Here you can admit that yes, it CAN get worse than Taylor

[Dr. Who]

2 hours ago, JM2009 said:

The defense has been beyond bad since Dareus was traded. There is no pass rush at all. I'd like to win against Miami and the Colts at home, so I'd rather have TT start. KC and NE have much better teams than us, but Miami and the Colts , they can beat. Long time till next September. I'd like to enjoy a couple more wins before than. TT won't be here in 2018 and Peterman is a backup talent at best in the NFL. 

He's not the long term answer, but those numbers suggest he isn't terrible like some make him out to be. I hope he goes somewhere in 2018 where he is appreciated more.

Most folks would be fine with TT as a bridge qb if we had a plausibe, high draft pick potential franchise qb waiting in the wings.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Rico asked for Peterman supposedly. He begged to have a guy out there that can run his offense. He got it and it exploded in his face. 

Supposedly 

 

we will never know what transpired (until someone writes a book) 

[Kirby Jackson]

2 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Supposedly 

 

we will never know what transpired (until someone writes a book) 

My source on this is pretty reliable (and that’s an understatement).

[oldmanfan]

33 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I don’t think that they clean house but I think we see some major changes. As an example I would be really surprised if Dennison is back.

Wouldn't surprise me if they bring in McCoy

[Kirby Jackson]

5 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Wouldn't surprise me if they bring in McCoy

That’s what I think too. He was the 1st choice to begin with.

[HappyDays]

34 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Rico asked for Peterman supposedly. He begged to have a guy out there that can run his offense. He got it and it exploded in his face. 

 

If we let him come back to help make the QB selection and develop him we are screwed for at least 3 more seasons.

[Big C]

30 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

My source on this is pretty reliable (and that’s an understatement).

 

And it makes the most sense. 

 

Rico must be on the hot seat after that. 

[apuszczalowski]

Can't see Dennison lasting after this season. Not after how bad the offence has been  someone has to take the fall and it's usually the co-ordinator. If he was pushing for a change at QB, which makes sense after some of his public comments about Taylor after the Saints game, he must be feeling some heat and scrambling to save his job. 

[transplantbillsfan]

7 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

So Taylor can have historically bad games like against the Saints as a 7-year vet making starter money and his 35th start at HOME , and its ""give him another shot,, just a bad game" , but a rookie comes in in his first start, on the ROAD  against a very good team as well and it's "I have seen a half of this kid, he is a bust, never put him on the field again"

 

I truly cannot understand that logic.And I am pretty damn sure Rams fans are glad they did not listen to all the bust claims on Goff when he was historically bad through 7 games last year.

And yes to me one first down is almost 3 full quarters of play in an NFL game is historically bad, punts are pretty damn close to turnovers in my mind, as the score in both games was pretty damn similar.

 

Dude, do you get the phrase "historically bad?"

 

Go look up what Joe Flacco did against the Jags 3rd game of THIS YEAR!!!

 

It was worse than Taylor. And I'm not trying to say Taylor's game wasn't utterly crappy because it was.

 

But it wasn't historically crappy.

 

You have to look to before the AFL/NFL merger to find a QB who's thrown 5 interceptions in a half. And there was a 6th he would have thrown if the defender didn't drop it looking at the open space in front of him to the end zone.

 

Historically bad.

[Teddy KGB]

4 hours ago, JM2009 said:

Five fumbles right. 62 TDs and 22 turnovers total.

 

Let the other gm's of the league know about this.  

 

Maybe someone will give us a 4th for him. 

[Kirby Jackson]

21 minutes ago, Air it out Fitzy said:

 

Let the other gm's of the league know about this.  

 

Maybe someone will give us a 4th for him. 

I think that is realistic. Jacksonville and Denver feel logical. Those teams have good defenses and, in Jacksonville’s case, a run game. Denver still makes more sense to me as their window is smaller. They seem more likely to go with the vet. 

[Lfod]

9 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that is realistic. Jacksonville and Denver feel logical. Those teams have good defenses and, in Jacksonville’s case, a run game. Denver still makes more sense to me as their window is smaller. They seem more likely to go with the vet. 

If Buffalo let's Tyrod walk an he leads another team to the playoffs my view on the decision makers in Buffalo will turn very negative and skeptical one. 

[Kirby Jackson]

2 minutes ago, Lfod said:

If Buffalo let's Tyrod walk an he leads another team to the playoffs my view on the decision makers in Buffalo will turn very negative and skeptical one. 

He’s certainly leaving (at least at this point). I would think that he goes to a team with a good defense that wants to play ball control.

[34-78-83]

Prediction -

 

If TT has truly learned something from his benching and will now most always throw to the sticks on 3rd and long like he did vs. the Chargers and not bail out of the play with a dump off to a surrounded back for 2 yards - He will remain on the team through the off season. He and the guy we draft can battle it out until the guy is ready to take the job from TT.

 

If he hasn't learned, he's as good as gone.

Edited November 24, 2017 by 34-78-83

[Lfod]

48 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

He’s certainly leaving (at least at this point). I would think that he goes to a team with a good defense that wants to play ball control.

Well if Buffalo is moving on from that philosophy I can understand. It almost was good enough the way it had been running. I'll always wonder if was really talent when he walks out the building. I think he could possibly the face of a franchise if in the right circumstances. 

 

The offensive side did gave a few stalled games in the past. I don't think that's all because of Tyrods talent level. People say he holds the ball to long. I see it as his ability to create more time for himself in the pocket. That's amazing being able to create so much time especially if you believe the o line is not good.

 

I don't think it would be the worst idea to actually to ask Tyrod what kind of receivers he wants and can trust. Then he might be able to take more shots. Tyrod might actually not throw the ball because maybe he might be smart and practice with them and know they can't be trusted to be clutch wide receivers.

 

When I seen Nate Peterman I got scared. Just seeing him getting destroyed like he did made me look at Tyrod in a different way. I was even in favor of Nate Peterman starting. Nate let me see what it looks like when you throw the ball.

 

I think whatever the direction they take next year at Quarterback they need to invest on the offence next year. That is the reason we are hovering I think. You need to be able to put up points.

 

I don't assume we can't get better at Quarterback but I also think it that the entire offence itself needs them draft picks in my opinion. My philosophy is different because I would be an offensive minded coach if I was in that position in a franchise. In all honesty I think the GM did sell this year short for the future and I hope he's a master at his craft.

 

Edited November 24, 2017 by Lfod

[transplantbillsfan]

23 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

we shall see. he had the opportunity to shop himself last year, and he came back to Buffalo on a greatly reduced salary. 

 

I am willing to bet he signs somewhere for backup money and the opportunity to compete for a starting job. Good backup money in the neighborhood of $7-$9 M, but certainly not $18M starter money.

 

No, he didn't. Not under any laws or rules set forth by the NFL he didn't.

[transplantbillsfan]

7 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

We will see Peterman again.  As starter next year I'll bet.

 

One bad game does not mean a career, unless he doestn't have the guts to get ice it.

 

I don't think we will actually. It's funny, what was the biggest positive on Peterman coming out of the draft  and the reason everyone thought he was such a steal in the fifth round (bottom of the fifth round, mind you)?  He was supposed to be the most NFL ready guy, right? The reality is that we saw a guy who absolutely should not have been on the field on Sunday.

 

 I would bet that our starter next year in week one is either our newly drafted first round rookie or Taylor as the rookie sits waiting in the wings. 

 

Please don't let it be Jeff Tuel 2.0

Edited November 24, 2017 by transplantbillsfan

[oldmanfan]

8 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I don't think we will actually. It's funny, what was the biggest positive on Peterman coming out of the draft  and the reason everyone thought he was such a steal in the fifth round (bottom of the fifth round, mind you)?  He was supposed to be the most NFL ready guy, right? The reality is that we saw a guy who absolutely should not have been on the field on Sunday.

 

 I would bet that our starter next year in week one is either our newly drafted first round rookie or Taylor as the rookie sits waiting in the wings. 

 

Please don't let it be Jeff Tuel 2.0

One game does not make a career.  Like the Saints game didn't make Taylor.

 

Peterman will get a shot to earn the job.

[transplantbillsfan]

6 hours ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

 

dumb, dumb dumb dumb.

 

yeah, he was real good against the back ups in garbage time. I'm sure that was enough for you to regain some hope going in to kc. if they get blown out for a fourth time it wont fall on the shoulders of taylor or the offense though because the defense is so bad, right?

 

as for peterman, historically bad no doubt but once they are eliminated dec 2nd they'll likely give him another chance and he'll take his lumps the last four games so they can go in to the off season and evaluate both QBs. I have a feeling the QB stable will not be the same along with most of the roster going in to 2018?

 

No, what's dumb, dumb dumb dumb is saying Taylor looked bad when you are literally pointing to one out of 40+ snaps he took as a sign he was bad, too. 

 

And what's dumb, dumb dumb dumb is deciding he was bad when you didn't even watch most of the snaps he took.

 

 

And for the record, Taylor was utterly crappy against the Saints. I said when McDermott benched him I completely understood the benching, largely because I thought Peterman would be able to run the offense.

 

Boy was I wrong!

 

So were the coaches

 

 But really I think this was the second best outcome for the bills with what transpired last week in terms of the QB position. The best obviously would've been Peterman playing lights out and looking like a great QB and his first start and leading us to victory.

 

 That didn't happen. He was spectacularly awful. And this solidifies the fact that he won't be our long-term answer at QB and forces McBeane's hands even more in the draft to go up and get a QB high.

[transplantbillsfan]

6 hours ago, PeterGriffin said:

48 TDs passing

14 TDs rushing

17 interceptions

16 fumbles (don't know how many were lost fumbles) 

 

62 total TDs.

 

20 total turnovers.

6 hours ago, JM2009 said:

Five fumbles right. 62 TDs and 22 turnovers total.

 

6 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

That’s correct

 

No 15 interceptions and 5 lost turnovers. 20 total turnovers.