TheFunPolice

the Bills are going to be right in the thick of this I think... sign Cousins then actually use all your picks on players to build out the team. I might be nuts but if I were an athlete I would want 2 cracks at Brady and the Patriots every year. Gotta beat the man to beat the man, and having the 2nd place team in the NFL in your division is nice motivation. After all, the WORLD CHAMPS were just in his division! I don't think that having the runners up on the schedule is going to scare him

Tyrod is smart enough to know that aside from some electrifying runs (which eventually dry up for every mobile QB) the biggest thing he brings to the table is that he is not going to throw picks. If he starts throwing picks he is on the bench as a backup somewhere at best. If this front office/head coach is dumb enough to do that they will be sorry next season when they are forced to bench him again and deal with the firestorm OR go the Buddy Nix route and dig in their heels to prove they were right and everyone else was wrong.

maybe the issue isn't the rule itself but the way it's called? I don't seem to recall constant PI flags and defensive holding 15 years ago. Just make it a foul that is only called when it is egregious. So many ticky tack BS calls of all kinds are ruining the games at times. Which is why suddenly in the Super Bowls the flags go away and we get better games to watch.

Yes! It's just another way to give the offense an automatic 1st down. 5 yards and replay the down is fine.

This makes some sense but if you are close enough to tackle the WR then you are close enough to make a play on the ball, right? Once a guy is 2 yards (6 feet) past you it's kind of hard to tackle him or make any type of contact. So the "tackle" or contact would have to come early in the route, while a sack, poor pass, WR dropping the ball, or you actually breaking it up are all still in play. And it would be even more advantageous for an offense to have a speedy WR if the DB is just going to commit intentional PI rather than get beat deep. It makes those guys even more valuable. Just keep toasting the DB and taking the yardage.

That was my immediate thought, but there is no guarantee that the WR will actually catch the ball or that the throw will be catchable... Plus your DL could get a sack before the QB throws. Or disrupt the QB enough that he doesn't see the open man. Lots of variables at play... If you just tackle the guy it's 15 yards and a 1st down. If the ball isn't right on a lot of times the deep ball doesn't connect, so you would be assuming a lot if you just tackle a guy. Plus the offense is going to start picking on you then with a speedster to see if they can take further advantage. I like the idea. The pass interference calls are ridiculous now. And anyone who says just tackle the guy who beats you deep is forgetting that you are still giving up 15 and a fresh set of downs when a lot can happen on a pass. Tackle a guy on a hail mary and all you did was give the offense ANOTHER hail mary 15 yards closer. Games cannot end on defensive fouls. Totally a non-issue.

not only did a team say "make him play QB," it was the team he was on for a number of years as a backup. Nice guy, maybe the perfect backup but he'll never accept that role (and corresponding salary) now.

There will still be the occasional great defense, but really it wasn't all that common even in the "good old days." Sure you had some good defensive units, but the truly elite defenses were maybe 1-2 per decade. The NFC teams were steamrolling the AFC teams in Super Bowls and their offenses look unstoppable long before it was a passing or QB league and long before recent rule changes. It's just so difficult to assemble and keep all of that talent and have everyone hit their prime at once. These days as soon as that happens you pick a few to overpay to keep and lose your depth and the whole thing falls apart. Seattle is a great example. So much for that vaunted defense.

When the best defense against a QB is to make him play QB you know you have problems

love the idea of Ivory coming in to spell Shady I wouldn't be surprised if TD Mike is a FA this season too. He loved it here and did not want to go to NE, so you never know.

put yourself in another GM's shoes... IF you are interested in Tyrod why would you want to give up an asset AND be stuck with the contract the Bills negotiated with him when you know he'll be free eventually? You can sign him to your own deal and keep your draft pick. There isn't a team out there that NEEDS him that badly. Plenty might be interested at a low price that Tyrod is not going to like. That's essentially what happened last year.

2 of the top defenses (Jags and Eagles) looked like they were playing 7 on 7 in practice as the offenses marched up and down the field at times in the playoffs (Jags: PIT in divisional round and the 2nd half of the AFC Title game) (Eagles: Super Bowl) Even the vaunted Seattle defense couldn't stop NE in the SB with a 24-14 4th quarter lead. It's just too hard to keep a good offense down with all the rule changes and timely penalties, plus the reluctance to call offensive holding.

I don't get the Bridgewater hype either... He never struck me as great, and that was before he missed almost 2 years with a horrific injury. If Bradford could stay healthy he would be top 10 but he constantly gets hurt as soon as things start going well for him. But he is by far the best of the Vikings 3 QBs in my book.

The Jags should add even more to their defense in free agency I would be interested to see if a defensive all-star team could actually stop great offenses in today's NFL with the rules we have now

training camp is long... Can we PLEASE see just one snap with Ducasse at QB?

It's a lot easier to find 3 capable WRs who can produce yards and TDs with a good QB than it is to find 3 DL who can produce pressures and sacks. For the most part WRs can be replaced fairly easily. Good to great DL are a lot more scarce. As soon as you get that great DL the clock starts ticking to when the 3rd best guy gets 70+ million nowadays.

I don't think Keenum is very good. He strikes me as a Matt Schaub type, who you sign to big contract then draft your QB once you realize your mistake a few years later.

LOL even worse!

I agree, and I think there is an important difference in "great defenses." Today's great defenses are stacked at the secondary position and still get lit up when it matters most because of the rules that favor WRs. Teams like the Ravens had a vicious front 7 and a great safety to clean up. That is rare and doesn't last long anymore with contracts the way they are. If you can assemble all that talent it just doesn't last together. A great role player will leave for some obscene contract he'll never live up to and your defense will suffer. But.. if you can manage to assemble a great DL that can consistently get to the QB you can beat anyone. If you have a great secondary but a good but not great pass rush offenses will scheme up some blocking and you'll get shredded anyway, or the refs will toss 50 yard penalty flags that negate an entire half of great football (AFC Title Game).

Every time I see that I think one thing: how gross melted butter would feel splashed into my face

The best thing for Tyrod is for him to be released early, preferably while the stupid money is flowing in the first days of free agency. The long the Bills hold him the more he is going to lose in terms of pay. The team benched him in the middle of a playoff run AFTER letting him go test the market a year ago and then making him take a huge paycut to come back. Can it be any more obvious that they don't see him as "the guy" here? Shake hands, cut the man loose, and let him continue his career with a fresh start. This is getting stupid.

Is anyone really arguing that losing Sammy and Robert hurt Tyrod's numbers? Of course it did. My issue is with the assertion that with those guys both on the field Tyrod's play was well above average. Based on what? Again, where do the 27/6 numbers come from (i.e. how many games) and what were the numbers for every other starter in the same number of games with all of his WR's healthy? It's so hard to objectively compare because all the WR are not of equal skill, and as BuffaloHokie pointed out some guys get more attempts, which results in more yards and TDs (and also more INT I would add). Coaches are different. Schemes are different. OL are different. We COULD just take Tyrod's best 16 games over his first 2 years with the Bills and put them together into 1 16 game "season." Then do the same for all the other starters in the league during that time. Then we would be comparing numbers to numbers, even as problematic as that would remain. Another way to look at Robert Woods leaving is that he just had the best year of his career. Sammy almost tied his best year in terms of TDs (8 vs 9) but his yardage was down. Marquise Goodwin had almost 1,000 yards receiving this season, easily his most productive year. Two different teams with 2 different QBs. Systems matter but there is a trend.

How much of the winning was because of Tyrod? He deserves credit for not turning it over but really the game plan is to minimize his impact on the game and force turnovers on defense. If teams don't turn it over the team is in trouble.

I'm not trying to be nasty about it although I did respond with some snark to the person who did the same with me. It's just that words matter. When you cite 27/6 and say that is well above average that means you are comparing Tyrod's stats to some mathematical average of all the other QBs in the same scenario. Can someone please answer the following: 1. How many games do the 27/6 stats represent? 2. What numbers were compared to Tyrod's 27/6 to support the conclusion that his play was well above average? That is my issue with the post.

Ryan Fitzpatrick threw for 7200 yards and 48 TD in his best 2 seasons as Bills starting QB. I didn't check to see how many of those games he had "legit NFL starters" though. Those Bills teams were pretty stacked and nobody ever got hurt back then and missed games.