JohnC Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 10 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: This is extremely disingenuous, John. We're discussing McDermott's judgment and Beane's judgment, relevant since they're still here will be next year. You've made the contention that they had no choice but to make the "desperate decision" to start Not Ready Nate in the Chargers game and that the Bills would have had a better chance to win the Jags game with him. It is pointed out that in fact, it could be clearly seen in the Panthers game (Week 2) - not coincidentally, the game in which the Bills scored 3 points and would have won if they added a touchdown - that Tyrod was struggling to execute in this offense. It is also pointed out that since the Jags secondary and ability to disguise coverage faked a HOF QB (Roeth) into 5 picks, goodness only knows what they could have accomplished with Peterman. Instead of addressing any point made by anyone else, you sidestep. Now it's all a "moot point" because, Taylor. No, it's not a moot point because, McDermott and Beane judgment. Could I say more, yes, but frankly, when you refuse to respond in a meaningful way, why should anyone engage with you? I know you're not a troll, but your insistence on defending an indefensible point and failing to engage or address any counterpoint is the essence of trollish. PS your attempted flying analogy is highly silly Your response makes little sense to me. I never said McDermott had no choice in replacing Taylor in the Charger game. That's a disingenuous response. Of course he had a choice to make. He decided to do make a change because Taylor was ineffective in the prior games. So he went with a rookie qb whom he felt was a better option. If you disagree with the substitution that is fine. I have no problem with the disagreement. The problem I have is that you, and many others, refuse to acknowledge that the basis of Taylor's substitution was that he played poorly in a string of prior games. That's the glaring point that is ignored. As I stated in prior posts the Charger game had no bearing on how our season concluded. The team still squeaked into the playoffs. And as I stated in prior posts the Charger qb who is a legitimate HOF candidate played at a level in which the Bills with its impotent offense couldn't have won no matter which qb played. This fixation on McDermott's decision to switch qbs in that game is out of proportion to how overall he performed as a HC. This very limited team overachieved and accomplished what it hasn't accomplished in more than a generation. Yet his decision that didn't work out in a game that the Bills had no chance to win because of the play of Rivers is cited as a reason for damaging the psyche of a team. Well that didn't happen. The team played well enough in the subsequent games to keep themselves in the playoff picture. The Taylor issue is for all intents and purposes is a moot issue. I'm confident that he won't be on the roster next year. If you don't understand why then that is your blind spot that you need to address. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 John just take back your statement that Peterman would’ve given us a better chance to win the Jags game and I suspect we’ll all be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 Taylor should have started the Jax game and then been replaced at halftime because of the inept offensive output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 Just now, Coach Tuesday said: John just take back your statement that Peterman would’ve given us a better chance to win the Jags game and I suspect we’ll all be good. Absolutely not! Taylor's play in that game was abysmal. I strongly believe that in hindsight Peterman with a conservative game play would have been a better option. That's how bad Taylor was in this game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, JohnC said: Absolutely not! Taylor's play in that game was abysmal. I strongly believe that in hindsight Peterman with a conservative game play would have been a better option. That's how bad Taylor was in this game. I love you man, but you cray cray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy KGB Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 3 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said: I love you man, but you cray cray. 3 points Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 2 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said: 3 points Peterman had as many INTs in four plays as Tyrod did the whole game, against the league’s nastiest secondary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy KGB Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 (edited) 1 minute ago, Coach Tuesday said: Peterman had as many INTs in four plays as Tyrod did the whole game, against the league’s nastiest secondary. 3 points. Start him again ??♂️ Maybe we score 6 and lose by 4 this time ☠️ Edited January 13, 2018 by Teddy KGB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 Just now, Teddy KGB said: 3 points. Start him again ??♂️ Youre missing the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy KGB Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 Just now, Coach Tuesday said: Youre missing the point. 3 points is the point. Random qb picked would’ve fared better. Who plays worse than 130 yards 0 tds ? Thats a tough feat. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 14 minutes ago, JohnC said: Absolutely not! Taylor's play in that game was abysmal. I strongly believe that in hindsight Peterman with a conservative game play would have been a better option. That's how bad Taylor was in this game. Perhaps but that was McDermott's Flutie vs Johnson decision. If he started Peterman and lost the game, he would never ever live down making that mistake twice. Imho, there was no way McD would have been able to sell that decision to the fan base and post-loss McD would have been skewered in the press and by fans. Taylor was utterly awful as he has been far too often in his time in Buffalo. But in this game McD had no option but to start him. 7 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said: Peterman had as many INTs in four plays as Tyrod did the whole game, against the league’s nastiest secondary. Come on, Coach. It is entirely unfair to say that given the situation Peterman was thrown in. He had no excuses in the Chargers game, but this situation was far too different. Peterman's only choice was to make throws no matter how risky. It was a last gasp effort Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 23 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said: I love you man, but you cray cray. People still believing in Tay Tay are cray cray ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishDave Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 6 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said: 3 points is the point. Random qb picked would’ve fared better. Who plays worse than 130 yards 0 tds ? Thats a tough feat. Random QB? Future HOF QB Ben Roethlisberger threw something like 5 picks against Jacksonville and lost. So, your random QB thing holds zero credibility. Better QB play without turnovers would have won the game. A better playing Tyrod could have won the game. Any random QB - nope don't think so. That random QB still would have had to play a great game. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coach Tuesday Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 Just now, PolishDave said: Random QB? Future HOF QB Ben Roethlisberger threw something like 5 picks against Jacksonville and lost. So, your random QB thing holds zero credibility. Better QB play without turnovers would have won the game. A better playing Tyrod could have won the game. Any random QB - nope don't think so. That random QB still would have had to play a great game. This. I hate the “anyone but” culture that has infected this society. Think harder, people! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 5 INTs by Big Ben? Hes a bum. Why did he ever play another game ? Ben didn’t have his head in straight with his talk of retirement early in the season. We've posted list after list of HOF QBs that have thrown 4, 5, 6 and 7 INTs in a game. It happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 13, 2018 Author Share Posted January 13, 2018 (edited) 56 minutes ago, JohnC said: Your response makes little sense to me. This doesn't surprise me. I think you're probably a smart guy, and a good guy, but you just don't seem able to carefully read someone's response for meaning, and actually respond to any points they raise. This is what you actually said: "The backdrop to that desperate decision was that the running qb had a string of ineffective games where not only did he play poorly but he couldn't execute the offense. So a change was made. You can disagree with the decision but there was an understandable rationale behind it. Anyone who watched the play of Taylor in the Jacksonville should be more receptive and understanding to that desperate player change. I'll go even so far as to say that if Peterman started in the playoff game the Bills would have had a better chance to win." I think it's pretty clear that you're arguing McDermott and Dennison made the decision they had to make (rather than a puzzling decision given Peterman's evident lack of readiness), and that if they made the same decision in the Jags game we would have had a better chance. If you want to say it's an "understandable amd justifyable decision" and not "no choice" whatevs, but it's choosing semantics over substantive discussion, and not responding to any of my points. Peace out! Edited January 13, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teddy KGB Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 14 minutes ago, PolishDave said: Random QB? Future HOF QB Ben Roethlisberger threw something like 5 picks against Jacksonville and lost. So, your random QB thing holds zero credibility. Better QB play without turnovers would have won the game. A better playing Tyrod could have won the game. Any random QB - nope don't think so. That random QB still would have had to play a great game. 13 minutes ago, Coach Tuesday said: This. I hate the “anyone but” culture that has infected this society. Think harder, people! Ok random qb “x” would have scored 3 or less as well. You have convinced me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishDave Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 Just now, Teddy KGB said: Ok random qb “x” would have scored 3 or less as well. You have convinced me. Yes. A random qb could have scored 3 or less in that game as well. Or the offense could have scored more but still lost because the QB turned the ball over more. Those are all real possibilities. I see you are learning. That is a good thing. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BadLandsMeanie Posted January 13, 2018 Share Posted January 13, 2018 nobody cares that I pointed out that Taylor's last play and injury wasn't his fault. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted January 13, 2018 Author Share Posted January 13, 2018 36 minutes ago, Fan in Chicago said: Perhaps but that was McDermott's Flutie vs Johnson decision. If he started Peterman and lost the game, he would never ever live down making that mistake twice. Imho, there was no way McD would have been able to sell that decision to the fan base and post-loss McD would have been skewered in the press and by fans. Taylor was utterly awful as he has been far too often in his time in Buffalo. But in this game McD had no option but to start him. Come on, Coach. It is entirely unfair to say that given the situation Peterman was thrown in. He had no excuses in the Chargers game, but this situation was far too different. Peterman's only choice was to make throws no matter how risky. It was a last gasp effort Agreed on both points. I've said elsewhere that if it's true Dennison lobbied to start Peterman vs Chargers, the "ultimate sin" of making your boss look like a fool in public was a main reason he got fired. From the point of view of having his judgement scrutinized by his boss and peers (leave alone the fanbase), he couldn't afford to risk a repeat. Also agree, Peterman was put in a tough spot at the end of the game. He had to throw, against a team that knew he had to throw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts