Thurman#1

Yeah, Tyrod is one of the best-known names. Having your name be best-known isn't the same as being a star. Every starting QB in the league has a decently well-known name because when you watch the offensive highlights they all start with "Taylor takes the snap." I'd question whether the Bills have stars beyond Shady and maybe (last year) Sammy. Good players, yes. I don't think "star" is the word to use for guys like Dareus or Kyle Williams or Jerry Hughes or Incognito or for that matter Tyrod. But hey, that's just me. Agreed that they're unlikely to trade Shady. But dead cap isn't the reason. If they traded him, they'd get hit by $7.875 mill in dead cap. But they'd also save $6 mill in salary. A cap hit of $1.875 mill wouldn't stop this deal. But no, I don't think it's going to happen anymore than you do.

That is some extremely poor journalism by O'Shea. Silva says he "expects" the Bills to "listen to offers." And O'Shea, whoever he is, reads that as, "is looking to trade." Pathetic writing on top of abominable reading of what his source actually said.

So ... what you're saying is that if he'd been healthy, things might have been different, right? Thing is ... he WASN'T healthy. He's shown no ability to stay on the field or to consistently be at the top of his game when on the field. Yeah, if you ignore that things look better. But it shouldn't be ignored. It's a huge part of the picture with Sammy.

For coaches and players there is no such thing as a tank. None. McDermott will be working as hard as he possibly can to win, knowing that a coach's future job prospects rest on how good his team looks and he looks coaching them. Will Beane maybe have to crush a smile when they lose a close one this year? Yeah, maybe. But not McDermott. This is very logical. If one example of something didn't turn out well, it clearly proves that ever doing it under any circumstances is not a good idea. Oh, and there is no such thing as tanking in football. Rebuilding, yes. Tanking, nope, because the coaches and players have far far too much on the line to not do their absolute best.

Yes, they did. That draft pick wasn't Justin Gilbert. It was the right to pick a player at #9 that the Bills traded away. The fact that Cleveland blew that pick doesn't mean we would have. We might easily have used that pick to snag Shazier or Aaron Donald. Or Ebron. Or Beckham. Or Zack Martin. So yeah, Cleveland made the smart trade and we made the dumb one. They then used the draft pick poorly. But if someone steals your money and then gambles it away in Vegas, it doesn't make it OK that they stole your money in the first place.

Come on ... people blame Sammy? Only the nuts and wackos. As for the rest of your post, though, it comes down to "I don't like hearing about this." And you'll just have to deal with it, same as the rest of the world has to deal with stuff they don't like. It's just life. It really was a bad trade from the first minute it happened. And there's extreme doubt about your statement about OBJ being a failure here. Very doubtful. Sammy's big problem is that he wasn't healthy. Beckham has been consistently healthy and available. Yeah, we'd have thrown to him less than the Giants did. But if you look at the stats, guys like Woods had better catch ratios than Sammy, whereas Beckham was destroying the other WRs on the Giants in that stat. If Beckham were here he'd almost certainly still be a tremendous success. Yeah, he'd have smaller gross stats, but he'd still be doing what he's done for the Giants in terms of qualititative stats. He'd still be thought of as a tremendous success. And we wouldn't have had to trade away three picks to get the pick to get him, we'd only have had to use the one. It wasn't a good move, that trade. As for tanking, it basically doesn't exist in football. Rebuilding does. And while we're not doing a full rebuild, there's a large element of rebuilding in McDermott and Beane's plan. Yup, and the good teams - the teams that have consistency in management - love that future firsts are undervalued that way. They take advantage of that whenever they can to get first round picks in future years.

I don't see it as a black eye at all. Boldin came in saying he was here to win a Super Bowl. Then he looked around and saw what the team was capable of this year and realized that wasn't happening, It was worth a try for the FO. He'd have taught and developed the young guys and played good ball as well, but probably the work he'd have done with the young guys was what they'll miss. It was a good thought, but you can't control stuff like this. Oh, you're guessing what he'll say tomorrow? I didn't get it. OK. Um, "It's a shame, they'll miss him, but not all that much. It'll give the young guys a chance to get some work."

I wouldn't. They were 19th last year. But I agree, I don't see huge improvements this year. The line looks good but other than that we look OK and have little depth.

Yeah, 2018 is starting to maybe look like they might have a strong defense.

Odds are very high against it. First, unless a team is in desperate need from something like a starter suddenly going down, a team that wanted him would just wait till after this year. It's late for him to start at the beginning of the season for a team that acquired him now except in cases of absolute emergency. Second, from what we've seen Yates doesn't look like he'd make anyone comfortable as the #2 if Peterman went down. Third, Peterman is completing around 50% of his passes. 51.1%, to be exact. He's doing better than Tyrod in the games but he isn't actually playing all that well yet. He has a ton more to learn before you would probably want him starting even if he was better than Tyrod. Fourth, Tyrod's $15.5 mill guarantee will partly be paid by the team which traded for him (the salary and the $1 mill guaranteed on next year's roster bonus) but that would still leave us paying for $7.5 mill, his entire signing bonus. That's not nothing. They'd save the salary and the roster bonus, but unless they got quite a good pick, they'd want to justify taking that $7.5 mill hit by keeping him. Even if they did start Peterman (very doubtful), Tyrod would be a great insurance policy in case they're winning (no, I don't think they will either, but they seem to be trying to keep that possibility open). Tyrod's performance in the preseason is still fairly understandable as he picks up a new offense. But it won't raise his trade value. Honestly, I'm a major doubter of Tyrod. I think we pretty much saw what he is in the last year and a half or so, which I believe is a top 32 QB who will never be a top 16 or so starter, and top 16 is around when people want to keep you. I wanted them to rebuild this year and let him go. Once they signed his option, though, I think it pretty much sealed things about keeping him for the year. IMHO unless the offer is higher than expected, he's a Bill for this year anyway.

If they didn't want him, they wouldn't have guaranteed him $15.5 mill. Seriously, not going to happen. If they were going to let him go, they wouldn't have picked up his option.

Dude, try to make your questions easier. It was Brady's second year, dude. And by all accounts he hadn't outplayed him in training camp that second year. It was after he was put in the games that Belichick started seeing that Brady's style suited Belichick's game plans more than Bledsoe's. If there'd been no injury, still think Brady would never have beaten out Bledsoe? Please. And yeah, "plenty of excellent QBs have had to ride the pine for years before getting their shot." They weren't ready yet, or hadn't consistently outplayed the guy above them. Brady's a great example. There'd been no calls for Brady to start during training camp. He hadn't showed he was ready. But as he developed and showed he was indeed better and not as a flash in the pan but consistently, guess what, Bledsoe is gone. But hey, if you want to believe that a coach would endanger his job by never giving a chance to a guy who is consistently playing significantly better, that's your lookout. But we'll never know in that particular case because Tyrod simply wasn't playing better than Flacco. He never made the Ravens braintrust look at him in that way.

I basically agree that it's inane. The verdict's pretty much in. He's very unlikely to become a franchise guy, though it's possible. Beane is doing what he's doing because that's what he thinks too. But if this inanity so flusters you, there are a ton of other threads that are a lot more sensible. May I respectfully suggest they may suit your needs better? If you'd rather be here, hey, understand what this thread is.

Yes, THE RAVENS were 6-2 in playoff games. Not Joe Flacco. The Ravens. What Flacco did during those two years you're talking about is he didn't play especially well in the playoffs in 2011, played very very well in the playoffs in 2012. And I like Joe Flacco. I think he's widely underestimated. But there's a reason he's never been picked for the Pro Bowl except, as with Tyrod, as an alternate. Six other players were either injured or in the Super Bowl before Flacco got the call and turned it down. And that's bull **** that that job was not up for the taking. Every job in the NFL is up for the taking. Every one. If you play better than the other guy, consistently, you'll get a shot. Teams love to light fires under asses in this way. But there simply was never a controversy there because Flacco played better. I definitely grant you it wouldn't have been easy to take that job. Especially after that contract. Of course you're absolutely right about that. But if you play better consistently, the coaches will notice it. Having a better player take over reflects well on the coaches. You've got to outplay the guy consistently and significantly. Tyrod didn't. In fact, his preseason stats just weren't especially good in Baltimore. 2011 37 for 60 6.8 YPC 1 TD, 3 INTs Passer Rating 66.5 2012 31 for 60 5.4 YPC 2 TDs, 1 INT Passer Rating 71.9 2013 21 for 36 7.3 YPC 4 TDs, 2 INTs Passer Rating 95.0 2014 35 for 55 7.7 YPC 3 TDs, 2 INTs Passer Rating 84.3 The one year was a bit of an uptick, but then back towards mediocre. He just didn't outplay Flacco and certainly not consistently and significantly. He didn't put any pressure on the coaches to make them think of him that way. Whereas Young was performing terrifically ... but so was Montana. Montana at that time was elite. Top two or three in the league. Probably top one, to be honest, as in 1989 and 1990, Young's fifth and sixth years in the league, Montana was not just Pro Bowl but first team All-Pro.

You're comparing Joe Flacco ... to Joe Montana? Seriously, dude? Good lord. Outside of first names and the position they play, there's no comparison there. Can't believe I'm bothering, but in the four years Tyrod was in Baltimore, Flacco's passer ratings were 80.9, 87.7, 73.1 and 91.0. He did have the Super Bowl win season, but Flacco was ripe for the picking and Tyrod couldn't do it. Beating out Montana at the height of his reign as arguably the best in history and certainly top three or four is not something anyone who wants to be taken seriously should compare to beating out Joe Flacco. Yeah, the Ravens wanted Flacco to succeed. But if Tyrod had outplayed him consistently they'd have noticed.

Go count my posts in this thread. Then count Transplants. Check that, I'll do it. Went back and counted through the last 200 posts of this thread, including this one. 31 posts by Transplant.18 by me. Almost double. He's accounted for more than 15% of the last 200 comments. Without him, this thread would've been dead weeks ago. More, in the last month or so, since July 13th - the first two pages of my "content" record - I've posted in 50 threads. About a ton of different topics, from Ragland to Chad Kelly, to the salary cap to tanking to Gary Barnidge to Dr. Omalu on concussions, etc. Now, check Transplant's. To go back 50 threads, two pages, you have to go back to April. Yeah, I have enough interest in this discussion to enter it periodically. But I enter a lot of discussions on unrelated topics. As for your other question, I'm neither a Tyrod fanatic nor a hater. I'm a doubter. Which outside of Bills fandom is by far the most common stance. There are plenty of non-Bills fans who like Tyrod's personality a ton and like watching him play as well. But not so many who don't get why the Bills made him re-negotiate to give back $10 mill and his bizarre Whaley-era contract guarantees. They understand why Beane's stockpiling picks next year in a strong QB draft and in fact think it's a smart move. A few, but not many.

Yeah, it's strange that Young didn't start but three games in his fifth year ... behind Joe Montana in his prime. Hard to figure that out. That is one sad and pathetic argument you've got there. Young was playing at a franchise level from his fifth year on, in camp, in the preseason and when he got his chance. The Niners were thrilled to see they had successfully found Montana's successor and would be able to let Montana go before his game went downhill. Oh, and the criticism you took for pro-rating Tyrod's stats in 2015 from 14 to 16 games is because he was injured and that's the reason he missed those games. Injury is a concern with smaller running QBs. And you were pro-rating quantitative stats (and therefore adding imaginary yards and TDs to his stats) so they got better by adding those two extra games that he never played in. Whereas I was using qualitative stats (passer rating and YPA), which didn't change. Young actually got those stats. Tyrod actually did NOT get the stats you were daydreaming about due to his injury. The last bit of your post maybe rescues it. Yup, Tyrod'll have to improve a great deal. And it would be far better for the Bills if he does improve a whole ton and becomes a franchise QB. It would be great to see, It's just very unlikely.

People go on about his great deep ball, but while he was terrific at throwing the deep ball in 2015, he didn't do nearly as well in 2016. He could easily look better again this year in that part of his game, or not. But it's not a given as many seem to want to imply.

Demetress ... Demetress ... Demetress!!

I get that you're about 90% joking here, but Glenn has stayed on the field pretty well. Three of his five years here, he played 16 games. 72 games in five years, that's pretty durable.

I don't see the Chiefs giving us Alex Smith. And more, I don't see us wanting Smith. I can't see them keeping Tyrod if we brought in Smith. Too much money spent at QB for a team likely to draft one next year anyway. But they wouldn't save any money by cutting Tyrod, he's guaranteed $15 mill. So we'd be spending around $25 mill this year on our top two QBs. Simply wouldn't make sense financially or tactically for us. Nor for KC since they want to win this year and show every sign of wanting to develop their rookie on the bench for a year or two. Everything else aside I'd take Smith over Tyrod in an instant. But it doesn't make sense right now, especially so late in the process. He'd have to learn the offense in two and a half weeks. Even if we balanced this out so KC got equal value, I don't see either team being interested in making that move.

The year after. If they wanted to pull a Skins-with-Cousins move and franchise him twice.

Same difference. They "won't" do it because if they do it they "can't" do something else they want to do. In this case it's an unimportant distinction. You can say, "I won't buy a soda." Or you can say, "I can't buy a soda because I only have two bucks and I want a candy bar instead." Both are correct, "won't" and "can't." Just because nobody's holding a gun to your head doesn't mean you can't use "can't." You can. You can be forced into a decision by logic and by lack of resources. When you'd like to do two things but don't have the resources, you're forced to pick one. You have to do it.

Not true. You do get penalized for going over the cap. Nobody does it, but if you did it, you'd get penalized, probably in terms of the NFL not approving whatever contract or move you were trying which would get you over the cap. In any case, going over the cap has happened, and fairly recently. The Steelers and Niners have been fined for the contracts which caused the problem and if I remember correctly lost a draft pick. So that's wrong. And you're kidding yourself here, Kirby. They Bills absolutely did have to let people go. Same as the average person has to sell his car or give up lattes or his cable or satellite TV contract when money gets tight. No, the police don't come and hold a gun to their head. But they're still forced to do it. And you don't manipulate the cap. It's a hard cap as you said. You don't manipulate your cap situation either. What people call manipulation is really just kicking the contracts down the road. Except the smart teams don't do it. And if you think the fact that the cap has continued to rise means it will do so forever, you are using horribly flawed logic.

I wouldn't take this for granted, though it's certainly very possible. But if they do, they will still have saved a ton of money compared to what a healthy Sammy will/would get. But letting him go might look just fine depending on how they replaced him. Sure, for $16 - $17 mill in 2018 and around $20 mill the year after. Sammy had leverage and choice here too, even without the possibility of sitting out all or part of a season. But Sammy showed every sign of wanting to be here. That wasn't the problem. The problem was that even guys who want to be somewhere will generally go elsewhere for a better contract elsewhere if the difference is more than tiny, especially in second contracts, where guys make their big nest egg.