John from Riverside Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I'm quite certain that the terminology did not change and Lynn himself said that it wouldn't have been something that could have been done given how sudden his promotion to OC was. He said it in a interview in the middle of the season. He said that a new offense could not be installed because they were already into the season but the order of the play calling at the terminology changed....but he offense did not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM2009 Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Like the Baltimore game. mmm yeah, TT had a poor game in that one. He didn't the second Miami game. The overall season the defense was the main problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 What people dont talk about in the baltimore game is just how unprepared the offense looked as a whole in game 1 TT barely played in pre season.....RR was really holding players out trying to keep players healthy. I really dont want to make excuses though.....the offense did not play well....it was one of the few games where the defense actually played better then the offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 5, 2017 Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 What people dont talk about in the baltimore game is just how unprepared the offense looked as a whole in game 1 TT barely played in pre season.....RR was really holding players out trying to keep players healthy. I really dont want to make excuses though.....the offense did not play well....it was one of the few games where the defense actually played better then the offense. Might've been a factor... sure was a piss poor performance nonetheless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 mmm yeah, TT had a poor game in that one. He didn't the second Miami game. The overall season the defense was the main problem. Didn't you post "Bills go 8-8 if they sign Maclin" 2009? 8 wins or less? Not a big endorsement of your guy Taylor. An improvement on the D is all we need (right?) Tyrod Taylor is good enough to be our starter (right?) Is that what you meant to say? He had a "great game" that day? He also had a "great game" against Seattle too. Truth - we all know that those "great games" are few and far between. Or was it an involuntary deflect dodge reply? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 5, 2017 Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 Didn't you post "Bills go 8-8 if they sign Maclin" 2009? 8 wins or less? Not a big endorsement of your guy Taylor. An improvement on the D is all we need (right?) Tyrod Taylor is good enough to be our starter (right?) Is that what you meant to say? He had a "great game" that day? He also had a "great game" against Seattle too. Truth - we all know that those "great games" are few and far between. Or was it an involuntary deflect dodge reply? Even if the Miami game and Seattle game are Taylor's ceiling, if he can more consistently play to that level and have fewer games like Cincinnati and Baltimore, he'd be just fine. That Miami game was just a perfect storm of crap going against him after bringing the team down for the late go ahead TD. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Even if the Miami game and Seattle game are Taylor's ceiling, if he can more consistently play to that level and have fewer games like Cincinnati and Baltimore, he'd be just fine. That Miami game was just a perfect storm of crap going against him after bringing the team down for the late go ahead TD. IF That is a big if. The Bills need more production from their starting QB on a weekly basis - period. Spout stats or wins and losses, hard counts whatever. The song remains the same. The Bills lack that guy and have so for a while. BTW didn't they win the Cincy game in 2016? I thought they did. That Miami game was just a perfect storm of crap going into OT and a load of crap from the start of OT until the end of the "period" when Miami finally scored. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) Even if the Miami game and Seattle game are Taylor's ceiling, if he can more consistently play to that level and have fewer games like Cincinnati and Baltimore, he'd be just fine.Not a fan of this logic really. We see so many mediocre and bad QBs have big games every now and again. The difference between the great QBs and the decent to good to bad ones are the consistency they play with. We watched Fitz tear us up and have a monster game last year. If he consistently played games like that then he wouldn't be such a journeyman. If guys like Kaepernick and Keenum were more consistent they would still be starters. Tyrod has just as many stickers as he does great games. It's what middle of the pack QBs do. Edited June 5, 2017 by Bangarang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 5, 2017 Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 IF That is a big if. The Bills need more production from their starting QB on a weekly basis - period. Spout stats or wins and losses, hard counts whatever. The song remains the same. The Bills lack that guy and have so for a while. BTW didn't they win the Cincy game in 2016? I thought they did. That Miami game was just a perfect storm of crap going into OT and a load of crap from the start of OT until the end of the "period" when Miami finally scored. Of course if is an if is an if. Maybe it's big. Maybe it's doable. All I said was that if Taylor can more consistently be the QB he's shown he can be, he's going to be just fine. Uh... yeah... we won the Cincy game... your point...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Not a fan of this logic really. We see so many mediocre and bad QBs have big games every now and again. The difference between the great QBs and the decent to good to bad ones are the consistency they play with. We watched Fitz tear us up and have a monster game last year. If he consistently played games like that then he wouldn't be such a journeyman. If guys like Kaepernick and Keemun were more consistent they would still be starters. Tyrod has just as many stickers as he does great games. It's what middle of the pack QBs do. We see many mediocre and bad QBs have big games every now and again - TT We see so many great and or Franchise QBs have crappy games every now and again - not TT. I'd rather option 2 over option 1. Of course if is an if is an if. Maybe it's big. Maybe it's doable. All I said was that if Taylor can more consistently be the QB he's shown he can be, he's going to be just fine. Uh... yeah... we won the Cincy game... your point...? No transplantbillsfan, its not fine. we need better week in and week out. 1 bad game out of 4 opposed to 1 very game out of 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 5, 2017 Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 Not a fan of this logic really. We see so many mediocre and bad QBs have big games every now and again. The difference between the great QBs and the decent to good to bad ones are the consistency they play with. We watched Fitz tear us up and have a monster game last year. If he consistently played games like that then he wouldn't be such a journeyman. If guys like Kaepernick and Keenum were more consistent they would still be starters. Tyrod has just as many stickers as he does great games. It's what middle of the pack QBs do. ... ? You're not a fan of the logic you pretty much entirely agree with...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 ... ? You're not a fan of the logic you pretty much entirely agree with...? I'm not a fan of playing the what if game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 I'm not a fan of playing the what if game. Its the off season.....the what if is pretty much all we got... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 5, 2017 Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 We see many mediocre and bad QBs have big games every now and again - TT We see so many great and or Franchise QBs have crappy games every now and again - not TT. I'd rather option 2 over option 1. No transplantbillsfan, its not fine. we need better week in and week out. 1 bad game out of 4 opposed to 1 very game out of 4 What in the world...? Am I speaking Swahili or something? Both you and Bang summarized pretty much what I'm saying, though you're putting a negative tone on it while I guess I have a more optimistic outlook. Interesting... I'm not a fan of playing the what if game. Ummm... then what are you even doing here? That's all we got at this point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 Ummm... then what are you even doing here? That's all we got at this point My mistake. I'll excuse myself for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) What in the world...? Am I speaking Swahili or something? Both you and Bang summarized pretty much what I'm saying, though you're putting a negative tone on it while I guess I have a more optimistic outlook. Interesting... Not Swahili, must be something else. Enable Translation macro - because it deserves a negative "tone" We need a QB that "has a few bad games", more than we need a QB who" has a few great games". mediocre and bad QBs have big games every now and again great and or Franchise QBs have crappy games every now and again there is no "tone" intended or implied. It's a simply pointing out a reality. My mistake. I'll excuse myself for now. its snack time right? Coookieeees!!!!!! that is the cookie monster , no? Edited June 6, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 5, 2017 Author Share Posted June 5, 2017 Not Swahili, must be something else. Enable Translation macro - because it deserves a negative "tone" We desperately need a QB that has a few bad games over a QB who has a few great games What? Who's saying this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grb Posted June 5, 2017 Share Posted June 5, 2017 (edited) First, the caveat : I'm sure the majority of people skeptical about Mr. Taylor aren't bizarrely weird, just the most vocal ones here. That out the way, what a spectacle! Transplant says TT would be a fine QB if he could play consistently at the level of the Seattle and (2nd) Miami game. Now, the obviousness of this is so obvious it's obvious, but any formulation finding Taylor the slightest bit above a "running back who can throw" is a red flag to very bull-head people. So they respond with posts saying it's not enuff for Taylor to play with consistency, he has to play with consistency. Transplant is horribly wrong to bring up the issue of consistency, because the real problem is consistency. The thing that would make Taylor a real QB isn't consistency (that fool Transplant !!!), but consistency..... Me? I think the problem is consistency, so clearly I disagree with everyone - right? Of course that is the issue. There have been zillions of posts from people trying to define some a priori element of Taylor cooked into his genetics which disqualify him as a quarterback. He can't throw over the middle. He can't see the field. He can't process decisions. My favorite is the "throw with anticipation" bromide, which is a testament to the mass hypnotic effect of sports clichés. It would be a wonderful thing to chart the frequency of usage of this trait as defining QB skill, both before & after it became the go-to Tyrod insult. A thousand-fold increase maybe? But whatever weaknesses there are in Taylor's game, he has very frequently played at a high level. In fact, if you look at his Bill's career exclusively when he plays with a legitimate Number One & Two receiver, he's looked pretty solid. He can make the throws. He can be a playmaker. He can even improve. Even minus those final Ws, I thought he looked much more clutch the second half of last year. Red zone offense got significantly better. Third down conversions improved. It's all down to consistency. That will define his ceiling and we should see in '17. Now : Carry on with your argument whether it's consistency or consistency. Enquiring minds want to know! Edited June 6, 2017 by grb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figster Posted June 6, 2017 Share Posted June 6, 2017 First, the caveat : I'm sure the majority of people skeptical about Mr. Taylor aren't bizarrely weird, just the most vocal ones here. That out the way, what a spectacle! Transplant says TT would be a fine QB if he could play consistently at the level of the Seattle and (2nd) Miami game. Now, the obviousness of this is so obvious it's obvious, but any formulation finding Taylor the slightest bit above a "running back who can throw" is a red flag to very bull-head people. So they respond with some Twilight-Zone posts saying it's not enuff for Taylor to play with consistency, he has to play with consistency. Transplant is horribly wrong to bring up the issue of consistency, because the real problem is consistency. The thing that would make Taylor a real QB isn't consistency (that fool Transplant !!!), but consistency..... Me? I think the problem is consistency, so clearly I disagree with everyone - right? Of course that is the issue. There have been zillions of posts from people trying to define some a priori element of Taylor cooked into his genetics which disqualify him as a quarterback. He can't throw over the middle. He can't see the field. He can't process decisions. My favorite is the "throw with anticipation" bromide, which is a testament to the mass hypnotic effect of sports clichés. It would be a wonderful thing to chart the frequency of usage of this trait as defining QB skill, both before & after it became the go-to Tyrod insult. A thousand-fold increase maybe? But whatever weaknesses there are in Taylor's game, he has very frequently played at a high level. In fact, if you look at his Bill's career exclusively when he plays with a legitimate Number One & Two receiver, he's looked pretty solid. He can make the throws. He can be a playmaker. He can even improve. Even minus those final Ws, I thought he looked much more clutch the second half of last year. Red zone offense got significantly better. Third down conversions improved. It's all down to consistency. That will define his ceiling and we should see in '17. Now : Carry on with your argument whether it's consistency or consistency. Enquiring minds want to know! I don't know grb, this post just doesn't have enough consistency to win me over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted June 6, 2017 Author Share Posted June 6, 2017 (edited) First, the caveat : I'm sure the majority of people skeptical about Mr. Taylor aren't bizarrely weird, just the most vocal ones here. That out the way, what a spectacle! Transplant says TT would be a fine QB if he could play consistently at the level of the Seattle and (2nd) Miami game. Now, the obviousness of this is so obvious it's obvious, but any formulation finding Taylor the slightest bit above a "running back who can throw" is a red flag to very bull-head people. So they respond with posts saying it's not enuff for Taylor to play with consistency, he has to play with consistency. Transplant is horribly wrong to bring up the issue of consistency, because the real problem is consistency. The thing that would make Taylor a real QB isn't consistency (that fool Transplant !!!), but consistency..... Me? I think the problem is consistency, so clearly I disagree with everyone - right? Of course that is the issue. There have been zillions of posts from people trying to define some a priori element of Taylor cooked into his genetics which disqualify him as a quarterback. He can't throw over the middle. He can't see the field. He can't process decisions. My favorite is the "throw with anticipation" bromide, which is a testament to the mass hypnotic effect of sports clichés. It would be a wonderful thing to chart the frequency of usage of this trait as defining QB skill, both before & after it became the go-to Tyrod insult. A thousand-fold increase maybe? But whatever weaknesses there are in Taylor's game, he has very frequently played at a high level. In fact, if you look at his Bill's career exclusively when he plays with a legitimate Number One & Two receiver, he's looked pretty solid. He can make the throws. He can be a playmaker. He can even improve. Even minus those final Ws, I thought he looked much more clutch the second half of last year. Red zone offense got significantly better. Third down conversions improved. It's all down to consistency. That will define his ceiling and we should see in '17. Now : Carry on with your argument whether it's consistency or consistency. Enquiring minds want to know! Good stuff... Like I said... consistency Edited June 6, 2017 by transplantbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts