Report: Baker Mayfield not ready to compete with Tyrod Taylor

[The Red King]

11 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Eh Tyrod was good enough to get us in the playoffs. All I wanted for that year. And I think a FO would be out of it's mind if they hypothetically never played Peterman and didn't go quarterback next draft because "they just don't know how good this 5th rounder could be!". Or vice versa and play him "this 5th rounder isn't that bad! Let's just roll with him next year"

 

Peterman would have had to have played insanely good. Even if he has a solid 200 yard 2 TD game, we lose.. whatever, we were gonna go QB unless an absolute miracle happened. I think it would have been the same situation if Peterman was average to good, they'd like him, and still bring in a 1st rounder to compete.

 

You're probably right because I can't think of another explanation.. I just think it's stupid haha. We were going to do exactly what we did this off-season no matter what so why was the FO thinking anything regarding the offseason in the middle of the playoff hunt. If the explanation is they thought their 5th rounder could have been Tom Brady or Dak they were banking on an unprecedented assumption, betting on a 1 in a thousand's chance and jeapordizing the season.

 

Like.. where was this support for Levi Brown, literally any quarterback drafted late for any team. Dolphins never threw in Fales until elimination, Broncos never threw in Chad Kelly over Semen or Paxton, Lions never threw in Brad Kaaya, Niners threw in CJ Beathard out of necessity, he played as well as a rook could, quarterbacked their first win, yet they still traded for Garoppolo! They weren't saying "well if he doesn't suck, we know we need absolutely no plan B!". It's unprecedented, teams hedge their bets. No late round rookie quarterback has started in a mid season switch for a 500+ team ever, barring injury necessity.

 

I want to believe Peterman was crushing it in practice and then lost his swagger after the Chargers game. That the coaches were thinking about best chance of making the playoffs not "hmm we might not have to go QB in the draft.. this just might work". 

 

Even if it was a 1-in-a-100 chance, they figured it was worth taking.  The team was in a death spiral, and say what you will, the team did pull out of it the following game.  I'll still firmly hold to it being a two-fold benefit.  Find out what you got going into the off-season, and taking the chance, because they knew TT wasn't going to win a playoff game (prophetic, give TT's performance in JAX) and figuring even a long shot was better then no shot.  One game may not have been enough to fully evaluate Peterman, but I'd wager if he even played half-decently he'd have gotten the start at KC.  It's just, they rolled the dice and got snake eyes.  They then decided Peterman wasn't ready yet and at that point was not going to be an upgrade over TT...so they instead decided to just throw TT back in and take their chances.

Edited June 26, 2018 by The Red King

[Buffalo716]

4 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

He's passed for the 62nd most yards in NFL history thus far. Like.. set your bar lower folks, there have been hundreds of quartebacks drafted ahead of him that haven't even sniffed more than 2 or 3 seasons.

 

Absolutely. He is one of the best 7th round QBs in modern history lol 

 

Sure he had flaws but he was much better than a lot give him credit for . He was throwing to Stevie J(7th rounder), Donald jones(UDFA) and David Nelson(UDFA)and made Stevie a house hold name

[Augie]

Baker was ready for Cowherd.  ?

[Bing Bong]

2 minutes ago, The Red King said:

 

Even if it was a 1-in-a-100 chance, they figured it was worth taking.  The team was in a death spiral, and say what you will, the team did pull out of it the following game.  I'll still firmly hold to it being a two-fold benefit.  Find out what you got going into the off-season, and taking the chance, because they knew TT wasn't going to win a playoff game (prophetic, give TT's performance in JAX) and figuring even a long shot was better then no shot.  One game may not have been enough to fully evaluate Peterman, but I'd wager if he even played half-decently he'd have gotten the start at KC.  It's just, they rolled the dice and got snake eyes.  They then decided Peterman wasn't ready yet and at that point was not going to be an upgrade over TT...so they instead decided to just throw TT back in and take their chances.

So a 1-100 chance is fine. But you seriously don't think Tyrod wins more than 1 out of 100 games against the Jaguars? It's the double standard I dislike.

 

Peterman's play wouldn't have made jack on their off-season decision regarding quarterback. Tyrod's performance was prophetic? and Peterman's performance was a shot worth taking because IT COULD HAVE BEEN AMAZING. 

 

Like do you see how I can turn that around? Peterman's performance was pretty prophetic for a 5th round rookie in his first start with horrible surrounding cast against an elite pass rush. But boy the 1-10 chance Tyrod has to beat the Jaguars.. gotta go with those odds right. 

 

No matter what.. unless Peterman threw for 3 to 4 TDs every game the rest of the year.. we're drafting a Quarterback. Rookies literally have NEVER done that.

[The Red King]

12 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

So a 1-100 chance is fine. But you seriously don't think Tyrod wins more than 1 out of 100 games against the Jaguars? It's the double standard I dislike.

 

Peterman's play wouldn't have made jack on their off-season decision regarding quarterback. Tyrod's performance was prophetic? and Peterman's performance was a shot worth taking because IT COULD HAVE BEEN AMAZING. 

 

Like do you see how I can turn that around? Peterman's performance was pretty prophetic for a 5th round rookie in his first start with horrible surrounding cast against an elite pass rush. But boy the 1-10 chance Tyrod has to beat the Jaguars.. gotta go with those odds right. 

 

No matter what.. unless Peterman threw for 3 to 4 TDs every game the rest of the year.. we're drafting a Quarterback. Rookies literally have NEVER done that.

 

What double-standard?  Tyrod didn't get 100 tries against the Jags.  He got one.  The Bills knew it would take a miracle for TT to win a playoff game, so they tried Peterman just in case.  The difference here that renders your assertion irrelevant was...the Chargers game was not a playoff game.  If Buffalo (and Peterman) lost badly (and they did), the Bills could still put Tyrod back in for the rest of the season.  They do that, they still have a shot at the playoffs...and giving TT a shot in a playoff game...all of which still happened (with TT laying an egg and validating the staff's assessment of him).  So no, there was absolutely no double-standard there.  Regular Season vs. Playoffs, apples and oranges.  If they just up and threw Peterman in against JAX ala Rob Johnson, then you could claim double-standard.  And I would have considered that just as foolish a move as starting Rob was.

Edited June 26, 2018 by The Red King

[Bing Bong]

25 minutes ago, The Red King said:

It's just, they rolled the dice and got snake eyes.  They then decided Peterman wasn't ready yet

Like.. I think you're right too. Just has me more frustrated at the FO decision. Had we not drafted Peterman the logical equivalent would have been signing any undrafted rookie to start that game, and have no repercussions to your decision making because "this quarteback has never played, so he could be super good, beats having a quarterback we've seen have a few good games" so theoretically any virtually unknown quarterback is better than a quarter back that has played a game because a. He could be so so good we don't know and b. Heck we don't even need to draft a Quarterback in the offseason.

 

Why not just sign an undrafted rookie every week every year until one day all the **** you're flinging at the wall starts to stick.

[Lfod]

12 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

Like.. I think you're right too. Just has me more frustrated at the FO decision. Had we not drafted Peterman the logical equivalent would have been signing any undrafted rookie to start that game, and have no repercussions to your decision making because "this quarteback has never played, so he could be super good, beats having a quarterback we've seen have a few good games" so theoretically any virtually unknown quarterback is better than a quarter back that has played a game because a. He could be so so good we don't know and b. Heck we don't even need to draft a Quarterback in the offseason.

 

Why not just sign an undrafted rookie every week every year until one day all the **** you're flinging at the wall starts to stick.

I wouldn't take it that seriously. In the end Tyrod gets to start for a team. The Bills got a 3rd round pick. Tyrod is in a place that wants him. We have yet to really see what it all means. Tyrod has a starting season. We will see if Tyrod magic works for them. 

 

We will see who starts for us... 

 

 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Lfod

[Bing Bong]

16 minutes ago, The Red King said:

 

What double-standard?  Tyrod didn't get 100 tries against the Jags.  He got one.  The Bills knew it would take a miracle for TT to win a playoff game, so they tried Peterman just in case.  The difference here that renders your assertion irrelevant was...the Chargers game was not a playoff game.  If Buffalo (and Peterman) lost badly (and they did), the Bills could still put Tyrod back in for the rest of the season.  They do that, they still have a shot at the playoffs...and giving TT a shot in a playoff game...all of which still happened (with TT laying an egg and validating the staff's assessment of him).  So no, there was absolutely no double-standard there.  Regular Season vs. Playoffs, apples and oranges.  If they just up and threw Peterman in against JAX ala Rob Johnson, then you could claim double-standard.  And I would have considered that just as foolish a move as starting Rob was.

The double standard is wanting to take a 1-100 chance on a guy we've never seen in action over Tyrod. The guy who has had crappy games and yet also took a SB caliber Seahawks team to the wire on MNF. He didn't have a 1-100 chance against the chargers, 1-10 at worse. You're right, forget the playoffs (just don't call it prophetic lol), we weren't in a position to lose any AFC games to an AFC playoff Hunter.

[3rdand12]

3 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

No, I said actually starting caliber. Meaning boarderline franchise QB and can take your team to the playoffs

 

All 32 starting QBs are not of that caliber , though they are all NFL quality QBs

and thats the definition of semantics.
I had an angry Doctor explain it to me once

[Lfod]

17 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

The double standard is wanting to take a 1-100 chance on a guy we've never seen in action over Tyrod. The guy who has had crappy games and yet also took a SB caliber Seahawks team to the wire on MNF. He didn't have a 1-100 chance against the chargers, 1-10 at worse. You're right, forget the playoffs (just don't call it prophetic lol), we weren't in a position to lose any AFC games to an AFC playoff Hunter.

The Offense got bad last season. The reason it doesn't matter is because everyone got to see what they wanted. Even if Tyrod wasn't benched the results are the same. You have an Offense that can't produce points. So it's no double standard. 

 

Starting Peterman was stupid and Tyrod was still the way he was. If you couldn't feel that we rode the defense all season I dunno what to tell you. 

Edited June 26, 2018 by Lfod

[3rdand12]

5 minutes ago, Lfod said:

The Offense got bad last season. The reason it doesn't matter is because everyone got to see what they wanted. Even if Tyrod wasn't benched the results are the same. You have an Offense that can't produce points. So it's no double standard. 

 

Starting Peterman was stupid and Tyrod was still the way he was. If you couldn't feel that we rode the defense all season I dunno what to tell you. 

we can start the Dennison argument too.

good idea to reboot the Offense.

[Bing Bong]

35 minutes ago, Lfod said:

I wouldn't take it that seriously. In the end Tyrod gets to start for a team. The Bills got a 3rd round pick. Tyrod is in a place that wants him. We have yet to really see what it all means. Tyrod has a starting season. We will see if Tyrod magic works for them. 

 

We will see who starts for us... 

 

 

No by all means I'm fine with him gone. We weren't going anywhere with him. Super happy we went balls deep for a high 1st round QB, hedged that bet keeping Peterman and signing McCarron. 

 

Just get annoyed at the revisionist narrative that starting a rookie on the road in a crucial game for playoff implications worked out real swell for us. "Well we needed to find out if our 5th round rookie played like a 5th round rookie and we did! Now we know we needed a QB!"

18 minutes ago, Lfod said:

The Offense got bad last season. The reason it doesn't matter is because everyone got to see what they wanted. Even if Tyrod wasn't benched the results are the same. You have an Offense that can't produce points. So it's no double standard. 

 

Starting Peterman was stupid and Tyrod was still the way he was. If you couldn't feel that we rode the defense all season I dunno what to tell you. 

Christ sakes I'm well aware we rode the defense by.. how do you ride the defense? not turning it over a crapload of times and letting Hyde Poyer and Tre have a flying chance to win the game. Quickest way to piss off your best players is to have them get back on the field every offensive possession.

 

Sorry boys, let's get back to Tyrod possibly starting over Baker for the Browns lol no sarcasm there it turned to a Peterman Chargers debate really quickly.

Edited June 26, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[Lfod]

10 minutes ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

No by all means I'm fine with him gone. We weren't going anywhere with him. Super happy we went balls deep for a high 1st round QB, hedged that bet keeping Peterman and signing McCarron. 

 

Just get annoyed at the revisionist narrative that starting a rookie on the road in a crucial game for playoff implications worked out real swell for us. "Well we needed to find out if our 5th round rookie played like a 5th round rookie and we did! Now we know we needed a QB!"

Christ sakes I'm well aware we rode the defense by.. how do you ride the defense? not turning it over a crapload of times and letting Hyde Poyer and Tre have a flying chance to win the game.

 

Sorry boys, let's get back to Tyrod possibly starting over Baker for the Browns lol no sarcasm there it turned to a Peterman Chargers debate really quickly.

I think it makes for an interesting season. So many questions to be answered. How does Tyrod work out in Cleveland. How long does it take for Baker Mayfield take to take the starting job. Who wins the starting job in Buffalo. 

 

I have my opinion on these things as well but next season becomes more interesting with more to follow. 

[billsfan89]

22 hours ago, Rocky Landing said:

What the hell are you talking about??? Do you really think that the millions of dollars spent on evaluating players entering the draft, and the people who spend their professional lives doing the evaluation have no idea what they're doing???

 

You may want to rethink that bolded statement!

 

The context of that statement is that the original poster knocked the player Tyrod Taylor currently is (A player 7 years removed from being drafted) by where he was drafted. Is Antonio Brown a **** player because he was a 6th round pick? No of course not. Evaluating a player 1-3 years into their career their draft stock might be a factor worth considering but once a player gets deep into their career their pro resume speaks for its self. So if you want to critique Tyrod because of his 3 years of starting fine but to say someone sucks because they were a late round pick is just silly. 

[Bing Bong]

16 minutes ago, Lfod said:

I think it makes for an interesting season. So many questions to be answered. How does Tyrod work out in Cleveland. How long does it take for Baker Mayfield take to take the starting job. Who wins the starting job in Buffalo. 

 

I have my opinion on these things as well but next season becomes more interesting with more to follow. 

I think Baker's a stud. But we haven't ever seen Tyrod with the caliber offense he currently has. And he's a guy very dependent on his personnel, not a bad thing at all.. if the personnel isn't what we trotted out last year

 

And I hope Josh Allen wins camp and starts, simply for the fact that the competition with the Bills QBs is 3 complete unknowns.. I hope it's the guy with all the tangibles the whole NFL was coveting.

Edited June 26, 2018 by PetermanThrew5Picks

[Bing Bong]

7 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

I wasn't referencing Tyrod in my example....just any journeyman.

Even a journeyman is impressive if he sticks around. The average length of an NFL career is like 2 years. Those guys "suck" if we want to set a bar. You don't know about them because you never hear about them. If somebody sticks around, plays long enough for you to merely recognize his name and say he sucks.. he definitely doesn't suck and has made a lot of money being a professional athlete. 

 

Like I don't know if you're referring to journey men practice squad players.. or journey men like Josh McCown. Josh McCown doesn't suck ?

 

I read that acclaimed book (title escapes me rn) about the life of NFL players on the margins.. it's brutal. Fascinating.

[Rocky Landing]

26 minutes ago, billsfan89 said:

 

The context of that statement is that the original poster knocked the player Tyrod Taylor currently is (A player 7 years removed from being drafted) by where he was drafted. Is Antonio Brown a **** player because he was a 6th round pick? No of course not. Evaluating a player 1-3 years into their career their draft stock might be a factor worth considering but once a player gets deep into their career their pro resume speaks for its self. So if you want to critique Tyrod because of his 3 years of starting fine but to say someone sucks because they were a late round pick is just silly. 

Copy that. Context is everything. My bad.

[Bing Bong]

6 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

I bet. I couldn’t even imagine how hard it is playing in the show... 162 games in like 185 days

 

the best players in the world at every position... you need consistency or you will never even get called up

I probably shouldn't comment on this cause I don't follow or care for baseball but.. I'd take 162 games in 185 games you can show up hungover for than 82 games in the NBA or the 60 or so games a soccer player plays. Or 16 games an NFL player goes through. The leagues are calibered to get the maximum profitable number of games without wrecking the players, the product.

 

That dude on Pittsburgh pitched a perfect game on acid in the 70s lol. I'll take that sport if I had no personal love for any other sport.

 

[BADOLBILZ]

6 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

there are only 32 NFL starting QBs in the world... and how many are actually NFL caliber starters? 15-20? 

 

4 hours ago, Buffalo716 said:

 

No, I said actually starting caliber. Meaning boarderline franchise QB and can take your team to the playoffs

 

All 32 starting QBs are not of that caliber , though they are all NFL quality QBs

 

 

This stuff is the definition of "rhetoric"...........language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect but lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

 

It's laughable to hear this after backup Nick Foles just beat the GOAT in the Super Bowl.

 

Taylor is a good quality starting NFL QB.........he's not conventional........but he's been in Pro Bowls and guided good scoring offenses and won games when other metrics not related to his play indicate that the team shouldn't have been as effective.

 

If the standard is "franchise/borderline franchise QB or not" then just say that.  

 

 

[Buffalo716]

1 minute ago, PetermanThrew5Picks said:

I probably shouldn't comment on this cause I don't follow or care for baseball but.. I'd take 162 games in 185 games you can show up hungover for than 82 games in the NBA or the 60 or so games a soccer player plays. Or 16 games an NFL player goes through. The leagues are calibered to get the maximum profitable number of games without wrecking the players, the product.

 

That dude on Pittsburgh pitched a perfect game on acid in the 70s lol. I'll take that sport if I had no personal love for any other sport.

 

As a 4 sport varsity athlete and college football player , imo baseball was the hardest sport I ever played 

 

yes, you get some crazy stories like the one you mentioned but it is very hard to hit a 90+ mph fastball and world class curve

 

i definitely respect baseball players

2 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

 

This stuff is the definition of "rhetoric"...........language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect but lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

 

It's laughable to hear this after backup Nick Foles just beat the GOAT in the Super Bowl.

 

Taylor is a good quality starting NFL QB.........he's not conventional........but he's been in Pro Bowls and guided good scoring offenses and won games when other metrics not related to his play indicate that the team shouldn't have been as effective.

 

If the standard is "franchise/borderline franchise QB or not" then just say that.  

 

 

 

I could have but everybody has different definitions of a franchise QB... my definition would be is he able to take your team to the playoffs... I think their is a big difference between elite QB and a Franchise QB

 

There are only a handful of elite QBs, but a guy like Andy Dalton who has been a 7 year starter is a franchise QB... though a lower -mid level one

 

TT is definitely one of the best 32 QBs Alive and that’s why he’s still employed