Thurman#1

The price - again - is $30.5 million if they keep him for only one year. That isn't reasonable, it just isn't. And yeah, the hit will be spread out a bit, but every penny of that $30.5 will hit the cap. The only way that looks reasonable is if you look ONLY at the 2016 cap, and doing that misses about half of the cap impact of keeping him for a year. Same for keeping him for two years. $40.5 mill, all told, all of which comes off the cap sooner or later. It's only when he gets to the fourth and fifth year of his contract that the whole thing begins to look reasonable. Till then, the impact is huge. As for Vick's best season, when people try to compare across history I always point out that it gets easier and easier to play QB as far as running up big numbers. In 2010, Vick was 4th in passer rating, 5th in YPA, 13th in completion percentage, and had 4 fourth quarter comebacks and three game-winning drives. If the rules had been the same as today's he'd likely have done better than his stats that year.

How could anyone think that a QB whose QB rating goes from 99.4 to 89.7 is regressing? Or a guy whose Yards Per Attempt drops from 8.0, to 6.9, which is from 5th in the league to 20th ... how could anyone think he was regressing? Frankly, it's hard to miss. Pretty much everyone except the more wild-eyed of his fans knows he regressed. And yeah, yeah, next come the justifications. But you know what justifications are? They're bad arguments. You can make justifications about absolutely anything He absolutely regressed. As for it being a team game ... yeah, of course. If anyone out there is blaming the entire Bills season on Tyrod, you have a point. But nobody but a few nuts is. We're blaming the regression in his performance as a QB on Tyrod. Not our defensive problems. Not our special teams problems. And not our terrific success at running the ball either. You give credit to Tyrod for what he did, but the problem is he still has the same limitations ... the lack of pocket presence in the frequency of leaving the pocket when there's no pressure, the unwillingness to throw the ball till a reciever is already open, the extreme infrequency of his throws to the deep and intermediate middle third ... the stuff we all see. I was desperately hoping for that stuff to improve this year. And it didn't. He's still evasive and a terrific athlete and he's still keeping INTs to an absolute minimum. And that's important. But he didn't improve his weaknesses either. It's an extremely reasonable opinion, and surely factors into the reason the Bills decision appears to be going the way it appears to be going.

The doubt is there because people are willing to doubt. Doubt being there means nothing. In the past, they cheated. Today, looked to me like the Falcons screwed up a couple of times and their defense wore out. Why didn't they run the ball around the 20 on that drive late in the 4th? Going up by 11 would have killed the Pats and they'd have run time off the clock, and instead they tried to pass.

It's a reasonable opinion. Especially about a guy who regressed significantly in his second year, a guy in his sixth year in the league.

From the beginning he was thought to be a guy who would need two years of development or even more. So you hold onto him, as a #3, and you coach him hard, no matter what else you do at QB. That's not hype. That's hope. That's what happens with Bills backup QBs because we haven't got a real starter yet. Remember the attention Brohm got? And Hamdan? Hell, some people wanted Reich over Kelly at some points. Four years, $2.7 million. You wouldn't save any money. And it's not a low reward situation. If he becomes good the reward could be huge. Granted, the likelihood isn't great, but this team needs to make QB its number one priority, without a close #2. Keeping him is a tiny investment. It's perfectly possible to improve without game reps. There's this thing called practice. And another called mental reps. And another called film study. And you don't need reps to work on your mechanics. Tyrod's a good example. I'm still not convinced he'll ever be a franchise guy, but he certainly improved a ton in Baltimore and in the preseason at Buffalo.

I desperately hope you're right. But when you look at guys like Kelly and Peyton Manning, when they were Brady's age, their running had already been reduced to awkward near-waddles. I just don't see that with Brady. He can still run. He hasn't taken a pounding like most QBs do because of their quick-release offense, a very solid OL over the years and mostly his excellent pocket movement skills. He has never been particularly athletic. He just always moves in the right damn direction. IMHO he could last till 44 or 45, unless he suffers a serious injury. The odds of that go up for older guys, But no sign of it yet. We'll never know for sure. Because Goodell destroyed the video cassettes. They should have a parade for him in Boston. And again, it can't be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, but Brady destroyed his cell phone rather than give it to the NFL. He did it.

I'm no fan of Tyrod as a starter on this team. But I disagree. I think there are probably ten teams that have worse QBs, and some will have cap space and be willing to take a flier on him while probably drafting another guy as well. He wants to stay in Buffalo. And he doesn't know what will happen in FA. There's plenty of pressure on him, though he certainly could refuse to re-negotiate, either thinking the Bills are bluffing or being willing to take a cut in FA if that's how things turn out there. Again, I don't want Tyrod on this team as anymore than a bridge QB, and even then not at this salary .... ... but that's ridiculous. He's not a look-at-me type at all. He's a good guy, a hard worker and a good teammate. I just think he isn't going to ever make the major jumps upwards that he would need to be a top ten or twelve QB. Which is what we need.

No reason to delay if they were going to just pick up the option without question. Likely they want to figure out what happens to Romo, and it's also likely that they want to pressure Tyrod because they're at the very least going to try to get him to re-negotiate. This isn't media-driven. It happened. And the media reported it.

I'd really love to see this. A smart, athletic guy.

Terrible news. My heart goes out to you.

Alex Smith's cap hit is $17 mill and $21 mill. For the Chiefs. Any team that traded for him would only have to pay his salary, not the amortized remains of his bonuses. So you'd only have to pay $10.8 salary plus a $2 mill roster bonus this year and and $14.5 mill plus a $2 mill roster bonus next year. Well worth it and over two years a bit more than $10 mill cheaper than Tyrod. I'd pay that in a second. But I don't see the Chiefs letting him go unless they get Romo. Disagree. He's the best game manager in football and has often shown the ability to step up and play beyond that level when he has to. If Smith was available, I'd take him. And keep drafting guys as well, but I'd take Smith.

Right. Find a good one. From this year. Or next. But very often there's a good one in a ****ty class. Not always, but usually. But good ones can be destroyed by bad development, and ones who might not have made it can be saved by great development. I don't think you have four reasons there. Looks like the same one four times in different words. (Am I wrong? Have I missed something? Lemme know if I have, it wouldn't be the first time). And you're dead right that it seems there is no obvious top ten guy. And that that's what they mean by a bad class this year. But sometimes guys who don't look like top ten guys work out. Equally, sometimes they don't. But sometimes they do. I'm not saying draft one from this class. I'm saying evaluate the hell out of them and if you think one guy has a good shot, grab him. If not, look at other positions and wait a year. Not that I have huge faith in Whaley. I don't. But he's what we've got at GM, so we'll have to accept that and hope.

Giving a guy the wheel when he's not ready is the worst thing you can do. It ingrains his bad habits. You give him the wheel when he's ready and not before. Before that, mental reps and teach them how to look at film. Get him a mentor, a Frank Reich, a smart vet who knows his stuff but maybe isn't good enough to start. And expect professionalism and commitment from day one.

Lombardi won five NFL titles. In seven years. And more, the titles included the first two Super Bowls and the NFL title the year before that. That's a lot of the reason they named the trophy after him. Belichick's record is incredibly impressive, but he won, what, Super Bowls 36, 38, 39 and 44. That's not as romantic as #1 and #2. Can't see it happening.

No. If that's what your interpretation that that would mean that they want to keep a QB in the pocket, then we're 100% agreed on the explanation. That's what they want to do with Tyrod. Because it works, it forces him to throw and he's not that effective at it. Much the same as teams did to Flutie. Yeah, Tyrod's better than Flutie, but not all that much. Flutie's 2000, his last year in Buffalo, was probably better than Tyrod's 2016. Flutie was 10th in YPA and Tyrod was 26th, and Flutie's passer rating was 9th while Tyrod was 20th. I'd put Tyrod a bit ahead of Flutie as a passer, but not all that much, and being a tiny bit better than Flutie isn't all that impressive. And yeah, Flutie couldn't throw the deep out anymore, whereas Tyrod doesn't throw the deep and intermediate middle throws. Keeping Tyrod in the pocket throwing is exactly what teams want to do with Tyrod. They want him throwing because he's not that good at it. Passive? Tentative? Nah. Forcing someone towards his area of weakness is the opposite of passive. That's indeed what they meant when they said "Make him be a quarterback." Get him throwing because he can't do it nearly as well as the run game could run. Agreed that teams feared Michael Vick. Most especially his running. He was a lot like Tyrod, even better at running - and Tyrod's very very good at running - but neither guy particularly good at passing. But it's very arguable that Vick was better. But no, Vick didn't beat Favre. The Falcons beat the Packers; that's the way football works. And while Vick wasn't bad in that game, he wasn't particularly good at passing either. 13 for 25 for 117 yards and 64 yards rushing. Scrambled very well, as usual. But a blocked punt recovered in the end zone, a muffed punt recovered by Atlanta at the GB 21 that led to a short TD drive, a fine defensive goal line stand and having Ahman Green, and the Pack's top two recievers, Donald Driver and Terry Glenn knocked out of the game had an awful lot to do with it. Vick's passing not all that much. As for Tyrod "facilitating" the run game, that's not a fact. Check the stats all you like. Yeah, the Bills run better, but no there's no particular reason to think Tyrod makes all that big a difference beyond his yardage, and Vick's yardage killed Tyrod's. Dude, you're just spitting words on the page here. There simply is no proof or even indication that Tyrod is the cause of all this. It's what you want to believe so you interpret all data through that filter and lo and behold it comes out looking to you like it's obvious. Pure confirmation bias. Again, teams prepare for the most dangerous guy, the guy who gets most of the carries and the change of pace back looks different and is more productive; this simply happens all the time. I gave six or seven teams as examples where it happened this year, and that was after only looking at about eight or nine teams. As for TD production, here's one thing about it ... we scored 29 rush TDs, 17 pass TDs and 3 defensive TDs. In the same year, no other NFL team scored more run TDs than pass TDs. And yet ... your theory is that opposing defenses said, "If we eliminate their weakness, we've got them at our mercy. Let's eliminate their bad pass game rather than concentrating on the run game that's number one in the league"? Neither the stats nor the tape prove the run game comes largely from Tyrod, or that teams try to attack the pass game first. In fact, it just doesn't make sense. "Penetration kills slow developing running games." Bull ****. You say that as if it's a fact, but as with nearly any blanket statement applied to the extremely complex environment of the NFL, that's nonsense. To make it more reasonable you'd basically have to say, "Penetration kills slow developing running games ... sometimes. And sometimes not. Depending on a ton of other factors." But you ask a good question. If it was so easy to stop our slow developing run game by being aggressive ... yeah, why weren't teams aggressive every week? How come our run game was absolutely sensational when all teams had to do was feed their defenses on raw steaks and testosterone shots to stop it? Correct answer: it's not that easy. If it were, everyone would do it. Roman's blocking schemes, the complexity and the frequency of guys pulling are only two factors that makes it sometimes hurt the defense a lot to be aggressive.

Any time an NFL team pays any player any money ... any money at all ... for salary, roster bonus, signing bonus, workout bonus, incentives, guaranteed or non-guaranteed ... any time any money is paid to a player, it hits the salary cap. There's no way to avoid that. Trade him? Cut him? He dies suddenly? It hits the cap. All money paid to a player hits the cap. Or rather there's only one way ... if the guy "fails or refuses" to practice or play, basically if he retires extremely early ala Barry Sanders, teams must sometimes be paid back part of their signing bonus by the player and that money would be put back on the team's cap. But that situation isn't in play here. So once Tyrod's money is guaranteed, it MUST be paid; that's what a guarantee means. And any money that's paid hits the cap. So Tyrod's guaranteed money will all hit the cap. Every penny. It may wait a year or two to do so but it will absolutely hit the salary cap whether he is on or off the team. John, if you have serious salary cap questions, go here. Great site for explaining a very complex subject: http://www.askthecommish.com/SalaryCap/Faq.aspx

Well, as long as you live in a glorious, apple blossom-filled land filled with moonbeams and nectar and bridge QBs who get paid an average of $20.25 mill a year ... then yeah, he might be a "20 something level QB for the next 2 years." He's guaranteed $40.5 mill if he stays for two years. Any guaranteed money must be paid. Any money that's paid will hit the cap. If he stays two years and leaves, the Bills cap will be hit for $40.5 mill, and that's a guarantee. That's behind 12 QBs, not 20. And those 12 QBs, in order, are: Andrew Luck Carson Palmer Drew Brees Joe Flacco Aaron Rodgers Russ Wilson Ben Roethlisberger Eli Manning Philip Rivers Cam Newton Matt Ryan, and Tom Brady Tyrod would be right nested up to Brady, costing the Bills $40.5 mill for two years of his service.

Agreed that Edelman is much better, and you're right about Woods, too, IMHO. A good solid guy who would be better with a really good QB but would never be an Edelman. But Kelsay was a good run defender. He was excellent at setting the edge. The thought that he wasn't is based on a few plays when fine backs faked him out of his jock and got around him. Those were the plays people remembered, because they were highlights. But anyone setting the edge will get faked occasionally. People forgot the 98% of plays where he did an excellent job of setting the edge and someone else made the tackle.

They do indeed have other problems. Lower priority problems, but yeah, they've got a bunch of problems. But those two Pro Bowls mean squat. Since moving from Hawaii and also moving the game up so the Super Bowl player can't go, making the Pro Bowl as an alternate or replacement just doesn't mean all that much. 36 guys turned down the Pro Bowl this year, and that's leaving aside the guys who were injured.

First, IMHO, no. Only 12 QBs have an average of $20 million or above. Luck Carson Palmer Flacco Flacco Rodgers Russ Wilson Roethlisberger Eli Manning Rivers Cam Newton Matt Ryan Tom Brady So, IMHO, no. Yeah, decent QBs are hard to find. But I can't imagine a team paying that much for a bridge guy unless they thought that he was the last piece and that they would be competitive for a Super Bowl immediately. Teams in that situation are willing to do things that otherwise would be stupid. We aren't in that situation. Second, if they keep him for one year, it wouldn't be $20 mill, it would be $30.5 mill. Probably Whaley wouldn't want to look that bad, so they'd likely keep him for two years if Whaley was still GM. Two years would indeed be just over $20 mill per year..There's never been a bridge QB with an average anywhere near that. $40 mill off the cap of a team that is very close to the cap ... for two years of Tyrod Taylor.

They can ask. I can't imagine anybody actually paying that, though. But that's what you're supposed to do when selling. Start high.

Doh!!! You're right, I'll correct that in my post. Appreciate it.

Dalton's not a franchise guy? Come on. And he's way ahead of Tyrod. Their OL sucked this year and he still played pretty well. Cutler's not a franchise guy? I don't want him on my team but I'd certainly argue he's a franchise QB. You're also assuming Paxton Lynch, Hackenberg, Bridgewater, Garoppolo, and Tannehill won't come into their own when it actually seems that some are right on track. OK, I'll give you Hackenberg, as that seemed like a bad pick from minute one. Also, I noticed you stopped at eleven years. Couldn't be because the year before that, Aaron Rodgers was drafted 24th, could it? Or that the year before that both Rivers and Roethlisberger were drafted in the first but after #3? Can't be bothered to look further, but that's already some big holes in this analysis. But the major hole is assuming that all the guys who didn't become franchise guys never had a chance, a very unfair assumption. How good the development is from team to team differs wildly. Maybe some of the guys who didn't make it could have if given better coaching and surroundings. Very possible. Which brings up the question of whether Buffalo is a place that does a good job of development, and the answer would seem to be no. Losman was developed horribly. Dunno if he'd have amounted to anything even given perfect conditions, but he was ruined. I hope they've turned around in terms of doing a better job. I think he's using what the NFL uses to rank defenses. And offenses.

As others have observed, the OP used two conflicting standards in his OP, "greatness" in the headline and "worked out well for the new team" in the post itself. If you use "greatness," very few qualify, so I'm going to look at "worked out well for the new team." To sum up, I looked at all the posts on this thread, and It looks to me that if you go by the strict qualifications from the OP: YES 1) Favre, though he was only a backup for a year. 2) Lamonica 3) Brunell, though again, he was only a backup for one year before changing teams. Nice call, I wouldn't have thought of him. 4) Ferragamo, nice call. Yeah, you could say he had success afterwards, and by the time he left the Rams he'd been a backup, a starter but was then a backup again. So strictly he counts. 5) Flutie? Maybe, maybe not. He was a backup in Chicago before the trade. He never made the Pats happy they acquired him, or at least not till that final dropkick that ended his career. Does his time with the Bills count? And was it a success? I'd say, yeah, he counts. 6) Ah, Fitz. Nice call. He backed up for two years in St. Louis before moving to Cincy. Worked out well for the Jets for one year even if you deny he reached the level of working out well in Buffalo. 7) Delhomme. Nice call. Two years as a backup in New Orleans before moving. 8) Steve Bono. Another one I'd never have come up with Yeah, a two-year backup in Minny, and yeah, he started long enough and surely qualified to work out well for a couple of years in KC. 9) Elvis Grbac. Sexiest athlete of the year in People. That's working out well, isn't it? A legit backup in SF, I'd argue he worked out well enough in KC to count. 10) Matt Hasselbeck. Yet another guy I wouldn't have thought of. I originally made a mistake and put him in the "No" column. Thanks to Gunner Bill for the correction. DEBATABLE Gannon's questionable. He wasn't a backup by the time he left his first team. He'd been the starter for years. Rob Johnson is another maybe / maybe not. I don't think he ever made the Bills happy that they got him. I'd say not, though there's a legit argument that he could fit. Cassel. Did he really make Chiefs fans happy? They made the playoffs one year but were one-and-done. I'd argue he didn't. But there's again a legit argument for Cassel. Alex Smith. He'd been a starter. Was demoted, so you could make the argument, but I'd call him a starter. Certainly in retrospect, the 9ers should've kept him. Beuerlein. In his first year he was injured in preseason and missed the year. In his second year he started early, was benched for Jay Schroeder and then regained the starter role. There was a contract hassle involved the next year or so. I don't think he ended that first team as a legit backup. Brad Johnson. Was he a backup in Minny by the end? It was a hot contest between he and Randall Cunningham and he lost the starter role in his last season by injury. He was traded because Dennis Green wanted Cunningham to start the next year, so I guess it's debatable. I'd say no, myself. DON'T QUALIFY A number of people suggested don't quite fit the original question, though they still serve as good arguments that guys can start as backups and become good starters. They still serve as good examples of why a guy like Garoppolo might work out, though he also might not. Not Steve Young. He started in Tampa. Only after being acquired by SF did he become a backup and then a starter again for the same team. Not McNair. He went from development backup to starter on the same team unless you want to say that when the Houston Oilers moved and became the Tennessee Titans that he'd changed teams. Which isn't really reasonable. Not really Plunkett. He was starting by the time he left Boston. I thought of Schaub too, but was he really a success as a starter? I wouldn't count him. I wouldn't count Tyrod - yet - either for the same reason. He could make the list eventually, though. Not Warner. He wasn't a backup for the Packers, he was let go. If you counted that kind of guy, you'd have to throw in Johnny Unitas too. Bulger too for this reason, he didn't manage to make any roster till St. Louis. Two weeks on a practice squad doesn't count, IMHO. Not Brees. He beat out Rivers and was the starter there till the injury. Not Dilfer. He was starting in Tampa. Doug Williams was the starter in Tampa, so I don't think he fits precisely, though he started in D.C. as the backup and certainly made them happy. Testaverde, no. Was a legit starter early in his career, with his first team. Not Aaron Brooks. Was a starter for his first team for most of his career, then spent one year in Oakland where he started only eight games and went 0-8. Don't see that as working out well in any way shape or form. I thought of George Blanda, but he doesn't quite fit, having started at QB in the AFL, And briefly as a linebacker before that for the Bears (also kicking, of course), but hadn't precisely been a backup QB before the Raiders got him, and he didn't start for the Raiders except as an injury replacement. Close, though. Great career. In the end, though, the guys who are debatable or outright don't qualify mostly do serve as good examples of cases where guys who were backups can improve maybe even enough to be genuinely good starters in the right situation. I don't know if Garoppolo will, but he's got a chance.

You doubt it. Fine. I don't. I watch Brady avoid hits better than any QB in history probably ever has. He has less wear and tear on him than anyone I've ever seen play QB to his age. And he relies less on his athletic ability than nearly any QB I've ever seen as well. Don't act like it's out of the question. It's just not. Why would Belichick trade away a solid backup? This one's easy, and I already addressed it. As did Chuck Wagon just above. But to repeat, Belichick loves getting draft picks and keeping the team young and cheap. If he keeps Garoppolo for another year he'll have to franchise him. He simply won't want to do that, not for a backup. Or he could maybe sign a contract with him, but you can bet Garoppolo and his agent will be looking for money comparable to what he could get elsewhere. And that's again not something Belichick would be willing to do for a backup. And comparing Shady, whose body has taken a tremendous pounding, and Brady is ridiculous. RBs have a totally different relationship between age and performance than QBs do.