This game just showed that Tyrod is not the #1 problem

[JDHILL]

The defense has been the problem almost the entire year. When they didn't get turnovers they had trouble stopping anybody. They consistently gave up a ridiculous amount of 3rd and longs and also gave up touchdowns directly after a Bills score all the time. The offense was rarely the problem this year. They scored enough points and I believe Tyrod did what was asked of him. 2 yrs. ago we would have loved this offense and now we want to get rid of a QB that has done a good job? The defense is just a joke it seems that they are unable to adapt to new changing offensive philosophies. We have good players on defense but the system seems to be antiquated or broken. They could never get off the field or adequately protect a lead in most games, especially big games.

[PromoTheRobot]

Too Funny... Should it not be clear to anyone on why you would crusade against the QB 24x7 this comment should have removed all doubts.

Makes me wonder, too, considering the times we live in.

[Maury Ballstein]

Makes me wonder, too, considering the times we live in.

2 votes for raysis. Zero for comedy.

[Big Gun]

Most Bills fans simply don't understand that sitting and watching the games or going over game film is nothing like on the field actual game day playing experience. It's the actual playing experience that counts and Taylor still only has 29 games of playing experience. I don't buy that Taylor can't read a defense or is that inaccurate. I happen to think he is very conservative and careful with the ball which is a great ability to have.

 

When you consider the supporting cast he has had with so many receivers injured over the course of the season and how careful Taylor is with the ball. Watkins and Clay finally showed up in the Miami game and Taylor threw for 329 yards, 3 TD's. When was the last time this team had 589 yards of offense? Taylor has earned his payday in my view. If the defense could make a tackle and the kicker make the 2x FG's the Bills win that game.

 

Granted Taylor is not a prototypical pocket passer and when asked to win games with his arm he hasn't hit that level of ability just yet. That may yet come as this QB is still under two years of playing experience. Taylor is a running QB who works well in a run-first offensive scheme and we all saw just how good the offense can be when everything clicks.

 

I think the issue with Tayor is more conclusive than most think because if the Bills don't sign him about five other NFL teams would pick him up and pay him. He would answer to the main problem with the Jets, Browns, Bears, Rams and 49ers.

 

The OP is correct in that the QB is not the main problem. The defense at many positions, overall team discipline, the injuries to the WR corps and other positions all year, the kicker choking along with special teams giving up big returns, the RT position. The coaching staff needs a big upgrade at HC and DC, special teams coach.

 

I think it's a foregone conclusion that the Bills will lock up Taylor after watching that Miami game.

Only if they keep Rex. Remember he only fit this scheme, he most likely won't fit the next coaches, of course unless it's Lynn.

[jms62]

Only if they keep Rex. Remember he only fit this scheme, he most likely won't fit the next coaches, of course unless it's Lynn.

 

Seems like he is tied to Lynn. If Lynn stays I can not see him dramatically changing this offense. Only Rex would attempt to fix something that was firing on all cylinders and you see the results.. Having just said that what Bills fan in the world would even remotely think it is a good idea to replace important parts of this offense. The line I hear that someone wants "Proof that a new QB won't put up the same numbers" maybe the most ridiculous statement that anyone can utter. HOW DOES ONE PROVE IN ADVANCE THAT CHANGES WON'T HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT? The only reply for such an absurd statement would be the equally absurd "Prove that a new QB will put up the same numbers in the offense"

 

[Big Gun]

Not one bit of this is true(except the game tonight being a shootout) Only 10 teams average 25 or more a game this year. That means 22 teams do not so your analogy is wrong. Oh and there are just as many(10) teams that average under 20 points a game. Come on guys do your homework instead of making stuff up.

Ok so there are 19 teams averaging 23+ ppg not 25+ on offense, my bad. 23 is more than 22 that defense gives up that's why I used that.

 

On defense there are only 8 teams avg less than 20 ppg, NE being the lowest at 15.7 ppg, and 4 of the 8 avg 19 ppg and the Bills are 15th at 23.2 ppg.

 

So the defensive league avg is 22.8 ppg given up or teams need score at least 3 TDs and 1 FG per game.

 

It's a scoring league dude, you need to outscore opponents not hope to hold them down.

[PolishDave]

2 votes for raysis. Zero for comedy.

 

I don't take any offense to the dumb Polak accusations/jokes. Nor do I think anyone else should. If you think I am dumb, feel free to express your opinion.

 

Besides, aunt Marie and uncle Nic insist I come from good stock. And uncle Ted fought for the right for me to express my free speech and for you to do the same too.

 

Cheers!

[MAJBobby]

Ok so there are 19 teams averaging 23+ ppg not 25+ on offense, my bad. 23 is more than 22 that defense gives up that's why I used that.

 

On defense there are only 8 teams avg less than 20 ppg, NE being the lowest at 15.7 ppg, and 4 of the 8 avg 19 ppg and the Bills are 15th at 23.2 ppg.

 

So the defensive league avg is 22.8 ppg given up or teams need score at least 3 TDs and 1 FG per game.

 

It's a scoring league dude, you need to outscore opponents not hope to hold them down.

Eventually Bills fans will see it is a different Era and this is correct

[BuffaloHokie13]

Ok so there are 19 teams averaging 23+ ppg not 25+ on offense, my bad. 23 is more than 22 that defense gives up that's why I used that.

 

On defense there are only 8 teams avg less than 20 ppg, NE being the lowest at 15.7 ppg, and 4 of the 8 avg 19 ppg and the Bills are 15th at 23.2 ppg.

 

So the defensive league avg is 22.8 ppg given up or teams need score at least 3 TDs and 1 FG per game.

 

It's a scoring league dude, you need to outscore opponents not hope to hold them down.

Haven't we lost 6 games this year where we've met at least that offensive production?

[MAJBobby]

Haven't we lost 6 games this year where we've met at least that offensive production?

Yeah and two the QB could not lead a game winning drive.

 

Lets not forget or maybe we have to the games the Defense bailed an offense out and won.

[BuffaloHokie13]

Yeah and two the QB could not lead a game winning drive.

 

Lets not forget or maybe we have to the games the Defense bailed an offense out and won.

 

I wouldn't be too upset if we only had 2 of those 6 losses.

[jms62]

Haven't we lost 6 games this year where we've met at least that offensive production?

 

It isn't Madden football you still need a modicum of Defense if scoring is all you need the Saints would have won 5 championships by now.

[Manther]

Back to one game i see to justify two years of crap. Again how many wins has he led this team too when down 4 at any point in a game?

Ooo why cant TT lead to a TD on first OT drive why leave it to Carp?

MAJBobby....sometimes I agree with you on some things. But, the thread is about TT not being the largest problem. I think we can agree TT is not the largest problem...no?

[MAJBobby]

MAJBobby....sometimes I agree with you on some things. But, the thread is about TT not being the largest problem. I think we can agree TT is not the largest problem...no?

Agree Largest problem no. A major Problem that needs to be fixed? I say yes. And you?

 

If answer is yes why kick the can 3 years down the road?

Edited December 27, 2016 by MAJBobby

[Maury Ballstein]

I don't take any offense to the dumb Polak accusations/jokes. Nor do I think anyone else should. If you think I am dumb, feel free to express your opinion.

 

Besides, aunt Marie and uncle Nic insist I come from good stock. And uncle Ted fought for the right for me to express my free speech and for you to do the same too.

 

Cheers!

I know polish, you're a cool dude for sure

 

The others taking mild offense border on ridiculousness perpetually.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Ok so there are 19 teams averaging 23+ ppg not 25+ on offense, my bad. 23 is more than 22 that defense gives up that's why I used that.

 

On defense there are only 8 teams avg less than 20 ppg, NE being the lowest at 15.7 ppg, and 4 of the 8 avg 19 ppg and the Bills are 15th at 23.2 ppg.

 

So the defensive league avg is 22.8 ppg given up or teams need score at least 3 TDs and 1 FG per game.

 

It's a scoring league dude, you need to outscore opponents not hope to hold them down.

 

?? on numbers.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2016/

this is a list sorted by PF on offense. Mid-pack (16th) is 23.2 ppg. 17th is 22.6 ppg. So there are 16 teams, not 19, averaging 23+ ppg on offense, allowing the decimal.

 

The average on offense and defense is exactly the same (has to be by definition) but that really doesn't tell us anything, or at least, I'm not clear on what you think it tells us?

The "rule of thumb" is that any time your team scores 21 points or more on offense (maybe that needs to be revised upward) a good D ought to be able to secure you the win.

One can win either way - score lots of points on offense, or hold the other team's offense down, and teams do.

 

But the average is just that - an average - some games are low-scoring, some are blowouts, and some are high-scoring duels.

 

Again not sure what is your point, if it's that offense is more important that defense these numbers don't support you.

For example, if you look at offense and defensive rank of winning (playoff) teams, this year 8/12 playoff teams have top-10 D and 5/12 have top-10 O. There are 4 playoff teams with bottom-third O and 2 with bottom-third D. (Predictably, these are not the same teams, winning teams with poor D have top O and vice-versa)

It seems it's a bit easier to win with stifling D and mediocre offense than the reverse, but both happen.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Haven't we lost 6 games this year where we've met at least that offensive production?

 

Yes. Yes, we have, my friend. Some will say that's because we achieved that production only in "garbage time", late in the 4th quarter with the winning team's lead secure, but that's not the whole story leaving aside my dislike of the term "garbage time". I'd be happy with 3 of those wins, which really should have been acheivable.

 

And therein lies the difference between the Bills (#5 O, #15 D), and teams which are going to the playoffs. There are teams which have offenses about the same, and defenses as bad or worse, which are going to the playoffs. The Raiders would be one example (#3 O, #19 D), the Packers would be another (#6 O, #23 D). The difference? Those teams hung on or fought back and won the games they needed to.

 

The Bills put 10 men on the field vs the opponents 11.

[MAJBobby]

 

Yes. Yes, we have, my friend. Some will say that's because we achieved that production only in "garbage time", late in the 4th quarter with the winning team's lead secure, but that's not the whole story leaving aside my dislike of the term "garbage time". I'd be happy with 3 of those wins, which really should have been acheivable.

 

And therein lies the difference between the Bills (#5 O, #15 D), and teams which are going to the playoffs. There are teams which have offenses about the same, and defenses as bad or worse, which are going to the playoffs. The Raiders would be one example (#3 O, #19 D), the Packers would be another (#6 O, #23 D). The difference? Those teams hung on or fought back and won the games they needed to.

 

The Bills put 10 men on the field vs the opponents 11.

They also failed to score on 2 drives before that mistake

[Manther]

Agree Largest problem no. A major Problem that needs to be fixed? I say yes. And you?

 

If answer is yes why kick the can 3 years down the road?

MAJBobby.....I am unsure on TT. Some of his issues I don't think are correctable. I think if the coaching and/or system was different TT would do better. But, that is just my opinion. I think with Marrone (I know Marrone didn't coach TT, but, these last two HCs share many issues that drive me crazy) and Rex (and their staffs) they both play not to lose the game (old school thoughts that don't work now). I hate that approach. With those approaches I believe their play calling is too conservative and isn't beneficial to the QBs and handicaps them during the games finding rythyms and their long term improvements.

 

So, I think with a different staff, TT would be better. Is he the answer, probably not. But, I think he has the ceiling to be the 10-15th best QB in the NFL. Will he get there, not sure.

 

I also think he is worth keeping if there isn't a better option.

 

I am more focussed on fixing the long term issues. QB is not the issue IMO. Russ Brandon will stay and I think that is a HUGE problem. I am fine with Whaley, but, if we clean out everything and Whaley goes, so be it. Rex is a huge problem and the FO structure.

 

Just my thoughts.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Manther

[Hapless Bills Fan]

(....) The issue I wrestle with on this issue is whether the team would be better off in the long run with a qb such as Kirk Cousins who can more accurately throw the ball utilizing the whole field and is more adept at making reads and going through progressions.

 

In our situation it is not a question of what style of play one would prefer but what type of qb is presently available. TT is what we have and he is the qb we are working with. Granted that's the reality we are living with but that doesn't alter the fact that I continue to be queasy about the situation.

 

As I said in a prior posting just because the qb situation is not the main problem for this bedraggled franchise that doesn't mean that it can't be addressed and, if needed/opportunity presents itself, upgraded.

 

I'm absolutely in favor of attempts to upgrade our QB situation, and you've accurately (IMO) summarized the issues. It isn't just "ask and have" where NFL QB are concerned. I would prefer, and believe long-term the Bills would be better off with, a QB who is a better passer and better at reads, and at this point I lack faith that Tyrod will progress.

 

Where I take issue is with those (not you) who feel we should kick Taylor to the curb and move on, simply because he doesn't look like the preferred long-term answer, using strangely selective claims about how many other QB would be better. Would the Bills be better off right here right now, with Carson Wentz, sure! But would they be better off with Jared Goff, taken higher in the 1st? Well, no. Mariota, arguably yes, Winston and Bortles (right now) I would say no.

 

There have been 21 QB taken in the 1st 4 rounds of the NFL draft over the last 3 years. Leaving aside high 1st rounders, 16 QB. The Bills would arguably be better off being QB by two of them, maybe 4 (including injured guys), and only 1 of those 4 is a rookie. 3 of them are in their 3rd year. The other 12, pffft. So it's not just "hey, let's draft a promising rookie, any rookie would be as good or better than Taylor". There's no evidence to support that.

 

I do wonder if Dak Prescott was available when we picked 4 picks later, would we have chosen him or stayed with Jones?

They also failed to score on 2 drives before that mistake

 

Apples to kumquats. Failing to score on a drive is part of football. No team scores every drive.

 

Putting 10 men on the field at a critical juncture is egregious coaching incompetence.