Shaw66

He was a great ball carrier. Didn't play enough in the NFL to establish himself as an all-time great, but only he and Jim Brown combined speed and power in that era. I DID see that in my lifetime.

Ahhh. Those days were fun. What a defense. In the 1966 season, the Chiefs beat the Bills in Buffalo to win the AFL championship and go to the first Super Bowl.

I haven't seen anything about Darby in OTAs, and I doubt there was much of anything definitive out there. Still, I'll take you at your word, as well as the other comment about Darby regressing. Still, my view about Darby is this: (1) He has great quickness and can stay tight with receivers. (2) He learned to find the ball and make a play on it pretty well. He couldn't do it in the beginning of his rookie season, but was much better by the end. (3) It's a new defense that will play more zone, apparently. That may waste some of his best skills. I don't know much about Poyer. Williams had a good season but never was a star - I'm confident Hyde will be as good as Williams. As for the defensive backfield situation in general, it's all about the quality of the coaching - do they have a coverage scheme that works and can they get their players to play it. Especially in a zone, it's much less about special physical skills and more about knowing your job and doing it. I have no idea whether the defense will actually be good. My point really is that I'm not worried about whether there's enough talent back there. The Bills' talent is as good as most teams in the league, with White, Seymour and Darby, Hyde and whoever. And I sort of agree with this. It is a .500 roster, but it's only .500 because the QB position is so important. With a certifiably good QB, it's better than .500. It's about coaching. The good news is that it won't be hard for the coaches to be better than Rex. The bad news is it's a rookie HC and the schemes are changing. Which also suggests to me that .500 is what to expect. As for the schedule, I spent 0 time thinking about the schedule. EVERY game is hard, EVERY season. And it's more or less impossible to determine of the strength of the schedule. Every year some teams surprise you, and there's no way to know which ones will be surprises. And I mean surprisingly good OR surprisingly bad. Panthers, Broncos, Bengals, Chiefs, Saints, Dolphins, Colts, Bucs, Chargers all have the potential to be good or bad in 2017. That's ten games on the Bills schedule, and add two Jets games. So that's 12 winnable games, and that doesn't account for the possibility that the Bills themselves might be good, in which case Pats, Raiders, Falcons are winnable also. There are probably only four or five teams that we can say with a certainty will be bad in 2017.

I think they have a top 10 corner in Darby, and the pair of corners the Bills have may be better than the pair three years ago. Everyone says the Bills are in trouble in safety, and I really don't get that. Micah Hyde is a seriously good player, and Poyer has nice experience. Bills' safeties weren't all that great back then - Aaron Williams and who? Plus, as the OP points out, the strength of the team is the line, and the defensive line is now going to go back to it's strength - playing aggressively and getting into the backfield. Williams may be old, and we'll see what he has left. Dareus and Hughes should thrive, and now we'll get to see what Lawson has. Bottom line, it's easy to see this as a top 10 defense, if the defensive coaching measures up.

I agree with the OP, and I guess you do too. There's a big difference between 5 wins, which I agree it seems many people here think is the best the Bills could do, and 7 wins, your prediction. I'm a big believer that there's pretty much no difference between most of the teams between 10-6 and 6-10. A couple of bad bounces or calls, a couple of key injuries, a couple of mistakes at the wrong time easily make the difference between 10-6 and 6-10. Those are essentially .500 teams. But when you win 5 or fewer, you're bad. I have trouble seeing the Bills as bad this season, unless they get hit with a ton of injuries or the coaches are as bad or worse than last season. As I look back at Rex's two seasons in Buffalo, I've concluded that he's a worse a coach than I thought when the Bills hired him. When he's hired, I was unhappy, but I still believed in his defensive magic touch and in his enthusiasm, thinking those two things might make the Bills truly competitive. Instead, he demonstrated that there is no magic touch, that his teams seriously lacked discipline and technical excellence, and the players didn't relate to his shtick. In short, I think the Bills had coaching that was WAY below average, and the Bills talent got them into .500 territory. Although it's possible, I think it's unlikely the Bills' coaching could be worse this season, which is what would be necessary to drop to 5 wins. The probability is that the coaching will be better, so I'm looking for another season in the .500 range. What would hold them back would be if McDermott makes more than his share of rookie mistakes. If he catches on fast to the head coaching game, the Bills will be fine.

That IS why we loved him. He was us out there, an ordinary guy (except for that Harvard thing) trying to play with the pros and damn near making it. And I agree about Houston. In just the right circumstance, Fitz could have won.

In earlier discussion in this thread I agreed with others that CHOKER is not the right characterization. Choking means he gets anxious in the moment and his anxiety keeps him from performing well. That isn't what happens to Fitz. He's a lousy decision maker in critical points in the game. He does what you say - throws into coverage, tries to make throws his arm can't, etc. Unless it's fourth down or the last play of the game, those decisions are bad because there's always another play, which is another opportunity for your team to make a play or the opponent to make a mistake. Fitzy is a gunslinger, like Favre and Big Ben, but without the arm to back it up. In the old west, being a gunslinger and a lousy shot was a bad combination. Fitz is the football equivalent.

Yes, I agree. His problem always has been that he's asked his body to do things that it can't do, and that's bad decision making. That's mental. I agree that when the game is on the line, you have to take more chances, but you have to be smart about the chances you take. Fitz was not smart about that. Down 4 points with 30 seconds to go, 3rd and 8, Fitz will take a chance and test his arm. That's a mistake. In that situation he has to play within himself, and if necessary, throw it away, because the smart play is to give up on the play and try again on fourth down. Fitz is like the basketball player who never saw a shot he didn't like. And, to change the subject from the end of the game, I don't think I'll ever forget being in Met Life a few years ago when Fitz underthrew the same pass to Stevie up the left sideline, both for interceptions, the second to more or less end the game. Same play, same throw, same result. That's not good quarterbacking.

Fitz played in Buffalo with Lee Evans and Terrell Owens one season, with Lee Evans and Stevie Johnson a second season. Fitz played with Brandon Marshall and Eric Decker. Don't try to make us believe that Taylor had better receivers. Fitz had ONE season, ONE, where his passer rating was better than Taylor's career average passer rating.

They left out Taylor, who's in the first wave. Amazing how little respect he gets.

No way in the world Taylor and Fitz are equal in quality. No way. Compare whatever stats you want, or simply think about this: Taylor can throw deep, Ftiz can't. Taylor is a SERIOUS running threat. Fitz isn't. Taylor doesn't throw INTs. Fitz does. The only thing Fitz does better than Taylor is grow hair on his face.

If Taylor finishes in the top 10 and the Bills go to the playoffs in 2017, having redone Taylor's deal in March is going to cost the Bills $25 million.

Who's to say? We aren't psychologists and he isn't telling us what he thinking. But I don't agree it's mental. I think he knows exactly what he's doing The fundamental problem, as others have said, his that he has a below-caliber arm. He just can't make some of the throws the game requires. That puts him at a disadvantage. I also think the guy loves to play and he hates to lose, so he's always trying to make the play to win the game. It's just his nature. In that way I think he's very much like Favre. Favre made some horrible end-of-game decisions because he loved to play, he wanted to win and he thought he could do anything. Favre would have been better if he'd played more under control. The difference between Favre and Fitz was that Favre's arm bailed him out of more of his mistakes than Fitzy arm could save Fitzy. And that difference translated into this difference: the Packers didn't like Favre's decision making but tolerated it because it worked out well often enough that they were willing to live with the times bad decisions hurt them. Fitzy's teams suffer from his bad decision making because his arm isn't able to overcome enough of his bad decisions.

You're right on the money. I loved the guy. I even believed when Gailey said he could be a top flite starter. But If you have a weaker arm, you have to be better in all the other parts of the game. He had a weak arm and was a poor decision maker. That's a bad combination. And that's why his passer rating is in the low 80s. And he earned it, too. There was one game when I think he started and really messed up his ankle or knee. He came out, barely able to walk. Backup came in and got dinged. Fitz came back and gutted it out. He just made up his mind that someone had to play, so he did it. Tough, tough dude. Never afraid to take hits.

You're right about what choking is, and I think I agree that Fitz didn't choke. He just didn't deliver in the clutch. You're wrong about his arm. It's a bad play when a player in any sport tries to make a play he can't make. If his arm isn't strong enough to make a throw, he shouldn't be making the throw. When Roethlisberger sees a throw he can't make, he doesn't throw it. That's good QB play. When it's fourth down, or when there's no time left on the clock, I don't care if the QB throws an INT. But if you would have had another play but for the interception, it's a BAD play to throw an interception just because you aren't afraid to fail. If Fitzy couldn't make the throw, it's was a bad play to throw it. Similarly, I don't care if Ben was on good teams and Fitzy was on bad teams. The games on the line in the fourth quarter, and every throw you make in the 4th quarter. The fact that throughout his career Fitz threw almost half his INTs in the fourth quarter means that when the game is on the line, he's giving the ball away and good QBs aren't. So I agree he didn't choke in the true sense of the word. What Fitz isn't is clutch. He isn't clutch. He doesn't deliver when the game is on the line.

I agree that the fans around here underrate the talent on the Bills. As for McDermott, i truly believe nothing matters accept wins. I agree McDermott is doing the kind of things that I've seen successful coaches do before, but unsuccessful coaches also have done those things and not won. Organization and attitude are among the things successful coaches need, but that isn't all. They need leadership, for example. We see McDermott attempting to to lead, but the only measure of leadership is whether the troops follow. We don't know that yet, can't know it. Tactical excellence is necessary. Xs and Os. We have no idea how good McDermott, Dennison and other are at offensive play design. We don't even have a good idea about his defensive excellence, although we know he's coached a defense that had some good years. We don't know about his game planning. We don't know about his game management. Those are probably just some of the things we don't know about him yet. I don't even know what the others are. I'm excited for the new season to get underway, and I WANT McDermott to be the great young coach he could be, but we simply won't know what we're getting until we've seen a half dozen regular season games, maybe more. Frankly, he might need the entire first season to figure out what he's doing.

He's a choker. Or, if you don't like the word, let's just say he doesn't deliver in the clutch. If Fitz had physical problems, his performance would be the same at different times during the game. But that isn't true in his case. When the game is on the line, he plays worse than the rest of the game. Over his career, Fitz threw 29% of his passes in the fourth quarter or in overtime. He threw 30% of his TDs in the fourth quarter or overtime - that's what you'd expect. But Fitzy threw - get this - 45% of his INTs in the fourth quarter or overtime. That means he's making bad decisions with the football. If he had physical problems, his INTs would be or less the same as his attempts and TDs. Compare him to a successful gunslinger - Roethlisberger. Like Fitzy, Ben takes risks. Difference is, Ben knows which risks to take. Over his career, Ben threw 25% of his passes in the fourth quarter and overtime, 27% of his TDs (a lot like Fitzy) but only 31% of his INTs. Late in the game, if you're losing, you're going to take some risks that result in more INTs. That's why Ben's INT rate is higher than his attempt rate. But the point is, Ben's INT rate is in the ballpark with his attempt rate. Fitz's isn't. Fitz takes bad bets with the ball in the fourth quarter - he always has. Call that choking, call it bad decision making. Call it whatever you want. The data coincides with what we all think we've seen from him for years - Fitz takes his team out of games with ill-advised late-game throws. I give Fitz credit - he plays with no fear. He isn't afraid to make mistakes. But when it's your last possession, down 5 pionts, it's third and 8 and you throw an INT, that's a really, really bad play. Fitz specializes in it. When he came to Buffalo, he said that his junior year in college he was planning on getting a job on Wall Street. Then he started getting interest from the pros, and he unexpectedly ended up with a football career. Someone asked him then what he'd do when he retired. He said probably go home to Arizona and drink beer. If he's made $54 million, he's probably paid $15 million in taxes, so he's around $40 million net. Probably spent a half million a year for the past 12 years. So he's saved maybe $30 million. Obviously, I don't talk to Fitz so I don't know what he's thinking, but I doubt he'll go to Wall Street. He's set for life (he can take $750,000 a year for life from his investments, and you can live a pretty good life on that). Why would he move his family to New York and plug himself into that rat race, just so he can earn another $1 million a year? He'll do something more than sit around and drink beer, but I'm betting it big-time investment banking is no longer in his future.

okay. Go Bills!

So if your agree that Taylor is certainly better, what is the point of comparing receivers? Why did you raise that? I'm not arguing with you, I just don't understand. Why does it matter what kind of receivers they were throwing to if you, too, agree that Taylor is better? The only think I can think of is that you mean that Taylor, adjusted for receivers, is only a little bit better. But even that doesn't make sense, because throwing to Brandon Marshall and Eric Decker, Fitzpatrick STILL couldn't put up a better season than Taylor's worst. I like it. I want Taylor throwing with all his supporters, so everyone on the other team can get a first-hand look at how he throws over the middle and anticipates.

I think it's interesting that almost any way that reasonable people look at the data, there's always the same conclusion: there are about 10 very good qbs in the league. What you want is for your team to have one of the 10. If your QB is in the second ten, you probably go with him, try to build a really good defense, and keep your eyes open for an opportunity to upgrade your qb. If your QB isn't in the top 20, you're actively looking to replace him. I thought the 260, 1.875 was a pretty good test, and what did you find? Nine guys. Our question is whether in a more balanced offense Taylor can join that group. Interestingly, if you gross up Taylor to 1100 pass attempts over two seasons, which is the minimum for the 9, more or less, than Taylor is at 250 yards and 1.56. So, just like we always come back to about 10 top QBs, we also always come back to Taylor looking like he's close to that group but not in it.

Crusher - Do you have any data to back this up? I'm more interested in Taylor data than Fitz data - I'm pretty confident I know that Fitz failed late in games, but I'm not so sure you're correct about Taylor - either about failing or about the reason you think he failed. Fitz's career passer rating is 80. He was high 80s low 90s only two seasons in his career; most seasons his passer rating was in the low 80s or below. So that means isn't a very effective QB, period. When you look at his splits, you can see he was particularly bad at the end of the game. Career 4th quarter rating - 71, below his career average generally - in other words, he's better in earlier quarters. Tied, or trailing with less than 2 or 4 minutes to play, his passer rating is regularly around 50. 85 in games that are tied, 73 when his team is trailing. So, compared to his own averages, he's played really poorly in the last few minutes of games when his team needed scores. Taylor is different. He has a career passer rating of 92, which is a really solid number. When you look at his splits, you see that he performs about as well in end-of-game situations as at other times of the game. Fourth quarter rating is 88, a little below his average, but not bad. Tied with less than 4 minutes to go his rating is 149. Trailing, less than 2 or 4 minutes to go, he's around 85. 89 when tied, 90 when trailing. Not great, and maybe not good enough, but unquestionably better than Fitz. Not even the same league. So unless you have other data, I don't see that there's much comparison between the two. The question, as I intimated, is whether what Taylor has done is good enough. So look at Matt Ryan, someone who probably isn't a hall of famer but definitely is a franchise qb. Passer rating over 93. Career splits: 4th quarter, 85. When tied or losing with less than 4 and 2 minutes to go, passer rating in the 40s and 60s! Tied generally 95, trailing generally 90. So compared to Matt Ryan, Tyrod looks like he's right there. How about Aaron Rodgers? Career rating 104. Fourth quarter 102. Tied or trailing with 4 or 2 minutes left, 115, 94, 65, 76. 107 tied generally, 99 trailing. So Rodgers performs at the end of games about as he does at other times. What does it all mean? It means, I think, that we'd certainly want Taylor to be better at the end of games, but he (and at least two inarguably good quarterbacks) perform about as well at the end of games as they do the other 55 minutes. That, in turn, means that Taylor's problem (if he has a problem) is that he isn't good enough generally, not that he isn't good enough at the end of the game. The problem (which you are sure he has and I am not so sure) is that Taylor can't perform at relatively high levels (passer rating in mid-90s) if he's called on to throw 35 times a game regularly. I think you and I agree that the Bills need a QB who can perform at a high level throwing 35 times a game instead of 25. I really hope we see Taylor in that kind of offense this season, because that will tell us how good Taylor really is. Stop. What are you saying? That Taylor is better or isn't? Are you saying Taylor throwing to those receivers would have gotten the same results, then why do you think Taylor is better. The simple fact is that Taylor is unquestionably better than Fitzpatrick. Unquestionably. Taylor's WORST season was better than Fitzy's second BEST season. And Taylor can run. There's no comparison, regardless of receivers. And, by the way, look at Taylor's receivers last season. Were they actually better than the four you named? Hard to say.

i agree - that's what you'd like to see from your QB. I'm anxious to see the offense this year. I want to know if 200 yards a game is all Taylor got because (a) that was the style of offense Rex wanted to play or (b) the offense was limited because the coaches didn't believe Taylor could maintain his efficiency if he was asked to get those extra 50 passing yards per game. I want to see the passing game opened up so we can see what Taylor's upside as a passer actually is. Personally, I think Taylor can do it. I wasn't a fan when he was signed, because I thought he was a running quarterback. He's clearly more than that. He has a good arm, he can make all the throws. The question, as we all know, is whether he make those throws in a complicated offense that asks him to throw 35 or 40 times a game. I want to see him try, so we can learn the answer to that question.

Of course. But if you can't have a guy like Gillislee, a mediocre runner has an edge if he has a different style, because the defense is set up to stop McCoys style.

Not that's worth a long debate, but Orton was not better than Taylor. No way. Statistically as passers they were about the same. Taylor added 500 yards rushing and 4 touchdowns. The problem is that a lot of people don't agree with you. We haven't seen him play in an offense that asked him to pass like the best QBs do. Let's see what 2017 brings.

I think Crusher is impossible to argue with, and I think he's way off base on a lot that he says. But I think you misrepresent his position on Taylor. I suspect he's said on multiple occasions that he'd be delighted if Taylor became a true franchise quarterback. But what he's also said is that he doesn't believe it's possible, and if it isn't possible, he wants Taylor to be gone sooner rather than later. He's afraid that if Taylor keeps having his average season - 200 yards per game and low 90s passer rating, management may decide to keep working with him. That, in Crusher's view, would be a bad thing, because the longer the Bills work with him, the more time they're wasting. I think that's different from rooting against Taylor, or at least I can understand and not be upset with the logic.