BarleyNY

Yeah. Very little can be gleaned from this info. I'll wait until full details come out before judging. It's certainly possible that Taylor's agent gauged the market and determined that a lesser offer the Bills were offering was competitive with or better than what he'd get as a FA. Then we're looking at a deal that is probably a good one for both sides. It'd also be a deal that wouldn't prohibit the Bills from acquiring another QB via the draft, trade or FA. Or we might just be looking at the Bills kicking some cap hit down the road. I'm hopeful it's the former.

Thanks, John

You think the problem is that the Bills players aren't trying as hard as players on other teams? And how would you know if this team has a good head coach? McD has literally never been head coach of any football team at any level.

I wouldn't get ahead of myself on next season. It looks good because so few players are under contract. It's actually not that great. 25 players currently under contract through 2018 and over $106M in current obligations (including TT). Restructuring Glenn's deal could easily kick $6M of cap space into future years by converting $8M of his base salary into a signing bonus. His contract seems tailor made for this kind of restructure. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/buffalo-bills/cordy-glenn-9851/ Kyle is in his last season so cutting his cap number would require an extension or pay cut. Extending him would just kick cap dollars into next season since this will likely be his last year. Asking him to take a pay cut is probably the best option. Dareus is a very poor candidate for restructure since the team would have to hand him a lump sum of cash and lower his 2017 salary. That salary is the cash that is on the line for him if he is suspended again. No way would I remove that financial incentive for him to stay clean and out of trouble.

I agree. I expected the 2nd round tender. I have to think some teams would be very interested in him for only a 5th. The Bills can match, but I doubt they'd do so.

The Bills were 16th in points allowed and 19th in yards allowed. That seems pretty average.

The Bills would jump at the 33rd pick for Taylor, but it's just wishful thinking. The Browns are not interested in his current contract so they aren't trading anything for him. They do have interest in the player and he fits what Jackson wants to do, but he wouldn't prevent them from pursuing other QBs.

This makes way more sense.

Yup. THAT is how you tank. Jest are going full 2016 Browns tank in 2017.

1) Logical. Possible. No downside. Extremely low probability of happening though. 2) Logical. Probable. Little downside except potentially pissing off Taylor. Reasonable probability of happening. 3) Illogical and highly improbable or a sign of horrific organizational dysfunction. This would mean that Pegula and Whaley just hired a HC who strongly disagrees with Whaley about Tyrod and that they didn't work out that difference prior to hire. Whaley knew what he thought of Taylor during last season. There's been no new information since week 15. From that perspective, a reasonable plan is #2 above, look for someone better or someone equivalent and cheaper, but keep Taylor if we can't find that. So is #1, keep him around and try to trade him until close to deadline. But not having a plan and setting your organization up for a disagreement is nothing but bad.

The other option is that Pegula hired a HC that disagrees with his GM regarding Taylor. Again, that makes no sense.

First of all, yes, JLC is a horrific shill and crappy reporter. Is it even remotely plausible that Whaley hired a head coach with whom he disagreed on the Taylor situation? I'm not the biggest Whaley fan, but I'm living in the real world here.

That would really undermine Tyrod. It'd be a clear indication that he's just an expensive bridge and it'd make it known that he is not in the team's long term plans. It'd be better to just find a cheaper bridge QB and draft away at the position.

Play the long game, not the short one. Too much focus 2017. I'd like to see them strive for a SB in the coming seasons though, not just tread water for a few more seasons.

Could be that the Bills are sniffing around available QBs at the Combine. Lots of deals get worked out there. Agents and GMs work overtime on that stuff. The Bills might just be checking out their options at QB though. Looking to improve their situation and gauging the market doesn't NECESSARILY mean they are moving on from Taylor.

I don't mean to be argumentative on this. I'm from Cleveland and know some people who have direct insight into the Browns organization. Could they absorb his contract? Easily. But I was told that while they are interested in him, they are not interested in his current contract."

I get what you're saying, but it's just wishful thinking. Cleveland will not take on his current contract.

http://www.rotoworld.com/headlines/cfb/65379/Kizer-arrives-in-Indy-at-a-full-6-4-233-lbs 6'2-1/8" per combine measurements

Gross, indeed. But it'd just be for depth.

No team is trading for Taylor under his current deal because no team is paying the price of consequential draft picks plus $40.5M for two seasons of Taylor. On the other hand, the Bills aren't paying his option bonus and then trading him. They aren't eating that. Restructuring is unlikely to help as it's unlikely to mean less guaranteed or total compensation. There's only one exception and that's if Taylor wants out of Buffalo badly enough to take less elsewhere. I just don't see that as realistic.

F Marrone. Still an egomaniacal douche nozzle.

Good thing we don't need anything else with that 1st round pick.

Good question. I'm ecstatic about his improvement from year 1 to 2. Hopefully we just need a RT to complete the line for 2017. Some depth too, obviously.

Not kidding. Currently Carp is set to be the 8th most expensive K in 2017, but he was 12th last season. There are some pending FA kickers that you aren't seeing on the 2017 list. http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/kicker/ Sure, you could draft one or pick up one on the cheap. Or you could easily wind up paying as much or more for a quality veteran - especially when factoring in Carp's dead money. Even in your example - which would indicate an unproven or lower tier kicker - it's not a lot in the scheme of a $168M cap. And it'd probably be a lot less than that. I'm not even advocating for keeping Carp, I'm just saying that there isn't much, if anything, to save there.

Yeah. I was thinking the same thing. I'm not sure how Darby fits the new scheme either.