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

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

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.

 

If it was Dennison's decision he should go. I haven't heard that though.  Indeed Rob Ryan indicated last night on UK TV that ownership has always been sceptical of Tyrod and pushing for replacement.  

Edited November 20, 2017 by GunnerBill

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, CountDorkula said:

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

 

 

I’d give you all of those but Bradford. He never plays. Mariota and Winston haven’t been good this year but I think they will be. Around 20ish seems right.

2 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If it was Dennison's decision he should go. I haven't heard that though.  Indeed Rob Ryan indicated last night on UK TV that ownership has always been sceptical of Tyrod and pushing for replacement.  

Check your PM

[Avisan]

4 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

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

 

 

Statistically, you don't have much of an argument for the vast majority of those but I don't think any arguments we'd have about them would involve statistics so we can agree to disagree.

[unclepete]

18 minutes ago, JohnC said:

 

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. 

I appreciate your response. And you're right. Every move has been a move looking toward the future. I disagree, however, that this is not a playoff team. The Ravens have looked just as bad or worse than we have. In fact, every team in the playoff race has looked as bad or worse than we have this year. So I hoped we'd put the QB out there that gave us the best opportunity to win. A culture of losing is why we're here. And you're right, it won'y happen overnight. But if you look at the NFL, you'll notice that good teams tend to stay good and bad teams tend to always be "rebuilding" or playing for next year. 

[JohnC]

10 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

If it was Dennison's decision he should go. I haven't heard that though.  Indeed Rob Ryan indicated last night on UK TV that ownership has always been sceptical of Tyrod and pushing for replacement.  

Sal C on WGR who is attuned to what is going on pointed out that the change to Peterman had more to Taylor's play than to the rookie being ready. The coaching staff, probably mostly Dennison, was frustrated with not only with the qb's inability to run the offense but his hesitancy in the passing game. 

 

You pointed out in another post that the owners are not enamored with Taylor. There is nothing surprising about that because it is apparent that the staff certainly isn't committed to him either. 

 

McDermott took a gamble and it became a boondoggle. So what? In the grand scheme of things the qbs under discussion are not going to be instrumental in the future of the franchise. This team has been hollowed out and it was done on purpose. That was the plan when the owner hired McDermott. It is a painful process but at least it is being belatedly done. 

Edited November 20, 2017 by JohnC

[unclepete]

3 minutes ago, Avisan said:

Statistically, you don't have much of an argument for the vast majority of those but I don't think any arguments we'd have about them would involve statistics so we can agree to disagree.

People look at teams that have been successful and associate all of that success to the QB. And likewise they associate teams that haven't been successful and associate all of the failures to the QB. Philip Rivers is an elite QB who's been on some bad teams. Andy Dalton and Joe Flacco or average QBs who've been on really good teams. It's a team game. The QB has a huge impact but isn't the only player on the team.

[CountDorkula]

2 minutes ago, unclepete said:

People look at teams that have been successful and associate all of that success to the QB. And likewise they associate teams that haven't been successful and associate all of the failures to the QB. Philip Rivers is an elite QB who's been on some bad teams. Andy Dalton and Joe Flacco or average QBs who've been on really good teams. It's a team game. The QB has a huge impact but isn't the only player on the team.

 

I look at teams who have good QB's. Are you trying to say Andy Dalton has zero to do with the Bengals success?

 

Joe Flacco was very good for a few years and then fell off the face of the earth.

[Avisan]

4 minutes ago, unclepete said:

People look at teams that have been successful and associate all of that success to the QB. And likewise they associate teams that haven't been successful and associate all of the failures to the QB. Philip Rivers is an elite QB who's been on some bad teams. Andy Dalton and Joe Flacco or average QBs who've been on really good teams. It's a team game. The QB has a huge impact but isn't the only player on the team.

I think Rivers was on the borderline of elite earlier in his career, but I don't think he's that guy anymore.  I did probably miss him in my list, though.  He's always been an up-and-down player prone to making boneheaded plays, his ups were just crazy up for a few years in there.

Edited November 20, 2017 by Avisan

[JohnC]

8 minutes ago, unclepete said:

I appreciate your response. And you're right. Every move has been a move looking toward the future. I disagree, however, that this is not a playoff team. The Ravens have looked just as bad or worse than we have. In fact, every team in the playoff race has looked as bad or worse than we have this year. So I hoped we'd put the QB out there that gave us the best opportunity to win. A culture of losing is why we're here. And you're right, it won'y happen overnight. But if you look at the NFL, you'll notice that good teams tend to stay good and bad teams tend to always be "rebuilding" or playing for next year. 

I strenuously disagree with you that the Bills are a playoff caliber of team, even in a weak conference. Our defense is wretchedly bad. On that basis alone this team would predictably fall by the wayside as the season advances. Being exposed is being exposed.  

[Avisan]

3 minutes ago, CountDorkula said:

 

I look at teams who have good QB's. Are you trying to say Andy Dalton has zero to do with the Bengals success?

 

Joe Flacco was very good for a few years and then fell off the face of the earth.

Dalton has always had AJ Green as a safety net and has consistently played on solid, well-built teams.  I don't think he's a difference maker.  Same overall caliber as Taylor.

[Billzgobowlin]

1 hour ago, Jackington said:

Translation: At least Peterman lost the game with terrible plays.

 

Are these serious posts?

No at least he took chances while our defense was wearing down.  Look he needed to be better but Tyrod does as well.  I don't like seeing an offense that plays it safe all the time to the point of continually throwing away and handing the ball off.

[xRUSHx]

Thread title should say.

 

Here is where you can talk about this teams troubles that start with not good enough at QB.

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

He has a winning record this year and in his Bills career. They are actually winning with him. I think what yesterday showed is that they haven’t been winning “despite” him as some on here have claimed. They’ve won “because” of him in a lot of cases. 

Kirby, Was he winning against Carolina? Was he winning against the JETS int he 2nd game?

 

The Defense is horrid and we need a better QB.  

 

[transplantbillsfan]

3 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Yes it can

 

AND 

 

It can get a whole lot better.  

 

Ah the lovely crusade word from the Caped Crusader himself jm2009

 

Yeah, well, you don't keep better on the bench while a whole lot worse is killing your team on the field and legitimately losing games for you on the field.

 

You say how can we pretend that the outcome would've been different with Taylor? Are you saying that because you know somehow that the outcome would've been the same? If so, what a laugh

 

 

PS: You seem to be confusing the posters you have crusades against.

Edited November 20, 2017 by transplantbillsfan

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

3 hours ago, Billzgobowlin said:

We can't forget how bad he looked the past two games, can we?   I would also consider Bledsoe, Flutie and even Orton higher than Tyrod.

Agreed. Even though I wasn't a fan of Orton.  People let stats blind them.   

26 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Yeah, well, you don't keep better on the bench while a whole lot worse is killing your team on the field and legitimately losing games for you on the field.

 

You say how can we pretend that the outcome would've been different with Taylor? Are you saying that because you know somehow that the outcome would've been the same? If so, what a laugh

 

 

PS: You seem to be confusing the posters you have crusades against.

Come on transplant.   After 1 half game?   You are better than that.  Just last week you agreed Taylor wasn't the answer.  

In order to say Nate is the worst there is you need to see more games.   How many bad games did you excuse for EJ?  

 

We have absolutely no idea what Taylor would have done.

 

I did say pretend, because a lot of people who are also not sold on TT are the ones very giddy about Nates failure.    

 

crusade?  Again - You are better than that.  

 

did your friend 2009 tell you to say that.  

 

He's on ignore and the only thing I have said is he needs help with his obsession with the word crusade.  

 

Or are you referring to the other guy who was wrong and refused to admit it?  

How'd the Defense do?  

 

[TheFunPolice]

Some people are more Doug Whaley fans who want to be right, rather than Bills fans. The problem is that Whaley has a very low opinion of Tyrod as a starting QB. It's just the new regime is wrong, no matter what because Whaley was pushed out. So the new regime tried to find a way around Tyrod (which is exactly what Whaley was doing before he was sent packing) but suddenly all the new guys are all dumb and the old GM was such a genius.

 

Rex Ryan wanted Tyrod Taylor. Point blank. Rex is THE reason Tyrod is here, just like Richie. Thank or blame Rex for Tyrod, because he wanted him as his QB for years and finally got him here.

 

Yes, you can do worse. The problem is that Tyrod is not good enough to take you anywhere. Did we forget that he was the QB when the offense was totally ineffective for two straight blowouts prior to this one? Maybe the Chargers only win by 20. The defense sucks and looks like it quit, and the offense cannot do anything, no matter who is under center.

[ddaryl]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

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. 

 

 

The only hope I have is seeing Peterman figure it out.. Watching this team for any other reaosn at this point is just not posisble for me I guess..

 

But I hear what you are saying...

[Albwan]

Its like comparing rotten apples with rotten oranges.

 

[Kirby Jackson]

2 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Kirby, Was he winning against Carolina? Was he winning against the JETS int he 2nd game?

 

The Defense is horrid and we need a better QB.  

 

No they lost those games. He was winning against Denver, Oakland, Tampa, Atlanta and the first Jets game though. He’s won more than he’s lost over the last 2.5 years. The other guys that started in that time frame have the same number of wins as me. 

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Come on transplant.   After 1 half game?   You are better than that.  Just last week you agreed Taylor wasn't the answer.  

In order to say Nate is the worst there is you need to see more games.   How many bad games did you excuse for EJ?  

 

We have absolutely no idea what Taylor would have done.

 

I did say pretend, because a lot of people who are also not sold on TT are the ones very giddy about Nates failure.    

 

crusade?  Again - You are better than that.  

 

did your friend 2009 tell you to say that.  

 

He's on ignore and the only thing I have said is he needs help with his obsession with the word crusade.  

 

Or are you referring to the other guy who was wrong and refused to admit it?  

How'd the Defense do?  

 

 

Yeah I agreed Taylor's not the long term answer.

 

How many bad games like that did EJ have?

 

No one's giddy about Nate's failure, Shady.

 

You're more extreme in your view on Taylor in the opposite direction you think I am on him.  That's why I used the word "crusade" because it's like you're blinded to the fact that Taylor is simply and clearly the better option than Peterman right now.

 

That does NOT mean that Taylor is our long term answer.  We're drafting a QB in round 1 next year and very possibly trading up to do it.  Taylor might even still be around in 2018, depending on what happens the rest of this season.

 

 

But dude, that was AWFUL!!!  Way worse than anything EJ's done and waaaAAAAAAaaaaayyy worse than anything Taylor's done.

 

That doesn't mean Taylor's great.  He's just not going to give you that kind of awful we saw yesterday.  And as I've been saying for a long time, that's Taylor's value. 

 

Somewhere in all of what I just said you're piecing everything I've said into a narrative that I think Tyrod Taylor should be our long term QB or that he's one of the best QBs in the NFL.  Here are some bullet points to help you understand my exact feelings on this whole QB situation as it relates to the 2017 Buffalo Bills:

 

- The 2017 Buffalo Bills are currently 5-5, the 7th seed, and share the same record as the 6th seed

 

- The 2017 Buffalo Bills are one of the oldest teams in the NFL with several vets who are starters nearing or at the end of their careers: Kyle, Lorax, McCoy, Wood, Incognito, etc. At least a couple of those guys reportedly contemplated retirement in the offseason, but were convinced to come back by a coach who sold them that this team was "Playoff Caliber" 

 

- Nate Peterman threw 5 interceptions, all giving the Chargers a short field, 1 a pick 6.  Of the 4 remaining interceptions the Chargers got a FG and 2 TDs and also missed a relative gimme FG.  That's 24 points off turnovers in the first half when it easily could have been 27.

 

- OH AND HEEEEEYYYYY!!!!  Ya know what happened on the 3 drives that didn't result in and interception for Peterman?  On our only scoring drive in the 1st half, McCoy runs on 2 plays for 64 yards and a TD and.... WHOOOOOOPS!!!!  Two 3 and outs by Peterman!!  (Are you seriously still throwing a silver lining out here for Peterman?)

 

- With Tyrod Taylor at QB through 9 games, the Bills were 5-4 and one of only 6 teams in the AFC with a winning record and the 6 seed in the playoff race.

 

- Taylor turned the ball over less times through 9 games than Peterman did in ONE FRIGGIN HALF!!!!

 

- Taylor in those 9 games was still completing over 64% of his passes

 

- Taylor in those 9 games was still responsible for 12 total TDs and 200 yards of offense per game for an offense riddled by injury and sometimes seemingly devoid of skill at skill positions with an OL that demonstrated how much of a sieve it truly is with a "traditional pocket passer" yesterday.

 

- Despite that crap show yesterday, this team has more than just some distant mathematical shot to make the playoffs as a wildcard

 

- The Head Coach talks about a leadership counsel he "listens to" that consists of a lot of those aging vets above.  What do you think they'll tell McDermott about QB preference?  How do you think those guys will react if Nate's named the starter on Wednesday?

 

 

Look, we all wanted Nate to succeed.  I actually believed he would.  I had these visions of him coming out and picking apart the Chargers D and becoming the next Brady.

 

Instead, it looks like my feelings from the preseason were right, at least at this moment.  There's a reason we waited until our 2nd pick of the 5th round to draft him.  Micah Hyde's "Nate Favre" might be a good description for the kid.  He's half of Favre.  He has the gunslinger mentality.  He doesn't have the arm strength to be a gunslinger.  That interception on the right sideline where the defender just anticipated his pass and strolled in front of the WR was exactly the type of interception I thought Nate would be prone to throw.  It's the exact same interception Jeff Tuel threw against the Browns for a pick 6 when he replaced EJ Manuel.

 

Like Jeff Tuel, Peterman looked good (not even all that good... not even as good as Tuel did, but acceptable) in the preseason, but was just exposed in regular season action.

 

If McDermott says Peterman's starting on Wednesday, I'll root hard for him to succeed on Sunday.  But I just fear he's going to lose whatever grip he currently has on this team if he doesn't announce Taylor is starting on Wednesday.  But it's okay, in the end, we'll draft our guy in the 1st round next year.

 

Taylor's not our long term answer.  Neither is Peterman.

 

At least we can win with Taylor.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

No they lost those games. He was winning against Denver, Oakland, Tampa, Atlanta and the first Jets game though. He’s won more than he’s lost over the last 2.5 years. The other guys that started in that time frame have the same number of wins as me. 

I have to say it (sorry in advance)     ---    Denver, Tampa and Oakland are but memories of teams that went on a slide along with Atlanta that went on a mini slide.  Why did the Defense look so great against those teams?    

 

I have to say it (sorry in advance) part 2    ---   Tim Tebow had a winning record too.  

 

The TEAM has won more than they lost and not just BECAUSE of him.  For the 2 great games he has he has 2 garbage games.   TT is what he is. A mid tier QB in a QB starved NFL. 

 

We good?  

59 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Yeah I agreed Taylor's not the long term answer.

 

How many bad games like that did EJ have?

 

No one's giddy about Nate's failure, Shady.

They are giddy he had a very very bad game.   If you can't see it, you are not looking hard enough at the I told you so's

 

[Kirby Jackson]

Just now, ShadyBillsFan said:

I have to say it (sorry in advance)     ---    Denver, Tampa and Oakland are but memories of teams that went on a slide along with Atlanta that went on a mini slide.  Why did the Defense look so great against those teams?    

 

I have to say it (sorry in advance) part 2    ---   Tim Tebow had a winning record too.  

 

The TEAM has won more than they lost and not just BECAUSE of him.  For the 2 great games he has he has 2 garbage games.   TT is what he is. A mid tier QB in a QB starved NFL. 

 

We good?  

So he gets blamed for the losses but no credit for the wins? Is that how this works? That’s sounds like Bills fan logic to me. With that I mean, obviously ridiculous. It’s one or the other. 

 

He rarely has great or garbage games. He’s actually really consistent. He has a great game, 5 average games and a garbage game. He’s not a bunch of highs and lows. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

But dude, that was AWFUL!!!  Way worse than anything EJ's done and waaaAAAAAAaaaaayyy worse than anything Taylor's done.

I said it was awful.  

I'll also say that TT would have also gotten pummeled too on the same plays NP did.  No time even for a quick release to get a pass off.   Step step bang.  

 

4 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

So he gets blamed for the losses but no credit for the wins? Is that how this works? That’s sounds like Bills fan logic to me. With that I mean, obviously ridiculous. It’s one or the other. 

 

He rarely has great or garbage games. He’s actually really consistent. He has a great game, 5 average games and a garbage game. He’s not a bunch of highs and lows. 

You know I'm busting chops.  TT gets some credit sure, but because the run game was HUGE.   Take away the run and how many wins do we have?  0 to 2. 

 

2 good 2 and  garbage is rarely. No?

Edited November 20, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan

[Kirby Jackson]

24 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I said it was awful.  

I'll also say that TT would have also gotten pummeled too on the same plays NP did.  No time even for a quick release to get a pass off.   Step step bang.  

 

You know I'm busting chops.  TT gets some credit sure, but because the run game was HUGE.   Take away the run and how many wins do we have?  0 to 2. 

 

2 good 2 and  garbage is rarely. No?

I really think he’s almost always the same. There are some great (Miami), some awful (New Orleans) but the overwhelming majority are in the okay category. That’s why he’s so polarizing. You can do better or worse. 

 

The run game hasn’t been huge at all this year. That’s mostly scheme IMO. It was good yesterday and has had its moments but it’s an average run game. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Just now, Kirby Jackson said:

I really think he’s almost always the same. There are some great (Miami), some awful (New Orleans) but the overwhelming majority are in the okay category. That’s why he’s so polarizing. You can do better or worse. 

 

The run game hasn’t been huge at all this year. That’s mostly scheme IMO. It was good yesterday and has had its moments but it’s an average run game. 

Fair,  I can accept that.   He is who I (we) thought he is.  

sadly not good enough.  

It does not please me that he didn't get it done           like some people think

 

[transplantbillsfan]

7 hours ago, CountDorkula said:

I knew this would happen though. Peteraman is bad, the board would overreact, Peterman was good, the board would overreact.

 

Taylor is not a top 10-12 QB in this league all of the sudden because Peterman was bad.

the Bills needs to do better and continue to search until they have the guy in place.

 

For those saying you can win with Taylor, well, why aren't the Bills "Winning with Taylor"?

 

 

 

Peterman wasn't just bad.  He was absolutely horrid.  Like historically horrid.

 

5 interceptions and two 3 and outs.

 

Oh, and an almost-turnover because he wasn't ready for the snap while he was in shotgun.

 

 

We were winning with Taylor.  We were 5-4.  That was a winning record.  Now we're .500.

 

Taylor might not be a top 10-12 QB, but he's a top 20 QB.  McDermott's backed himself into a corner at this point and it's going to be really interesting to watch the rest of this team take catnaps on the field if he decides to keep his best QB on the bench.

Edited November 20, 2017 by transplantbillsfan

[JM2009]

5 hours ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

Agreed. Even though I wasn't a fan of Orton.  People let stats blind them.   

Come on transplant.   After 1 half game?   You are better than that.  Just last week you agreed Taylor wasn't the answer.  

In order to say Nate is the worst there is you need to see more games.   How many bad games did you excuse for EJ?  

 

We have absolutely no idea what Taylor would have done.

 

I did say pretend, because a lot of people who are also not sold on TT are the ones very giddy about Nates failure.    

 

crusade?  Again - You are better than that.  

 

did your friend 2009 tell you to say that.  

 

He's on ignore and the only thing I have said is he needs help with his obsession with the word crusade.  

 

Or are you referring to the other guy who was wrong and refused to admit it?  

How'd the Defense do?  

 

I said all last week that I wanted Peterman to win so we stay in the playoff race at the sixth seed. More dishonest posting from you. Yes, you are one of the crusaders. If you were not, you would have some negative comments towards xRushx and Crusher. Never happens.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

McDermott made his decision and it backfired.   People need to get over it.  

 

He may yet start Nate again.  

 

If he does I’ll root for him and as always pick the Bills to win.  

 

If he gives us another stinker I’ll say so.  

Love ? my Bills.  

 

My opinion doesn’t mean squat to the FO.  

 

[transplantbillsfan]

9 hours ago, Air it out Fitzy said:

 

 

Okay I'll pretend Taylors good too now because of Peterman ??‍♂️

 

Neither one is worth keeping around.    And you know this man.  

 

 

Tyrods embarrassing play vs Panthers/Saints = Petermans embarrassing play vs Chargers 

 

QBs in the NFL have bad games.  They all do.

 

Taylor's had 3 bad games out of 9 in 2017.  That's not good enough... I think you'd rather see, at most, 3 in an entire 16 game season.  But regardless, Taylor's the better option than Peterman by a mile and he's better than at minimum a handful of other NFL starting QBs.

 

I don't really know what previously banned poster you are, but the blind bias is strong with you

[Teddy KGB]

45 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

QBs in the NFL have bad games.  They all do.

 

Taylor's had 3 bad games out of 9 in 2017.  That's not good enough... I think you'd rather see, at most, 3 in an entire 16 game season.  But regardless, Taylor's the better option than Peterman by a mile and he's better than at minimum a handful of other NFL starting QBs.

 

I don't really know what previously banned poster you are, but the blind bias is strong with you

 

Your bias is cooler ??

 

Start another 18 threads on how great TT is then admit he needed to be benched again??‍♂️ 

 

BBMB CoT fail.    I look forward to your thoughts on Rosen/Rudolph/Darnold.    

Edited November 21, 2017 by Air it out Fitzy

[transplantbillsfan]

9 hours ago, Billzgobowlin said:

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

 

Are you joking?

 

Are you saying QB wouldn't have made a difference in terms of us winning or losing yesterday?

 

Yeah, it's possible we lose yesterday, but I doubt it's the bloodbath it turned out to be.  Peterman was THE reason we were down 30 points at halftime.  That's what happens when you give the other team the ball and they turn those 5 turnovers into 24 points... coulda been 27 if the SD FG kicker doesn't miss a gimme.

 

 

But I mean, at least when Peterman didn't throw interceptions, he was getting 1st downs and not going 3 & out like Tayl... oh wait... yes he was

[reddogblitz]

22 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

But I mean, at least when Peterman didn't throw interceptions, he was getting 1st downs and not going 3 & out like Tayl... oh wait... yes he was

I

On one of those I cheered when the punter came out. YES, we got through three plays without a pick!

[transplantbillsfan]

9 hours ago, plenzmd1 said:

I think the Bucs game was only close because Taylor could not produce TDs after great field position starts after Turnovers. I also think the run game is awful based on Taylor's skill set IN THIS SCHEME. Like I said, I think TT prolly better than Peterman in the right scheme, just not this one. 

 

And tell me Taylor was not a huge part of the losses at Carolina, Cinci, NY and the Saints. Not all his fault, and certainly the D just as at fault the last two, but the Cinci and Carolina performances out of him were absolutely atrocious.

 

Taylor was a big part of the losses against Carolina, Cincy and NO.

 

He absolutely was not in primetime against the Jets.  He looked like the only Bills player who actually showed up to the game aside from Zay Jones who unfortunately got hurt.  That was probably one of his 5 best games.

 

I think giving up 300 yards on the ground by the defense was the biggest reason we lost against New Orleans.

 

 

Regardless, 3 bad games out of 9.  Let's see how many more of those he has the rest of the year, assuming McDermott is still trying to win games.  He very well might not be.  We'll find out on Wednesday.

9 hours 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.

 

To the Denver game alone; lest we forget that the Bills were winning that game even with the "whacked" unsportsmanlike penalty called on Miller that just sealed the deal?

[Billzgobowlin]

54 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Are you joking?

 

Are you saying QB wouldn't have made a difference in terms of us winning or losing yesterday?

 

Yeah, it's possible we lose yesterday, but I doubt it's the bloodbath it turned out to be.  Peterman was THE reason we were down 30 points at halftime.  That's what happens when you give the other team the ball and they turn those 5 turnovers into 24 points... coulda been 27 if the SD FG kicker doesn't miss a gimme.

 

 

But I mean, at least when Peterman didn't throw interceptions, he was getting 1st downs and not going 3 & out like Tayl... oh wait... yes he was

You might have missed the previous two weeks but that is exactly what happened for the past two weeks minus the turnovers

[transplantbillsfan]

10 hours 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.  

 

This this 1000x this!!!

 

But here's my problem with this: he screwed up the tank!!!

 

If that was his goal, we legitimately should have started Peterman from week 1.  But when Lorax and especially Kyle decided to come back, it felt like a couple guys were convinced by their Head Coach that the team was going to aim for a winning season.  Were they duped?  Better yet, why would McDermott even try to get them to not retire if that's all he wanted to do?

 

 

We're going to have our answer in large part on Wednesday.  I guess I'm fine and can deal with either.  If we start Peterman, we're tanking even though I'll still watch every game and hope against hope that Peterman suddenly turns into Brady.  I mean, it can't get any worse than what he did Sunday, right?

 

But if McDermott comes out and says Taylor is the starter, which I mostly expect (though absolutely nothing is going to shock me anymore when it comes to McDermott), then he's telling this team that we're still trying to make a run.

 

 

Whichever way he goes I'm fine with as long as he just sticks with that QB the rest of the year.

 

 

I do kinda fear that he's pretty stubborn with "the process" and that he's going to start Peterman, anyway, and that he's doing it because he actually believes he can win with him.

 

 

[apuszczalowski]

They were not and still not tanking, they are doing exactly what they said they are doing, trying to win with an eye on the future. They aren't trying to lose games to get teh #1 overall pick, they are looking to win games now, but also doing so while trying to build their team for the future. They aren't going to lose on purpose just to move up in the draft(the definition of a tank), but they are also going to look to younger guys and temporary place holder veterans while collecting picks  to bridge the gap til they can get players in that fit what they are trying to run.

 

The move to start peterman was them hoping to maybe jump start a stalled offence, unfortunatley it blew up in their face and didn't work.

 

Now as I say all this, they are probably finishing up the paper work to release taylor, put Glen, Benjamin and matthews on IR while McCoy has an unfortunate mishap during practice and also has to head to IR and peterman gets the nod to start the rest of the season when they bring Joe Webb back to be the #2 QB.......

[transplantbillsfan]

15 hours 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

 

 

 

It was 1 terrible game for Taylor against the Saints.

 

He was the only player on the team other than Zay Jones who showed up vs the Jets. 38 games as a starter for Taylor. What percentage of those were bad? 15-20%... at most?

 

Sorry. The Chargers game would probably have been a bounce back game for Taylor. We might not have won, but we wouldn't have been down by 30 at the half after 24 points off turnovers.

[xRUSHx]

33 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

It was 1 terrible game for Taylor against the Saints.

 

He was the only player on the team other than Zay Jones who showed up vs the Jets. 38 games as a starter for Taylor. What percentage of those were bad? 15-20%... at most?

 

Sorry. The Chargers game would probably have been a bounce back game for Taylor. We might not have won, but we wouldn't have been down by 30 at the half after 24 points off turnovers.

Your dreaming, a bounce back game on the road for Tyrod? I do not agree, Tyrod on the road is a joke always has been but to think a bounce back was possible against his old OC? This game had ugly written all over it regardless of who was starting iMO.

 

Lynn was licking his chops, we all know he would have done exactly what the Saints did to Tyrod, load the box and make Tyrod be a QB. Only difference was Peterman was throwing the turnover while Tyrod would have let the kicker do it for him. Sack, sack, sack, kick.

 

Team is a hot mess, this is all about next years draft now. 

..

Edited November 21, 2017 by xRUSHx

[Ol Dirty B]

On 11/19/2017 at 8:11 PM, Wayne Arnold said:

Peterman still threw for more yards in one half than Taylor threw the entire game last week.

 

Just sayin...

 

God what a horrendously stupid post.

 

He threw for more interceptions in a half than Tyrod threw all year. Does that register in your mind at all?

 

I will even leave out the douchey, Just Sayin 

 

No **** you are just saying it, i just read it.

On 11/19/2017 at 8:54 PM, Wayne Arnold said:

 

Let's not pretend Taylor is flawless just because Peterman had a historically bad first outing. Receivers are open for great quarterbacks even when it looks like they aren't. Peterman was finding guys to throw to for the most part - he just was getting annihilated in the process.

 

In fact, maybe today really did have a silver lining: I never saw Taylor as aggressive with downfield throws in limited time than today. Like he had nothing to lose. (Except for his fumble). Maybe we'll see more aggressiveness from him as a result of the benching.

 

What the hell did you watch? First, no one thinks Tyrod is a franchise guy but he is clearly the best guy they have right now.

 

Peterman was finding guys to throw too? He completed 43% of passes. He completed just under that to the other team.

 

You think it's good quarterbacking to just loft the ball up like a punt instead of taking the sack? I mean those balls just hung in the air and were going way short of their targets. He was wreckless... And you find a silver lining in that maybe he could be even more aggressive? If I were you, I'd just blame my posts on poor diction because if it's not, you have absolutely horrible judgment.

Edited November 21, 2017 by Ol Dirty B

[transplantbillsfan]

17 hours 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

 

Yeah... interceptions are worse