mannc
-
Posts
18,549 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by mannc
-
-
You and I are riding different horses on the carousel so neither one is going to catch up to the other. Our differences are irreconcilable because our evaluations are the qb are different. My position is that being an adequate qb is not good enough to get you anywhere meaningful. You see more than I do; I have seen enough. We just respectfully disagree.
Kirby can speak for himself, but I don't think he was expressing his own opinion about Tyrod's ability. He was just arguing from the available evidence that the Bills don't necessarily view Tryod as strictly a bridge QB, and I think the fact that they did not draft Watson or Mahomes this year lends strong support to that view.
-
Your response makes no sense at all. If what you are saying is accurate then why did TT agree to a modified deal? TT and his reps knew that there wasn't a better deal for him on the market. Because if there were offers (under the table) he would have simply walked away to a better offer and situation.
The facts are that the Bills didn't release him because he adjusted[/b[ his contract. If he would have insisted on keeping his original deal then odds are that McDermott would have also allowed him to walk. What is well known now is that once McDermott was hired he was running the show. And it is probable that he was not going to keep him under the original terms because the lower deal was worked out when McDermott was de facto the boss.
John, you have no idea whether what you are espousing as established fact (that Tyrod would have been dropped if he did not restructure) is true. And then you attempt to back it up with speculation about what teams might have illegally offered "under the table" for Tyrod's services. You then throw in some circular reasoning: McDermott would not have kept Tyrod under his original deal because he negotiated a lower one. Come on, you're better than that.
There were many potential reasons Tyrod would have agreed to restructure, many of which Hokie has already covered in this thread. But one of the potential reasons is that Tyrod and his agent believed that the Bills might not pick up the option if he refused to restructure, and they chose to take what the Bills were offering, for many different reasons. It's called a negotiation, and neither side really knows what the other side is going to do.
-
I'm mostly in agreement. I'm willing to wait and see.You have avoided the simple question that Shaw66 has put to you: What recent front office and coaching hire has bothered you so much that you are out of hand rejecting it as a bad transaction? What recent player transaction has bothered you so much that you have already rejected it as being bad?
None of the people responding to your post has denied you the right to be skeptical. But when asked by Shaw66 and others what specific decision/s do you find so offensive that you out of hand reject it you vaguely respond about the history contaminating the present. That is a very thin response. There is nothing wrong with you being skeptical because I am to a lesser degree wary of the immediate empowering of the wrestling coach over the football operation. But even on that issue I am a little less troubled because the staff assembled in the front office seem to be high quality.
In my view this team is a few years away from being a serious team. So you are going to have plenty of time and opportunities to express your displeasure as to what is unfolding. However, it seems to me that the ground work that is being laid down in the beginning stage of this takeover is being down properly and smartly. Only time will tell.
For those who were/are opposed to the McDermott hire, who would you have gone with instead?
-
That most certainly was not a fact. That might have been the Bills' negotiating stance, but IMO it is unlikely they would have released him, especially after McDermott was hired. You're statement that Tyrod would have been released is nothing more than your uninformed speculation.If Tryod was not willing to modify his contract he was going to be released. That was a fact.
Exactly right. They want to see what Tyrod does this year, with another season under his belt, a new system, and (hopefully) some healthy WRs.Someone made an important distinction between a "bridge" deal and a "prove-it" deal. Hoyer is a bridge QB. McCown is a bridge QB. Glennon (now) is a bridge QB (but wasn't at the time of signing). Bridge QBs are guys that you are certain to move on from. Often you have the successor in the building already.
Tyrod is on a prove-it deal to me. It's a totally new staff and scheme. They had an opportunity to add his successor this year and they punted. The kicked that can down the road, electing to evaluate him instead. They've insured against a bad season with the extra 1st rounder. I would suspect that the plan is to use it on a QB but certainly wouldn't guarantee it. The actions that they've taken show us that they want to evaluate.
-
Tyrod was never a free agent, so your question is just silly, even when you ask it twice.Name a team that was interested in Taylor and made an effort to acquire him? Taylor took a pay cut cut in salary and had the terms of his contract altered so he could remain with the Bills. Again, name a team that showed an interest in him and took any measure to get him when he was available?
-
As to your first paragraph, I agree that the trade has worked out pretty well for KC, but Buffalo acquired TT without giving up a single draft pick and at a much lower cap hit. Your preference for Smith over Taylor is certainly not supported by their comparative stats for the past two years; Smith has enjoyed a far better defense, as well as vastly superior coaching. Taylor is seven years younger than smith and has started only 29 games. I'll take Tyrod at this point, and it's not close.I would take Alex Smith over Tyrod under any circumstances. The deal for Smith worked out well for KC. They are a playoff team with him taking the snaps. And compared to TT he uses whole field. The criticism of him that he too often throws the underneath stuff because he is overly cautions is warranted. But without question the trade that KC made for him has worked out well for them.
Tyrod could have put himself on the market if he wanted to but didn't because there wasn't much interest in him. He ended up taking a pay cut and the term of his contract was shortened so the team could be in a better position to walk away from him if it decided to.
Your second paragraph is nothing but speculation that has already been thoroughly discussed.
-
And the all-important "eye test".Yeah... darn fancy stats... only thing that matters for QBs are Wins and Losses!!!
-
They are similar. Tyrod, though, is much younger and has only started 29 games in the NFL. Smith's ceiling is pretty well established by now.They're the same type of player. They both work to minimize turnovers to let the defense, running game and ST's win games, but in the process leave lots of yardage on the field. It's also the reason both teams are looking to replace them.
-
Would you have preferred the Bills to have traded two second round picks for Tyrod, like KC did for Smith? They have put up very similar numbers...You don't have to draft a qb to have a good qb. You can also trade for one like they did with Montana and Smith. It doesn't matter how you get a franchise qb as long as you do get one. If you can't get an elite qb through the draft or through trades and free agency that doesn't mean that you can't get a good enough qb to allow you to be competitive, as KC is on a long term basis.
-
I completely agree. See my reply to Gunner, above.I would argue that yards per attempt is the most critical. It is the most all encompassing. You may average 15 yards per completion but if you are 1 of 5 that isn't good. How many yards can we expect on each passing attempt is a pretty good indicator. It speaks to the QB, the pass catcher and the design of the offense. I could care less if those yards are after a catch or in the air.
I'm confused. Are you talking about yards AFTER catch?Yard per catch per reception emphasizes the receiver. Yards per catch per pass emphasizes the QB. It's the same thing.
-
i've not heard that term before. Doesn't make much sense.Yards per Catch per pass is the same thing.
-
I tend to agree with you. I think YPA is the single most meaningful stat, and I don't really care how far the ball travels in the air. Yards are yards.To add to my earlier post I am not saying take credit off Tyrod for his deep balls. I am saying I don't agree with the methodology because devaluing perfectly thrown balls because they are not thrown far is nonsensical to me.
-
I assume you meant to say Yards After Catch per Reception. Otherwise, your post is blatant misinformation.New England and Atlanta had the highest Yards Per Catch per pass in the league and met in the Superbowl. Tyrod was bottom 2 in the NFL.
-
I'm sorry, but that is a bizarre argument.If you call that evidence, I suggest you are very gullible.
That guy's analysis is completely flawed as it does not account for the fact that many teams do not try to exploit the other team's mistakes - for example - not every coach tries to throw for a touchdown immediately following an interception. And even the coaches who do it some times, don't necessarily do it every time. And some coaches almost never do it (ex: most - if not all? - of the Bills coaches over the last 15 years). You can't measure it accurately if you don't account for that. And that guy didn't account for that at all. He even admitted that he neglected to account for some momentum changing situations. In other words his math is complete and total bunk. It is entirely useless.
Did you even read the article? It is evidence and it's hardly useless. The fact that not all factors are accounted for doesn't make it "bunk". (The author links to other studies that come to the same conclusion.)
What is "bunk" is your totally unproven notion that "trying to throw for a touchdown immediately after an interception" somehow maximizes or improves a team's outcome.
How about this: Can you explain how this concept of "momentum" should affect a coach's decision whether to kick or go for a touchdown on 4th and goal from the 2? Or whether to punt on 4th and 4 from the opponent's 45 yard line? If not, then I submit that momentum is entirely meaningless, even if it is a real thing.
-
You could not be more wrong. http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2013/11/momentum-1.html?m=1I liked your posts until you crapped on "momentum". It is real. Anyone who doesn't think so probably never played competitive sports. The word "momentum" can be substituted for "mental mindset" or "confidence" and yes it absolutely matters.
Momentum is the reason why an offense can step on the gas and score a touchdown quickly after the other team makes a mistake. (at least the good teams who exploit it - a.k.a - the Patriots) It really does exist. If a coach doesn't believe in it and doesn't exploit it, then he is leaving plays on the field that likely could have been made. It is one of the finer things about sports that can help separate winners from wannabe's.
-
I think this is true, but I see some evidence that, with McDermott, it is more than empty rhetoric. As MAJ Bobby pointed out, the Bills' top three draft picks this year were all extremely highly rated by PFF and other analytics-focused sources.I think the way the question was asked to McDermott, any NFL coach would say, "Yes, I like to be aggressive." The word aggressive is the opposite of passive and NFL coaches aren't going to say they are passive as it doesn't sound manly. Remember Gregg Williams and making them defend every inch of the field?!
We won't know for sure until the real games start.
-
I hate to burst your bubble, but the "momentum" argument, as a reason to ignore statistical evidence, has been pretty thoroughly disproven. It is utter nonsense.'Game situation' is very important, but also it's about, imho, which team has 'momentum', and how much that will change, depending on the success, or not, of 'going for it'.
-
Sorry, I meant to say I am a little more optimistic than you are that it will be scenario number 2.I am very confident it will be the first scenario. I'd put the chances of A at 75% and then split the difference between B and C.
-
I am hoping for competent game management, as well. That alone could result in two more wins. A reluctance to punt (or kick FGs) on 4th and short would be a bonus...Absolutely.
The dumb penaltys and confusion are sure to be gone.... Some mental toughness should be evident as well.
-
I think that pretty well covers it, but I'm a little more optimistic than you are that we will be closer to scenario 1 than to the other two.I suppose I'd ask what plays well means John. I see 3 possible scenarios:
A - The most likely - Tyrod is pretty much the Quarterback we have seen so far and plays reasonably well as we end around .500. In my mind in that scenario the Bills keep Tyrod for the 2nd year of his contract even at the higher salary and draft a Quarterback in round 1. Tyrod starts 2018 as the starter and probably reliquinshes to the rookie at some point and is a FA in 2019.
B - Tyrod hits it out of the park in 2017, throws for more yards, more touchdowns, a few more picks but wins the Bills games frequently. In that scenario I think the Bills try and extend him and don't take a Quarterback in round 1 and whether they take one in rounds 2 and 3 depends on how much they like Peterman.
C - Tyrod regresses in the new offense when the run game doesn't click and he is forced to try and win more games in his arm. In that scenario I think the Bills bench him wih 5 or 6 games left cut ties at the end of 2017 swallow the cap hit and draft a Quarterback in round 1 who competes with Peterman to start in 2018.
-
I don't completely agree with what you say, but I do agree that it's a reasonable way to look at it. I doubt that's how the Bills are looking at him.
It's only another opinion, but Peter King said on the John Murphy show that he expects the Bills are using this season to decide whether Taylor is the long-term answer. That's what I think is happening.
Agreed. As I have said before, Taylor's is not a "bridge QB" contract, but rather, a "prove it" deal. Given his performance the past two years, this is an entirely reasonable approach. Taylor has performed far better, for example, than Blake Bortles, who apparently is being given a fourth year to prove himself in Jacksonville.
Also, contrary to what JohnC and some others have said, the Bills have not been ignoring the QB position. As I recall, they have drafted a QB in each of the last two drafts. History shows that using a first round pick (or two) is far from the only way to find a long-term answer at QB.
-
I'm sure in his four years as a starter at LSU, White never went up against NFL-caliber athletes.hahaha! such a blind rage comment from you...they call it ROOKIE CAMP for something, who do you want them to be matched up with?...hahaha!
-
The poster didn't present his side very well but his stance on this issue has some merit.
Should a team draft first round defensive backs? Certainly, just as soon as said team has a very good quarterback, a deep, solid OL, and top pass rushing defensive ends, and only then if they feel that a particular db is the bpa.
Are you telling me that you cannot see that draft picks such as Whitner, Gilmore and McKelvin have seriously injured this franchise? Is that what you think? It started before this too. When Thurman, Kelly, Bruce, and Reed were getting old, Levy and co. were busy drafting first round defensive backs. This was the beginning of the mess we are in and it has not changed no matter who is in charge.
Tell me, what makes drafting the 5th or 6th rated corner this year any different? The 2018 first round pick? Sure, that makes this pick more palatable, but odds are this pick will be used on another defensive back or a running back because this is what the Bills do. That and lose football games.
There is good news. We got rid of Whaley and Rex. If these guys were in charge for 10 years we would lose for 10 years. Lets hope that the new crew will learn from the idiotic, inexcusable mistakes of the past and know how to properly build an NFL football team.
I don't believe the bolded is correct. Great cornerbacks are every bit as essential as offensive and defensive linemen. That is borne out by the salaries the best ones are paid and the fact that 20 CBs have been drafted in the first round in the past four drafts. I don't believe good teams can afford to operate the way you suggest--they are always looking for the best available player, although need certainly is part of the equation.
It's true that the Bills have had some lousy DB picks in the first round--Whitner is the one that stands out, and McKelvin wasn't a great pick either, especially when Ryan Clady was available with the next pick. (Go back and look at that 2008 first round--littered with busts, at pretty much every position.) But that was a decade, and at least two front offices, ago. I totally agree with you regarding using first round picks on RBs, but the CJ Spiller pick was eight years ago and the Bills haven't used a high pick on RB since then. So that's not "what the Bills do".
Were you in favor of franchising Gilmore, or extending him for more than the Pats offered him? If not, how can you really argue with the 3D White pick? How badly do you think the Bills' defense would be shredded this season with Seymore and Darby as their top two CBs? White was extremely productive at the highest level of CFB, a four-year starter and team captain at LSU, with a clean medical history. His bust factor is very low and it's likely he will step right in and play at a pretty high level. And he's a very good punt returner, which is also a need. I have to be honest, I probably would have preferred Njoku or Taco Charlton at that spot, but I've got no problem with what the Bills did, especially while acquiring the extra first next year.
-
a typical, non-responsive, content-free post, with some name calling thrown in for good measure. Your premise--that good teams don't use first round picks on CBs--was demolished, and you have no response, except to point to the fact that the Browns pay one of their (excellent) CBs a lot of money. Oh, and then you tell us that you just KNOW the Bills new coach is no good, before he has coached a single NFL game. Pathetic.Typical homer, sock-puppet, rhetoric...Joe Hayden Helped the Browns get to the playoffs about as much as Gilmore helped us... Cornerback is a need, yes... QB, TE, WR, LT, are ALL NECESSITIES... I had a modest amount of hope for McDonefor when he got the job... 85% of which evaporated when we took White @ 27... LOUSY trade-down... Wash, rinse, dry, -repeat.
5-22: Whaley Will Speak on SiriusXM NFL
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted