The Red King

You finish the game. Even if you finish it on the bench, you finish the game then retire. If he did that, then retired citing decline in ability, people here would have been fine. Hell, we all saw the decline in performance. It was the whole "can't be bothered to even finish the game" that was a slap in the face. Side note...not everyone agrees with what Bell did, either. You sign a contract, you play the damn contract. That it's somehow possible to avoid playing a contract you signed baffles me.

...because some people want to turn every thread into a 'Bash Allen' thread. Sad but true. If we start Barkley, the entire Patriots roster will come down with scurvy, world hunger will be solved and the common cold will be cured. If Allen starts a gate to the underworld will open at midfield, there will be a pox upon the land and every firstborn child will suffer a crippling injury. Listen to some people here the game will be 100-0. Which team gets 100 depends on which QB starts. ?

Bills: "Man, we are a mess right now, the laughingstock of the league." Browns: "Hold my beer."

As I said before, the people who are clamoring for Barkly to start are people who have already declared Allen is a bust. They want to see if Barkly can be our starter, or if we'll have to draft another QB. To them any more time given to Allen is a waste. Don't believe me? Go re-read the thread and you'll see it time and again.

Did he get credit for that win? Not sure what the score was when he got knocked out...

You have to read between the lines with posts like this. Most of the people saying start Barkly are also people that have already decided Allen is a bust. In their eyes starting Allen is pointless because he will never be our future QB. And since he won't be, in their eyes it's about evaluating Barkly to see if he'll be our starter, or if we'll need to draft another QB. Arguments about developing and/or evaluating Allen fall on deaf ears because they've already written him off. That's why you have threads like this.

...with the distinction of having never appeared in a playoff game the entirety of their lifespan.

Reason we don't throwback to Super Bowl days are, we have to wear the normal color helmets. So, any alternate helmet would have to be white. That's why when we first went with throwbacks and our helmets were red, we got stuck with this horrible photo-negative throwback helmet...

Shh. I already tried questioning them about that. They've decided Tyrod never played this year, and instead insist Tyrod this year would perform just like he did in 2017. I mean, who needs hard data from this year when you have wild speculation from last? ?

Ah, assumptions. If ya ain't for us, yer 'gainst us! Check my post history. I actually started a forum post titled The Bills did not back into the playoffs. I repeatedly stated Tyrod was a mediocre QB, capable of elevating a bad team and dragging down a good one. When traded I said it was a good move for both teams and said he was just what they needed until Mayfield was ready. I said the Bills outgrew him, I never said any other QB would be an improvement. So, basically, all your assumptions are wrong, and the proof is right here on the board. I understand, it's easier to write someone off as a hater, that way you don't have to address their points. In this case, Tyrod's tenure as Cleveland starter. You persist in handwaving that off like it never happened, ignoring it, insisting he would have played like the 2017 Bills Taylor, instead of the 2018 Browns TT.

Did...you actually *read* the question? Because none of the above addresses it. But, the fact that you realize you have to keep ducking the question because you know you can't answer it speaks volumes. The thread doesn't ask if Tyrod is better then the Bills QBs. It asks if he would make them a playoff team. So, one more time... Do you think the Bills are a playoff team if Tyrod puts up the numbers he did in Cleveland? And if not, what makes you think he would put up better numbers with the 2018 Bills offense then he did with Cleveland's?

Nobody wants to answer the question... Why do you think Tyrod would have performed better with the 2018 Bills' offense then he did with the Browns? ...i can understand Tyrod supporters trying very hard to act like his Cleveland stint never happened.

You keep avoiding the question. Lemmie spell it out. Tyrod, putting up the numbers he did with Cleveland this season, would not have made us a playoff team. Period. So, what makes you think he would have done better with this season's Bills then he did with the Browns. Sorry, 2018 Tyrod is not 2017 Tyrod. TT on this year's Bills, with the loss of three linemen and severe lack of offensive weapons would not have done as well as he did last year...and last year's Tyrod laid an egg against the Saints, and could only put up 9 on CAR. Not to mention that pitiful display in the JAX against a defense that surrendered far more to PIT and NE. You're romantisizing, looking at less interceptions while assuming the remainder of the offensive production remains the same, and it just doesn't work that way. Go watch Tyrod's Cleveland starts this year, then look me straight in the eye and tell me he could lead this team to the playoffs.

You saw what Tyrod did in Cleveland with the personel there. I reiterate, what makes you think he would have done better here, with the offensive personel we have, then he did there? You can't handwave away his performance as a Brown.

Look at Buffalo's current offense. Look at Cleveland's. Look how "well" Tyrod did in Cleveland this season. Tell me why in the name of all that's good and holy do you think Tyrod would have done better here, with the Bills, then he did in Cleveland. Or, to be more concise...no. Hell no. Nope. Non, nix, nay, nun-uh...

Consider the source. Rodak is still salty his declaration the 2017's Bills season was "...over before it began..." blew up in his face and made him look like a chump.

Think the Saints would give us something for him now? I kid, I kid! ?

Tone isn't conveyed over the internet, so if you're trying to use sarcasm or such you need to add extra effort to make the tone known, if you're not being literal. A snarky comment at the end, going over-the-top with the sarcasm as such. I took the OP as serious initially, though after hearing it was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, and re-reading it, I can see it. Tone, or loss thereof, has lead to many internet misunderstandings.

A thrilling showdown of rookie first round QBs each trying to show they...wait...neither one is playing? The starters are who? Oh...this is just gonna be a barn-burner...

It was a rebuild year anyway, now we have two injured QBs and have to start the guy nobody in their right mind would start under any other circumstance now. Traded away a starting o-lineman, had another unexpectedly retire due to health, and a third go outright bat-poop crazy. Yeah, I think there are reasons the offense is this bad, and not all of it could be predicted by the front office.

I think the title is wrong. I think if were titled "Everyone that thought anyone would be better then Tyrod, we told you". I don't think anyone would argue then. Not everyone that wanted Tyrod gone thought he was the worst option at QB. Just...not good enough either.

Wait...we're talking about Tyrod "9 point vs. JAX" Taylor, right? How many did he put up on CAR? Yeah, let's assume he puts 20 up on Chicago this year with less offensive talent.

Also, to be clear, just because some of us wanted TT gone, and loved the trade, does not mean we wanted to go into the year with Peterman as starter, Allen as backup, and no other QB on the roster.

The Browns gave us a nice pick and took Tyrod's salary off our hands. He then promptly started 2.5 games for them. I...still think we fleeced them. Did the Bills mishandle the QB situation? Horribly. But getting rid of TT was not a mistake. If the guy was lighting it up in Cleveland instead of holding a clip board, I'd be more open to OP's argument.

Is it bad that I want this as much as I do? XD