pages on a 5th round pick and I'm trying hard? Okay...

5th round or later QBs who performed at or above Taylor's level for 30 or more sustained games. Brady (who I mentioned), Cassel, Bulger and Fitz are the guys who fall under that category. Romo is a UDFA, which obviously makes him a gem, but if we're including the UDFA QBs in this then it's significantly more of a lottery. Did you seriously include Siemian and Anderson? I said back to 2000 simply so we could get some reasonable numbers for comparison. I only went back to 2010 (also because of a lack of time) and 33 QBs were drafted between rounds 5-7. I think it'd be incredibly conservative to say that at least 100 QBs were drafted from 2000-2016 between rounds 5-7. Out of those, you had 5 guys total who turned into legit NFL starters on various levels after 30 starts. Conservatively, at best 5% of those guys pan out into something since 2000 in terms of being an NFL starter. If you want to include Romo and bring in all the UDFAs, that number is a lot lower. As I said, that doesn't mean you don't draft the guys and hope, but any of you banking on this are just being blind homers.

Yep Again... yep... people are ridiculous in how extreme their views are, and extremism invites opposition.

So I kind of left this out of the conversation because I know there are a handful of posters who are just going to yuck this up, but one of the other significant things Fahey discusses is what Taylor does for the running game. One of his bullet points in the shorthand skill set is how Taylor "diversifies the run game with designed run plays and options." A short excerpt:​ The defenders fear Taylor holding the ball so the backside defenders can't crack down to close off the space the running back gets. The Bills had the top-ranked running game by a large margin last year according to FootballOutsiders' DVOA rankings, which measure success rate on a play-by-play basis and adjust for the quality of the opposition. Taylor was as much a part of that success as McCoy or the offensive line. He diversifies the running game in such a way that a more typical NFL quarterback wouldn't.

The world didn't stop spinning, but you sure do keep spinning here. Just simply try the exercise. Identify all the QBs who sustained 30 NFL starts at or above Taylor's level since 2000 drafted in the 5th round or later. Sure, you could always strike the lottery if you play it. But what are your chances? Play it, but don't invest all your hopes (or money) in it, because you're highly unlikely to win anything meaningful. Same applies with Peterman... and any 5th round or later QB.

Ummm... are you serious here? Yes, Taylor was drafted by the Ravens, what does that matter? Find a 5th round pick or later who is a NFL starter at or above Taylor's level since 2000 over at least 30 starts. It doesn't matter if it's with the team who drafted him originally. I know the Bills didn't draft him, even if you think my wording insinuates we did. By 2018, either Taylor is the Bills starter, or we've used our 2nd 1st round draft pick to find a way to draft our "Franchise QB" in the 1st round next year. Peterman will hopefully turn into our long term backup. If he becomes a starter and a high level starter, it'd be fantastic but absolutely shocking to anyone who's not a Bills fan with a "OOOOOHHHH, look at the new shiny object in the form of a new QB!!!" mentality.

Yeah, from what I've heard and seen from him, I think and hope he can be our long term backup. People are talking about him as though he'll usurp Taylor... some are saying before the end of the year... a select few are saying Peterman will be the starter week 1. With those people, I've set forth an open bet that, barring an injury to Taylor, he'll be our starter week 1. I'm giving 3 to 1 odds. Surprisingly, I had a taker already who put down $100. Open for others, too. But people who have this position are just unrealistic and living in lala land. I'm not saying that to personally attack them. I'm saying this because it's just true. If Peterman is the week 1 starter and Taylor is still healthy and on the roster, it would be shocking, regardless of your feelings about Taylor as a QB.

Not that it's impossible, but it's hilarious that a 5th round QB is being buoyed up to such high aspirations. It's hilarious, though not surprising from Bills fans. May I ask this question, how many QBs drafted since 2000 after the 4th round have been as good as Taylor has been over his 30 total NFL starts? Make 30 games the threshold. I got Brady. Anyone else? It'd be awesome if Peterman becomes the next Brady, but Taylor's much more likely to demonstrate he's our long term answer than Peterman is. Might happen. Highly improbably, though. There's a reason he was passed over 4 times by every team and Buffalo didn't exactly leap to draft the guy considering they passed over him with their first 5th round draft pick. Even Buffalo and McDermott viewed him as a 5th round draft pick. That doesn't speak resoundingly about the guy. He's just likely going to be one of those names we talked about during draft time who'd be a "late round steal" that we forget about with time, like David Fales. Or like that guy KC drafted a few years ago. Or Garret Grayson, Or... Too many to count. We're Bills fans. We're too funny. We already have our "late round steal" as a starter at QB. Doubt it happens with Peterson, but I'd love it if it did.

Stats matter. But every single stat needs to be taken in the correct context.

Hmmm... seems a familiar sentiment

I'm not saying and I don't think Fahey is saying the numbers are definitive. And despite saying you're not dismissive, you're still pretty dug in your foxhole and don't seem willing to acknowledge the merits of what he finds. And I don't think you're wrong about everything you say. In Fahey's "shorthand skill set," which is a box at the beginning of every QBs chapter that involves 4-6 bullet points of strengths and weaknesses of the player, 2 of Taylor's weaknesses in that box include: -Avoids tight windows over the middle of the field. -Not an anticipation passer. All I did was provide numbers, but Fahey's chapters more anecdotally explain each QB. Granted, he feels strongly positive about Taylor, but he talks about weaknesses, too. And he talks about specific plays from specific games like the Seattle game, the Raiders game, the first Phins game, and the Cardinals game, among others. You keep bringing up what the coaches said as though it was incredibly damning and irrefutable evidence that Taylor's holding the team back. It's just funny to me because sometimes people label what coaches say as truth and sometimes they label it as coachspeak. I'm sure there's truth to what they said, but you stated the other day that you think the best thing that could happen this offseason would be for Peterman to show real promise in TC and win the starting job. It's just a weird position and just shows how dug in you are about Taylor. Why would you not, instead, wish that in Dennison's new offense, Taylor would demonstrate how much he can thrive? That seems a lot more realistic. People are just so damn dug into their positions that once they like or dislike a guy they NEED him to stay or be gone.

I don't even think you were involved in that conversation so I don't think it was directed at you.

What the hell are you talking about? Where are you getting $16 million from?