The Red King

Remember, last season Rodak said the Bills' season was over before it started, and that they and the Jets would be fighting for the #1 pick.

To quote you directly... and I think through my replies very carefully, thank you. I just found it odd that you list the Bills starting a new, inexperienced QB was listed as a liability for the Bills, while the Jets drafting a QB (who, by definition of 'rookie' will be new and inexperienced) is listed as a strength for the Jets.

Let me be crystal clear. At no point did I say the JAX game was solely TT's fault. But pointing out others' mistakes does not absolve TT of his. My opinion of TT differs from most. I think he's a good QB. But he has his limits. I think he is better then most TT detractors do and I think he is worse then most TT supporters. The JAX game was a game that BUF needed TT to step up, and he didn't. That is TT encapsulated. It's rare to be able to point to a game and say "Yeah, TT lost that one for us." But, at the same time, it is equally rare to be able to point to a game and say "Yeah, TT won that one for us."

That's not hard to do when 99% of your passes are short check-down, dump-off passes...especially when many of them are on 3rd and long. Statistics can be misleading.

Not to state the obvious or talk down to you...then you do just that. First sign someone is losing a debate is when they start relying more on insults then points. Sorry, not going to drop to your level. Well, maybe a little... Okay, with that out of the way... Watch the JAX game again. He had receivers wide open and didn't throw to them. The throws he did make beyond dump-off distance were in the dirt or behind his receivers. That is not the fault of anyone else. That's all on TT. He is baseline, mediocre. He is good enough to stabilize a bad team, but when the team needed to lean on him to win a game for them (Panthers, Bengals, Jags...), he simply can't do it. Now, if you'd like to continue on with an intellegent, civil discussion of the matter, I'm game. If you'd prefer to just talk down to me and hurl insults, sorry...not my style. Stay frosty!

After doing so, click on "Posts" under "Forums" and it will go into full detail on all of them. (see my prior screencap)

Ironically, at the time my post count and Bills4Life's rep count were both 63. The screencap is from Bills4Life's profile, not mine.

And just like skee-ball tickets you need several hundred for a tic-tac, right?

It's showing 63 for me, atm. It's the number of reactions your posts have gotten, and the "+" number under your avatar! ^.^ ...when you click on it, there are menu options running down the left side. Click on "Posts" under "Forums" and it will go into full detail on all 63.

Also a great deal more completions in key situations and other clutch plays. Taylor was good at not doing that. There is such a thing as being too safe, and situations where you have to take risks...TT just wouldn't, or couldn't do so. As I've said before he won't lose you many games, but he won't win you many either. The ultimate baseline.

Bad receivers mean receivers that cannot get open as often. If Tyrod was regularly throwing accurate passes to our reeievers...hell, if he even threw to them when they were open...but they were not open much, then that's on the receivers. If passes were dropped or picked off because the receivers didn't get separation, then that would be the recievers' fault. Not even throwing to receivers that were indeed open is on TT. Underthrowing open receivers is on TT. Throwing erratically at anything beyond check-down range is on TT. Worse, his unwillingness and inability to even attempt throwing mid to deep range passes allowed opposing teams to put eleven players, a couple cheerleaders and an assistant coach in the box, creating a brick wall for Shady to run into. So yes, he brought the offensive unit down in 2017.

Last season. Last season was the turning point where he stopped elevating the Bills, and started dragging them down. The JAX game was a wonderful microcosm of TT. The D holds JAX to 10 points, a Jags team that goes on to score 45 on the road at Pitt and 20 at NE...and we lose, scoring just 3. That is a good team dragged down by medicore QB play that was quite simply not good enough.

Wait, us having an inexperienced QB is a negative, but the Jets having one makes them stronger?

Come on now, I remember that Jets' game and it was a slaughter until the Jets almost choked yet another game away giving us a good number of garbage points (and yards) well after the game was out of hand. That's far from "really good". Anyone can put up good stats on a Prevent defense if they try.

Actually, looking closer, this is obviously meant as a NE highlight reel. Look at their late games...Lions, Colts, Chiefs, Bills and Packers. Teams that were mid-pack or worse last year. Now, lets look at some teams the NFL didn't put them up against on prime time...Jags, Vikings, Steelers...you know, the heavy hitters? I mean hell, the storylines for NE vs. Jax and Pitt write themselves and yet...4:25 starts.

Look at Bills vs. Pats. The NFL will get one of three outcomes. The Pats will crush the Bills like they normally do, which allows the announcers to gush about Brady and showcase NE. Win for the NFL. It will be a close-fought game that people will stay glued to, to see if Brady can pull out another clutch win...or if the upstart Bills can finally dethrone the Pats. Also a win for the NFL. Or, the Bills crush the Pats, and everyone that hates the Pats will get the see the skinny kid that got beat up for lunch money every day finally beat the crap out of the bully. Again, a win. That game, regardless of outcome, is ratings gold for the league. Honestly, I think the NFL wants Buffalo to win that one. It's a feelgood story, and they can work hard on the "end of a dynasty" storyline in the media.

The problem is, we're arguing apples and oranges. You are arguing whether or not it was a good decision to make. My last several replies have not argued that point at all. I have simply said that regardless of whether or not it was a good decision, it ended up working out in the Bills' favor. That doesn't reflect on whether or not it was a good decision. It is possible to have good things come from bad decisions. If I'm up to my eyeballs in debt, spending what little money I have left in the casino is a terrible idea, but if I hit the jackpot and win a million, that bad decision still worked out for the best. You are discussing the decision. At this point, all I've been discussing is the outcome, and I've not been using it to justify anything.

TT's supporters will say that he does not lose games for you. His detracters will say he does not win games for you. Both are absolutely correct. He elevates bad teams and drags good teams down. He is the baseline, absolute zero, a black hole sitting at 8-8 exerting gravity on all teams above and below, and so was a perfect fit for Buffalo until last season and a perfect fit for Cleveland this one.

We play the 'phins and Jets twice each and he has Buf at 2-14? Bold indeed. I could get a more credible prediction for the season from a magic 8-ball. XD ...wait, he has the Bills, Jets and 'phins with a combined eight wins. Those three play each other a combined six times...so his "bold" prediction is that those three will only produce two wins total outside of playing each other? O.o

Honestly? Yes, on both counts. I wasn't sold on Atlanta and KC was in a tailspin as bad as we were at the time. The Bolts shredded our D, same as the two weeks prior. Nothing on the other side of the ball was going to overcome that. It was winnable, but only if the D showed up, which they didn't. Starting QB had no bearing on that.

I dunno, the Titans went to black helmets, I think instead of doing the same, the Jags should have gone full gold. Still, credit for killing the half-and-half helmets. I think gold helmets would be more unique then black, and help establish a franchise identity. As for the 'phins, if you're going to change a uniform, make a significant change, colors, helmet logos or such, rather then just a couple subtle little tweaks. Ah well.

Buffalo wasn't winning that game with TT under center. Hell, given how badly the D got carved up I don't think Buffalo wins that game with Brady under center.

I have no desire to go into whether or not it was a good decision. People have their opinions and are pretty much locked into them at this point. Point remains that for good or for ill, starting Peterman that game worked out better (in the long run) for the Bills then starting Tyrod would have, unless you think the Bills would have actually outright won that game with TT under center, and precious few people here think that. Edit: Since the above post was edited after I posted... My opinion is just that. My opinion. I am as entitled to mine, and as entitled to post it as you are yours. I believe the staff made the right move, but I respect those fans who believe they got it wrong. I can see their (your) points and can see merit in them. I just happen to disagree with them. No need to go overdramatic.

If the Pats keep playing well, the NFL gets their powerhouse on prime time week after week. If the Pats crash and burn, we get to see the gory drama play out week after week in prime time. Either way, it's win-win for the league.

If Peterman hadn't started that game (or any others), the calls for him to start would have escalated as TT's performance continued on par and this board would currently have a good number of "We should be giving Peterman a chance! Don't draft a QB, draft a team around him!" threads. Whether or not it was ill-advised at the time (we share differing opinions on that), you cannot say the Bills would have and would be better off had they not started Peterman when they did.