Thurman#1

John, I've said this a million times before, but to repeat ... scoring simply is NOT a QB statistic. It just isn't. It's a whole offense stat, with a major defense and STs component in terms of field position (and the Bills offense had the 11th best average drive start field position in the league while leaving the defense screwed with the 23rd worst average drive start field position). Tyrod and our poor passing game should get down on their knees and thank our excellent run game for doing so much scoring to make the offense look good. 17 passing TDs, 29 running TDs and three scored by the defense. Just barely more than a third of our scoring was by the passing attack ... in a league where not one single solitary lonely desolate unaccompanied isolated other team in the league scored less passing TDs than running TDs. Thank goodness the run game was so good. Because the passing game just wasn't. Tyrod's regression was indeed big. 20th in passer rating and 26th in YPA.

Agreed, with one exception. Dalton is not mid-level. He was terrific in 2015 and this year, their o-line was awful and they couldn't run the ball well either, in a four way tie for 20th at YPR and he still played pretty well.

Being proud of being a Pro Bowl alernate these days is like being proud of getting a prom date after eight girls say no, including your sister and your cousin. It just doesn't mean much. Again, you're right that the receivers were great ... but he had open guys on pretty much every single play. I watched five Sammy-less games on All-22 and he did. Guys were open. And for the eight-millionth time, you guys who talk about receiver problems never seem to mention the other side of the coin, which is that NFL QBs would kill to have a run game as good as the Bills have. It's a huge help to the pass game, but we still just weren't good throwing the ball. I'd agree this much, he improved from Baltimore. But his regression this season as defenses caught on to how to defend him wasn't "slight." It was big.

None of this in any way rebuts anything I said. Doesn't even address it except for using some of the same words, such as "sacks" and "wide recievers." If you have anything that actually addresses my posts, go ahead and reply to me. Oh, and if you're trying to support Tyrod, you might not want to compare him to Russell Wilson. For the obvious reason that though they're stylistically similary, Wilson is a ton better. Wilson can both run and pass at a very high level. As for the McCoy comparison, thanks for making my point. What happens to McCoy's yardage losses? Are they left out of his totals the way people try to leave out the sacks yardage from Tyrod's totals when they come up with the not-an-actual-stat yardage per game totals of 249 yards per game? Nope. McCoy's lost yardage is added right into his totals. But we can't put Tyrod's in because ... because ... well, we just can't. Agree with you on Hogan, though. It was a bad move.

I hope you're right, but the scouting reports I saw didn't so much say that he had better mobility and pass coverage ability than thought as that he could play zone pass defenses, which essentially doesn't require a ton of mobility. As I say, I hope you're right, but from what little I hear, the new system requires real speed. Too early to say, really, but there are questions about him. And yeah, you're right, what would you get for him. He's probably OK after the accident and he's got a contract teams wouldn't mind acquiring, but he's an unknown quantity in terms of pro ability. Have to disagree with you about Zac Brown. He really is that good. Would probably be a great fit too, but we might not be able to sign him. And trading Dareus is borderline insane. Ignoring the fact that he's our best player - I'm irritated by his behavior too, but he's our best guy - trading him right now would have a dead cap hit of $32.7 mill. No possible way on Earth that happens.

Gil Brandt had him #27. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000162920/article/hot-100-25-luke-joeckel-ziggy-ansah-still-top-2013-draft-class Brooks had him #30. http://www.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d828bf038/article/2013-nfl-draft-uscs-barkley-woods-among-top-30-prospects NFLDraftScout had him 40th http://www.nfldraftscout.com/ratings/dsprofile.php?pyid=83592&draftyear=2013&genpos=qb There were plenty of people who had Manuel earlyish 2nd or late 1st near the draft. I'm sorry, I just don't buy that such a large amount of the regression was caused by the other factors you're referring to. IMHO it was mostly from defenses simply figuring out what the Bills were doing to protect Tyrod by simplifying the playbook. The longer you have to do that stuff, the easier job defenses have in scheming against him. (Again, when Roman was let go, one of the things Lynn said he would do to make things better was to cut back the playbook and "simplify the reads." That makes things easier on the QB, but also the defenses.) The folks who blame this on WR problems have something of a point. We did have lower level WRs. But I went and watched five mid-season games without Sammy on the All-22 and I saw guys open on almost every single play. Yeah, Sammy might have been more open, and yeah teams might have defended us differently with Sammy on the field ... but guys were open. And the folks citing the WRs as an excuse never mention the huge advantage given Tyrod in our tremendous run game. Teams were scheming to take the run away from us. They didn't worry much about our pass game, and for good reason. Again, we heard it from more than one team, "Make him play quarterback."

... if winning that year is your number one priority. ... and if you're going to leave salary cap considerations entirely aside which, for good reason, no team would ever do. Otherwise, though, if you're going to consider the long-term drive towards getting a championship more than winning a game or two in a season where the ceiling might be a playoff one-and-out resulting in a poor draft pick, and you're also going to worry about the cap as should always be done ... you might. In any case, there's another possibility ... bringing in another vet who wouldn't be as good as Tyrod but would be vastly cheaper, someone like Hoyer, Glennon, Foles or Barkley. Again, no, they're not likely to be as good. But their cheapness will perhaps more than make up for the difference between maybe 6 - 10 and the 8 - 8 or 9 - 6 and a worse draft pick that Tyrod might get you to. If Cardale needs another year's development, this might be the best option.

Tyrod has averaged a bit below 210 yards per game, not 249. Or are you referring to that new Tyrod-Taylor-fans-only stat called "Offensive Yards from Scrimmage Including Positive Pass Yards And Positive Run Yards But Carefully Excluding the Negative Yards that Should Logically Be Subtracted Because of Sacks Except That We Don't Want to Do That Because It Would Make Tyrod Look A Bit Worse" stat. If you're going to combine those, you should include all yards from the guy, which would include subtracting for sacks. Somehow Tyrod's fans love creating the new stat where they add things, but don't want to include anything that would cast him in a worse light. Those are all actually separate stats for a reason. Here's what it really looks like: Running Yards: 572 and 580 for the season over his two years. Highest in the league. He's a terrific runner. Passing Yards: 216.8 and 201.5 per game. Very low. But it's not fair to isolate per game stats because he had fewer attempts than nearly any starter in the league. In fairness to Tyrod, you also have to look at Yards Per Attempt. Tyrod's were 8.3 and 6.9. Very good his first year, and extremely poor this year. A major regression, to 26th in the league this year. Huge regression. Substandard this year. Sack Yards: Worst in the league in times sacked this year, despite far fewer attempts than most QBs. May be because he often left the pocket even when he wasn't under pressure. Not to mention that he generally held the ball till he could actually see that someone had broken open, which meant holding the ball too long sometimes. 212 sack yards in 2015 and 192 this year. Among the worst in the league. But Tyrod is an excellent runner. Agreed that Bledsoe was worse than Tyrod in Bledsoe's last two years on the Bills (although some of that might be that Tyrod has an infinitely better run game that forces teams to focus on stopping the run first, while Bledsoe in 2003 and 2004 had a run game that averaged 3.9 YPC both years and had an OL that was much worse). But saying you're better than the 2003 and 2004 Bledsoe is not saying much. Bledsoe's legs were gone, he couldn't even move functionally in the pocket, stepping away from the rush, never mind actually running. Sorry to throw this all at a rather innocuous post reasonably comparing Tyrod and Bledsoe, but that stat that folks are making up by adding together pass and run yards is nonsense unless you're going to look at it all together and then do so for all QBs besides. There is a reason these stats are generally looked at separately.

If the best players "virtually quit on the team," they weren't the best players. The good ones play their best because that's who they are. Give up hope on the team, yeah, plenty of people in bad situations lose hope. But the good ones still give everything they have. And yeah, the team would have much less of a chance to win without Tyrod than with him. NEXT YEAR. And the players should really care about that. But the team management should be looking past it. Their primary focus should be long-term, towards the years when they will actually have a real chance to compete for a championship. Nothing else matters. The players shouldn't be caring about the salary cap. The front office should. I've got no problem with them letting Tyrod go if they do so. It might mean a game or two next year. I don't care. Tucker has often talked about this story before. And one difference between then and now is that the defenses in 2003 and 2004 were terrific, so the team felt they had a real chance to compete. Which IMHO they didn't after Bledsoe lost most of his movement skills to age. But again, you want the players thinking they do have a chance and fighting for it, even if it's not realistic. You don't want the FO kidding themselves in the same way. They should look at things coldly, logically, realistically. About your problems with Whaley, I really agree with most of them. I didn't want him back. Not worth worrying about decisions in the past at this point, though.

$15.5 mill - his option bonus to be paid this year, the first day of the league year, so they'd already have paid it plus $2.853 mill - the portion of his 2016 amortized Buffalo Bills signing bonus that hasn't yet hit the cap ---------------------------- $18.353 mill - total I notice this has already been answered but thought the details might be a bit interesting. Depends how long they keep him. If they released him the next day, $12 mill. If they keep him for the remainder of his contract, the contract total minus the $18.35 mill. Go here: http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/tyrod-taylor-7899/ But basically, when you say that the Bills cap hit would be $18.35 mill, you're saying the Bills won't do that. Not in the cap environment they're in. As pointed out above, they could make the trade in the two-day window and not have to pay the option. But making that trade also will likely be very difficult. I doubt they'll find a taker. Or if they do, they won't get much, IMHO. If his contract had been less, they might have gotten quite a bit, but teams are unlikely to want to pay a lot of draft picks to get the privilege of paying a lot of money.

The Pats want a first rounder for Garoppolo. Doesn't mean they'll get it. And more to the point, Tyrod's contract is wildly more difficult to absorb than Garoppolo's would be. Contracts are absolutely a major part of trades. Whatever team gets Garoppolo would have another year to evaluate him and then either cut him or sign him to a contract they themselves found acceptable. A team trading for Tyrod will be acquiring that $30.5 mill guarantee if he's on the roster three days after the league year starts and $40.5 mill if he's on the roster the same day a year later. That will make it harder to trade Tyrod.

Sure there's a reasonable justification. If you don't want to agree with him being out, that's fine, but the decision is reasonable. As Carucci points out, "Before we vote, Hall administrators admonish us to consider only what takes place within the confines of the field. But those white lines, as they acknowledge, can extend to the locker room and the meeting rooms and anywhere else that football-related activity takes place." Simple as that. If the locker room counts, there's an argument against Owens, a reasonable argument. And particularly to his going in this particular time, on the first ballot. Here's Carucci's original article rather than Florio's disagreement to it: https://buffalonews.com/2017/02/10/vic-carucci-thinking-behind-not-voting-for-terrell-owens-into-the-pro-football-hall-of-fame/

Yup, truth is sometimes poison, to those unwilling to see it. If Tyrod stays for five years or close, his price per year would be very reasonable. If he stays for one year, his price per year would be one of the all-time highest in league history, one year for $30.5 mill. If he stays for two years - more likely - it would be two years for $40.5 mill. And that is indeed franchise QB money. And the price doesn't change just because you can put some of the purchase on plastic and pay later. It's still franchise QB money. And an awful lot of that scoring came the superb run game instead of the substandard pass game. So there's not really a contradiction at all. Not that I think the odds are terrific that Cardale would turn us into an offensive powerhouse overnight, but IMHO we know Tyrod's ceiling and we don't know Cardale's. And I'm just not all that worried about next year. I don't see any way, even with Romo if he stayed healthy, that we would be competitive for a Super Bowl. So I'd rather see them worrying more about two or three years down the road. And I don't see those years including Tyrod. I could be wrong, especially if he re-negotiates, but that's the way it looks right now.

Is that all that was actually said? Jeez. Well, that's why people should give the actual quotation and a link. So people don't waste time talking about comments that were never actually made.

Sounded totally reasonable to me. Washington was great? Not buying that, third-rounder or not. He was decent. And we shouldn't have to wake you two years from now. After the first-year draft grades aren't based on third-year performance. We drafted a guy we knew was an injury risk, for a coach who was on the hot seat. If he then misses the season because of that injury, OBD should absolutely be held responsible and graded down. Agreed. He's done pretty well overall in FA, but not especially well in the draft. And if you don't do well in the draft you're probably going to see salary cap problems, which is indeed the way things turned out.

$2.85 mill dead cap if he's cut before they have to pick up the option. But yeah, that's a bit better than $30.5 mill guaranteed.

1,000 yards? And 10 - 12 more touchdowns? Wow, I had no idea. And of course neither did anyone else but the guy who made it up off the top of his head, which would be you. Where'd you get that figure? Oh, yeah, thin air. Some people would call that complete bull ****, and now that I think about it, I'm one of them. He gets credit for the amount he ran, and the TDs he got running. After that you're simply making up figures that you happen to like. I bet that you didn't know that the run game helped the pass game by 2,000 yards. I came up with that figure the same place you came up with yours. The run game helped the pass game a hell of a lot more than the pass game helped the run game. That's how it works when the run game is the most efficient one in the league and the pass game is the 26th most efficient. Teams don't line up with the idea that they're going to try to take away your weaknesses. It's very much the opposite. And Taylor really didn't get the ball in the end zone that much, looking at the pass game. Opposing defenses loved it when Tyrod threw the ball, because the pass game simply wasn't that productive. That's why we kept hearing "Make him be a quarterback."

Good addition. But you're missing something. They didn't have TT and ALynn. They had TT and ALynn and McCoy and Incognito and Cordy Glenn and Clay and Gillislee and I could go on and on. They generally had 11 guys on the field at a time, though there were a few exceptions. People want to pretend that points scored is a QB stat. It very much isn't. If anything it's a stat for the whole offense, and yet also has a 20 - 30% defense and STs component thrown in for field position and number of drives and points scored by the defense and STs and so on. And as I've pointed out before, the Bills scored 29 rushing TDs and 17 by passing ... in a league in which not a single other team scored more rush TDs than pass TDs. The defense was bad this year. The passing game was also not good. Thank goodness our run game was excellent.

It doesn't. New information about the injury could have changed the way they looked at things. New info about something else ... or Whaley could have been describing what would have happened based on the thinking of the guy in control ... maybe he'd heard Lynn say that. Who knows, really. If Whaley made the decision - not Lynn or someone else - that last game on which of the two remaining guys would start. And the article doesn't say who made that decision.

OBD has actually started to mention the words "long term." Which is not the same as rebuilding, but is actually smart and increases the chances of success. In the long term anyway. So none of the above, from what I'm reading. Higher-priced and medium-priced as well. We're up against it with the cap. The Bills are 24th in cap space with $26 mill. The Pats are 5th in cap space with $62.9 mill. Cap matters. Frugality too.

Be damned. I coulda sworn. Thanks, you're right. I'm gonna edit my original post so I don't mislead anyone from my mistake.

What I'm closing my eyes to ... is what the folks drinking Tyrod-flavored Kool-Aid see. Figments. He absolutely regressed. I pointed out above that the justifications would be coming. And yup, you're the second or third one. How come you guys talking about receiver problems never mention what a tremendous help it is to a quarterback to have the best run game in the league? Teams went out of their way to stop the run, partly because the run game worried them and partly because they didn't worry about our pass offense. Which is why the phrase, "Make him be a quarterback," should sound familiar. I watched the All-22 for five of those games in the middle when Sammy was out. He had guys open on almost every single play. Yeah, it would've been better if Sammy and Woods were both healthy, but he had consistent places to go and he missed them on a regular basis. It was severely depressing watching it. I wanted him to make the improvements he needs to make to be a franchise QB. That would've been by far the best outcome for the Bills. Instead, he regressed. It was sad. But it happened.

"He" didn't give the team big leads. The offense did, along with the defense doing better earlier in the game. And the offense was composed of an excellent run game and a substandard pass game. And when the defense gave the leads up, the offense couldn't get it back. Leads are calculated by subtracting points scored against you from points scored for you. They're results of the team. Having said that, yeah, the defense sucked. So did the passing offense. Maybe they sucked a bit less than the defense but not all that much less. Thank goodness for the run offense. Again, we scored 29 rushing TDs and 17 passing. In a league where not one single other team scored fewer pass TDs than rush TDs.

I'd have to do more tape-watching and due diligence, but yeah, if the scouts liked him, a 2nd sounds right to me.

Good article. The Falcons just gave that game away with bad clock management. The article said they only ran 5 more times in that game? Jeez, I knew it was bad, but I didn't realize it was that bad.