transplantbillsfan
-
Posts
10,892 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by transplantbillsfan
-
-
So in your opinion, Tyrod doesn't cave, the Bills would have kept Tyrod on his original extension?
Yes.
Invalidated? The poster child for a small victory in an ocean of defeat.
Thanks for admitting you were wrong to do that
...even if you're doing it in a weasly way
-
Meanwhile Ryan you provide no stats....just like to go after individual poster's....thats why you and your different screen handles are in and out on vacations
Ryan?
OMFG... is that the same Ryan who was on here who had Trubisky as his avatar? I was wondering where that guy went.
Explains a lot
-
Everyone and their mother knew what I meant by 20ish. Picking nits doesn't invalidate the spirit of my argument to anybody except the ones who look for any little victory in a sea of defeat.
Cheap tactics.
Cheap. Rhetorical. Tactics.
If your point wouldn't have been invalidated by saying "28 times a game," then why didn't you do it? In fact, if you were going closer to reality, which rounds to the nearest 10, you would have said "30ish."
-
How did they risk losing him? Because the Bills slashed his contract just 8 months after signing it. He had the option of not accepting the new restructured contract and pursue other opportunities once the FA period began. The ball was in Tyrod's court and he could have easily said "no" and became a free agent. It was discussed between Tyrod and his agent and they both agreed the Bills option was the best to take just two days before the deadline....those are Tyrod's words.
McDermott knows the importance of the QB position, he's said it. And with this position of importance, he is paying our starter one of the lowest in the league for veteran starters.
He said he was opening to restructuring but never said paycut....they are different. Charles Clay restructured but didn't take a paycut. Tyrod did both. Why do you think it took so long to agree to this if he just really wanted to be in Buffalo? Why was his agent having early discussions (that is tampering) at the combine with other teams if he just wanted to be in Buffalo?
The only way Tyrod is our QB for the next 4 years is if he lights it up on the field. If he plays like he did the last 2 years, they aren't picking up the remaining years of the contract. They've given themselves room to walk away....again.
All of the first paragraph is what a lot of you guys base your entire argument on:
The Bills were going to release Taylor if he didn't take a pay cut!
I respect your opinion, but I disagree. And it's an opinion, certainly not fact. And it's pure arrogance to call it fact.
I've laid out my position on this before so I'm not going to type it again. You've heard it before. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that your assumptions are anything more than speculation.
Just remember... the Bills had ALL the control in that situation. All they had to do was exercise an option on a contract Taylor was already under to keep him.
-
That is a mighty big IF
What is?
Whether Taylor plays well enough for the Bills to use the franchise tag on him or whether the Bills would use the franchise tag in that manner?
The 'Skins did it twice with Cousins and it's not like he's an Elite QB or anything.
I doubt it. I'm afraid TT throwing 20ish times a game was a symptom, not a problem.
Taylor averaged 29.1 passes per game in 2016 and 27.1 in 2015.
I understand that saying "20ish times" gives you some license and makes your argument sound so much stronger than using numbers that are closer to his actual numbers, but it's the equivalent of me saying I resemble Brad Pitt because I have blonde hair and blue eyes.
We all know that the Bills passing attempts have been low, but portraying 28 attempts per game as 20ish? C'mon man.
Thank you.
That's just a cheap rhetorical tactic.
-
Yep....exactly how I see it too. It makes the most logical sense. McD wanted Taylor over the likes of a Josh McCown and Brian Hoyer...basically his options if Taylor left. If you ask a player to take a cut as much as they asked Taylor, especially when he just signed the new contract just 8 months prior, you understand you run the risk of that guy of losing him. McD was willing to risk it.
How are they risking losing him?
Taylor is our's for the next 4 years if he's playing to the level where the Bills want to franchise him. This is the best contract the Bills could ask for.
Shaw thinks this contract is a win for Taylor based on what his agent friend said. And while I respect his opinion and credibility and do think Taylor is "betting on himself" to a certain degree, I think Taylor wanted to stay with the Bills more than some folks are willing to accept (because pro athletes go where the most money is!) and he showed his hand the moment he opened himself to restructuring on clean out day. It's the whole art of the deal thing... once he showed any level of willingness, of course McDermott is going to try to get him to take less money if he can free up money at other positions of need. It's not like he's built a significant relationship with Taylor that can't be repaired.
Sorry, but that's just what I think happened. And it's reasonable even if you disagree. Your opinion is reasonable, too, even though I disagree. What's irritating is when posters say that an opinion is unarguable when, in fact, it's merely speculation.
-
It's not just one line.Taking one line from an interview where the Head Coach and GM row back minutes later and ignoring the hard evidence of their actions is definitely cultish.
There have been people banned and suspended from this forum for repeated criticism of Taylor this offseason and yet from where I am standing the cultish behaviour goes on unabated. It is just as harmful to genuine debate on the subject.
There's more to this story than just one line. You're grossly over exaggerating here.
Actions speak louder than words, huh?
Fine, all indications were that Taylor was out. Buffalo wanted to move on at the position and someone would inevitably be starting at QB because the Bills weren't happy with him at QB.
That's what was widely reported from multiple "credible" sources at the end of the year.
Then we get a new Head Coach. And this new Head Coach comes from a team that recently made the Super Bowl with a similar QB in terms of general skill sets (NOT talking about level of play). And this new Head Coach hires the most recent OC his prospective QB has worked with outside of Buffalo. And this new Head Coach had only had glowing remarks on this new QB, including high praise of what he saw on tape and in person. And this Coach, despite clearly having pretty clear control to go out and bring in his own Guy as everyone professes a new HC prefers, HE KEEPS TAYLOR! And...
you get the idea.
If you think I looked at a single quote and formed an entire opinion on it, you're wrong. It just lends further credence to it.
-
Simple question for you man. Not trying to start an argument or anything...
Why do you think McDermott decided not to pick up Tyrod's 5 year contract (that would have been very reasonable cap hit for a guy viewed as a franchise QB), and instead gave him a 2 year deal that allows the Bills to move on after this season with only $8M dead cap?
If he were truly convinced that Tyrod is the future QB, why did he kind of bet against him by shortening the contract?
If Tyrod proved to be the franchise QB, it will most likely cost a lot more to keep him now.
And if you want my answer for number 2 it's because McDermott hasn't seen enough of Taylor up close to wager his future on him if he doesn't have to. What he did with the contract and the draft move is about the best possible QB scenario he could hope for. He's hedging his bets and now has options. Just because he's giving himself options doesn't mean he doesn't have opinions on which options are most likely.
Why is this an either/or scenario for everyone? McDermott has set himself with who he believes (according to him) will be the team's long term answer at the position based on what he's seen so far but he's given himself an out and options to get a franchise QB after this season if he's wrong.
-
Opinion masquerading as fact, signifying nothing.
And to think...all you'd have had to do was put the words 'I think' in there somewhere and suddenly it's a useful comment. But that would require a modicum of restraint and awareness, wouldn't it?
This goes for countless posts by a number of posters on both sides of the aisle
-
Simple question for you man. Not trying to start an argument or anything...
Why do you think McDermott decided not to pick up Tyrod's 5 year contract (that would have been very reasonable cap hit for a guy viewed as a franchise QB), and instead gave him a 2 year deal that allows the Bills to move on after this season with only $8M dead cap?
If he were truly convinced that Tyrod is the future QB, why did he kind of bet against him by shortening the contract?
If Tyrod proved to be the franchise QB, it will most likely cost a lot more to keep him now.
Thanks. I don't like arguing, but I'll admit a fault I have is that I either rise or fall to the level of discussion. I greet antagonism with antagonism.
It's a fault. One I believe I share with many on this message board.
Okay, if you really want me to answer those questions simply I need to start out with this:
I don't know anything at all about what people's motives were. What I don't like is that some people think they do know lylland present what is opinion as fact.
As to your questions:
#1 - We don't know what would have happened if the deadline approached and the Bills had to make a decision. I realize some are going to chime in that Taylor would have been cut, but as much as some people in previous posts were talking about how "logic dictates that..." there are different forms of logic. There's a lot I could type here, but Shaw has actually explained some of this in the past. What I'll say is that Taylor sorta dug his own grave in terms of negotiations with Buffalo when he said he'd be open to restructuring his contract on clean out day. Whether Taylor made a mistake or legitimately was open to restructuring for the reasons he claimed eventually that he restructured in order to help the team free up some money to strengthen itself at some positions, I don't know for sure. I can't read minds. It's funny to me because sometimes people say actions speak louder than words and other times people quote what people say as though it's biblical.
To me, it's pretty logical from a business perspective that the moment Taylor said that, Buffalo had an obligation to do anything it could to make it happen. And stories and experts came out with all of these stories that never made reference to any single source... probably because the team was trying to leverage Taylor to take a pay cut if he was unwilling (and again, I don't know what his position was). And then McDermott came in and he brought Dennison in. The Dennison hire, to me, was a clear sign that he wanted to roll with Taylor, especially considering McDermott's up close and personal experiences with Cam Newton's successes in Carolina.
Whaley was still with the team and maybe Taylor still felt like he had power and sway to get rid of him but wanted to stay in Buffalo. I actually think Taylor wanted to stay in Buffalo and gave them a hometown discount where he could have gone to Cleveland or the Jets or maybe the 49ers for more money but less stable teams in what would be a brand new environment. Not everyone likes change.
I can already anticipate these responses that have to do with "what people do" and "what people think" in certain situations and, to me, that's just irritating to talk about people's tendencies as fact because not everyone thinks the same or reacts the same in different situations. Including pro athletes.
That's just a bit for #1. Gotta go, but be back for #2 probably later.
-
I'm actually quite content with letting these posters live in their fantasy world where Tyrod Taylor is actually a good QB.
Reality shows you otherwise, and the facts are that he has major flaws that are highly unlikely to be fixed at this stage oof his career, so what's much more likely is he hovers around the 2015/2016 average and never progresses any further. You can make excuses and claim he needs these coaches and these players, but when you just don't possess the required skill set of a true passer, you will always be limited. And the injury excuse also holds no water. Do you believe all his weapons will stay healthy? It's almost a foregone conclusion that skill players will miss time with injuries...get used to it. Either you get it done or you don't, and Tyrod never has.
So, please....go right ahead and conjure up images and thoughts of Tyrod Taylor becoming something more than he's shown to be. Wishes are fun to make, but likely never fulfilled.
If you're content with posters living in this supposed "fantasy world" why do you follow that statement immediately clearly trying to convince them they're wrong?
-
Yeah, it was clearly a childlike tantrum.
-
Yikes.
Simple logic would dictate that McD probably said what he said to give some confidence to his starting QB. But I guess rather than face the truth, you throw a childish tantrum like the bolded.
That's a tantrum?
You're really sensitive.
And no, that's not simple logic... or I should say it's not definitive logic as you seem to think it is. It's just one interpretation of why he said what he said. It's a reasonable interpretation, just like believing he said what he meant is.
-
That is because many can't separate emotion from evidence.
No, it's because you're stating something is inarguable that isn't...
-
It is when moments later he rowed back massively from that statement and when you look at the actual action of an offseason in which that same coach had personnel control and they halved Taylor's contract and gave him, in real terms, a $10m paycut for the next two years.
In what world are they the actions of a man who thinks he has his QB of the future?
I repeat again, that is not to say that if my option B above plays out the Bills couldn't still change their mind and give Tyrod a 3rd new deal in three years.
But judging the Bills on their actions and to an extent their words this offseason they judge Tyrod Taylor as a bridge. It really is inarguable.
Whatever you say, Boss
I'm using that statement to say that just because a coach or GM says something, doesn't make it true.
Like GB says, actions speak louder than words. The Bills didn't want TT back at his original price point. His original price point was low end franchise level compensation. Ergo, they did not believe he was worth low end franchise level compensation. No matter what they say.
Okay then. I guess it's just inarguable as you guys profess.
McDermott lied.
He must have brought up Taylor's name without being prompted to even mention a QBs name on the roster as part of a grand master plan having to do with finding a way to find a Franchise QB not named Tyord Taylor.
God it. Thanks for clearing that up
-
"We have no plans to trade Stevie Johnson."
Ummm... and... ?
Are you trying to use that statement to say that not some, but ALL statements out of a coach's mouth are 100% false?
Are you using that statement somehow as proof that McDermott means the opposite of what he says?
-
I suppose I'd ask what plays well means John. I see 3 possible scenarios:
A - The most likely - Tyrod is pretty much the Quarterback we have seen so far and plays reasonably well as we end around .500. In my mind in that scenario the Bills keep Tyrod for the 2nd year of his contract even at the higher salary and draft a Quarterback in round 1. Tyrod starts 2018 as the starter and probably reliquinshes to the rookie at some point and is a FA in 2019.
B - Tyrod hits it out of the park in 2017, throws for more yards, more touchdowns, a few more picks but wins the Bills games frequently. In that scenario I think the Bills try and extend him and don't take a Quarterback in round 1 and whether they take one in rounds 2 and 3 depends on how much they like Peterman.
C - Tyrod regresses in the new offense when the run game doesn't click and he is forced to try and win more games in his arm. In that scenario I think the Bills bench him wih 5 or 6 games left cut ties at the end of 2017 swallow the cap hit and draft a Quarterback in round 1 who competes with Peterman to start in 2018.
I can agree with all of this. But if Taylor is more the 2015 Taylor in terms of production than 2016, I doubt we draft a QB in round 1.
A definitive statement about how the Bills see Tyrod Taylor now. It is really inarguable. Could he change their minds by knocking it out of the park in 2017? Sure. I don't expect that but there is a chance he could.
It's inarguable to say that the Bills don't view Tyrod Taylor as the QB of the future even though McDermott, when asked directly if the QB of the future is on the roster currently, his immediate response was "He is. In Tyrod Taylor." ...?
And yes, I was being sarcastic before
-
the waters are clear as mud. TT is the QB of the future ... until proven otherwise.
Yeah, it's about this simple...
-
The Bills do not think Tyrod is the Quarterback of the future. You do not make someone take a pay cut and halve their contract length if you think that.
Actions > words. Their actions are clear - they think he is their best option now and a good bridge Quarterback. And they are 100% correct in my eyes.
Got it, Boss
-
They also only played 19 games combined with Taylor... and both were hobbled for multiple games in ways very unlike the normal wear and tear of an NFL WR, particularly Sammy.and this
Watkins and Woods combined stats in those 15 games... 101 receptions 1515 yards 11 TDs
Nice numbers for one guy not two.
-
Yep... but #1 and that "good" to "great" definition is what seems to be the issue and question...Let's make this simple:
1. Taylor goes into camp as the #1. If he has a good to great year we have our guy. A good outcome.
2. Taylor gets outplayed by Peterman or Jones, and one of the younger guys grabs the job through their performance. Then TT can be traded to another QB needy team. A good outcome.
3. TT doesn't earn a long term deal and the young guys are still questionable. Use the two first round picks with maybe others and draft the guy you want next year. Good outcome.
-
Not particularly.
If Taylor's play on the field in 2017 is the single most important evaluation tool, why is he making a declaration before having said evaluation tool?
He has 2 years of tape on Taylor and decided based on those years that Taylor was a franchise guy, why would 2017 be the most important? If 2 years of "good tape" said TT was the answer, would it really be justifiable to pull the plug after 1 year of "bad tape?"
It just doesn't jive. Derek Carr ain't getting canned after next season with a down year. Can you name a single "QB of the future" who will be let go by the team after one down year in the NFL?
To answer your questions in order:
- I don't know, maybe he really likes what he's seen from Taylor on tape in the past and from what he's seen in person and what he's saying is projection based on that.
- I really can't believe you're seriously asking this question. Because the NFL is a "what have you done for me lately" league. I think it's pretty clear that McDermott expects Taylor to be pretty successful this year and, based off of those expectations, it seems he would be projecting his QB of the future as Taylor right now. Obviously, if he sucks, McDermott's feelings would change.
Coaches opinions on players change, ya know...
And if Carr sucks this year, his coach's opinion on him will change on him depending on factors involved.
- Taylor has a unique contract to allow for this. It's a unique situation. But in the same way that from 2012-2015 we heard praise heaped upon the new upcoming QBs who would inevitably be Elite QBs like RG3, Kaepernick, Tannehill, and Bortles and now everyone has rightfully turned almost a full 180 degrees on those opinions, McDermott can do the same thing.
Smart and good coaches and GMs in the NFL do what's frowned upon in Internet message boards: They change their opinions based on what they see.
-
As I stated earlier, I think TT is penciled in as the starter. I think Beane was telling the truth that if the season started today, it would be Taylor.
I think that Taylor will clearly be the #1 in camp, he won't be splitting much reps with the other QB's. He will some but not anywhere close to an equal split.
If Taylor starts slipping or if Peterman just knocks it out of the park early on....then it'll be a "true" competition.
Basically its Taylor's job now but he can lose it.
It's funny because I agree with pretty much every single word you say here other than the use of the word "or", which I'd replace with "and", yet you know what I think...
Tell me more about what I think, please...
I genuinely don't understand how you can think that McD truly believes he has the QB of the future on the roster, and also believe he will dump him after one year if hes not impressed. It sounds like a guy with mood swings.
Oh... okay.
Pretty simple really, a lot can happen in one year, can't it?
Do you think when the Raiders drafted JaMarcuss Russell they drafted him thinking he wasn't going to be a great QB?
Why is it people think these things are mutually exclusive? McDermott spent almost 4 full months up until now evaluating tape on previous seasons from Taylor, meeting and knowing the person, and seeing his work ethic, and has formed an opinion it seems after those 4 months that Taylor is the franchise's answer at QB for the future, his words, not mine.
BUT
That doesn't mean that Taylor's play on the field in 2017 isn't the most important evaluation tool for McDermott on Taylor's longterm prospects at the position in Buffalo. So if Taylor plays poorly, of course McDermott moves on. And he was smart in hedging his bets by keeping Taylor while also getting an extra 1st round draft pick next year. So if Taylor is the answer, the Bills use those 2 1sts to build around Taylor. If he's not, those 2 1sts are there to help draft the QB of the future.
Does that make sense?
Maybe McD isn't talking about TT. Maybe he sees Jones or Peterman the QB of the future.
Except his exact words when asked if the Quarterback of the future is on the roster in Buffalo right now, McDermott's exact and immediate words were:
"He is, in Tyrod Taylor."
Could be, but maybe it's a play on words also. Like TT is the QB of the future but conveniently left out the "near".
It will play it's self out in a couple of months.
And I'm the one who's blinded by bias...?
-
He also didn't post the entire quote. Especially the part where McD said he didn't know if the QB of the future was on the roster.
Ummm... I did post the entire quote... maybe not in that post, but I did post it a few posts earlier.
And McDermott doesn't say at any point in that initial response if he didn't know if the QB of the future was on the roster. He said that after Beane's response, and I've already given my interpretation of it. And as disgusted as you and Teeflebees is with my interpretation, it's a reasonable, even probable interpretation.
You guys are too funny.
I'm sure he left that out by accident.
No accident... I provided the link and the quote already.
Keep twisting and twisting in the wind though...
I don't know why you let a poster on a message board get under your skin so much...
Looks like the only one dishing out personal insults here is you, my friend.
You are outing yourself more and more over the course of this thread.
And I, for one appreciate you doing so.
Can you direct me to a personal insult I made?
Tyrod will not be handed starting Job
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I'm with you here, but the other side of the argument actually thinks rushes don't count or matter.
But since we're on the subject... if that other side wants to discount how much the Bills actually relied upon him in the passing game by saying "runs don't count," then we would need to look at drop backs that aren't designed runs.
Taylor scrambled 47 times last year, or 3.1 times a game.
And he was sacked 42 times last year, or 2.8 times a game.
That's 5.9 times the ball didn't leave his hand, but the Bills were entrusting him in the passing game. Some of those were positive plays like the scrambles (which he gained 371 yards on) while some were negative plays like the sacks (which he lost 196 yards on).
(So he netted 175 yards on those 6 extra attempts per game. So he was gaining 12 extra yards per game on those 6 added drop backs)
Although I suspect I'll be accused of "cooking stats," that's the reality of what Taylor was asked to do and actually accomplished on those plays the Bills asked him to pass but he didn't.