dave mcbride

I stand by what I said. Not a good decision at all. I am very skeptical of this coach going forward.

Almost picked though ...

I disagree. Taylor is fun to watch, at least in my opinion. anyway, this change is an epically bad decision. One for annals in the history of bad Bills coaching decisions.

Stating there is no difference is foolish. Seriously.

14, should be 17.

There is actually a huge, huge difference.

What??? The Bills scored a td on a 2-play drive featueing only shady runs. Nothing to do with the qb

Good post. Sums it up.

Yup.

Daryle Lamonica. Is it even arguable? He's one of the best qbs in league history and spent 4 years on the bench in Buffalo behind an inferior qb (Kemp). The Bills were good between 1964 and 1966 because of defense and the running game. Kemp was bad. Lamonica's teams went 66-16-6 when he started, and his numbers in Oakland were off the charts. ? - Say what you will about Flutie, but he had a special connection with Moulds. The best receiving year in all of Bills history is Moulds' 1998 season, and it ain't even that close.

I will say this about Peterman: the Pitt offense put up a crapload of points last year in essentially every game, and they played a lot of good competition. https://www.sports-reference.com/cfb/schools/pittsburgh/2016-schedule.html They beat both Penn State (Rose Bowl participant) and national champ Clemson in shootouts, and they lost by a point in a shootout against Mitch Trubisky and UNC. Pitt's offensive output the year before was pretty impressive too. Why did he last until the fifth round?

I think you're partly right, but I think you're overestimating it a bit. Lynn doesn't coach defense, and it's really up to John Pagano to stop the opposing offense. Lynn obviously knows Taylor, but that only goes so far. Moreover, a lot of other coaches "know" him pretty well at this point. Todd Bowles had faced him five times going into the Jets game. The Bills desperately need to win this game. Don't rule anything out.

If they win on Sunday, they have Indy at home and two games against a collapsing Miami team. Those latter two teams have just as many issues as the Bills have, albeit different ones. A 9-7 team will make it this year.

9-7 isn't usually playoff worthy. It probably will be this year, however, and it's even possible that an 8-8 team gets in if the Bills tank and the Ravens lose to either Detroit or GB. If a team is in the playoffs, they're a playoff team.

We know different women! Literally every one I know who is a Bills fan (there are a bunch) love the guy. Not saying they're right.

Tell that to Alex Smith (sacked 5 times), Eli Manning (sacked 5 times), and Tom Brady (sacked 3 times). People have known this strategy since literally EARLY 2015. There are stories about it too. It's easier said than done, and it can be counterschemed.

This board is not Buffalo. There are no women on it! I can tell you that every woman I know who is a Bills fan loves Tyrod, partly for his style and partly because he's not a boring player. (Women make up 40 percent of the NFL audience too, btw.)

Well, you can if the offense is designed around that style of play and exploits it. Taylor definitely played well enough to get the team to the playoffs in 2015 and 2016. The defense was a disaster, however. But that's not the sort of scheme the Bills run now, for better or worse. I hope and expect that they marshal their resources and draft a blue chip qb in 2018 who can operate well in this scheme.

As I said elsewhere, he played objectively well in the three games prior to the NO game. His line and his receivers utterly failed him in the Jets game. Teams have figured him out, but they've also figured out most qbs in the league not named Brady/Rogers/Brees. Most qbs have a couple of real stinkers every season.

The thing is, it didn't kill Taylor. He plays like that all the time and is extremely durable. The only time he got injured was on a dirty play in TN, and he finished the game.

I think because they probably know that the season is on the line for the Bills, and if Peterman starts out poorly, then they may feel the need to make a change. To repeat, the Bills season is on the line this Sunday.

Why do you think this? Taylor's escapability is a real asset, and quick release throwers haven't prevented the Chargers D from racking up the sacks. I really hope he does well, but he is going to be under siege.

You guys are wilfully misreading my posts. I have no idea how Peterman will do. He may be great. But I want to get to the playoffs, and I think it's better to play the percentages. I realize you disagree.

See my revised note above, which I fixed while you were responding. I just went and watched that every play video. I was talking about the final possession, when it was 47-3. If that's not prevent, then we speak different languages. 4 guys rushed every play, and the rest occupied zones. Re "diminishing" Peterman's performance, please, man. Give me more credit than that. I have no preconceived notion of how good he is or whether he is the answer. I try to be reasonably objective, and I personally think that Taylor gives them a better chance to get to 9-7 and a playoff entry (which, to repeat, I regard as essentially a SB victory at this point). Prior to the bad Saints game (in which nearly everyone was bad), the team was 2-1 post-bye and he had a 102.9 rating with only one turnover (fumble) alongside 6 TDs. Maybe Peterman matches this, but I'm not betting on it. I do understand why they're doing this - they don't want Taylor because he's not a fit. That's logical. But I think it's not very plausible to argue that Peterman gives them a better shot at getting to the playoffs. He's a marginally drafted rookie with no experience at all, and he's being fed to the dogs (in the form of Bosa and Ingram) this week. It's a tough challenge. I'd prefer to go with the guy who has experience and a winning record.

Well, the season is on the line, flat out, so I wouldn't be thrilled. They will be annihilated by KC with whoever they start.