Shaw66
-
Posts
9,020 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
No, I want Joe Montana handling the ball, but he's long retired...
Fun fact... did you know that Aaron Rodgers is 0-35 in his career in precisely your scenario?
Diown by more than 1 point in the 4th quarter to a winning team, Aaron Rodgers hasn't won a single game in his career.
Transplant - That's true?
When you say a winning team, you mean a team with a record over .500, he has ZERO comeback wins? o-35?
-
"Trimming down the playbook" and "simplifying the offense," are what he said. The playbook isn't what you put together each week. It's the book that shows all the plays in the offense. I know it's an outdated word now that everyone uses computers, but that's what people are talking about when they say "playbook," the stuff you study in training camp.
I think you're referring to the game plan. And here's an article where Carson Palmer talks about memorizing a weekly game plan of 171 plays. And he calls it "a game plan," not a playbook.
http://mmqb.si.com/mmqb/2015/11/17/nfl-carson-palmer-arizona-cardinals-inside-game-plan
Lynn said he simplified the playbook. He also said, and this was really depressing for me to read at the time, that he simplified the reads. That's different from what you're implying here.
Nobody has said Tyrod doesn't have the mental capacity to handle the offense. He's a smart guy, and there's no indication at all that I've seen that he had trouble understanding the plays. Just that he didn't seem to be able to get through his options quick enough to read enough of the field. Which is one of the single main skills that generally separates the top ten or so guys in the world from everyone else playing the position.
Trimming the playbook and simplifying the offense are NOT what Lynn said. Those phrases you're quoting were in Robyn Mundy's report about Lynn's appearance on the John Murphy show. Lynn didn't use those phrases; Robyn did. You can hear what Lynn said here: http://www.buffalobills.com/video/audio/Anthony-Lynn-We-have-got-to-stay-on-the-field/72f7ccf3-3494-44f4-b413-57ec43c4d356
Although you can argue about what Lynn meant by what he said, my take is that he said the Bills were going into games with too many plays on the playlist.
He said something about Tyrod may not be able to handle the volume, but it seemed to mean again that the volume on the playlist was too great to manage, not the scale of the playbook.
He also said something about simplifying reads, but it wasn't clear if he was talking about Taylor or the entire offense.
In general, it sounded like he was saying the offense was too complicated, not that Taylor was unable to handle a normal sized offensive playbook.
Recall that in 2015 Incognito said it was the most complicated offense he ever had played in.
-
I've seen you say this a number of times now and I really wonder how true it is.
I actually think those plays are exactly the types of plays Taylor thrives off of. My issue has been that those aren't very often the plays the Bills offense would run.
Here's an article over at cover1 on this:
http://www.cover1.net/2017/03/tyrod-taylors-2016-passing-campaign-misinterpreted-misused/
There are stats posted in the article for how successful Taylor was in certain types of plays. And it indicates the WCO might be just what the doctor ordered for Taylor.
I'd never seen that article. Thanks for posting it.
It's more amateur analysis, but in this case there's very little subjectivity in the data. Under center or not, count the steps in the drop. Add up attempts, completions and yards. Not too hard.
Taylor had so few under center, there may not be enough data to prove anything. But from what there is, it seems like under center isn't a problem for Taylor.
I'm not sure the conclusion is fair that the coaches did Taylor a disservice by not letting play under center more. Taylor's the QB and he has to play the offense he's given. He needed to throw better out of the shotgun.
One thing he says is something I've said for a year. Taylor looks much better when he drops deep enough to keep the rush in front of him. Passing out of the pocket doesn't work as well for him. With the rush in front of him, he sees the field better and he also scrambles better.
-
4. You can NEVER have too many good QBs, especially on rookie deals.
Yes you can. If you trade your two first round picks next year and your first for the following year to move up for a QB next tear, and if he's not your starter, you lost the opportunity to get stronger at THREE positions on your team. If that happens, you have too many QBs.
It's why the evaluation of Taylor THIS YEAR is so important. The Bills have postponed the long-term decision on Taylor for two years; they can't postpone it any longer. After the 2017 season they have to decide if they're betting on him for the future, or on someone else.
The happy situation for the Bills would be for Taylor or Peterman to really star this season. That would make all the decisions easy.
-
as much as I liked this QB class and felt this was our best chance in years to get a good QB, it wouldn't have made sense to have a GM on his way out choose a franchise QB for a coach he couldn't work with. Organizational symmetry matters.
I just hope we don't get mired in a spot where we win between 7 and 10 games and are on the outside looking in at the best QB prospects. Hopefully that Chiefs pick will buy us some upward movement
Ten wins, playoffs, Taylor in the top 12 passing, I'm thinking long and hard before I go after a QB at the top of the draft.
It's like drawing to an inside straight.
-
It's what I've gathered from several conversations, some of which were with people who are recently unemployed.
And yeah, like I said, it certainly doesn't guarantee success; but Dennison has a year to show McD (and now Beane) whether his vision can come to fruition or not.
"people who are recently unemployed." You mean, like the Director of the FBI? Did the FBI bug OBD? I hope Dennison hasn't been talking to the Russians.
Got it. Thanks.
That's very interesting news. And you're right, Dennison has a year to show McD and B that his judgment was correct.
It was interesting reading about Dennison when the Bills hired him. Seems like a pretty deep thinker for a football coach.
-
Nope, no link. You can believe it or not, I was just adding some context to the situation. Dennison was also the driving force behind Denver's offer to Tyrod when he was an FA, not Kubiak. It certainly doesn't guarantee success for Tyrod, but the guy wants to work with him.
So, Hokie, is this just a theory you have, or do you have some inside knowledge that tells you this?
I've wondered about Dennison's role in all this. Frankly, if that's true, I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. After all, Chan Gailey really wanted to work with Ryan Fitzpatrick. Everyone can make mistakes.
Still, regardless of how we got here, here we are. Tyrod is almost certainly the starter in 2017. I DO feel good that his offensive coordinator is someone who has worked with him before, someone who is installing the system they worked on together. That's a plus for Taylor, and therefore it's a plus for the Bills.
-
So we trust the media when they give us news we want to hear, but don't trust them when it doesn't fit our narrative? Do you put your fingers in your ears and stomp your feet when you don't hear what you want as well?
As if we haven't heard conflicting things coming out of buffalo, or the leaks... come on now, you need to hear it directly from them for it to be truth?
I don't trust anything from the media unless (1) I'm watching video of someone who has direct knowledge of what he's talking about or (2) I'm reading something with quotation marks, quoting someone with direct knowledge of what he's talking about. Everything else i get from the media is suspect.
-
I think it is very possible that the coaches do a ton of quick passes and severely under-utilize Tyrod's special ability to extend passing plays into home run plays. I hope we see lots of plays that are designed to have the passer hold the ball for more than 3 seconds and throw a home run. Don't know. Just guessing.
this is an interesting comment. Last season the Chiefs went to a quick-release game, much more than they ever had in earlier years. Smith was getting the ball out incredibly quickly. Three significant things happened. 1. Smith's rushing yards dropped dramatically. For the previous three years, he'd been one of the leading rushers among QBs. In 2016 he fell way back into the pack. 2. His sacks dropped way down. Just like Taylor, he'd run around back there and extend plays, which has a benefit and a problem. Extended plays often lead to gains you wouldn't otherwise get. They also lead to sacks you wouldn't otherwise get. 3. The Chiefs' offense didn't get markedly better or worse. For the past several years they haven't gained a lot of yards, and that didn't change. But they were generally a pretty good scoring offense, and they were in 2016. Not stellar, but okay.
So if your prediction is correct, Taylor gets the ball out quicker, it may be that the offense won't get worse, but it also might not get better.
This is one of those rat holes that transplant started us down in the beginning of this thread. It's very hard to correlate wins with min-stats, like how quickly someone throws the ball. The game is much too complicated to reduce to concepts like that.
However, as for Taylor personally, he becomes a much less valuable guy if you take away his legs. Without his legs, he's VERY ordinary.
-
The bigger risk in not drafting a QB is if one of the existing backups gets to play 1/2 a season or more and he plays reasonably well but not stellar. That could push them to move on from Tyrod and NOT draft another QB next year. Then, yes you could very easily wind up in QB purgatory. Don't think it will be with Tyrod though. They will either have full confidence in him because of his great play this year or they will draft a guy.
Dave -
I think your backup scenario IS the real chance of getting caught in QB purgatory again. Taylor gets injured or is underperforming and halfway through the season Peterman becomes the starter. He's apparently a cerebral guy, good decision maker, etc. If the Bills are running a short-passing offense, he could have a lot of success early (not unlike Trent Edwards). The Bills could get all excited about the guy and used their two first rounders to shore up other positions. Then we'd all have to wait and see whether Peterman becomes Edwards or Montana.
See, this is just where we see things differently. You think he has this great potential which was unveiled in 2015 and were subsequently let down in 2016 when you thought he looked bad. Me...I saw the same guy both years: a wholly limited running QB who is exactly the kind of guy that will stick around for 3-4 years by showing you just enough to justify another season.
Does your friend bill by the hour as well as take a percentage? Because that would actually make sense, then.
Percentage. He's been retired for years. Took the guaranteed money.
-
Is it possible that your friend, throughout the course of your conversations on the matter, isn't familiar with the details of Taylor's contract, since as of yesterday you yourself were unaware of the amount of guaranteed money Taylor gave up to take the restructure?
Sure. But he's a pretty good football fan. And he didn't care much about the details. He negotiated contracts his whole deal, and his point of view is that he always can get more if you give him another chance to negotiate. He wants his guys to be free agents every year. Worst thing that can happen is signing your guy to a long-term deal that undervalues him. If you can negotiate every year, your guy is never undervalued.
-
If these were the only two options, we WOULD be in a good position. Unfortunately, there's option 3: that Taylor plays mediocre which IMO is the most likely, and handcuffs a 1st time HC who, despite the apparant executive privilege granted from ownership, finds himself unwilling to risk making a move for a 1st round QB and instead contents himself to push the 'we're close' narrative while hovering around .500 for three/four years until he's inevitably fired and the process is repeated. And repeated.
That's certainly possible. But that doesn't have anything to do with Taylor. That just means the Bills picked the wrong head coach - again.
I really don't think that's too likely though. If everything we've seen in the past couple of months is largely McDermott's doing, he isn't going to be afraid to pull the trigger. In particular, it looks like they really want the trade down from 10, which means they were setting themselves up to take a QB if they need one or want one. If McDermott orchestrated that I doubt he gets cold feet when the time comes to go after a QB.
As for Taylor, objectively, if he has a good year (my measure would be passer rating above 94, they ought to keep him. If he's below 88, that'll be two mediocre seasons in a row and it's time to move on. In between, which certainly is possible, we'll see. If McDermott already has his heart said on a new guy, Taylor will be gone, or at least on the bench schooling the new guy. If McDermott is open minded, it'll depend on his view of why Tyrod wasn't good enough and whether it can be remedied.
-
Myself personally, Tyrod Taylor and Cam Newton have both chosen to use the run game as part of their arsenal when attacking the opposition.
So from an injury standpoint when it comes to league longevity the odds/lines are stacked against them in my humble opinion.
But all the running QBs who came before them didn't have career ending injuries. They slowed down and became less effective runners, but they didn't get knocked out of their careers. And Taylor was a lot smarter about taking chances last season. So I don't think injury is an unusually big risk.
-
No. Very unlikely because of new coach. It would be the coach's decision. Doubt he would marry himself to Tyrod without having a prove it year first.
I think you're right. They would have been looking for the extra year they got.
But once they decided to renegotiate, getting more cap room became an objective, for sure.
Like you said before, it is about guaranteed money because the players can count on that money going into their pockets. Ask former players - like Donald Jones on the John Murhpy show for example - he will say it is mostly about guaranteed money. They want money that teams can't back out of for any reason.
Your posts have been excellent in this thread. Very clear and well written. Hard to find fault with most of what you said. Good work sir!
Thanks.
But the analysis gets complicated because Taylor gave back guaranteed money. Who does that?
Some people say it's evidence that the Bills had him over a barrel. He was worried that he would get cut and no one else would pay him more than a couple million to be a backup.
I don't believe that for a minute. Most of the real experts - retired QBs turned commentators, were saying Taylor is a legitimate starter in the NFL. His numbers certainly back up that notion. Not great, but better than backups and better than at least a half dozen to a dozen 2016 starters. Someone would pay him if the Bills didn't want him (without even looking, the Bears, Texans and Jets would have been in the bidding. Probably the Broncos. But beyond that, McDermott would have wanted no part of going into his first season as a head coach with no quarterback. Where was he going to get anyone with productivity like Taylor?
Taylor was willing to give up some guaranteed money not because he was afraid he'd be cut and never get a good job again. He gave up guaranteed money so that he could be a free agent again. He said to the Bills "if you aren't willing to invest in me, I'm not willing to invest in you. You want help on the contract, you give me a way to get out. I can make my money someplace else."
-
I'll add some more speculation. How much of the contract renegotiation happened due to the Bills having little cap space. If the Bills had say 50 mil in cap space would they have just let the original deal stand?
I think the Bills wanted (1) to be able to see another year of Tyrod before committing long-term and (2) cap relief. They got what they wanted. They had to pay for it. They paid by giving Taylor the opportunity to force a new deal on the Bills after 2018. They didn't go into the negotiation intending to do that. It's something Taylor asked for. The Bills would rather have had the old deal with just an extra year to decide whether to cut him. Taylor would have been a fool to give them that.
As I've said all along, both sides got what they viewed were improvements over the old deal.
-
Way off the original topic, but since this has turned into a general Tyrod discussion, something else occurred to me.
In these discussions about the contract, some people often say a QB wants a long-term deal because you never know when you might get injured and no longer be able to play. I was thinking about that.
How many QBs (other than those near the end of their careers, like Romo) have their careers ended by injury? Not many, I think. We may be seeing it happen to Bridgewater. RG III had his career changed by injury, and maybe ended. That guy who got all the concussions who the Bills brought in to start ahead of Manuel.
The point is that although it's possible that a QB will have a career ending injury, just like any position player, it doesn't happen all that often. I think that's another reason why low-priced long-term deals aren't very attractive to players. They know that they're likely to be able to play out their careers. They have good reason to believe that they have plenty of pay days ahead of them.
-
I said you almost make it seem as if he got the deal he wanted. No misquoting here.
You can claim this deal is better than the old one...it possibly can be. It could also be a disaster if he suffers a major injury. And if he doesn't improve this season, he is likely relegated to being a backup and not seeing a whole lot of guaranteed money. This is why logic dictates you take the multi year deal with a good deal of guarantees over risking injury or short term deals with little guarantees if your play deteriorates.
I think we have reached agree to disagree status here, but I still appreciate your side of things.
I agree that we won't get anywhere, but you are misquoting yourself. You didn't say I almost make it seem as if. You said my friend was apparently absolutely certain Tyrod go the deal he wanted.
The point was that you're off base saying ANYTHING about the deal Tyrod wanted. The point is that he got a better deal than he had.
-
It is interesting the way you put that.....Shaw's guy happens to be a Buffalo Bills player.....there fore he should be a guy for ALL OF US....you know because he is a member of our team?
No. He's talking about my friend the agent when he says Shaw's guy.
But Crusher, you seriously misquote. I didn't say Tyrod got the deal he wanted. He wants $75 million guaranteed. What I said is that he liked the deal he got better than the deal he gave up. His new deal is better than the old deal because his upside is much better and isn't downside is relatively not so bad.
-
You guys miss the point of how these deals are negotiated.
The thing of most importance to the players is guaranteed money. If you don't have guaranteed money, nothing else matters much.
Job security is important to schleps like us. If you have guaranteed money, you don't care about job security. If you lose your job, you still have the money.
In 2016 Tyrod wasn't looking for a long-term contract. Players don't want long-term contracts. They want guaranteed money, and that's what Tyrod was looking for in 2016. He got it, but to get the guarantee he had to give the Bills a long-term deal.
Yes guys sign long-term deals, but they sign them for the money, not the long terms. All of the reported negotiations in sports always go the same way - the player wants a lot of money, guaranteed, and he wants it now. The team wants the long term. The negotiation is over how much money for how long. From the player's point of view, he wants the shortest deal possible with the most guaranteed money. If he has guaranteed money and short deal, he has the opportunity to negotiate another deal.
Once Taylor got guaranteed money in 2016, he was set for life. It wasn't a ton of money, but enough be set for life. The problem was, it was a long-term deal. He didn't have any way to make any more money in his prime. When the Bills came to him this year, he had his opportunity. He had one good payday in 2016, and Bills were offering him another nice payday for 2017 AND the possibility of negotiating a new deal in a year or two. Yes, he took less money than his old contract gave him, but he still had a lot of guaranteed money.
Job security means absolutely nothing to the players. Money is what matters. Taylor gave up some guaranteed money for the opportunity to make a lot more.
Meanwhile, virtually every other super star in the NFL in their prime has taken 6-7 year deals worth hundreds of millions.
The Bills weren't offering hundreds of millions. Yes, you sign long term deals when you're getting franchise player money. That's the only to get BIG guaranteed money.
Taylor wants BIG guaranteed money. The only way to get is to negotiate it for it when you're in your prime. The opportunity to do that is why he gave up small guaranteed money.
-
Listen, I understand everyone had a friend in X field that knows more than the average joe. Not trying to be a jerk, and I'm not saying you don't know someone. But from the draft, to FA, to hirings and firings, everyone on these boards seem to know someone, thus making the point so much more valid.
Just because you friend is so admit that Taylor got the better end of the deal, doesnt mean I change my stance that.
- Players in this league prefer security. Rookies typically play for their next contract. Very rare case the 28 year old marginal starter is setting him self up for that big pay day at 30. Franchise QBs are locked up for term, very rarely are they not. For every one QB betting on themselves there are 10 others taking the longevity.
-Especially coming off of a recent surgery. Also his style lends it self to injury, freak injury or not, the horse collar ended up sidelining him for two weeks two year ago, for example. Among other nagging injuries a running QB like him self will endure, and again not overly marketable when you are 30 and your best attitude is you legs.
-Also can't ignore the fact, Tyrod him self said his agent had informal meetings at combine. They clearly didn't like what they heard, seeing as how the restructure was done, with both sides admitting it was pretty rapid. Wasn't like both sides were working so hard towards making this work. Buffalo was not going to pick up his option at that price. Mock all you want, but they were kicking tires on othe QBs as contingency plans. Hence, the interest in Hoyer. Not to say Hoyer was the better option, but Buffalo was lining up a plan B if Tyrod didn't restructure.
I didn't say Tyrod got the better end of the deal. As my last post says, both sides got what they wanted.
What I'm saying is that he was forced to take a pay cut. He wasn't. He took the new deal because he liked it better than the old deal. Otherwise, he wouldn't have taken it.
One thing I think about Tyrod is that he has a chip on his shoulder. He has a lot of confidence in himself and he isn't going to tolerate people who don't have confidence in him. I think he was not afraid, at all, of being cut. He knew he'd get a job someplace else, a job starting, and he knew he'd make good money - $10 million a year or more. Teams would have been bidding for him.
So when the Bills came to him and said they wanted to renegotiate, he was perfectly happy to talk. But he wasn't going to leave the room with a deal that he liked less than the deal he already had. He likes his current deal more. And the reason is that he can become a free agent in two years. He isn't afraid of being unemployed.
Aren't we all? The people who think he took a team friendly deal, the people who believe Shaw's version, and the people who think he sucks and got what he could. It is all speculation. Hell you speculated in the very next sentence what happened!
"Shaw's guy" speculated too based on years of experience working on contracts. He could be wrong but it is no less likely than any other version of events. Everyone is just going to settle on the one they believed anyway since we will never know what the conversations at the combine were, what the conversations between the Bills and Tyrod were, what Tyrod's feelings about staying in Buffalo were, etc... Even what was printed is hard to trust since comments could have been simply posturing.
All true.
I will say that I trust my guy. I trust him because I've known him a very long time, and because he operated for a long time at the highest levels of the sports agent world. He represented some of the very biggest names in the sports world. He negotiated as many big-money deals as almost any agent you can name.
So when he tells me what he'd tell his client in situations like this, I listen. No one else has to listen, but I do.
-
I'd bet McCoach already has plans to move away from TT. Just an opinion. We'll agree to disagree.
I wouldn't take that bet.
My sense is that McD is a pretty strong minded guy, and I think either you're right or he thinks he can make something of Taylor. I have no idea at all which it might be. Certainly the trade out of #10 to get another first next year is consistent with the idea that he wants to get his own QB. Also Taylor's new contract is consistent with that idea. His view might have been "give me Taylor for 2017; he's better than anyone else I'll have, and that will give me a year to get settled into the job, get my bearings and get ready to make the team the way I really want it. If Taylor has a big year, I'll deal with it. If he doesn't, I'm getting the QB I want in 2018."
On the other hand, his view might be what I've been saying - he's not sure about Taylor and he wants flexibility. That is, he may be perfectly happy to have Taylor as his QB if Taylor produces the way McD wants.
We'll see.
In any case, I'm reasonably happy about where the Bills are right now.
-
Agreed that what the Bills did was smart and hedged their bets. Yeah, they shortened his deal. But they also made it infinitely easier for them to cut him after one year.
With the old deal (assuming they'd taken the option, of course) if they'd cut him after one year, they'd have had to pay a penalty of around $14 - $15 mill in dead money. And the alternative - keeping him on the roster through March 2018 - would have meant guaranteeing him about $24 mill more ($40 mill total guaranteed from the beginning of the contract if he was only on the roster in March 2018 ... minus his 2017 impact).
If they'd kept the old deal and picked up the option, to keep him or let him go would have cost the Bills a ton more than the new deal will. Either way the Bills save a ton and Tyrod makes a lot less.
In the new deal, Tyrod makes $14 mill less money if he's here for one year and $10 mill less money if he's here for two. And his guarantee, a number players fight like rabid dogs to increase, will also be a lot less.
I agree with all of that. But if Taylor has a good year in 2017, they're going to be writing Taylor a big check in 2018 to keep him from becoming a free agent.
I find the whole thing really interesting, because you can see the Bills changing the deal from year to year as they continually reevaluate their cap situation, their view of Taylor, and their need for flexibility. In the case of Watkins, as I said, I think they made a choice of what year they wanted to franchise him if that becomes necessary. In Taylor's case, because they weren't sure about him, they gave up a very favorable long-term deal to get some short-term cap relief and to get the opportunity to cut him at lower cost.
Taylor, on the other hand, gave up his future by signing a long-term deal, but captured guaranteed money. Then he agreed to reduce his guarantee to get back his freedom to negotiate for a better deal.
If Taylor plays well in 2017, it will cost the Bills $20-$30 million more over the next four seasons than if they'd just exercised the option under the old deal. If he plays poorly and the Bills cut him, the Bills will save $10-$20 million of cash and $10 million of cap space. Taylor, of course, isn't concerned about cap space; if he has a lousy 2017 and gets cut, all he'll think about is the $10-$20 million in cash he gave up. But as I've always said, he has a 5-7 year future in the league almost regardless of what happens in 2017, and he'll make $20 million or more over that period.
So I continue to think that the upside of the new deal was more valuable to Taylor than the downside, in terms of cash. As people have said, Taylor is willing to bet on himself. For the Bills, they're willing to live with the possibility that they might have to write a big check to keep Taylor; you deal with those kinds of problems as they come along. The Bills wanted the option to keep him for 2017 and reconsider him in a year. They got what they wanted, and Taylor got what he wanted.
-
This is interesting and actually does lend some credence to Shaw's argument that Taylor is "betting on himself."
But man, look at that list of QBs who are in the top 8...
Whoof...
I don't think either of those is the right list to look at. The right list (I don't know how to generate it by QB alone) is here: https://overthecap.com/contracts
Sort that list by average amount guaranteed per year. That's what really matters - if it isn't guaranteed, it's funny money. If you go down that list you'll see that Tyrod is in fact about the lowest average guaranteed money per year of any QB not on his rookie contract.
However, he is in the same ballpark with Wilson, Newton, Ryan, Roethlisberger and Manning. So although he's at the low end, he's in pretty good company.
Shaw, you're wrong about the effect that money will have on the likelihood of him getting cut.
The way it's structured will make it extremely easy to cut him. Very very easy.
Here are the two choices:
1) Cut him before March of 2018: He'll cost the team $8.6 mill in dead money against the cap
2) Keep him for 2018: He'll cost the team $18 mill against the cap, in salary, a major March roster bonus and the prorated portion of his signing bonus.
Cutting him would save them almost $10 mill on the cap. That's not a penalty for cutting him, it's a windfall.
And let's not pretend guys don't get cut for money-related reasons even when they beat out (or would beat out) the other QBs on the rosters in the NFL. It happens a lot. Not to the franchise guys, but to the guys farther down, who the team thinks won't allow them to be competitive for a title. And that's Tyrod. Osweiler's a good example, the best QB on that roster but not good enough to make that team competitive, so he's gone before they have any idea what they might get in the draft.
We don't know whether or not it's likely. Too much is up in the air in terms of what QBs will be available in the draft when we pick, how much Peterman and Cardale will develop and whether or not Tyrod does as well as they hope in the new system, as well as whether the team and the offense are competitive next year with Tyrod.
Unless things fall well for him, it could easily make great sense to cut him. The money is a reason to cut him, not to keep him. They could easily keep him for two but it would be just as easy to cut him.
Thanks. You're right about the numbers.
That DOES make it a little more likely that he'll be cut. I still think it's quite likely they keep him, for the reason I gave. If they cut him, it's because they have someone who looks like a top notch starter ahead of him. There are only two real candidates for that job: Peterman and a 2018 first round rookie. If you're going to start you 2018 first round rookie, you're almost certainly going to want a veteran backup, which means you're writing a $5 million check to get him. You're not going to go with the rookie and Peterman as a backup. I mean, it's certainly possible, but not likely.
If you're going with Peterman as the starter, unless he started for most of 2017, you don't know what you have with him, either, so again you'll want a veteran backup.
Still, you're right. It's more likely that the Bills will cut him than I said.
-
Very possible Tyrod would have made out on the open market, yet his agent who met it teams at the combine didnt like we heard. The meeting were informal, but still, Tyrod went from not willing to restructure to all of a sudden being willing?
Furthermore, there was rumours we were looking heavily into Hoyer if Tyrod didn't restructure.
Again, a lot of hearsay and speculation, but can't discount the fact this deal is better for Buffalo than fot Taylor.
Buffalo is showing an utter lack of faith, and Tyrod apparently didn't like what he heard the market would be... so taking a deal with little insurance on his end... sure he could be a FA sooner, but injuries among other things can happen.
Dave's right.
I don't know if Tyrod was ever unwilling to restructure, but if he was unwilling to restructure, do you really think he came to the table because the Bills were threatening to sign Brian Hoyer? Are you kidding? Cleveland needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Houston needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Chicago needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Three teams desperate for QBs, three teams had him on the roster and actually let him START, and all three teams let him walk away. Taylor is clearly and unequivocally better than Hoyer, everyone knows that, and Taylor knows that. Don't suggest that Taylor was quaking in his boots that he get cut to make room for Brian Hoyer.
The Bills were asking to renegotiate, not Taylor. The side that asks to renegotiate wants something, so that's the team that had to give up something to get what they wanted.
I'll say it again. I know a guy who knows 100 times more about this than you or I, and he told unequivocally that Taylor got what he wanted out of this deal. This was a good deal for Taylor, better than the deal he had last year. Unequivocally.
It's very simple. Follow the option. Who had the option to make Taylor a free agent. Taylor had it in 2016. The Bills didn't like that, so they wrote Taylor a contract with a nice guarantee to get the option back. The Bills paid for the option. Then in 2017 they didn't want to decide; they wanted the option to be extended for a year. The Bills paid to extend the option for a year. What did they pay? They gave Taylor the option too. They gave Taylor his freedom.
This is not a rebuild, folks...
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I read a bit of this thread.
I think it's a building year, not a rebuilding year. For rebuilding to make sense as a word, it has to mean taking apart and reconstructing. That isn't what's happening with the Bills. The Bills are in a normal building, ideally continuous improvement, process.
It was generally agreed last season that the Bills had one of the better rosters in the conference, and they still do. They're way ahead of the game simply because they have Watkins and McCoy. They have a serviceable quarterback. They have some good offensive linemen. They have Dareus and Hughes plus two quality rookies, essentially, in Ragland and Lawson. They have what should be a good pair of corners. They have veteran safeties. This isn't a rebuilding situation.
This is all about continuing to get better. Maybe Watkins leaves, maybe he doesn't, maybe Taylor leaves, maybe he doesn't. They're important parts of the team, but they are by no means all of it.
What this year is about is whether McDermott is the right guy, and if he is, how quickly he can get the team headed in the right direction. It might take a season. It might take six games. It might take less.