QCity Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 He has at least a $4.8M dead money hit all of the way through 2018 and significantly larger in previous years. They are tied to him for at least another 4. If they cut ties sooner and have an $8M QB for example they are still paying $16M a year for the position. Nonsense. They can walk away after this year easily. A one year hit of $8M in dead money is hardly crippling. We had more dead money tied up in Fitz and didn't bat an eyelash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Greg Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I looks forward to many, many more years of Mario Williams highlight reel sacks of this man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 What do you mean? I think your problem is that you want to skip the development part of drafting a QB. He has improved each year. Their offense jumped to 11th in points in his 3rd year. His record is decent for a young QB. I would be thrilled to have seen EJ have similar development, but Marrone selfishly ruined that opportunity. I predict a huge year in 2015 as long as Miami doesn't take away weapons. Talk they may trade Mike Wallace and let clay walk. I wish you understood what I said before you wasted your time with this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Stampede Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 If Tannehill was a Bill, he would be the next Jim Kelly to Bills fans. Some of you posters are funny. The guy has improved each year in the league, stayed healthy, is athletic, seems like a good leader and willing to get better. We haven't had a QB as good has him since Kelly retired... serious talk. He just went for 4k yards, 27 TD and 12 INT in his 3rd year on a team with a putrid line. He is a better player than Dalton for sure. If Tannehill were a Bill he would have been benched his rookie year and replaced by some journeyman vetran who was a backup at his last team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Me Personnally,You have a franchise tag for a reason. So let Tannehlll play out his contract and then sign him, franchise him or whatever. Worst case is Tannehill is great and you have to pay him more. I think GMs are convincing owners that if we sign him now we save $50 million over the length of the contract. GM is happy, he at least has a qb locked up, owner happy because he thinks he is saving money.That's a great point. I am not saying that it is good or bad to sign these guys early. It is just risky and depends on the guy. I'd rather have Tannehill than Dalton at this point. I'd rather Stafford than Tannehill and so on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Stampede Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 I wish you understood what I said before you wasted your time with this. You can explain it to me if you want. I dont understand what you said obviously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Let me try to clear it up then. Would you rather be the Bengals tied to Dalton for 6 years at $19M a year or TB with the chance to pick Jameis or Mariota on a rookie deal? To me the answer is the unknown is better than someone that I don't believe can win a title. It happens all of the time on sports (especially basketball). You are much better off being really bad than as a borderline playoff team. It is hard to get out of that spot. You are never bad enough to acquire franchise type players (Dareus & Sammy) and not good enough to overcome the elite teams. That's the way that sports work. The teams in the middle forever are in the middle. Flacco is a bit of an anomaly because he is statistically one of the greatest playoff QBs of all-time. He has proven to be worth it. He won a Super Bowl prior to getting his big deal. It's apples and oranges a little bit. To the Bengals point this is where we differ. I see the Bengals as having no chance of winning as long as Dalton is there. If he is there another 5 years than I believe that the Bills have a better chance. Until we know who the guy is under center for the Bills the answer is that we dont know if they can win. If it is EJ I would say that neither team can win a Super Bowl as currently constructed. If it is Bradford for example than I think that the Bills have a better shot. Would you rather be the Bengals tied to Dalton for 6 years at $19M a year or TB with the chance to pick Jameis or Mariota on a rookie deal? To me the answer is the unknown is better than someone that I don't believe can win a title. The Bengals. Every time. Like you said, Mariota and Jameis are unknowns, and just playing the number, have little chance of even playing to Dalton's level, let alone a SB level. Do they have a miniscule chance to be greats? Sure. But, if you were a betting man, you don't take them over Dalton. Ever. It happens all of the time on sports (especially basketball). You are much better off being really bad than as a borderline playoff team. It is hard to get out of that spot. You are never bad enough to acquire franchise type players (Dareus & Sammy) and not good enough to overcome the elite teams. That's the way that sports work. The teams in the middle forever are in the middle. I would say basketball is apples to oranges, mainly because of the lottery, and the impact an individual player can have. But I'll play along. In the last decade or so, you have not been proven to be better off "being really bad," in either sport. The Lakers have stunk for three years and aren't proving to be better. Teams like the Wolves, the Bucks, the Magic have sucked for years in the NBA and aren't getting better with their picks. Sure, you have years where the Heat go from one awful year to a great year, but that's more rare than teams dwelling in the cellar. Same with the NFL. The Raiders and Browns of the NFL have sucked for an entire decade, if not more. Constantly picking in the top 5. And they constantly suck. Indy is a team that rebounded quick, but there's one Indy for every 3-4 other garbage team that stays garbage. Flacco is a bit of an anomaly because he is statistically one of the greatest playoff QBs of all-time. He has proven to be worth it. He won a Super Bowl prior to getting his big deal. It's apples and oranges a little bit. But prior to Flacco winning the Superbowl and having his historic run, would you have continued to look elsewhere? That was my point. Many believe that a guy won't ever win a Superbowl until they do it. Would you have looked elsewhere from Kelly after our third trip? To the Bengals point this is where we differ. I see the Bengals as having no chance of winning as long as Dalton is there. If he is there another 5 years than I believe that the Bills have a better chance. Until we know who the guy is under center for the Bills the answer is that we dont know if they can win. If it is EJ I would say that neither team can win a Super Bowl as currently constructed. If it is Bradford for example than I think that the Bills have a better shot. The last 4 years, the Bills have had a 0% chance to win a Superbowl. Dalton has had more than that. I don't understand what you're basing this off of, besides fandom. Edited February 10, 2015 by FireChan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Stampede Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) That's a great point. I am not saying that it is good or bad to sign these guys early. It is just risky and depends on the guy. I'd rather have Tannehill than Dalton at this point. I'd rather Stafford than Tannehill and so on. What would you want, rookies getting $80 million right now or young average to above average qbs getting $100 million? This is what will happen from now on. You only have 4 years to decide on these qbs. Edited February 10, 2015 by TheTruthHurts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 This thread would be more fun if the Bills had started a QB who was better than Tannehill at any point in the last decade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) If Tannehill was a Bill, he would be the next Jim Kelly to Bills fans. Some of you posters are funny. The guy has improved each year in the league, stayed healthy, is athletic, seems like a good leader and willing to get better. We haven't had a QB as good has him since Kelly retired... serious talk. He just went for 4k yards, 27 TD and 12 INT in his 3rd year on a team with a putrid line. He is a better player than Dalton for sure. Not really even with the team he has around him Tannehill can't help but get his team in trouble at times his team needs him the most. That has been the story of Tannehill and if they want to use the most ey on him then that will be a plus for every other team. They will lose key players b.c of it and Tannehill will have to play even better just to compensate for it. It's like watching the Dolphins dig their own grave I love that they brought the HC back also he just seems like such a bad HC. I see a nice Tannehill regression b.c of all this... Should be fun to watch and play against. Edited February 10, 2015 by Beef Jerky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Would you rather be the Bengals tied to Dalton for 6 years at $19M a year or TB with the chance to pick Jameis or Mariota on a rookie deal? To me the answer is the unknown is better than someone that I don't believe can win a title. The Bengals. Every time. Like you said, Mariota and Jameis are unknowns, and just playing the number, have little chance of even playing to Dalton's level, let alone a SB level. Do they have a miniscule chance to be greats? Sure. But, if you were a betting man, you don't take them over Dalton. Ever. It happens all of the time on sports (especially basketball). You are much better off being really bad than as a borderline playoff team. It is hard to get out of that spot. You are never bad enough to acquire franchise type players (Dareus & Sammy) and not good enough to overcome the elite teams. That's the way that sports work. The teams in the middle forever are in the middle. I would say basketball is apples to oranges, mainly because of the lottery, and the impact an individual player can have. But I'll play along. In the last decade or so, you have not been proven to be better off "being really bad," in either sport. The Lakers have stunk for three years and aren't proving to be better. Teams like the Wolves, the Bucks, the Magic have sucked for years in the NBA and aren't getting better with their picks. Sure, you have years where the Heat go from one awful year to a great year, but that's more rare than teams dwelling in the cellar. Same with the NFL. The Raiders and Browns of the NFL have sucked for an entire decade, if not more. Constantly picking in the top 5. And they constantly suck. Indy is a team that rebounded quick, but there's one Indy for every 3-4 other garbage team that stays garbage. Flacco is a bit of an anomaly because he is statistically one of the greatest playoff QBs of all-time. He has proven to be worth it. He won a Super Bowl prior to getting his big deal. It's apples and oranges a little bit. But prior to Flacco winning the Superbowl and having his historic run, would you have continued to look elsewhere? That was my point. Many believe that a guy won't ever win a Superbowl until they do it. Would you have looked elsewhere from Kelly after our third trip? To the Bengals point this is where we differ. I see the Bengals as having no chance of winning as long as Dalton is there. If he is there another 5 years than I believe that the Bills have a better chance. Until we know who the guy is under center for the Bills the answer is that we dont know if they can win. If it is EJ I would say that neither team can win a Super Bowl as currently constructed. If it is Bradford for example than I think that the Bills have a better shot. The last 4 years, the Bills have had a 0% chance to win a Superbowl. Dalton has had more than that. I don't understand what you're basing this off of, besides fandom. Flaaco was a drop away from a Super Bowl berth the year before. He had proven himself. Dalton has been the worst playoff QB ever (I believe). You cannot win with him but you can't let him go either. It's a horrible spot to be in. I am taking the top prospect over him any day of the week. I think most would agree. Do you think that if the Bengals offered Dalton for the 1st pick Tampa would accept??? Alex Smith brought a 2nd and was a much better player IMO. A playoff berth doesn't mean that you are a contender IMO. I do not see any situation where Andy Dalton wins a Lombardi. I would rather have someone that we do not yet know if he will be great or terrible or somewhere in between. Once I know that I can't win with a guy I have no use for him. I can see why teams though commit to the Dalton's of the world though. Winning 9-10 games and getting trounced isn't what I am shooting for. Indy, KC and Houston each turned a corner after picking 1st the last 3 drafts. What would you want, rookies getting $80 million right now or young average to above average qbs getting $100 million? This is what will happen from now on. You only have 4 years to decide on these qbs.I hear you and agree that the days of Jamarcus contracts was absurd. It is just a tough period. As I said, I'd rather Locker, Incognito and Iupati than Tannehill. I would also rather Cam Newton than Locker, Incognito and Iupati. It really just a depends on the player but it is risky in all situations. Edited February 10, 2015 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Flaaco was a drop away from a Super Bowl birth the year before. He had proven himself. Dalton has been the worst playoff QB ever (I believe). You cannot win with him but you can't let him go either. It's a horrible spot to be in. I am taking the top prospect over him any day of the week. I think most would agree. Do you think that if the Bengals offered Dalton for the 1st pick Tampa would accept??? Alex Smith brough a 2nd and was a much better player IMO. A playoff birth doesn't mean that you are a contender IMO. I do not see any situation where Andy Dalton wins a Lombardi. I would rather have someone that we do not yet know if he will be great or terrible or somewhere in between. Once I know that I can't win with a guy I have no use for him. I can see why teams though commit to the Dalton's of the world though. Winning 9-10 games and getting trounced isn't what I am shooting for. Indy, KC and Houston each turned a corner after picking 1st the last 3 drafts. Now you're talking out of both sides. Houston/KC has turned a corner? They're exactly what you just argued against. Scraping out a one and done or middle of the pack record. It's the worst spot to be in. They aren't contending, they're just floating around. I think the disconnect comes from one thing. I believe that if you held a draft today of every current player in the NFL, as well as the 2015 draft class, Dalton, Cutler, Tanny etc. all go before Mariota and Winston. That's just the numbers. Do you disagree? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo_Stampede Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) I hear you and agree that the days of Jamarcus contracts was absurd. It is just a tough period. As I said, I'd rather Locker, Incognito and Iupati than Tannehill. I would also rather Cam Newton than Locker, Incognito and Iupati. It really just a depends on the player but it is risky in all situations. Sam Bradford got 6 years $78 million and $50 million guaranteed in 2010. My goodness. Imagine what a #1 pick qb would get today. Edited February 10, 2015 by TheTruthHurts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 (edited) Now you're talking out of both sides. Houston/KC has turned a corner? They're exactly what you just argued against. Scraping out a one and done or middle of the pack record. It's the worst spot to be in. They aren't contending, they're just floating around. I think the disconnect comes from one thing. I believe that if you held a draft today of every current player in the NFL, as well as the 2015 draft class, Dalton, Cutler, Tanny etc. all go before Mariota and Winston. That's just the numbers. Do you disagree? They improved dramatically in 1 year after bottoming out (even though the rookies didn't play great). It depends on if contracts are included. I think that teams would rather take a chance on one of those guys being great than pay Jay Cutler 20% of your salary cap to be mediocre. FWIW though I would take Tannehill and his contract before Dalton or Cutler and theirs in the hypothetical draft. Edited February 10, 2015 by Kirby Jackson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 They improved dramatically in 1 year after bottoming out (even though the rookies didn't play great). It depends on if contracts are included. I think that teams would rather take a chance on one of those guys being great than pay Jay Cutler 20% of your salary cap to be mediocre. KC has sucked for like 5 years in a row. They improved because they hired a decent staff and traded for a QB. Houston improved because JJ Watt scored like 8 TD's, and had a historic defensive season. I expect both teams to hover anywhere from 9-7 to 7-9 this upcoming year and the year after. Maybe one playoff berth, but bounced in the first round. And fine. I can understand how the salary muddles things a little bit. All things being equal in contracts, Winston and Mariota don't get sniffed until those other guys are gone. And personally, I'd rather the Bills have Cutler than EJ +Iupati. But that's just me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 KC has sucked for like 5 years in a row. They improved because they hired a decent staff and traded for a QB. Houston improved because JJ Watt scored like 8 TD's, and had a historic defensive season. I expect both teams to hover anywhere from 9-7 to 7-9 this upcoming year and the year after. Maybe one playoff berth, but bounced in the first round. And fine. I can understand how the salary muddles things a little bit. All things being equal in contracts, Winston and Mariota don't get sniffed until those other guys are gone. And personally, I'd rather the Bills have Cutler than EJ +Iupati. But that's just me. Yeah, I don't think either of those teams are very good (Indy either). The fact remains they went from bad to decent in a short period of time. If they plateau there (which I expect except for Indy) that is a failure. It depends specifically on the player to me. QB is far and away the most important but you still have to factor in the whole roster. If the dropoff is minimal and the contract difference is massive I would probably the little less production and money elsewhere. To use the Cutler example I would rather Locker ($5M) and $11.5M in extra cap space (even though I think that Cutler is a little better player). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 That was a pathetic offensive effort and those responsible are now gone (thank god). We have a new offense now. We have won the last 3 of 4 by a wide margin. I expect utter domination this year Tannehill owned us that day. Wasn't just our offense sucking. He was delivering play in play out. I bet 3k on the bills +3.5 that day. I remember quite vividly. Oh yeah.....and the intentional grounding for a safety.......ehhhh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted February 10, 2015 Share Posted February 10, 2015 Would you have signed Dalton, Kaepernick, Alex Smith, Palmer and Cutler as well? For me I would have Kaepenick and Alex Smith. I have no faith in the other 2 (Cutler and Dalton) and Tannehill somewhere in that above group (not sure where). It's a tough situation because it's hard to find a franchise guy; but you can't make a franchise commitment to a middle of the road guy. That's a recipe for mediocrity IMO. If your goal is a borderline playoff team than those guys are fine. Outside of Kaepernick who was on the best team in football non of those guys has competed beyond that level. Yup. It is tough, but that's the going rate for a middle of the road starting NFL QB these days, it seems. If Tannehill was a Bill, he would be the next Jim Kelly to Bills fans. Some of you posters are funny. The guy has improved each year in the league, stayed healthy, is athletic, seems like a good leader and willing to get better. We haven't had a QB as good has him since Kelly retired... serious talk. He just went for 4k yards, 27 TD and 12 INT in his 3rd year on a team with a putrid line. He is a better player than Dalton for sure. If he was a Bill he wouldn't have been a starter longer than 14 games. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 Yup. It is tough, but that's the going rate for a middle of the road starting NFL QB these days, it seems. If he was a Bill he wouldn't have been a starter longer than 14 games. Why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted February 11, 2015 Share Posted February 11, 2015 (edited) Do a comparison of their first year stats. They were about the same if you extrapolate a 16 game season for manual, with tannehills td/int rate significantly worse. If you don't extrapolate they are at least comparable. was manuel given the same opportunity as tannehill? Absolutely not. Neither would have tannehill I know, I know....the eye test Edited February 11, 2015 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts