Thurman#1

People think he isn't living up to his draft position, which is true. But you don't necessarily have to do that to be a useful player. What you should live up to is your salary. And at $2.5 mill per year, he probably just about does that. And when you do that, you generally stay around till they get somebody better or as good but cheaper.

From what I can tell just looking quickly, that's real time. In other words if you cut Tyrod TODAY that's what you'd save on the 2018 cap. Nobody wants to cut him today. If you do, a bunch of his 2017 guaranteed money hits the cap next year.

$15 million. Last year they paid him $14.5 mill (base salary plus signing bonus) and $15.5 mill was guaranteed. So $1 mill is guaranteed this year, from his roster bonus. In 2018, his base is $10 mill and roster bonus is $6 mill. So he would cost $16 mill, of which $1 mill is guaranteed. This is from Spotrac and I believe I've interpreted it all correctly, but if I haven't, please somebody correct me. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/tyrod-taylor-7899/ It looked all along like it would be very easy to cut him this offseason - if they want to - once he signed the new deal last offseason. That's a lot of cash to save.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2747404-2018-nfl-mock-draft-post-week-13-breakdown http://draftwire.usatoday.com/2017/11/29/2018-nfl-mock-draft-updated-4-round-projections-after-week-12/3/ https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/news/2018-nfl-mock-draft-cowboys-falcons-add-wr-speed-with-ridley-burnett/ Three mocks with Mayfield in the first round, all among the first few mocks on a google search for "2018 mock draft". Mayfield's in plenty of first round mocks. And I know what's coming next from some people on here: "That guy's an idiot and that guy's never right and the third guy has him in the mid-twenties and he could easily fall." All justifications, no good arguments. He might easily make the first. Might not but it could easily happen. McShay thinks Mayfield will go in the first. Kiper is not sure, says he's on the fringe. http://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2018/story/_/id/21665021/2018-nfl-draft-primer-mel-kiper-todd-mcshay-answer-25-questions-prospects-rankings-mock-draft

This. Nothing wrong with having an opinion, but pretending that your opinion is objective ... and then acting as if the number represents anything but your opinion ... yeah, doesn't make sense. They write up these formal sounding descriptions of what the numbers represent, but they're still just guys standing around saying, "I give him a six for play-calling, how bout you? Eight? Mmmmm. Say 6.8? Sound OK? Aaiiiiiiiight." As it is, it's just their shot at making a splash and sounding analytic. It's an interesting idea, and thanks, OP for bringing it to our attention, but basically it can't mean much. If a coach with better players makes the same decisions a coach with worse players makes, guess who looks better? It'll just turn out to reward coaches whose teams win and coaches who are famous and thus get the benefit of the doubt that others don't yet deserve.

No, the Bills offense was 16th in 2016. 1st in rushing. 30th in passing. With 17 receiving TDs and 29 rushing. Which is unbelievable when you consider there wasn't a single other team in the league with more rushing TDs than passing TDs. Thanks, run game. And by the way, there were five teams that had fewer passing TDs than us that year. The primary QBs for those teams were Fitzy for the Jets, Kessler/McCown/Griffin for the Browns, Osweiler for the Texans and two rookies for Philly and the Rams. And while Watkins is still not doing all that well, Woods is having a career high year in TDs/target and yards/catch, and has already passed his career high for yards/season with four games left. He's got a pretty good shot at a 1000 yard season.

Goodwin has already gotten 70 targets this year. His highest in Buffalo was 68 last year and with Tyrod throwing the ball his 68 targets resulted in 29 catches for 431 yards. This year 70 targets for 35 catches and 677 yards. Again, that's on two more targets. As for Benjamin, come on, the guy had 45 snaps in Buffalo. Not targets. Snaps. Shouldn't be a surprise he hasn't been productive yet. And he's a very fine WR. Not a speed guy but he moves the chains. Zay seems improved but hasn't shown me a lot yet. He needs to either work on his route running or work on getting more explosive. While I suspect that we'll be bringing in a QB - as you do too obviously - I think they'll consider OL a bigger need and defense a bigger priority than offense outside of QB. Now that they've brought our cap situation into much better shape, I wouldn't be surprised to see them bringing in a mid-level FA WR. Don't see them following any of your ideas there in the last paragraph. Your FAs are too expensive and I don't see them going WR in the first couple of rounds. I've been wrong a time or two before, though.

This is a horrible take. This incident, like it or not, is a flea on the bison that is Kyle's career.

No thanks to Eli. Too old to build around. Wish we'd had a shot at the young Eli, though. The rest of your list looks pretty reasonable to me.

There's no reason to believe Nix was on his way out that year at that time beyond wanting to believe it. Not a stitch of evidence. Yup, Whaley was the heir apparent, but no reason to think that Nix was forced out at that time. But yeah, we absolutely know that Whaley wanted Manuel. Nix has said he started a little QB committee to focus on getting the right QB, and that Whaley was in charge of it, and that Whaley wanted Manuel. More, Whaley had a million chances to back away from his belief in Manuel after Nix left. He never did. Just the opposite, again and again he stated and showed his support. As for your contention about Orton, there's no reason to believe - whoever wanted to bring him in - that he was brought in to start. If Manuel had worked out, Orton would have been a terrific pickup as a backup and QB mentor. Orton's contract was $11M over two years, high but not outrageous for a backup. You're dead right about Cassel, though. That was yet another show of Whaley's belief in at the very least getting Manuel on the field for a chance to play. Mayfield appears to have a terrific control of the passing game. How many 6' QBs with small hands have had success in the NFL? Well, assuming that he's 6' rather than his official height, here's another question: how many 6' QBs with small hands have been drafted as early as Mayfield appears likely to be taken? Most guys built like him don't have games or skillsets like him, they're runners who do a bit of passing on the side. You're right that his stature matters. But you know what they say, exceptions happen. Not that I've decided on him. But I'm at least intrigued.

Wouldn't be a Whaley type of deal. The general rule for successful GMs is this: Never ever trade up in the first if you have to give away another first ... EXCEPT if it's for a QB who you think will be a franchise guy. Whaley broke that rule. If Beane trades up, he won't be breaking that rule. If there's a QB available that I can trade up for that I believe stands a good chance to be a franchise guy, a guy who I think will be gone by the time our first pick rolls around, I do that deal in a second. I think it's a good part of the reason we traded for those extra picks in the first place.

Or ... you know ... not. Decent chance next year will be significantly better. The system will have been installed and they will have started to assemble players who fit the player needs of the system. Heh heh. Exactly. If he is tanking this is one of the poorest attempts ever. If they'd done a complete rebuild they simply would have gotten rid of Tyrod, Kyle Williams and Shady. Williams and Shady are likely to be gone by the time a team doing a complete rebuild would be any good whatsoever, and they could have replaced Tyrod with a much cheaper alternative who wouldn't have been quite as good, a Glennon or someone like him. First, it's not written just for Bills fans, it's written for all NFL fans, plenty of whom might not know this stuff. And secondly as many have observed, there have been a ton of posts on this board from people who are apparently non-trolls who earnestly believe McD's job is in jeopardy this year. I'm not a big Rodak fan, but this article is completely reasonable.

Disagree. Sometimes you cut your best guy. It's not ideal, but sometimes you do it based on other factors such as salary cap impact, a belief that a guy has no long-term future with the team, a belief that a guy doesn't fit the system they're trying to implement ... on and on and on. Plenty of reason to cut the best guy if he's not really all that good anyway. Quick example: Jim Harbaugh put up a QB Rating of 86.2 in 1997. The Colts dumped him, drafted and played Peyton Manning, who responded with a QB Rating of 71.2 his first year. Still, dumping the better (at that time) Harbaugh was the move to make. Not to say they'll absolutely let Tyrod go, but it seems the most likely course. He'll absolutely be wanted. The question will be for what and how much they'll pay. He's instantly one of the best backups in the league, but probably some desperate team will give him money to start, though less than some people here think. If so, we'll see the same thing that happened here play out in another city, IMHO.

This is pretty much completely impenetrable. Seriously, not understandable. I did get a few things, though. First, I didn't put in that the figures from the article were a week or two old. Fair enough. My mistake. Second, I keep saying that he's better ranked at shorter range on third downs, and you keep saying, "No, look at the Washington Post things," and when you look they show exactly that he's better ranked at short and medium than he is at long ones. Third, you're admitting that Tyrod's 24th in Alex and apparently this thrills you. You're like "Yeeeeeeeehaw, my guy's #24 in the league at throwing as far as the sticks on third down. #24 of 32!!! Yeah, baby!!" You do know that 24th sucks, right? The guy's ALEX plummeted from his first year to his second year in Buffalo, and plunged again from his second to this year. And again, that doesn't seem like a surprise when you look at what happened on drive-ending third downs in the KC game. Four were on called runs, and seven were on called passes. On the seven called passes, there were three incompletions, an eleven yard sack on a 3rd-and-one, and three completed passes that didn't make first downs. That includes a 3rd-and-nine completed for seven yards and a 3rd-and-four completed for three yards.

Yeah, it was a pretty good game by Tyrod in KC, as long as you don't mind an almost total lack of explosiveness and long throws. Which is exactly the point you've been trying to dispute here. 6.31 yards per attempt. That's a Pop Warner number. But it's OK by you. A passer averaging 6.31 would be 32nd in the league this year. But it was a pretty good game by him. Thank goodness the defense played spectacular.

No, but one of those drive-ending runs came on 3rd and 11 with two minutes left in the game. We just wanted to make KC spend their last time-out so we tried a QB draw and Tyrod was caught for -1 yards. We were just burning clock. And I looked at your math, 4 out of 12 drives ended because of a called run, and I thought, jeez, doesn't that mean some ended on a called pass, too? I'm no Blaise Pascal, but I coulda sworn it did. After a few hours on the computer checking this assumption, I found I was right. So yeah, it didn't help that 4 out of 12 of our drives ended because of a called run. Nor did it help that after you remove the TD and the four runs you referred to above, the other 7 drives ended in called passes. Three incompletions, an eleven yard sack on a 3rd-and-one, and three completed passes that didn't make first downs. That includes a 3rd-and-nine completed for seven yards and a 3rd-and-four completed for three yards. Glad we did so much better on those called passes. Oh ... wait.

Yup. Last couple of years we heard all about how awful Roman was and how he was holding Tyrod back. Now under Dennison they're saying, "See, Rico is killing the offense. Look at how awful the running game is now. It's just like Dak Prescott. Prescott is good with Elliott, and terrible without. See? Same with Tyrod. If only he had a real running game, no telling how good he would look. And Tyrod keeps producing at nearly the exact same rates.

. Stafford and Eli would throw on time, unlike Tyrod. Not that the o-line is very good, but part of the reason they are having problems is that on plenty of plays Tyrod holds it too long. This is exactly one of Tyrod's main problems.

Seriously? I'm wrong? You don't have a clue (you got that right, actually) about where I'm geting my information from? That's pretty sad, Transplant. Typical, but sad. Why? Why do you not know where I got that? Seriously, why? Here's what you said about the place where I found that. You said, "This is a really nice find, Hap." A page or two back. In this thread. It's in the article about ALEX that Happy Days posted and you replied to and repeated the link. I shouldn't be surprised. That's your typical method, isn't it? Find something. Look for the part that might be used to cast a good light on Tyrod. And then ignore or forget the rest. I shouldn't be surprised, So I got all of them right. Again, the short ones are the ones he's converting. 10th in the league when they're 1 or 2 yards, 14th when they're 3 or 4 yards and 17th when longer. The longer they are the further down the list he slips in percentage of success. And again, from the same article, 29th out of 38 QBs this year in terms of ALEX. Only 11 guys averaged throwing less than as far as the sticks on third down. Tyrod was one of these 11.

Matt Waldman interesting film breakdown on Mayfield: https://mattwaldmanrsp.com/2017/11/21/matt-waldmans-rsp-boiler-room-no-118-qb-baker-mayfield-coverage-reads-and-footwork/ Yeah, sure wish we were those tolerant fans that love two-INT games. And as for somebody getting open way after the QB looked his way, nobody minds that. Unless the QB is scrambling and has time to look again and still doesn't see him. Bottom line ... of course people are going to be frustrated sometimes, at whoever is here. But guys in their first and second years get a lot more leeway than guys in their seventh year, which is as it should be. But as long as the as yet unknown new guys is able to become a franchise QB down the line, fans will be plenty happy. Haven't had one since Kelly, so it's pretty reasonable that we're pissed off.

The short ones are the ones he's converting. 10th in the league when they're 1 or 2 yards, 14th when they're 3 or 4 yards and 17th when longer.

Agreed.

You're spinning a bit here, Happy. Tyrod doesn't just rank "below average (16th)" this year. He's 29th. That's well past "below average" into poor. 27 of the 38 QBs who qualify have an average length of throw of at least to the sticks. Only 11 of the 38 average below the length required for a first down. Tyrod is one of those eleven. This problem of throwing short so very often even in situations where it didn't make sense hasn't been traditionally identified as a problem for Tyrod. It's really only started to be mentioned as a problem this year. The ALEX data you linked to here shows why. In Tyrod's first year in Buffalo he was rated really high in ALEX, 2nd in the NFL, averaging a throw +4.5 yards beyond the sticks. That dropped last year to +2.3 which is still really excellent. This year people have been talking about how he has so often thrown short of the sticks on third down and the data backs it up. He's 29th in the league at -0.1. So yeah, if you average those three years together he comes off pretty well, but that's not how he's playing now. Why? Dunno is really the only answer. Could be he's less aggressive this year. Could be the playbook encourages it. Could be nobody is open enough for him to let it loose downfield. We can't know for sure. The article points out he's throwing a lot to McCoy on these plays, the safety valve, but why? In any case, it's now obvious that the people who've been saying that he'd been throwing short were correct.

Wait, you mean that when we're ahead, that the Bills - a team widely known to have intended to feature the run game - ran a lot to burn clock? And won the game? Holy smokes, this is clearly an anti-Tyrod conspiracy and bad play-calling.