Thurman#1

Feel like I just stepped out of a cold shower, had a rubdown, a margarita and a chat with a stunningly beautiful Nobel Prize winner.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/sports/football/nfl/bills/2017/03/02/qb-guru-greg-cosell-thinks-bills-should-move-on-from-tyrod-taylor/98640594/ Excerpts: "While it might seem like Bills quarterback Tyrod Taylor is currently one of the most polarizing players in the NFL — is he good, or isn’t he? — Greg Cosell thinks the exact opposite. “'I think people in the league are not polarized at all,' said Cosell, an analyst and senior producer at NFL Films who is widely considered to be one of the foremost evaluators of quarterbacks anywhere. "So, what does that mean? Simply put, Cosell thinks anyone who has watched tape — and Cosell spends dozens of hours every week doing just that — knows that Taylor is a fun guy to watch, but he’s limited in many areas and at this point is probably who he’s always going to be." ... and ... “'Taylor doesn’t throw with the anticipation that you need on a consistent basis,' Cosell continued. 'He’s relatively erratic with his accuracy, and his arm is slightly above average but not more. I think he’s a quarterback you can start in the league, but I think people know who Tyrod Taylor is. The larger question is, do you believe he can be your starting quarterback for a lengthy period of time?'” ... and ... “'If I’m the Buffalo Bills I probably move on because he’s the kind of quarterback that you can line up and more than likely, unless you’re dominant in other areas on your team, you’ll tread water with him,” he said. “You’ll line him up, he’ll play some good games, he’ll struggle in some games, and three years down the road you’ll be having the exact same conversation we’re having right now.' "Anthony Lynn, who was the Bills’ offensive coordinator for the last 14 games of 2016 and is now the head coach of the Chargers, was asked Thursday about whether he thinks Taylor can be a franchise quarterback “'I don’t have the answer to that,' said Lynn, which wasn’t exactly a ringing endorsement. 'I think he’s definitely a starting quarterback in this league, and he won a few games with the Bills that we could not have won without him. And, working with him 1-on-1, I understand his upside maybe better than others. I think the sky’s the limit for Tyrod Taylor. He’s a very smart, hard-working professional.” Again, Lynn didn't exactly identify what that sky was, and as Cosell said, many people around the NFL believe Taylor is already at his zenith." ... and ... "If the Bills do cut Taylor, Cosell said they shouldn’t spend the No. 10 overall pick in the draft on anyone in this crop of quarterback candidates."

I'd have to guess this is it. But this will have a major spillover effect on the rest of buffalobills.com Why go there now? I used to go regularly, now I can't imagine going there except once in a great while to hear Murph. I disagree. The mods there had their moments, but overall they did a great job. The outright insult kings were gone very quickly. I loved that about that site.

It's also that Tyrod is a lot of money. For Tyrod. Lemme repeat that if Tyrod stayed with us on this contract, for two years, he'd be paid $40.5 mill. And the four closest QBs to that average salary are Brady, Ryan, Newton, Rivers and Eli. Looks like McDermott wants to try to win immediately. Since that's true, Tyrod gives him the best chance to do so. But has absolutely not showed signs of being in the Brady-Ryan-Newton-Rivers-Eli neighborhood. Paying Glennon like Chase Daniel and Griffin III makes a ton more sense than paying Tyrod like Brady, Ryan, Newton, Rivers and Eli

The information we have from that story tells little or nothing about how Tyrod's contract should be looked at. Let's say the report is correct at $7 mill per year. How much is guaranteed. Is it front-loaded or back-loaded. If they cut him after a year, will they have to pay him $4 mill, $7 mill or $15 mill? We don't know. All we know is that we don't know. But let's be imaginative and say it would be $7 mill if he were cut after a year, and $14 mill after two years. Does it somehow indicate that Tyrod, roughly the 20th best QB in the league, a bridge QB, should be paid $20 mill per year for two years (we can be very clear that the problem with Tyrod's contract is the guarantee and the fact that the contract is so front-loaded) that Glennon Last year Glennon's stats were insane, passer rating in the 120s, because he only threw 11 passes. But you sure can't say anything negative about how he performed. The last time before that that he has stats was 2014, when he had the 30th best passer rating in the league. The year before, his rookie year, he was 24th. Glennon is one of the guys you think about when you think about bridge QBs. He's certainly not as good of a bridge QB as Tyrod, but he's a guy who is a bridge/backup, not a pure backup. So paying a bridge guy like Tyrod like a franchise QB - $20.25 mill a year for two years - is certainly not justified by paying a bridge/backup guy like the one of the highest bridge/backup guy around. He's getting a bit less than Griffin III got per year. Putting it in more perspective, if Tyrod stayed two years here, the amount he'd be paid is closer to Tom Brady's yearly salary than anyone else's. Brady at #12 gets $20.5 mill, and Tyrod would be just behind that and a million ahead of the next guy. He'd also be within a million dollars per year of the next four guys ahead of Brady, Matt Ryan, Cam Newton, Philip Rivers and Eli Manning. Whereas if Glennon were paid $7 mill per year, he would be tied with Chase Daniel and just behind RGIII at $7.5 mill per year. I'm sorry, but that just is not that unreasonable. It's above Griffin that the huge leap upwards occurs, from Griffin at $7.5 mill to Dalton at $16 mill. Particularly when we don't know how Glennon's contract offer is structured, this says absoluely nothing about how reasonable it would be to pay Tyrod money that's close to Brady, Ryan, Newton, Rivers and Eli Manning if he stays with us for two years.

As I say, if you want to talk about the Halls' rules, fine, start another thread about it. It may be a legit concern, but it doesn't connect to what Polian said. Polian said he didn't belong in the HOF, and he doubtless means based on how people do or don't belong. As things stand. Fine. Start a thread about it. But of course you can pick and choose. Everybody does, in every decision they make. It's just what gets included and excluded. There have to be guidelines, even if the guidelines are that everything should be considered. Your objections don't seem crazy to me at all, they just seem irrelevant to what Polian said.

Hearsay from teammates and anecdotal evidence is exactly the kind of thing that should be considered when you're looking at the locker room. But as I understand it, you're arguing that the hearsay evidence from teammates should be ignored while the hearsay evidence from a guy who had nothing to do with him or his career concerning a situation that never came to trial should be convincing evidence not only that someone doesn't belong in the Hall, but that he belongs in jail. This makes absolutely zero sense at all. Not least because of that pesky "innocent till proven guilty" thing we have in reference to criminal trials in this country. But also in dismissing hearsay evidence from teammates while totally buying into it in a criminal case. In any case, Polian is addressing whether he belongs in the Hall of Fame. So, of course the guidelines for whether guys should get into the Hall of Fame should be considered in his analysis and any analysis of the situation. If you want to argue that you don't like the guidelines, fine. I'm just not interested in that argument, personally, it may be legit but it doesn't belong in the discussion of Polian's comments. Polian was commenting on whether he belongs and that's clearly based on current guidelines. Again, his comment is reasonable. It's just that simple. Again, not that everyone should have to agree, but his argument makes sense.

More affordable but not all that much more. It was $11.93 mill for CBs last year, and will probably be bumped up into the $12 mill range this year. If they could trade him, it would be a brilliant move. But that's unlikely to be how it turned out. With the transition tag Gilmore could go out and arrange a deal with another team and if we didn't match it we'd get nothing in return. With the franchise tag you get two 1sts if that happens. With the transition tag you get nothing. And I don't know for sure, but it's a decent chance you would also lose the supplemental picks. More, we're in cap trouble, so any team offering him a contract could just arrange a big cap hit the first year and there's no way we could match it. One more problem is that since 2016 if a team uses the transition tag and loses the guy they don't get a comp pick for him in the next year's draft. Maybe someone next year? Not a big deal maybe but you never know, and even if you tag and rescind, you lose that tag the next year. Totally agreed, and it frustrates the hell out of me to see the merry-go-round of draft a CB, let him go and draft another one. Drives me nuts. But I don't think they have a reasonable chance to keep him, particularly if they keep Tyrod. Whaley, through poor cap management over several years has backed us into a corner. We're going to have to cut players it would be better to keep. IMHO Gilmore is one of those guys, especially as he's the most expensive except for Tyrod. I would love to keep him. I just don't think we have the space to do that and the other things we're going to have to do to field a full roster. Where is there any evidence whatsoever that he wants out under any circumstances? There is absolutely none. Much more likely that the only reason he wants out of Buffalo is that they don't want to pay him the money he can get elsewhere. Buffalo fans want to believe that every player who leaves wanted out from the beginning. Same with the fan base in every city, it's sour grapes syndrome. "We can't have them, so it was never possible." There are a few who actually did want out, McGahee for example with his Applebees comment, who just didn't like Buffalo. But for the huge majority they just want as much money as they can get and being on a winning team is also a factor, though a much smaller one generally than the money.

It's not like he's alone. So yeah, really. T.O. didn't get voted in. Polian's got a legitimate point of view. The Hall of Fame says consider only what happened on the field, but that the field can be extended into the locker room, the training facilities and camp, etc. So for those here talking about crimes and drug use, the voters are specifically told not to consider that, whereas breaking up team harmony and blatantly not even trying for several years in Moss' case are allowed to be considered. The argument's not crazy at all. Doesn't mean everyone has to agree, but what he's saying, though not particularly popular, isn't unreasonable.

That's not how you calculate savings. We were going to pay him this year $2.125 mill in salary, a $250K roster bonus and a $25K workout bonus. That's your gross savings, $2.4 mill. (You do NOT add in the amortized part of the signing bonus!!! It's a sunken cost, it's gone.) Again, a total of $2.4 mill. Now, subtract the dead money, $537K and you save $1.863 mill. And then you have to pay the new guy. Say you're right and that's $600K. Now you've saved roughly $1.263 mill. That's not nothing, but it's less than you're calculating. $1.263 mill savings if you only bring in a $600K rookie to replace him. Now, if you bring in a young guy at $600K, you're essentially getting a rookie. You're taking a risk. You don't know how that will work out. Sometimes terrifically, sometimes not. Every one of those guys you mentioned, Boswell, McManus, Hopkins, Santos, Lambo and Catanzaro are on their first contracts. And two of those five hit lower percentages of field goals than Carpenter did, and only one of the six managed better post-kickoff field position than Carpenter did, and those are the relative rookie success stories. Bringing in a new guy is taking a risk. I'm convinced that Carpenter can go without hurting the team. He has under-performed for two years now. But ideally we should get an FA who's a bit proven rather than a rookie. Rookies are risky. But maybe all we can afford.

26 points per game, mostly from the run game. Again, points per game is a stat for the whole offense and with a major defense and STs component. Again, 29 running TDs, 3 defensive TDs and 17 passing TDs, in a league in which not a single other team had more running TDs than passing TDs. Get a defense and a passing game.

It ain't that simple. Maybe it is and maybe it isn't. Depends a lot on how they re-structured or re-negotiated. If they did what Tyrod's camp said was all they were willing to do and are giving him the same amount of guarantees but shifting the burden down the road a bit it's likely not the smart move. Not unless Tyrod improves a whole lot and becomes the franchise QB we've all been hoping for. It would basically mean that our salary cap troubles are pretty much here to stay for the next two or three years. But if they actually cut back on some of the guarantee and made it more reasonably affordable to keep Tyrod for the couple of years that seem to be the likely length of his stay - again, unless he makes those big improvements - then it could indeed make a lot of sense. We'll know when we see if this is actually true - people here are beliving it because they want to - and how reasonable the new contract is. Not one stupid enough to tweet something confidential, I wouldn't.

It isn't that easy. You cut Graham, Carpenter, Easley and Lewis (Patrick Lewis, right?) and you only save around $7 mill and not only that but you then have to replace all of them on the roster and you end up having probably around $4 mill more free space than you would have, if that. (You don't calculate money saved against this year's cap by just subtracting the player's cap value. You have to take how much he'll be paid this year in cash, so salary and bonuses paid this year minus the dead cap value. And yeah, maybe some of that dead cap will be pushed to next year so you can count that if you want to but that part will just be dumped on 2018's cap so it's not a savings, really, just a delay. And then if that guy will have to be replaced by a guy who's not on the roster yet, you have to subtract his cap value too if you're being fully honest with yourself.) Cutting guys like Lewis saves you almost nothing. The guy who replaces him is likely to cost nearly as much or more than he did. You then restructure 4 - 5 of your best players and next year when you have about $61 mill in free cap space right now that goes down somewhere around $10 or $15 mill and now you're in cap trouble again next year and everything starts all over again ... you then have to cut people next year when the new systems are hopefully starting to work instead of this year when we look like we're headed for a bad year no matter what players we keep. Whaley got us into cap trouble. And once you're in cap trouble you have to make some unpopular, unpleasant decisions because of it. Better to do so this year and start clean. McCoy specifically? Not necessarily, but if I were GM, I'd bite the bullet and make him one of the cuts, him, Gilmore and Tyrod for three. And yeah, this'll be a worse team without those three next year. On the other hand, if I'd been GM, I wouldn't have brought in Clay at that price, Harvin at all and I wouldn't have re-negotiated Shady's contract nearly so kindly as Whaley has, so we wouldn't have been in such bad salary cap trouble as we in fact are.

John, it's not a one-year thing. Or rather, there's a very good chance it won't be. Don't know where you're getting the $80 mill figure. Are you looking at 2019, because we do indeed have $81 mill available that year, and so far in advance, that's the 28th highest figure, one of the worst in the league. Two years in advance $80 mill is bad, not good. Spotrac has us at $106.2 mill in contracts for 2018, which leaves somewhere around $61 mill. And the reason we're so far below the cap there is more because we have so very very few people under contract yet than that the people are cheap. We only have 25 people under contract for that season, and that includes Listenbee, Charles Gaines, Reid Ferguson, Cedric O'Neal, Joe Powell, Max Valles, Josh Woodrum, many or most of whom won't probably make it to this year much less next year. Bills 25 (guys under contract for 2018) Pats and Cards 28 Falcons 30 Niners 31 Lions 32 Vikings and Dolphins 33 Skins 34 Everyone else has 35 or more. So of course it looks like we don't yet have much money committed. But we will. Look at the rankings. We're 16th in cap space next year. But not a single team above us in the rankings has fewer guys signed for that year. (And in fact, not a single team below us either. We're 32nd in the league in guys signed for the 2018 season. That's a huge reason why we have some cap space available as yet.) Only two teams above us have less than 30 signed. We still have a long way to go before we can even begin to put a team on the field. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/cap/2018/ All the FO has to do is re-negotiate a few contracts to move charges from this year down the road, cut a guy or two with big dead money charges and bring in a few FAs with nice bonus structures arranged to delay the immediate impact of the contracts and we'll be back in cap trouble. That's the nature of cap trouble. If you have a GM who gets you in cap trouble, the next year doesn't look too bad ... until your GM gets finished bailing himself out of this year's cap trouble, and voila, now next year looks terrible. And so far, that's the kind of GM Whaley has been. At the start of his watch we had no cap trouble. But we've been consistently moving that way. So yeah, we could be in good shape in 2018 and 2019, but basically only if we start doing things like cutting McCoy, Tyrod, Kyle Williams, not signing Gilmore or Zach Brown or Lorenzo Alexander and/or other moves specifically aimed at getting us in good cap shape.

The post June 1st designation doesn't save $5 million in cap room. It saves $5 million in cap room this year while then spending the same $5 million in cap room next year.

Your numbers are way off. McCoy was guaranteed $18.25 mill, $13.125 mill of which was his signing bonus.He then received two $250K workout bonuses (I'm assuming) and salaries of $2.625 M and $4.8 M. So that's $21.05 mill he's received in two years, and his guarantee is finished. Too much? Maybe. But it's no $15 mill per season. Was it a bad re-negotiated deal by the Bills? It always seemed so to me, but again, it's no $15 mill per year. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/lesean-mccoy-5916/ Not that I have any idea what's happening right now, but it wouldn't surprise me either way.

We're way above average at TE. Maybe ten teams have as good a TE as our first stringer. Maybe. And there just aren't that many good 2nd string TEs around the league. But yeah, we've got some real holes. LB sticks out also. We had the guys for the old system, but especially if Zach leaves, it's hard to argue we have what we need for the new regime. John, making educated guesses is mostly what people come here to do. Yeah to be absolutely sure what will happen, you have to wait. Doesn't mean you can't make educated guesses, notice red flags and comment on their likely meanings. Now if you express those opinions as facts, yeah, you're not making sense. But expressed as opinions, that's what most of us are here for. Yeah, you have to wait to be sure. But sharing opinions before the day comes is about as reasonable as it gets. You're absolutely right that coaching appears to have been a major part of our poor performance on defence the last couple of years. But good coaching doesn't just turn all sow's ears into silk purses. Ragland, for instance, is a guy I have real doubts about. The reason he fell in the draft seems to be that he represents a linebacker template that is less and less commonly used in the new passing NFL. LBs are tending smaller and faster and here's a guy of the old bash-and-smash school. I have real doubts that without Rex's scheme needs he's ever going to do a lot for us. I could be wrong. But I'd argue that's the way it looks. He certainly has smarts and instincts, and that's what gives me a bit of hope, but not much. My guess is he ends up a two-down guy. And our head coach certainly has a terrific record of turning defences around, but it took him a while to do it at his last stop, and I'd expect much the same here.

I can imagine us sneaking into the lower reaches of the playoffs and losing our first game. I just don't care. That would be like setting a goal to earn $10,000 a year. Even if you get there, so what. Your journey's still only beginning. I think they've got a reasonable talent base, but not at QB and no real difference makers at the defensive impact positions either. And they also are having cap problems, so just keeping this team together without upgrading at all is going to be almost impossible. Blame Whaley for our salary cap problems.

It's about three years early to say there are no franchise QBs in this draft. Three at least. If that's the way it looks to you, fair enough, but that's an opinion, not a fact. Could very easily be a correct opinion too. I personally am not 100% convinced, though.

I don't think anyone expects us to beat Brady next year. As a rookie, yeah, a QB won't likely do it anymore than any other rookie. But players don't stay rookies forever.

From what I can see, it'd be $4.5, not $6.175. We can push a bit of that dead money back a bit, but it doesn't disappear. And cutting Kyle Williams saves $5.3 mill, for a total of $9.8 mill saved. And both Carpenter and Graham are going to need to be replaced by guys not now on the roster. Kyle maybe replaced by Adolphus Washington and maybe Douzable or Bryant as a platoon guy in terms of position, but not production. Still, we wouldn't have to replace Kyle by bringing any new salaries in. But Graham and Carpenter are going to have to be replaced and it will cost money. Not enough money for Gilmore or Taylor. We're in a serious situation with the cap. Particularly if we pick up Taylor's option without getting significant real money savings, we're going to have to make some very painful cuts. I'd guess that Gilmore would be the first.

$9 mill is overstating it for Graham and Carpenter. You calculate the money you save by taking the money you'd give him this year in salary and roster bonuses, workout bonuses etc and then subtracting the dead cap money that will hit the cap if you cut the guy. For Carpenter that's $2.4 mill (minus what you have to give the new place kicker) and then for Graham it's $3.775 mill minus $1.6 mill, around $2.1 mill from what I can tell on Spotrac. They might draft a safety so replacing him might not be expensive but the roster spot will have to be filled. They could delay a bit of the dead cap costs to next year but even ignoring that the savings won't be anywhere near $9 mill. We don't have plenty of space. And yeah, we can kick the problem down the road a bit by re-structuring a few deals. But that is emphatically NOT what a team that won seven games last year and not expecting to truly hit their stride for two or three years should do. You don't shovel the driveway by moving the snow near the garage a few feet towards the street, but dumping it in the driveway, and that's what re-structuring in large numbers does. It just means you have to deal with the same problem again very soon. Re-structuring has it's place. But if it's the main part of a team's strategy, especially when they're already in such cap trouble, that team is headed for bigger trouble down the road.

You can indeed lower his hit. This year. But you then raise it down the road. Extensions with very low cap hits in the first year aren't generally a great idea for 34 year old players. Cap aside, no way you cut Kyle Williams. It would cause major problems. But we're in cap trouble, most particularly if we keep Tyrod. I absolutely hate this idea, and I'd give it a pretty high chance of happening if we do say yes to Taylor.

That may be true for some people. But for plenty of others it's not what we're focused on. I'm one of those who goes on endlessly that wins and losses is a team stat and that you judge a QB by how well he plays QB, not by whether his field goal kicker misses or makes one or because the MLB on his team drops an easy pick-six. And I simply think Alex Smith has a higher ceiling than Tyrod does. And that teams have figured Tyrod out. I'd take Alex Smith in a heartbeat, though I'm not thrilled about the age, and there are plenty of other guys I'd take over either. And after I had Smith (and certainly Tyrod too), I'd draft the next QB who reached me that I thought had a good chance to be made into a franchise QB. And probably the next after that as well. Nicely put. Anybody who doesn't think the defense was bad isn't worth talking to. They were bad. And in the passing game, Tyrod was below average, and not just in total yards or yards per attempt or passer rating. He just wasn't getting it done. As for the Seattle game you mention above, I just went back to watch that last drive again on the All-22 and saw again that play where Tyrod broke loose from a clear pocket and ran for an eight yard gain ... with a Bills receiver in the end zone with nobody within ten yards of him. The first-and-ten on the Seattle 23 with 1:17 left in the 4th quarter. The pain hit me all over again.

Have to agree. The Bills would say yes in a second to a straight-up trade (assuming they knew they could sign Cousins long-term).