transplantbillsfan

Geez dude... Your entire argument is based on the premise that Buffalo would have released Taylor if he didn't accept the pay cut. That's an opinion. Not a fact. Clearly there's plenty else we disagree on but I think I've been pretty good in terms of explaining things. You've explained yourself, too. I've read your responses and accept them as reasonable. But I still disagree and certainly won't accept just letting it sit as fact for you to always bring up as fact in other discussion connected to it with me. I don't know why you need this opinion to be fact so badly... #anTy

I'm glad you at least sorta kinda maybe understand what I've been arguing about. Maybe now you can accept that what you're arguing are not, in fact, facts.

No periods because you're still speculating. Unless you're a mind reader, you can't say what someone is or was thinking factually because you aren't that person. Period. Why are you fighting this so hard? I said your interpretation is reasonable but not fact. Second. No I'm not and no I don't. You're so wrapped up in being right about something I've already said is reasonable, but you so desperately want to let it sit as fact, when it isn't, that you're forgetting where this originated. No I don't know if Taylor's the QB of the future. He might be. I'm glad we have more time to decide. But this was never about me thinking or (here's a hint to bring you back) saying Taylor is the QB of the future

Yes. Clearly you are guilt free. That is simply inarguable... He might not be a crusader, but it's pretty clear he's crusading that something is a fact or is "inarguable" when, in fact, it's not. The issue here is you aren't even keeping track of this argument. No one, and I mean NO ONE is saying that Tyrod Taylor IS a Franchise Quarterback. EVERYONE is saying we need to see more and he needs to produce better than 2016. And a good deal better than 2016 if he wants McDermott to keep him as his future QB and not draft a guy in the 1st next year. If that's what you think I've been arguing about, let's just forget it. But understand that you are CONSTANTLY talking about things that are NOT fact as though they ARE facts. And you keep on saying it. And you apparently don't listen to the other side of the argument. Evidently the only "reasonable" arguments are those you agree with because right in this post you call certain pro-Tyrod positions unreasonable as you slip words of speculation like "forced" into an otherwise purely factual statement trying to let yet another opinion slide as fact while discrediting those wacky pro-Tyrod posters.

No, you don't get what I'm saying. I'm saying he's LOCKED into Buffalo for 4 years, no matter what, if he plays at a really high level. Buffalo doesn't risk anything because Taylor, if he plays 100% lights out and becomes an All-Pro, is NOT going anywhere until at least 2021 if negotiating a long term contract becomes difficult as it sometimes does.

My bad... couldn't tell...

Dude, you're speculating. Continue to argue that your speculation is fact if you want. Keep crusading with that if you want. But it's not fact. It's a reasonable opinion. It's not fact. You're the one stating something as fact. You prove it as fact. Why would I do legwork for someone else's opinion?

Oh... so you were directing that comment at that other poster, not me?

4 years. This year. Next year. Franchise tag twice like the 'Skins just did with Cousins. 4.

You act like it means nothing, but QBs like Matthew Stafford and Jameis Winston don't gain those extra 2 yards... they lose yards. I haven't even looked at their own designed runs vs. sacks vs. kneeldowns (which you'd have to do), but Winston netted -71 yards and Stafford netted -9 yards after considering their runs and their sacks, while Taylor netted +175 yards. You act like Taylor's the only one who has "crushing, drive killing sacks" in the NFL when in actuality it happens a lot to a lot of QBs.

What's wrong with you? Why do you resort to personal attacks? Don't worry... I just included it for you... see above

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.

Yes. Thanks for admitting you were wrong to do that ...even if you're doing it in a weasly way

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

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."

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.

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. 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. Thank you. That's just a cheap rhetorical tactic.

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. 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.

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.

This goes for countless posts by a number of posters on both sides of the aisle

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 lyll​and 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.

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?

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.