Thurman#1

You read it everywhere because it makes sense. What doesn't make sense is the idea that McDermott saw Tyrod playing, replaced him, put him back in after seeing how unready Peterman was ... and then saw Tyrod continue to play at the same level and changed his mind. That doesn't make sense.

Yup, I'm still realistic. Hard to understand why anyone would disagree about a coach who replaced the guy with a 5th round rookie. Laugh on, Captain Obsession. And by the way, I love the emoticons. I hear they're huge with the twelve-year old girls.

all of this bs hyperbowl is really part of the problem and why so many fight over TT. Exactly stuff like this

You're right, wildly unimpressive. But much much less acceptable in a 7th year QB than in an 2nd year guy. That's the difference.

I agree with two of your four points. #1 seems likely to be true, as does the first half of #3. Yeah, we have more holes than QB, and we know how putting a rookie out there with a ****ty team turns out. It turns out in many many different possible ways. One of the ways is the way it turned out when they did it with Troy Aikman and Peyton Manning. The way it turns out is sometimes awful, sometimes sensational and everywhere in between. The trade up cost won't be too high. It'll be very high. There's a difference. If one of these guys turns out to be a Goff or a Wentz, it'll be easily worth it. Going up and paying a whole lot for a good QB is the reason they got all those high picks in the first place. Bradford is absolutely an upgrade - without the slightest question - if he stays even reasonably healthy. I don't have enough confidence in that happening to want it to happen. But yeah, he's better than Tyrod. And Bridgewater isn't yet but stands an excellent chance of being better reasonably quickly. Of course, being better than Tyrod isn't good enough. We need more. But Bridgewater could easily turn into a top ten guy. There's no reason to think he's showed anything near his ceiling yet. More, there are other extremely reasonable options, such as picking a bridge QB who would fit the Bills offensive system in ways that Tyrod does not and never has. Again and again we hear from Tyrod's fans that the Bills should have changed the offense to suit his talents. And yet we heard from McDermott and Beane that there is a requirement for playing QB for them that Tyrod shows no sign of ever achieving. You have to be able to be efficient playing from the pocket. So while Tyrod is a better QB than guys like McCown or Moore or Fitz, they fit the system they are trying to implement for the long run and Tyrod does not. And bringing in a guy like them saves money and brings in a QB mentor for our young draftee besides. Letting Tyrod go will cost this team $8.6 against the salary cap. Whereas keeping him and playing him for only one year would cost us $23 mill against the cap, about $18 mill in 2018 and $5.6 mill in 2019 after he's on a different roster. For a guy who doesn't fulfill the requirement they want of a guy who can play from the pocket.

That wasn't his track record. It was the team's. HIs track record is playing QB an awful lot better than Tyrod has for several years now.

McCloughan was VP Player Personnel there at that time, not GM. And changing your mind with new info is smart. I hear what you're saying, but I don't think this is a bad look for McCloughan at all.

Arizona. Even the Jets reasonably soon.

Just don't think you can build a team around a guy Bradford's age with his injury history.

1.0000 Tyrods. This.

Trades can't be made till the NFL year opens on 3/14. And on 3/16, Tyrod's due a $6 million roster bonus if he's still on the roster. If they trade him, it'll almost certainly have to be within that very small window. Ah, I hate it when I make a mistake like that. You're right, it's two-time, not three-time. Good post.

Fair enough, mon. But several people have already come on and vented about how awful the article must be. They seem to be responding to "another wrong turn" and "another embarrassing moment," not understanding that in context those do not mean anything like what you would expect. And there'll be more, Pavlovian anti-media rants. With no concern for context or interest in whether they understand what was actually said.

What specific words? Where are all these phantom insults you refer to? "Insulting people"? I don't see any insult in the article. What do you mean? He is indeed strongly questioning Wood's actions here but that's not an insult. "He is no Jim Kelly," you mention. See, this is a perfect example. Put that way, it sounds bad. What was actually said meant that Wood wasn't as popular and well-known as Thurman and Kelly. "Wood, a good player on several bad teams and a better human being, invited too many people to squeeze into the media room. This is no offense to him, but we're not talking about Jim Kelly or Thurman Thomas or another icon in Bills' history. Rest assured the Bills will think twice before again being placed in such an awkward position." There's nothing wrong with what he said here. He even says, "This is no offense to him." What's wrong with what he said there? You can disagree with the opinion, but it's reasonable. See, this is what you get when you do what Hapless did. Now everyone thinks Wood was being denigrated.

Yeah, it's a "reasonable interpretation of the actual words he used." When looked at out of context, actual words used can often say something the speaker never intended. This is why you look at context. It would be reasonable interpretation of John F. Kennedy's words, "The highest appreciation is not to utter words." to say that he's being ridiculous, that compliments delivered out loud are virtually always welcome, and that we should express ourselves in cases like this. In context, though, you find that his "actual words" are "As we express our gratitude, we must never forget that the highest appreciation is not to utter words, but to live by them." Without context, "actual words" often don't mean what the speaker intended. That's why context is necessary. Again, you're a great poster, but you responded to something totally out of context. And this made you completely misunderstand his words. Which is what generally happens when someone responds without knowing the context. I'm guilty of this myself sometimes, but I do my best not to judge till I understand the complete passage and why the person said what he said.

Why "yes and no"? I wrote nothing about Wood's contract issues or whether some bonus might have to be returned or not. My post was entirely about the cap ramifications. Anyway, my mom and two sisters live in Denver and Fort Collins. If I ever move back to the US, it will be to Colorado. What a great place!

I don't. Not always. But I do tend to attack stuff I find knee-jerk or unthinking. Some attacks on media and stories make sense. Plenty, really. Others - most, I think - are reflex reactions to the word or simple hate for anyone who says anything anti-Bills. And there's a lot of room for intelligent anti-Bills sentiment with how this team has performed for seventeen years, though I do like the direction the new leadership is taking so far. But this thread absolutely falls into that category, an attack on the media without all the facts. When you read the story it becomes very clear that what he's saying is reasonable. But attacking at the mention of the word "media" or "reporter" is the default setting of many or most on here and in the world today. They make a great scapegoat. Hapless is an asset to these boards, in my top twenty posters list. But this was a reflex reaction without the facts.

I don't. Not always. But I do tend to attack stuff I find knee-jerk or unthinking. Some attacks on media and stories make sense. Plenty, really. Others - most, really - are reflex reactions to the word or simple hate for anyone who says anything anti-Bills. And there's a lot of room for intelligent anti-Bills sentiment with how this team has performed for seventeen years, though I do like the direction the new leadership is taking so far. But this thread absolutely falls into that category, an attack on the media without all the facts. When you read the story it becomes very clear that what he's saying is reasonable. But attacking at the mention of the word "media" or "reporter" is the default setting of many or most on here and in the world today. They make a great scapegoat. Hapless is an asset to these boards, in my top twenty posters list. You're on that list, too, by the way, Meanie, even though I haven't actually written a list down, nor am I likely to. But this was a reflex reaction without the facts. OK, Meanie, what's "needlessly negative" about this? You can read the article, so tell me, what part is needlessly negative? I subscribe too. I find the News' coverage first-rate. I certainly don't always agree, but they're generally interesting and thought-provoking even when I disagree.

Yeah, a three-time Pro Bowler, but that just doesn't mean much when it refers to a three-time replacement, never voted in. And comparable to Smith in style, but Smith is better, and this year was a great deal better. I'd love to see a trade, but again, there will only be a three-day window after the trade season opens and before his $6 mill roster bonus must be paid. That three-day window is going to be extremely problematic. It could be possible, but the window will likely limit the compensation if it actually happens. If they had time to hold onto him they could probably get maybe a 4th. As it is, knowing he's almost certain to be a free agent three days after he becomes available for trade, they're more likely to get a 6th, something around there.

Ahhhhhh, Very interesting. Thanks. But would announcing at a press conference that he's retiring force the Bills to put him as retiring this year so he'd go on this year's cap? I doubt it. That would come down to when he put in his papers, wouldn't it?

Nope. Bucky said, "It turned into an apparent dispute over money that made Wood look like another petty professional athlete." That's not calling him petty. It's saying that's how he looked making this decision. And the "another wrong turn" thing, along with the "another embarrassing moment" thing that you mention is referring to the story in the first paragraph told by Fitzy. "We're coming out of the tunnel, and [Wood] leads the team out on the field, and he runs to the Cincinnati sideline. He gets about 35 yards out and realizes it, and he has to take an immediate left to jog over to our sideline. It was one of the more embarrassing moments for him." Embarrassing moment. Wrong turn. See what he did there? When you look at things out of context, it's easy to misunderstand. The OP probably wasn't trying to be misleading, but he absolutely was, taking a very reasonable bit of writing and making it look inflammatory.

"Schneid," I believe. Googled it right now and it's from an old card game where you have to get off the Schneider. Anyway, to me, no, not worth it. I'd much rather have won four games and been right in the mix to get Darnold or Rosen at their natural spot or with a much smaller tradeup. The end of the streak would have come. Good shots at great QBs don't come along all that often.

I don't know. Nor do the teams. That's the point of my post. But there is still a perfectly reasonable possibility that Bridgewater or Cousins in particular might build HOF careers. Or not. A bunch of Hall of Famers took a bunch of years to reach the HOF level. Could easily be true of some of the FAs now. But what I see in Cousins is a top ten QB right now. I'd grab him if I were the GM, completely aside from any Hall of Fame discussion. And more, Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield and maybe one or two others have skill sets that could take them to the HOF. Not that the odds favor that. But it could happen. They have the potential to be great. Yeah, plenty of people have potential but don't fulfill it. A large majority. But it could happen. And even if it doesn't, if we draft a guy who - as Shaw pointed out in the OP - becomes a career top ten guy but not a HOFer, the team will be in the June Super Bowl discussions if the surrounding personnel are good. That's good enough for me, though certainly I'd rather have an elite guy. And I have to disagree about Flutie. If they'd gotten him a few years earlier when his arm was live, he might indeed have gotten them to a Super Bowl, maybe even a win. But at that point, he was easier and easier to defend as his arm lost power and teams stopped respecting the long ball or even the 20-yard out.

Exactly. Cam, Brady, and Rodgers were already on the team. Again, re-signing your talent, the guys already on your team, even if it's expensive, is part of the model used by Carolina, the Pats, etc. Bringing in high-priced FAs from elsewhere is generally NOT. Oh, and I would not be a bit surprised if you're right on Kraft and Brady. Should be in some way illegal but the Pats have shown a complete willingness to do their best to skirt the rules. And as for cap dollars, it all matters. All of it, from every year. None of the $23 million it will cost to keep him for this one year will be able to be used on other players. Pretending it's only $18 mill is restricting your focus unnecessarily. The impact of keeping Tyrod Taylor on this roster to play QB the way Tyrod Taylor plays it will be $23 million against the cap. Everyone's aware that's over two years, I said so in every post. But that's how much will come off our cap. $23 million dollars. For one year of play. Tyrod Taylor play. As for Cousins, sure you could be right. I have extreme doubt. It doesn't fit their M.O. But I'd love to be wrong. I'd love to get Bridgewater also if they can't get Cousins.

No team is going to let a HOF QB go? How about Atlanta? They let Brett Favre go. How about San Diego? They let Drew Brees go and he'll almost certainly be an HOFer. How about Indy? They let Manning go well after everyone knew he was going to be an HOFer. To shorten this up, here's a quick list of HOFers I can think of who were let go. Sonny Jurgensen was let go after six or seven years with the Eagles. Unitas was let go at the very beginning of his career. Bobby Layne was let go by two or three teams. Y.A. Tittle, two teams let him go, I think. Steve Young. Kurt Warner. There are probably a couple more but I've said enough. Teams let HOFers go sometimes, often because they misjudge what they have. If I had to guess, I don't think Cousins is going to be an HOFer. But I think he's going to be a consistent top ten QB in the league for the rest of his career. I'd love to get him. But if they don't, they ought to trade up and get the guy they want early if it's possible.

The article seems reasonable to me. Gleason said a lot of good things about Wood. You say that Gleason attacked Wood's character. I disagree. Looked to me like he was attacking Wood's decision and actions in this case. Here's a quote from the article: "It's important to consider the source in what evolved into one of the more bizarre hours along One Bills Drive in recent memory. For nine years, Wood stood before the masses and answered questions that were much tougher than the ones that would have been raised had his news conference gone off without a hitch. Because he was so late, and his behavior was so out of character, he invited more questions." That's not attacking his character. Just the opposite, really. Nor did he do so in the rest of the article. What portion of this article attacked Wood's character? But the team has plenty of cap. $30 mill for 2018 right now, pretty much exactly in the middle of the league. Fair enough that you don't like the article, everyone's got a right to an opinion.