Thurman#1

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.

Collins was really good in Cleveland, especially for a guy dumped in halfway through the season. Wilfork has been as good for Houston as they expected, knowing he was getting older. Chandler Jones had a terrific season in Arizona this year after the trade. Mankins performed very well in Tampa after a tough transition. Terry Glenn. That's all I can think of quickly, but I'm sure there are more.

Again, you could easily be right that Garoppolo isn't any good. But Garoppolo has been a ton better than Cassel, even if you compare Cassel's year replacing Brady. Cassel in 2008: 63.4% completions, 21 TDs (4.1%), 11 INTs, 7.2 YPA, 8.3 sack percentage Garoppolo this year: 68.3% completions, 4 TDs (6.3%) 0 INTs, 8.0 YPA, 113.3 passer rating, 4.5 sack percentage So yeah, Garoppolo's sample size is small and yeah you can't compare across eras, but no, Cassel does not seem an apt comparison. Garoppolo has been much better than Cassel was. And that was Cassel's fourth year and Garoppolo's third. IMHO they'd be saps to give a 1st for him, but wouldn't be surprised to see someone get Garoppolo for maybe a 2nd and some kind of change.

'Cause it's the last year he can get anything for him in trade, and the 39 year old starter looks like he has another three or four years in him. Unfortunately. Not that I'm convinced Garop will be any good. But it's certainly possible. I don't think that the evidence shows that Belichick keeps people if they're good. Seymour was terrific. They didn't keep him. Wilfork is still playing very well. They didn't keep him. Jamie Collins was excellent. They didn't keep him. Belichick loves - he absolutely loves - to maximize the number of picks he's getting. It keeps their salary cap number down. He's shown himself willing to trade away guys who are very good if the situation is right. And if they believe Brady is going to be around for another three or four years, then the situation is right. And this year is realistically the last year they can trade Garoppolo without signing him to a second contract. And they don't like wasting cap money on guys they're not going to keep.

It has been explained too much. But not convincingly or well. I have a history of coming off stances when logical and new arguments make me re-think things. I haven't seen any especially good arguments coming anywhere close to convincing, though, successfully explaining why the passing game just wasn't good this year. I watched the All-22, I saw open recievers on almost every single play of the four to five games I watched. As for your alternatives there, I see a bunch of others. I could imagine them re-negotiating Tyrod so that he's a bridge QB with a bridge QB's contract and then keeping him for a couple of years, with maybe more back-loading to the new contract so if he improves and they want to keep him after a couple of years, they would have to start paying him franchise QB money. Or dumping him and not drafting a new guy at #10, instead trading back for another first rounder in the 2018 draft so they could be a player for a top guy in that draft. Bringing in a Hoyer type for 2017 and not expecting much. They have plenty of options.

It might be asking too much of him. The book on Cardale from most pundits was that he would probably need at least two years of development. I'd love to see that timetable speed up, but it's unlikely.

Wow. I'm overwhelmed by that logic. Great post. The problem for your side is that Whaley doesn't get it either, paying a bridge QB at franchise QB rates for a year or two. Know who else doesn't get it? All the teams saying, "Make him be a quarterback." And IMHO history will end up showing that Tyrod is going to end up a career backup starting another year or two down the road. I like him. I hope I'm wrong. But you can pretty much count the QBs in NFL history who hadn't shown themselves by their sixth year to be franchise guys who then became franchise guys on a fraction of one hand.

Dude, this isn't something I think. It's something I know. And so should anyone else who's listening. For the eight millionth time, teams weren't saying "Make him be a quarterback," for nothing. His mobility made him harder to defend, but the impact of his poor passing attack was a much bigger boon to them than his mobility was a disadvantage. Every QB has one strength, or they don't make it to the NFL. But mobility is a lot more dangerous in a running back than a QB. Mike Vick was mobile too, more so than Tyrod. Teams feared great passers much more than Vick, a genuinely great runner at QB. They'd have been a lot more tentative if Tyrod had allowed the Bills to put together a good passing game than they were because he runs very well. Nice move. I see what you're doing there. It's much easier to counter an argument when you twist what the guy said than when you counter their actual words. Neither FireChan nor I ever said it "always" happens. So all you did there is change our argument and then attack your own words. It looks like you win when you're really just playing with yourself. I said there was a history of it. FireChan said it happened regularly. The reason we said that was ... well, frankly there's a history of it and it happens regularly. Not always, but often. Was Robert Turbin a better back than Marshawn the year the Seahawks won the Super Bowl? He was if you judge by YPA that year, by more than half a yard. It happens with some regularity. Christine Michael also had a higher YPA than Marshawn that year. The next year Turbin didn't, but Michael did. The next year both of them destroyed him. Whitaker and Artis-Payne beat out Jonathan Stewart in Carolina this year, Whitaker by nearly a yard per run. Both other guys beat out Blount this year in New England. Kenyan Drake beat out Ajayi in Miami by half a yard. Terron Ward had 31 attempts in Atlanta this year and beat out Freeman and Coleman. In Washington, both Matt Jones and Chris Thompson killed Robert Kelley in far fewer attempts, And I could go on and on. Building an argument on the main RB being beaten out by the guys behind him in YPC is building an argument on air. You're cracking me up here. You can say the Jets stopped the Bills run game on the way to the QB, but you're seriously mixing up cause and effect. You don't make your goal to attack the horrible pass game when the run game is the best in the league. Coaches don't say, "We've got to take away this team's weakness." That's laughable. Your argument is that the Jets said, "Which should we try to take away, the best run game in the league or the intimidating EJ Manuel-led pass game? The Falcons aren't saying "Lets build our defense around taking away the Pats run game." Ridiculous. And yet you're actually trying to make that argument that stopping Manuel's pass game was the Jets' major goal. They were keying on McCoy all game long, or the other RBs when McCoy went out. They, like the other teams we played, were a ton more worried about the run game than the pass game. The pass game simply wasn't particularly good or productive this year. The reason the Jets stopped the run game was that they put their effort into doing exactly that. To repeat yet again, teams said, "Make [Tyrod] play quarterback." They didn't say, "make McCoy play running back," or "Make Tyrod leave the pocket and run," Just the opposite. They attacked the run game both because it was excellent and because they knew we couldn't pressure anyone with the pass game. Tyrod never made them sweat about the pass game enough to back them off. The thing about how good his long balls are is mostly from 2015. He wasn't all that impressive long this year, he missed a lot of throws and teams knew they didn't have to worry much about him going to the deep and intermediate middle, so they set up deep and outside.

He absolutely meant Orton and Marrone. He was wrong on Schwartz. And folks, don't read the summary. Not if you're going to comment anyway. Read the original. It's not as if it was difficult to find. There was a link to it in the second line of Skurski's story. http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/rex-ryan-nfl-future-tired-f-ked-article-1.2960277?utm_content=bufferbaab0&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=mmehta+twitter And he's probably right that he didn't have a fair chance. Why would you expect a new HC to do well in his first two years when in those first two years he has 0 first round picks play for him (no pick because of the Sammy trade and the injury of Lawson) and only one second-rounder (Darby, but not Ragland). The deck was stacked against him. That and the bizarre setup where both he and Whaley reported to the owners rather than having a clear hierarchy ... it was a hot mess in the making. On the other hand, he surely contributed a lot to his situation, bringing in his brother who then changed the verbiage for the defense and caused problems, and generally bringing in a disorganized feel where the details tended to get away and things like constant too many men on the field penalties happened. So he shares responsibility. But with the unavailability of his early picks, not too many coaches would've succeeded. I don't blame him for being frustrated after only being given a two year stretch. Don't care much what he thinks, though, either.

You say you don't think Taylor was dumpster diving. So what is dumpster diving? Picking up players that Simpleman does not like much? The Pats absolutely live on picking up low and medium-priced FAs to fill gaps. They do it with tremendous consistency. And some fail, but many don't. The fact that two are ex-Bills in Hogan and Branch is a coincidence that always sticks in my craw. Dumpster diving is to signing FAs what dork is to computer scientist or what grind is to a good student. It's not a good description. It's what you call FA when you don't like it.

They need someone there, that's for sure. Very little money available, though, How expensive will Reiff be?

The quick answer: because $30.5 mill guaranteed is insane for Tyrod, and then $10 mill more guaranteed if you keep him for another year is again wildly out of whack. And beyond that, because Tyrod's style is likely to be different from most guys you can bring in. You can't tailor an offense around both.a Tyrod and a drop-back guy. Something would have to give.

Or, you know, obtain and develop a guy with the skill set to become a top ten or twelve guy in the passing game.

Pittsburgh passed 58.96% of the time. Denver passed 59.80% of the time. Seattle 59.37%. That made them the 13th, 16th and 18th highest run:pass ratios in the league. They were absolutely not "leading the way with a ground attack." All of those teams could run very effectively. Having an effective run game is certainly nothing to be scoffed at, in modern football or any other kind. But they passed a lot more than they ran. In fact, there wasn't a team in the league that ran more than they passed this year. Dallas led the league with 48.7% run plays (Buffalo was #2), which makes sense when you've got a rookie behind center. Doubt they'll be doing the same thing three or four years from now, at least if Prescott is still thriving.

Depends how he's kept. If he's kept on his old contract, you're essentially saying he's your quarterback until someone else knocks him off. So you would want to build around his strengths and weaknesses. And this offense would be a very good place to start, with some tweaks, modifications and improvements, as much as seems reasonable. Which seems to me to be yet another reason not to keep him if he doesn't re-negotiate and you have to pick up that option. Putting a young QB with more traditional skills in an offense built around Tyrod's would not be the best way to develop him. On the other hand, if he re-negotiates you're saying we want to build for the long-term and that means bringing in other QBs and expecting them to take over as time passes. And if Tyrod improves hand over foot and beats them all out in the long-term, so much the better. So in that case you'd be less concerned with keeping so much of the old offense together and would put in whatever Dennison was hired to bring in and install. And if you're doing that, you need to build an offense that would not be built around Tyrod's strengths, an offense built around a more traditional and efficient passing attack, though it should ideally be a balanced offense. You could keep some plays built around Tyrod's abilities but wouldn't build the whole attack around them.

If you keep him under this contract, you're essentially committing to him for a while. The average salary for keeping him one or two years under that contract are simply prohibiitive. So I don't see them keeping him. Unless he restructures. But if they do, I don't think they can draft another guy in the first or second. If they commit to Tyrod as a long-term answer - and that's what they'd be doing under that contract - it's better to try to build around him and get another guy in later rounds maybe, if there's someone they like. But as I say, I can't imagine them deciding he's the long-term answer yet, not after last year. So my guess is they re-structure him to a contract that wouldn't prohibit him from being a bridge guy if that's what he continues to look like ... or let him go if he won't do that.

Agree with you about the contract. They have the chance to walk away, and that looks like what they'll do. But I have to disagree with what you're saying about Tyrod's productivity. After you account for Tyrod's fewer chances than normal, you're still left with a poor pass game. He had a 6.9 YPA. And a QB's YPA isn't punished for lower numbers of attempts. Tyrod had a 6.9 YPA this year. YPA is a measure of passing efficiency and Tyrod was 26th in the league. He was 20th in passer rating, another stat which is not hurt by a lower number of attempts. Tyrod has two real strengths, his ability to run and his refusal to turn the ball over. And those are both great. But our passing game was simply below average.