Shaw66
-
Posts
9,084 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
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.
-
And yet, the alternative to taking the new deal was be cut...
I mean he's clearly betting on him self, because Buffalo can walk away just as easy if not easier with the new deal.
He wasn't going to get cut. There was no way the Bills were cutting him. The Bills had NO quarterback for 2017, and as we've now seen, they didn't want to draft one this year. You think McDermott wanted to coach his rookie year as HC with NO quarterback? No way.
What the Bills did was a much smarter way to hedge their bets on Taylor. They get to see Taylor for a year or two more AND they set themselves up to take a QB next season if they believe they need one.
They did the same thing with Taylor that they did with Watkins - they shortened his deal. And as I think about it, that's why they didn't extend Watkins. If they extended him, Watkins and Taylor would have become free agents the same year, and the Bills could franchise only one of them. The way they did it, they can franchise Watkins next year and, if Taylor really comes of age, they can franchise him the following year.
But in any case, Taylor wasn't afraid of being cut. On his two-year body of work, he would have ended up being the starter somewhere - Chicago, Houston, Denver, the Jets. He would have been the best option, by far, available to several teams. He'd have gotten $20-$30 million guaranteed somewhere, because there would have been a bidding war.
-
Shaw, you keep saying it's $30 million guaranteed, but (having not looked at the contract in awhile) from what I recall, it's not actually $30 million guaranteed because the Bills have the ability to cut him at the end of this year.
Granted, there's a good deal of dead money involved, but Taylor is not guaranteed $30 million.
I could be wrong, but if I'm not, this seems a central premise of your argument and I just want to make sure you (and your agent friend) have the facts straight.
You're correct.
However, with the dead cap money, it's almost a certainty that the Bills will keep Taylor for the next two years. The only way the Bills would cut Taylor before the 2018 season would be if they found a great starter AND a better backup than Taylor this year. There's a good chance that Taylor will be the best player to start in 2018, and it's a virtual certainty that he'll be the best possible backup.
If someone beats out Taylor this year, it means he's better than Taylor, and it also means the Bills must be pretty good. If theyre good, then going into 2018, they'll want a good backup. It'll cost them at least a few million to get a good backup. The better move would be to keep Taylor - he'll have experience in the system, he'll be better than any backup they can get, and he won't cost that much more money for one year.
So I think it's extremely unlikely that Taylor won't be on the team in 2018. Possible, but not likely.
Plus, Taylor doesn't care. If he gets cut early in 2018, it will be because Peterman became a star, and that won't hurt Taylor's marketability. Look at Romo. If Romo were five years younger and not such a health unknown, he wouldn't be viewed as damaged goods. Taylor wouldn't be, either. He wouldn't be viewed as a star like Romo, but he'd be viewed as a good starter who came available.
-
I don't dispute your numbers. My issue is with the central thesis of your argument; namely, that a marginal running QB would consider a short-term deal with less guaranteed money a 'no-brainer'. It's the polar opposite of what modern NFL players seek in contract negotiations.
No. That's where you're wrong. Players in their prime don't want long-term deals unless they are for the most money they can get.
That's why guys like Zach Brown come into Buffalo and ask for one-year deals. The Bills wanted him for a longer-term, but they weren't offering enough money to make it worthwhile. Players AGREE to long-term deals; they don't ask for them. They ASK for guaranteed money.
That's what the negotiations are about - long-term vs. guaranteed money. When a player is worth franchise-tag money, he takes a long-term deal; otherwise, he wants short-term.
In 2015 Taylor signed a contract that paid him peanuts and allowed him to be a free agent in two years.
In 2016 he signed a contract that guaranteed him something close to $50 million and tied him up through 2021.
In 2017 he signed a contract that gave back $10 million of the guarantee and allows him to be a free agent after 2018.
He got a better deal each year. If he could have gotten the 2017 deal in 2016 he would have taken it in a heartbeat.
As you say, he's a running quarterback. He may have a shorter period of peak years. He would have passed his peak as a runner by 2022. He will still be in his prime as a runner in 2018.
Unless of course he believes he is more than a marginal running QB.
He took the guaranteed money deal when he had yet to become financially established. He made more last year than he had in his career combined. Once he has that nest egg he gambled on himself. I'm not saying it is the definitive answer but it certainly makes sense if viewed that way. We just saw Alshon Jeffery and Terell Pryor take one year prove it deals to hopefully cash in next year. It has been confirmed Pryor turned down more money to do so. It doesn't always happen but it does happen.
When you think about it, it's obvious. If a team isn't offering franchise money, short-term deals are better.
Then why did Tyrod sign the 2016 deal? Because the Bills weren't offering a short-term deal, but they WERE offering attractive guaranteed money.
-
No, it isn't. You may be trying to justify a particular set of circumstances, but realize that your argument revolves around the idea that a short-term deal for less guaranteed money was the better option for a 27 year old running QB.
It's totally not a no brainer.
Of course it is. He gave up a $40 million guarantee and got a $30 million guarantee. He gave back $10 million.
So play it out. Let's say Taylor never has another season like 2015. If so, the Bills cut him as soon as they can, he gets his $40 million guaranteed and nothing more under his old deal. Under his new deal he gets $30 million. He immediately gets a job somewhere as a backup for $5 million, or as a starter for $10 million. Lots of guys bounce around the league like that. So let's say that he earns $5 million a year for 5 years. That's $25 million. If he kept his old deal, he'd be stuck on the Bills for an extra year as a backup (if he's creating dead cap, the Bills will keep him as a backup instead of cutting him and having to sign another QB). Then he'll have 4 years left at $5 million. So that's $30 million (the $10 guaranteed from the Bills and $20 million over four years. So Taylor gave up something like $5 million to renegotiate, assuming he never establishes himself as a starter.
Now assume he DOES establish himself as a starter. If he does, he'll make $5 to $10 million a year more with his new deal.
The downside of giving back the $10 million isn't nearly as big as the upside of being a free agent after 2018.
Listen to the analysts. They pretty much ALL say that Taylor is a serviceable starter. They pretty much all say he isn't a star. If he's a serviceable starter, he's going to make decent money until he's 35, and he's certainly going to make backup money until then.
I've watched every throw Tyrod has made as a Bill live and on All-22 outside of the emotion of the live game. I'd like to think I notice patterns and whatnot, I see repeated plays and have a feel for the progressions of a few concepts. Ultimately, as you said, we'll never quite know because, for even the most educated onlookers, it's best guess stuff.
It frustrates me endlessly because I'm a little obsessed with knowledge. I'd really like to be sure that I know what I think I know.
I'm sort of like that. That's why I called my friend the agent. I thought I'd figured out why Tyrod signed his new deal, but I wasn't sure. My friend is an expert. He confirmed it. Being a free agent is incredibly valuable.
I really want to know what the coaches think about a lot of these things. The question I really wanted to ask a few years ago was when Tuel threw that interception (was it Tuel?) on the goal line while Stevie was wide open in the end zone. 100-yard pick six turned a win into a loss. I'm sure that happened because Stevie didn't do his job, but no one would ever say it. Coaches aren't going to dump on their players like that.
-
It's a complete no brainer which is why every superstar in the NFL is on a two or one year deal. Holy smokes people.
When you get BIG money, you take the long-term deal.
You want a good example. Look at Russell Wilson on his rookie deal. That's EXACTLY what every team wants and every play doesn't - an under-priced long-term contract. If you're a player, once you sign the long-term deal, that's it. You're stuck with it. Why'd Taylor sign his? Because he hadn't made any money yet, and $40 or $50 million guaranteed was $40 or $50 million more than he'd ever seen his life. He was willing to give up his freedom to get that relatively big deal.
A year later the Bills came back to him and said to him "we need to change the deal. We need another year to look at you." Taylor said "it'll cost you. If you want another year, I want my freedom back." Eventually the Bills said "we'll give you your freedom back, but we won't guarantee you as much money."
It IS a no brainer.
I wish there was data for throws that you don't make.
You're absolutely right. That data exists, but the only people who have it are the coaches. The Bills coaches know the answer to the questions debated here all the time: Does Taylor miss reads and therefore miss open receivers? Does Taylor release the ball late? Does Taylor hold the ball too long? Does he do any of things more than QBs on other teams do? Do we care?
All questions the coaches can answer and we cannot.
-
Then we franchise tag him, which is only about $2 million more than his option would have been. The difference is that we don't have to decide on the franchise tag until after this season.
Really, that's all?
Now I understand why they did it.
Bills knew they would have to make a decision on Sammy, one way or the other, sooner or later. They decided they could risk the $2 million to be free to cut ties early if they want to.
-
And lastly...I can't agree on the contract comments. I suppose one could look at it the way you have and see it as a win. I think most would see it as a huge gamble and a not very smart decision if both contracts were on the table. Injuries and uncertainty is far to commonplace in the NFL. If you have security and guaranteed money for years to come, you generally take it. A few guys gamble every now and then, but I haven't seen it pay off very much. I can't imagine many agents advise this approach either. Also, for Tyrod to be able to believe he's going to improve and do better on the market when he has only shown to regress, while also having to deal with injuries and a new coaching staff is a real stretch IMO.
Maybe I'll respond to your other comments later. For now, just about the contract.
I posted here or in another thread about the contract. I have a friend who used to be a sports agent. He represented some of the very biggest names in sports. Negotiating deals is his business.
I asked him about the Tyrod contract scenarios, and he confirmed that an agent absolutely would have told Tyrod to take the deal he has over the one he had. Absolutely. He said if you're in your prime, your freedom, your ability to negotiate another contract is worth a lot. He said it was a no brainer for Taylor to give up $10 million of guaranteed money in exchange for the right to become a free agent again in 2018. Absolutely no question in his mind.
Two years in a row, the Bills have come to Taylor asking for contract help. The first time was because he was going to become a free agent after 2016, and the Bills didn't want to be in a bidding war for him. Taylor said okay, but I need real guaranteed money. They negotiated and came up with the deal they came up with. Taylor wanted guaranteed money; the Bills wanted to tie him up but still have an out after 2016.
The second time, because Taylor's year wasn't great, the Bills came to him and said "we're not sure, we not another year to see how you develop. Plus, we need some cap help." Taylor said "I'll give you another year to decide if you want me, and I'll give you cap help, but I don't want to be tied up for six years." They negotiated and came up with the new deal.
Bottom line is that Taylor was not worried, at all, that the Bills would cut him. He knew he'd get another deal somewhere, and he also knew the Bills weren't likely to find a comparable QB any place else.
-
The problem here is that you're misguided about his production.
Even in 2015, his production was not high. It was better, but not to the level you seem to place Taylor at.
You are placing a premium on passer rating, a stat that is easily manipulated by a system that emphasizes low risk, high percentage throws. You were already exposed by GoBills808, who gave you the facts that you then pretty much blew off because you didn't fully understand them in regards to passed rating.
You can say and believe what you'd like. What you see from Taylor on the field isn't anywhere close to what you and a few others seem to believe he's at when talking about where he ranks in certain categories. It also appears that the Bills also do not agree since they took money and his job security away from him. He's going to have to learn to master the basics that he hasn't been able to for now six years going into seven in the pro's to be the guy beyond this season. The likelihood of that happening doesn't seem to be really high if you look at the guys who have suddenly figured it out after being in the league that long.
I'm happy to chat with you about this because you're pretty rational about it.
You're absolutely right about his production. In 2015, he didn't have enough yards, or enough TDs. The question about Taylor is whether he's capable of leading a team in a way, and producing at a level, that can get his team into the playoffs. You answer that question by looking at him and saying "I don't see it," which is one way to look at it. I understand that, but I look at his stats and say "well, if he threw more, he'd have the yards and TDs, and his running accounts for some, but not all, of his low numbers in passing production. His passing and running was good enough to have a top 10 offense in 2016, and it was the defense that kept them out of the playoffs." That argument can go around and around for a long time, as it has here and everyplace Bills fans get together.
However, until Taylor throws 30 passes a game instead of 25, we won't know. What we do know is that if all of his numbers increased proportionally throwing 30 passes a game, we know we had a QB.
I think we just have to wait and see.
As you may know, I think coaching has the most to do with winning, and I think QB play is second. I think nothing else comes close to those two. One reason I want to wait and see on Taylor is that the Bills had a lousy head coach for the past two seasons. He affected the play of a lot of players negatively, except the ILBs and a few others. Pretty much NO ONE on the team produced except the two Browns and Alexander. We're all anxious to see what a new coach will do for production generally, and I'm interested to see what happens to Taylor particularly. McDermott has spent several years watching Cam Newton. McD has ideas, I'm sure, about how to maximize Taylor's skills. And I believe Taylor is more coachable than Newton. Taylor's ego doesn't get in the way.
For me, it's simple: will the 2017 Taylor put up numbers like the 2015 Taylor or the 2016 Taylor? Will he throw more (those 12 and 15 attempt games are not the way to win)? You can say you've watched him and you know he can't do it, but that doesn't cut it with me. If Bill Parcels and Tony Dungy say it, I'll listen.
And, by the way, GoBIlls is just wrong about the passer rating. All of the best QBs have the highest passer ratings, and none of the lousy QBs have consistently high passer ratings. It's been that way for more than 20 years. The consistency of those numbers validates the passer rating as a good measure of good QB play. Like any average, It isn't reliable on a per-game basis, but decades of season stats show that it's reasonably reliable on a per-season basis and it's excellent on a career-basis. The fact that it may overweight some numbers doesn't invalidate it. How do I know? Because if it did, you'd find some bad quarterbacks regularly getting higher passer ratings than their play would seem to justify. There are none of those QBs. What you get is some guys having a season with a great passer rating but not being able to duplicate it. In fact, Taylor may be one of those. McCown had one of those seasons. Foles had one. But NO qb with three seasons of stats has a high passer rating who is not recognized as a very good QB.
Finally, in case you haven't read things I've written on the subject, you're completely wrong when you say the Bills took Taylor's job security away. Completely and totally wrong. When the Bills said to Taylor they wanted another season to watch him before they decided not to cut him in March, TAYLOR said "okay, if you want to do that let me out of my 6-year commitment." Teams WANT long-term deals because they don't want their players becoming free agents. Players WANT short-term deals because the short-term deals let them test the market over and over again. Players agree to long term deals only if the money is really good.
Taylor didn't care about job security. When you're making $100,000 a year working at an insurance company, you worry about job security. But when you made $7 million last year and your team is saying "we will pay you $30 million for the next two years," you don't care about job security. Once you have earned $35 million (which means you will have $10 million or more in the bank), you don't worry about job security. Ten million in the bank means you have $300,000 a year for life, before you earn another nickel At that point you worry about how soon you can negotiate for a new contract.
Taylor's old deal was slavery; with his new deal, Taylor bought his freedom. He gave up $10 million guaranteed (which he almost certainly will earn somewhere in the NFL if he doesn't stay with the Bills) so that he wouldn't be stuck with a $15 million contract for the last three years. Think about it - Taylor didn't have any job security in the back end of his contract. If Taylor turns out to be horrible, he would have been cut by the end of 2018, anyway - no job security. Presumably then he'd be out of the league. So what did he lose? $10 million, which is a lot to you me but not so much if you already have $10 million in the bank.
But if Taylor turns out to be good, under his old contract he's stuck with the Bills for three more years at $15 million a year. Under his new contract, in 2017 or 2018 he's negotiating a contract for five or six years that will pay him $20+ million a year and will guarantee $50 million or more. His downside was $10 million. His upside is $20 or $30 million. It was an easy decision for Taylor.
-
All Shaw's saying is it's too early to dismiss Tyrod, not that he's a top 10 all time passer. Except for the top 5 or so QBs, most guys see their passer ratings rise and fall with each passing season. It's rarely a linear line straight up. The top guys are so good because they ALWAYS have passer ratings at the top. It's hard to imagine a scenario where someone has 8 or so seasons of great passer ratings without also being a great passer. If Tyrod continues his passer rating trend for a long time he will be considered a good QB. He had a down year last year, true, but it's not indicative of any pattern yet. You seem to think it's crazy that he could ever have a playoff run like Eli Manning or Joe Flacco or a sudden career resurgence like Carson Palmer or Matt Ryan. You just never know what each season will look like for guys at that level. It's not common for long-term starters to have their best season in their 2nd year. All I've said all along is to give Tyrod another year and see which way he falls.
Yup.
It isn't decision time now. After the 2017 season is decision time for Tyrod, because that's when the Bills will have to decide if they're using their first-round picks to go after a QB.
And what I'll say what I've been saying since 2015: If Tyrod plays the essentially the whole season and has a passer rating in the 93-94-95 range or better, he's your guy. Think about it. If he has a passer rating of 95 in 2017, his career passer rating will be in the top 10, ALL-TIME. Even if someone wants to adjust the calculation of the passer rating to give more or less weight to certain numbers, a guy in the top ten all-time on the old system will be in the top 20 under the new system. Are you really going to cut a guy who's in his prime and is a top-20 passer? It's ludicrous.
-
RE: the bolded-in this instance, your number for Taylor's 'multiple seasons' is two, which in comparison to the other leading passer rating QBs is 10+. That's inconsequential enough to be called useless for comparison's sake, and disingenuous in that this season (a full 50% of his total years you're using) his rating was below average. The sample size is too small to draw the kind of conclusions you've done here, and that's without accounting for the two arguments I've put forth that have yet to be addressed: 1) that passer rating itself puts too much emphasis on completions which benefits 'safe' passing schemes and benefits marginal QBs who play in such offenses and 2) there exist better QB 'quality' statistics (admittedly, this is my personal opinion) that rank Taylor far lower than where you've placed him.
I guess a better conversation would rank the relative merits of the myriad stats that attempt to quantify QB performance. We all have our own favorite it seems, but at least I'm trying to explain my rationale...simply saying 'passer rating is the stat most likely to indicate whether a QB is good or not' doesn't satisfy me.
You need to go back read my posts. You're responding to things I've never said.
I didn't say two seasons was enough. I did say it's interesting that if he had enough attempts his two seasons would put him in the top ten career passer rating list. But I've never said two seasons is enough. I think above I said 3-4-5 seasons is what you need.
You say I've drawn conclusions, and I haven't.
I'm not sure you've said what you think the better quality statistic is.
-
So you're ignoring an example of how passer rating is flawed. Fine.
I've just illustrated how single season passer ratings aren't representative of QB quality, as there's a mediocre one every year. Taylor was that mediocre QB with a good passer rating in 2015, he slid to 18th this past season which is frankly a bit higher than I have him personally (owing to our QB rating-friendly system)...the fact that you're trying to conflate his last two years' passer rating (with his extremely low # of attempts, which should be weighted against him) with guys who have 10+ seasons worth of accumulated data is tenuous at best.
And I'm sorry...10 out of 10 and 21 out of 25 is not 'excellent correlation'. It's simply correlation. And that's not causation. And a statistician would say that a 16% margin of error is enough to throw your findings into an entirely different light. And this is why I rarely take the time to debate these kinds of things anymore...people like yourself who admittedly don't know enough about what they're talking about, yet are comfortable making pronouncements like you're trying to do here.
That just isn't right. The correlation IS excellent. Not for games, but for seasons and certainly for careers. 8 or 9 out of 10, season after season, is excellent. (And, by the way, if you look at the lists you'll see that usually numbers 11, 12, and 13 are guys who are IN the top 10 most seasons.
You're right, correlation isn't causation. But you can't find any stat that correlates nearly as well on QB performance, so, just like batting averages, when you see a guy with a good passer rating over 4-5-6 seasons, he's almost certainly a good QB. In other words, you can have a good passer rating for a game and not be a good QB, but you can't have a good passer rating for multiple seasons without being a good QB.
The whole point of the discussion here is whether these mini-stats that Fahey has created really mean anything in terms of a QB's quality. The answer is no. Passer rating is the stat most likely to indicate whether a QB is good or not.
QB comparative data for Tyrod from Cian Fahey to discuss
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
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.