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

[Kirby Jackson]

22 minutes ago, Billzgobowlin said:

I think the opposite, he was overly criticized.  He had bad RBs and a defense that never helped out.  He played for playoff teams his downside is he wasn't Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers good

QB wouldn't have made the difference, at least Peterman took chances.  

Go back and look at Bledsoe’s Bills tenure. He was 23-25, completed 59.1% of his passes, 6.1 ypa, sacked 140 times, had 59 TDS (1.23 per game), 56 turnovers. He was no better than Losman and Edwards. We like to remember the Pats Bledsoe and not the guy that we had.

[plenzmd1]

3 minutes ago, unclepete said:

They knew better than the Bills when they ridiculed the JP Losman and EJ Manuel draft picks.

 

And offering Fitz a long term contract

All I am saying is most so-called "experts" miss prolly 50% of the time too. Its a crap shoot with these guys.

3 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

So what example are you looking for? We scored 30 points in that game. If we had scored another TD would that have been enough for you? This has been the thing with everyone who tries to argue Tyrod is not good. The wins are in spite of him, the losses are because of him. It defies all logic. Wentz won yesterday throwing for 168 yards. What’s his signature game that he won on his own? There are like 3 QBs in the league that meet your standard and one of them is injured for the season.

have never said the wins are in spite of him, and the losses are all on him. This is the ultimate team game, who he plays with, how the D plays, everything factors into it. I dont know how many ways I can say I think TT is BETTER than Peterman, but not in this scheme!

 

I detest Denison, have from the start of the season, but if he is staying Taylor is not the right guy for this offense, this year or next!

[Avisan]

5 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

And most will say Taylor put that in the wrong spot. And without a gift, Defensive TD in Atlanta and a whacked call in the Denver game and 3 TO's against TB and 4 against the Raiders those all could be losses.

 

Cant play the if game in the NFL, dude has been the starter for 2 1/2 years, he is what he is, a .500 QB that wins if everything around goes perfect.

 

And perfect means get a lead and win TO battle. I really don't think I need to bring up his record when down by 4 at ANY TIME in game do I?

Which is funny, because Donald Jones and other ex-players have said that it was a good read and throw by Taylor and that the play was messed up by Jones.

 

But I'm sure a bunch of bitter keyboard warriors know better.

[unclepete]

7 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

And most will say Taylor put that in the wrong spot. And without a gift, Defensive TD in Atlanta and a whacked call in the Denver game and 3 TO's against TB and 4 against the Raiders those all could be losses.

 

Cant play the if game in the NFL, dude has been the starter for 2 1/2 years, he is what he is, a .500 QB that wins if everything around goes perfect.

 

And perfect means get a lead and win TO battle. I really don't think I need to bring up his record when down by 4 at ANY TIME in game do I?

Nothing around this oganization has gone perfect. Or even well and he's a .500 qb. 

[JohnC]

19 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

They were in a playoff position. If they won yesterday they were actually the 5 seed. There’s a difference between playoffs and Super Bowl. One of them can clearly lead their team to the playoffs. One of them may not be on a roster next year. Those aren’t the same. Average starter is not the same as scrub rookie backup.

 

I’m all for Rosen. We all should be. 

Kirby, This wasn't a playoff team entering the season nor a playoff team while in the season. Yes, our record indicated that we were still in the running but that was an illusion. The games in which we won were mostly due to fortuitous turnovers and exceptional field goal kicking. It had little to do with the qb play. When matching this roster against good teams our roster assessed by any fair-minded person falls far short. 

 

With respect to the debate whether Taylor or Peterman is going to be our future franchise qb the answer is simply neither. And everyone who is sober knows that. I had no problem with Peterman starting in San Diego. Was it a risk? Of course it was. But when you have a qb who continued to resist throwing the ball down the field even when the team is far behind then you have to resort to substituting players. You know what the usually reluctant Taylor did when he was inserted into the game? He became less reluctant and fearful of throwing the ball. So not starting him did have a positive effect on him.

 

People are up in arms that the roster that this new regime inherited is being torn apart. That's exactly what was intended and exactly what is happening. That's what rebuilding teams do. There is no quick fix, and never was. The patchwork approach under Whaley and his predecessors didn't work so a more comprehensive approach is being taken. Painful as it is it is the right approach to take. 

 

As you noted the most important issue is addressing the qb position in the next draft. That's the cornerstone issue that will be the biggest reason why this franchise will succeed or not. 

 

 

[plenzmd1]

2 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Which is funny, because Donald Jones and other ex-players have said that it was a good read and throw by Taylor and that the play was messed up by Jones.

 

But I'm sure a bunch of bitter keyboard warriors know better.

and a bunch of other experts have said Taylor put it in the wrong place, again its one play. A bunch of "experts" have also watched every play the Bills have run on all 22, and say Taylor refuses to throw to open receivers, but there is no stat for that. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

7 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Go back and look at Bledsoe’s Bills tenure. He was 23-25, completed 59.1% of his passes, 6.1 ypa, sacked 140 times, had 59 TDS (1.23 per game), 56 turnovers. He was no better than Losman and Edwards. We like to remember the Pats Bledsoe and not the guy that we had.

Let's take a look at the QBs that have started at least 16 games for the Bills since the Super Bowls.

 

Kelly: 101-59

Collins: 7-10

Flutie: 21-9

Johnson: 9-17

Bledsoe: 23-25

Losman: 10-23

Edwards: 14-18

Fitzpatrick: 20-33

Manuel: 6-11

Taylor: 20-18

 

I see 3 guys who the Bills won with more than they lost with. 1 is beloved and 2 are hated at worst, polarizing at best...

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Kirby, This wasn't a playoff team entering the season nor a playoff team while in the season. Yes, our record indicated that we were still in the running but that was an illusion. The games in which we won were mostly due to fortuitous turnovers and exceptional field goal kicking. It had little to do with the qb play. When matching this roster against good teams our roster assessed by any fair-minded person falls far short. 

 

With respect to the debate whether Taylor or Peterman is going to be our future franchise qb the answer is simply neither. And everyone who is sober knows that. I had no problem with Peterman starting in San Diego. Was it a risk? Of course it was. But when you have a qb who continued to resist throwing the ball down the field even when the team is far behind then you have to resort to substituting players. You know what the usually reluctant Taylor did when he was inserted into the game? He became less reluctant and fearful of throwing the ball. So not starting him did have a positive effect on him.

 

People are up in arms that the roster that this new regime inherited is being torn apart. That's exactly what was intended and exactly what is happening. That's what rebuilding teams do. There is no quick fix, and never was. The patchwork approach under Whaley and his predecessors didn't work so a more comprehensive approach is being taken. Painful as it is it is the right approach to take. 

 

As you noted the most important issue is addressing the qb position in the next draft. That's the cornerstone issue that will be the biggest reason why this franchise will succeed or not. 

 

 

The place that we disagree is that the AFC is bad enough that we could have been a playoff team. We weren’t a contender but were “playoff caliber” as our coach likes to say. 9 wins probably gets a WC this year and yesterday was one of the most pivotal games if they were going to get there. They sacrificed it. 

 

I dont mind the rebuild but let’s call it that. Let’s stop with the nonsense of “winning now with an eye to the future.” They tanked with that decision yesterday. I had heard Peterman had been bad in practice. This wasn’t a guy that you had to get on the field. It was a tank move. If we call it that and move forward as such, cool. Get your guy this year and let’s go. 

4 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Let's take a look at the QBs that have started at least 16 games for the Bills since the Super Bowls.

 

Kelly: 101-59

Collins: 7-10

Flutie: 21-9

Johnson: 9-17

Bledsoe: 23-25

Losman: 10-23

Edwards: 14-18

Fitzpatrick: 20-33

Manuel: 6-11

Taylor: 20-18

 

I see 3 guys who the Bills won with more than they lost with. 1 is beloved and 2 are hated at worst, polarizing at best...

We always hear people talk positively about Bledsoe. Tyrod has been a WAY better player in a Bills uniform than Bledsoe. So was Orton for that matter. 

[plenzmd1]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

The place that we disagree is that the AFC is bad enough that we could have been a playoff team. We weren’t a contender but were “playoff caliber” as our coach likes to say. 9 wins probably gets a WC this year and yesterday was one of the most pivotal games if they were going to get there. They sacrificed it. 

 

I dont mind the rebuild but let’s call it that. Let’s stop with the nonsense of “winning now with an eye to the future.” They tanked with that decision yesterday. I had heard Peterman had been bad in practice. This wasn’t a guy that you had to get on the field. It was a tank move. If we call it that and move forward as such, cool. Get your guy this year and let’s go. 

interesting on the practice note, but i agree with most of what you say regarding stop the bull crap and call this what it is, a rebuild. 

[unclepete]

4 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Kirby, This wasn't a playoff team entering the season nor a playoff team while in the season. Yes, our record indicated that we were still in the running but that was an illusion. The games in which we won were mostly due to fortuitous turnovers and exceptional field goal kicking. It had little to do with the qb play. When matching this roster against good teams our roster assessed by any fair-minded person falls far short. 

 

With respect to the debate whether Taylor or Peterman is going to be our future franchise qb the answer is simply neither. And everyone who is sober knows that. I had no problem with Peterman starting in San Diego. Was it a risk? Of course it was. But when you have a qb who continued to resist throwing the ball down the field even when the team is far behind then you have to resort to substituting players. You know what the usually reluctant Taylor did when he was inserted into the game? He became less reluctant and fearful of throwing the ball. So not starting him did have a positive effect on him.

 

People are up in arms that the roster that this new regime inherited is being torn apart. That's exactly what was intended and exactly what is happening. That's what rebuilding teams do. There is no quick fix, and never was. The patchwork approach under Whaley and his predecessors didn't work so a more comprehensive approach is being taken. Painful as it is it is the right approach to take. 

 

As you noted the most important issue is addressing the qb position in the next draft. That's the cornerstone issue that will be the biggest reason why this franchise will succeed or not. 

 

 

Nobody is suggesting that Tyrod is the future of the franchise. I think we all are in favor of drafting our guy next year. I just don't understand the justification of making a QB change when we've been competitive. The Chiefs will start Mahommes eventually, but will roll with the experience until he's ready. Throwing our young rookie out to the wolves probably isn't the best idea. Starting Peterman made no sense whatsoever. We have a competent QB available to smooth us over until we find our franchise guy.  And in a terrible AFC, we have a shot at making a run. Creating a winning culture. 

[Avisan]

6 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

and a bunch of other experts have said Taylor put it in the wrong place, again its one play. A bunch of "experts" have also watched every play the Bills have run on all 22, and say Taylor refuses to throw to open receivers, but there is no stat for that. 

Yes, a bunch of TSW experts said he put it in the wrong place.  The rest is a non-sequitur.  Of course Taylor doesn't make all the throws he should.  If he did, he'd be a top 5 guy.  He doesn't, so 10-12 is his ceiling.

[ddaryl]

2 weeks in a row before the Chargers game this team was in a free fall and TT didn't have much going for him.. So unless we wanted to change the entire OL or the entire Defense the only move was a QB swap... which obvioulsy didn't help but at least we get to see what we have going forward..

 

I'd like to see a few more games of Peterman.. I want to see what kind of resolve the man has.. The only reaosn I want TT playing QB would be because this OL sucks realy bad, and Peterman might end up on a stretcher

 

 

Edited November 20, 2017 by ddaryl

[unclepete]

11 minutes ago, plenzmd1 said:

and a bunch of other experts have said Taylor put it in the wrong place, again its one play. A bunch of "experts" have also watched every play the Bills have run on all 22, and say Taylor refuses to throw to open receivers, but there is no stat for that. 

Are interceptions worse than nonthrows? Look our  of the future is in College right now. Let's win all we can with our best option. Which is Tyrod at this point

[plenzmd1]

16 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Yes, a bunch of TSW experts said he put it in the wrong place.  The rest is a non-sequitur.  Of course Taylor doesn't make all the throws he should.  If he did, he'd be a top 5 guy.  He doesn't, so 10-12 is his ceiling.

oh okay, so Donald Jones is the ONLY expert that can be right. There was plenty of discussion around that play, and again it was one freaking play in a game they scored 3, yes three points in. And you are saying the QB had no hand in that ineptitude. The D balled out that game, got nothing from TT!

10 minutes ago, unclepete said:

Are interceptions worse than nonthrows? Look our  of the future is in College right now. Let's win all we can with our best option. Which is Tyrod at this point

So obviously yesterday was just beyond awful, and of course, INT are worse, in some cases, than not throwing.

 

But to me, its like blackjack and you got 16 and the dealer is showing an 8, and you have your last $100 on the table. Not hitting ensure that you will not bust, and maybe the dealer will. But the odds are you are better hitting.

 

That's how I feel about being ultraconservative at the QB position.

Edited November 20, 2017 by plenzmd1

[Teddy KGB]

17 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Yes, a bunch of TSW experts said he put it in the wrong place.  The rest is a non-sequitur.  Of course Taylor doesn't make all the throws he should.  If he did, he'd be a top 5 guy.  He doesn't, so 10-12 is his ceiling.

 

Hes never been a 10-12 guy.       Why are you making numbers up ? 

 

18-25 has consistently been his range. 

[JohnC]

9 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

The place that we disagree is that the AFC is bad enough that we could have been a playoff team. We weren’t a contender but were “playoff caliber” as our coach likes to say. 9 wins probably gets a WC this year and yesterday was one of the most pivotal games if they were going to get there. They sacrificed it. 

 

I dont mind the rebuild but let’s call it that. Let’s stop with the nonsense of “winning now with an eye to the future.” They tanked with that decision yesterday. I had heard Peterman had been bad in practice. This wasn’t a guy that you had to get on the field. It was a tank move. If we call it that and move forward as such, cool. Get your guy this year and let’s go. 

We always hear people talk positively about Bledsoe. Tyrod has been a WAY better player in a Bills uniform than Bledsoe. So was Orton for that matter. 

 

5 minutes ago, unclepete said:

Nobody is suggesting that Tyrod is the future of the franchise. I think we all are in favor of drafting our guy next year. I just don't understand the justification of making a QB change when we've been competitive. The Chiefs will start Mahommes eventually, but will roll with the experience until he's ready. Throwing our young rookie out to the wolves probably isn't the best idea. Starting Peterman made no sense whatsoever. We have a competent QB available to smooth us over until we find our franchise guy.  And in a terrible AFC, we have a shot at making a run. Creating a winning culture. 

Both your responses are well thought out but I believe you are both wrong because I do not believe that this team as it was constituted was ever a playoff team. Certainly the record indicated that statistically this team was in the mix but the wins that we garnered didn't reflect how bad this team really was. Our defense is in a state of decay. It is a hollow defense that gets shredded with ease. That doesn't reflect a playoff caliber team. Our offense, especially in the passing game,  with TT as the starter is relatively simple/primitive. That's not a playoff caliber offense.

 

Especially Kirby overvalues how this staff publicly rates its team. Those rosy descriptions are simply attuned to the business side of the game. What do you expect the wrestling coach to say? That this team is bad and we are not directing most of our decisions for immediate success but rather long term success. Come on now. My recommendation is to watch what is being done and for the most part ignore what is being said. The first thing this new regime did is shed talented players for draft picks. What do you think that indicates? This team has been shedding payroll to open cap space. That's for future player acquisitions, 

 

This organization is rebuilding. It's not as haphazard as many are making it out to be. It's a painful process that is going to raise the cackles of many. Tough! The approach being done is the right approach to take. That's a reality that too many people are resistant to. 

[Kirby Jackson]

8 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

2 weeks in a row before the Chargers game this team was in a free fall and TT didn't have much going for him.. So unless we wanted to change the entire OL or the entire Defense the only move was a QB swap... which obvioulsy didn't help but at least we get to see what we have going forward..

 

I'd like to see a few more games of Peterman.. I want to see what kind of resolve the man has.. The only reaosn I want TT playing QB would be because this OL sucks realy bad, and Peterman might end up on a stretcher

 

 

The weird thing is, I don’t want to see more of him (even though it is probably best to keep losing). If the guy is capable of 5 picks in a half I don’t know that I can trust him. The Chargers did exactly what everyone knew they would do, jump routes. Peterman did exactly what he has always done, struggled under pressure. He may not be as bad as he was yesterday but there’s a reason he went in the 5th. He was probably worth the shot there but he is what he is. I know Blokes and Gunner didn’t like him at all coming out. They have probably seen him the most.

 

He has a chance to be a #2 in this league but he looked like #2 yesterday. It’s a little ironic that he wears that number. I don’t care to see him struggle through the end of the year. Let him develop in practice and if you believe that he can be your backup next year, so be it. If not it’s just another spot that you’ll need to fill. 

[GunnerBill]

This is why I thought it was an inevitable decision taken too early.  I have little hope we'd have won yesterday with Tyrod.  Our D has disintegrated in the space of 3 weeks. and our o-line is playing extremely poorly.  I think we'd have been 5-7 after New England and THEN you have to see whether you have anything in Peterman and nobody worries about tanking the season at that point.  

[CountDorkula]

1 hour ago, Avisan said:

Sure.  Question marks after the guys who look solid but could fall off a cliff a la Nick Foles (see Carr and Prescott for what can happen when your supporting cast weakens).

 

Brady

Brees

Rodgers

Ryan

Cousins

Roethlisberger

Smith

Wilson

Luck (probably?)

Wentz(?)

Goff(?)

 

After that it's a whole bunch of guys vying for the 12-18 spots, among whom I think Taylor has done the most with the least.  Really not sure who else you can argue definitely belongs ahead of him.

 

Interesting, but I strongly disagree. Who i think is better, bold I added.

 

Brady

Brees

Rodgers

Ryan

Cousins

Roethlisberger

Smith

Wilson

Luck 

Wentz

Goff

Prescott

Carr

Watson

Dalton

Newton

Winston

Mariota (?)

Bradford

Rivers

Stafford

 

 

[Kirby Jackson]

5 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

This is why I thought it was an inevitable decision taken too early.  I have little hope we'd have won yesterday with Tyrod.  Our D has disintegrated in the space of 3 weeks. and our o-line is playing extremely poorly.  I think we'd have been 5-7 after New England and THEN you have to see whether you have anything in Peterman and nobody worries about tanking the season at that point.  

The part that’s concerning to me is the impact in the locker room. This wasn’t a divided locker room. They universally thought it was a bad decision. It was Dennison’s decision and ultimately he will fall on the sword for it. This year was about taking steps forward, not backwards. They got too trigger happy. They should have played until they were comfortably out of it (after NE) and then moved on.