MPT

Obviously anyone who doesn't constantly troll threads by proclaiming Tyrod the worst QB of all time is clearly a cult follower of Tyrod. Get a grip.

Would you two please get a room? Seriously, it's not cute anymore. If you want to bash Tyrod, at least be relevant and informed.

You realize that all the fanatical anti-Tyrod trolls are also a cult, right? The guy has strengths and flaws. Only pointing out his flaws is just as silly as only pointing out his strengths.

Hey, man. Let's not get carried away. I agree that Taylor has some pretty obvious flaws about seeing and hitting open receivers, but that statement is more absurd than anything the CoT could come up with. You think there are only two or three plays a game where our receivers aren't wide open? Matt Ryan and Ben Roethlisberger couldn't even make that claim, and they're working with the best receivers in the game. We trotted out arguably the worst WR corps in the league this season. Don't try and tell us they were beating coverage on every single play.

Or it's just different people with differing opinions of the signing. Personally, I think the comp picks are being undervalued by a lot of people on this forum, but I also like Holmes and would be content with losing a pick for him. I can't say that for most of the other signings. Or all of them, barring Hyde.

The problem with that would be Wood's dead cap hit this year. Hopefully they can unload that contract on someone, but they should match Groy's offer either way.

That last point is indeed fortunate. Hope we match the offer even if it means over paying a backup for one year.

Also patently untrue. You guys are batting zero in this thread.

Option 1.

Sorry, I forgot this board was strictly for praising everything the Bills front office has accomplished over the last 17 years.

Of course I understand that. So, if we tender him and no team gives up a pick, we have a solid backup (and future starter) we can negotiate a long term contract with during a year in which he is a backup. Still no downside.

Yeah, a few other people have used this argument as well. Except it doesn't hold any water. If teams don't want to give up a pick, fine: we keep him for the same salary. But if there's a chance a team holds him in high enough regard, we get a 2nd round pick. You know what the odds are of us getting anything in return for him if we don't use that tag? Zero. So, the "odds are" literally infinitely better for us if we do use the tag.

Which we'll be doing anyway if we decide to keep him. And if we don't want to pay that, we get nothing instead of a 2nd round pick. I realize Wood's cap hit is prohibitive to paying Groy more than a typical backup, but the odds of Groy becoming a starter (again) in the next two years are too good to pay him as a typical backup.

That's almost exactly what the second round tender value is. Do you guys even know the basics of what you're trying to debate? I don't give a **** about Groy. I give a **** about our GM making the same mistake two years in a row after getting burned so badly the first time. Clearly, this year isn't as bad, but we shouldn't even be in this situation again.

Dude, it doesn't matter if they would or wouldn't have. There's no reason not to take advantage if someone ends up wanting him that bad. We have to pay the same amount to keep him either way.

I don't know what alternate reality you're following, but a team just offered almost exactly the 2nd round tender value. So now if we want to keep him, we have to pay that much anyway. And if we don't want to keep him, we get nothing. In my scenario, we would either pay him the same amount or get a second round pick. So, reality has in fact proven me exactly correct. So you're saying a player is worth his value regardless of whether he was an UDFA. Glad you agree. Or at least you agree until it doesn't suit your arbitrary argument.

It doesn't matter if the player was an UDFA, first of all. Players get contracts according to their value, not their original round. And if no team were willing to give up a second round pick, he's ours for the tender value. That's it. No negotiating. If he doesn't want to play for that amount, then he doesn't play at all. And that would be the only scenario in which we wouldn't get him or a second round pick. Much better play than risking losing him for nothing.

From Bills Wire: "With the roster bonus, Groy would be making $2.5 million in 2017, which is nearly $250,000 less than the second round tag for restricted free agents, had Buffalo chosen to use it." So, for a possible $250,000 we could have secured a starter or gained a second round pick. That's a no-brainer.

There is a third option. If a team gives him a contract that we don't want to match, we get nothing in return. Giving him a higher tender means that we would get a draft pick in return. And we still don't risk anything because his offer sheet was obviously going to be similar to the tender price. We literally can't lose if we give him a higher round tender, and we get a draft pick if we don't match. In this case, we get nothing if we don't match. Again.

Okay, this argument is becoming so absurd. First of all, most of the free agents we signed have not made our roster better. Secondly, we gave up draft picks to sign them. Acquiring draft picks is the best way to improve the roster in the long term. It's really that simple, guys.

It's not an either / or situation. There are teams that stockpile picks and gain an advantage from doing so. There are also teams that have been good regardless of compensatory picks. We are neither. Why not take advantage of a system that is in place to help teams who lose talented players? Especially when we eschew that advantage for players who aren't worth the picks they replaced. If we had signed Alshon Jeffery, A.J. Bouye, and Tony Jefferson, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

All of those teams except the Lions have been to at least one Super Bowl since compensatory picks started. Most of them have been to more than one. Obviously compensatory picks are not a prerequisite to being a respectable franchise, but it's an undeniable advantage that the Bills could have easily utilized this year. Where is your source for the list of compensatory picks you're referencing? It is indeed puzzling that so many people are pumped about signing backups in exchange for losing draft picks when we don't have many picks to start with.

The fact that you think the NFL hands out compensatory picks in an arbitrary manner that isn't based upon a formula teams can follow in order to maximize their draft potential really illustrates the ignorance of the people in here who are completely dismissive of gaining free draft picks. It's like you guys would be perfectly happy filling out our roster with journeyman scrubs by trading away all of our draft picks. That's not how good teams are built. Yes, we have a lot of holes to fill. That would be a lot easier to do if we had two extra picks every year like quality teams do. Retaining compensatory picks also does not prevent us from signing players after June 1 without penalty. Nobody we have signed would be worth the draft picks we may lose, and they would be easily replaced by players who can be signed after June 1. If Whaley had managed to sign any of the top tier free agents we were led to believe they were targeting, maybe you guys would have a leg to stand on. But he didn't sign anyone valuable and he is also risking losing valuable draft picks. Free agency isn't over, so we don't actually know if we will still get compensatory picks, but as of now we have given up two quality draft picks and we still have a lot of holes due to poor management. I don't see how some of you are so accepting of this repeated behavior that has resulted in 17 years of futility.

Right on. Being a fan for life does not preclude one from disagreeing with management. So your definition of fandom requires unquestionable loyalty with no dissent or disagreement with the powers that be?

And just put down grass seed. Can't have people kneeling all over it.