YoloinOhio Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 It was $10M/year too much. They could've given him a raise without putting themselves in this all-or-nothing bind. i don't see it as a bind... just the opposite actually. They have a choice. A bind can be found in Houston with Brock Osweiler where they are on the hook for 37 mill gtd whether they want him or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) If anything, tanking in football is even easier because the #1 pick is a guarantee. No draft lottery to screw things up. Edited January 6, 2017 by TheFunPolice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Whether it is with Big Ben or smaller sized qbs the GM knows the importance of the ability to see the whole field and use the whole field an essential trait for that position. What makes Big Ben great is beyond his size (which certainly is appealing) is that when the play is extended he can react to what develops down field. Go back and review most of TT's completions. What you don't often see is he throwing rhythm passes to spots before the receiver makes his moves. Many people extol the virtue of TT not throwing many interceptions. There is a negative aspect to it because he is unwilling to trust his eyes and throw into tight coverage. In my opinion Whaley has made a judgment on what TT is capable of. He would be willing to keep him but at a lower price. I'm not criticizing the GM for being appropriately analytical in coming to a decision in this case. I don't think Taylor is perfect by any means. But I think he's decent, and if Sammy Watkins is playing, he elevates to pretty good. The other options out there right now range from bad to complete unknowns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 They will never do this. I'm not saying this is the wrong idea, however! I know, they will look to regress slowly instead of pulling off the band-aid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 OK Why does that matter? Because you build a 53 man football team much differently in the NFL than it's done in the NHL. There's no generational savior coming to rescue the Buffalo Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 The Bears' defense is one of the few defenses with less talent than Buffalo. That said, they play in an easier division, arguably. That is just not true. They have some good young talent. Read this, which is pretty accurate: http://walterfootball.com/draft2017.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fadingpain Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 If anything, tanking in football is even easier because the #1 pick is a guarantee. No draft lottery to screw things up. Those around here who would tell you a tank in football makes no sense base their argument on the idea that: 1) The only thing worth tanking for is a QB and 2) It's too hard to predict top QB talent in the NFL and the hyped up prospect you take #1 may well turn out to be a loser I disagree with both points. All depends on specifics, not general assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) People keep saying "this aint hockey" like it makes any difference. It's the same ownership group. The same city. They did it with the Sabres and that team is loaded with young talent (still need to start winning but they have promise). If anything, tanking in the NFL could be easier. Eichel and Reinhart are 20 and 21, respectively, and they are in year 2 and 3 of their NHL careers. NFL rookies come in older (and more ready) than the Sabres two key players are now. NHL teams basically draft 18 year old kids, so the payoff is delayed. Think big picture. Edited January 6, 2017 by TheFunPolice Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 That is just not true. They have some good young talent. Read this, which is pretty accurate: http://walterfootball.com/draft2017.php They certainly drafted well in 2016. Less so in 2015. They also suffered a boat load of injuries this year. Many more than Buffalo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LB3 Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) Well... If it were me I would keep him. Because he's a known commodity. He does some things well. I tend to have a fear of the unknown. But I don't think he's a playoff caliber QB. Not in this division. I feel similarly, but the bolded is why I would want to move on. If he's not playoff caliber, try someone new. I don't think Tyrod will ever get much better at seeing the field. His injury risk will go up each year as he gets older though. WGR gave a stat the other day that for the year, he only attempted 33 passes more than 10 yards downfield between the hashmarks. His athleticism helps the run game and his scrambling allows him to somewhat make up for this deficiency, but it's crazy to think about how much of the field doesn't need to be defended against him. Edited January 6, 2017 by LBSeeBallLBGetBall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 After giving it some thought, I think JohnC is all over this one. Whaley's not reckless or "preserving" himself at the expense of the team -- he has made a reasonable, logical decision about what Tyrod can and can't do, and is not willing to "waste" another season of watching receivers he drafted and acquired not getting the ball. At least not at that price. You can either agree or disagree with Whaley's assessment, but throwing the baby out with the bath is not a logical reaction to this news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Who Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) People keep saying "this aint hockey" like it makes any difference. It's the same ownership group. The same city. They did it with the Sabres and that team is loaded with young talent (still need to start winning but they have promise). If anything, tanking in the NFL could be easier. Eichel and Reinhart are 20 and 21, respectively, and they are in year 2 and 3 of their NHL careers. NFL rookies come in older than the Sabres two key players are now. The difference, it seems to me, is that you draft NHL talent at 17 years old and often develop that talent in the minors or international play. NFL shelf life is less and draft picks usually need to contribute right away, though one has to build in maturation time, especially at qb. Also, hockey has an 18 man roster, so high picks are a significant percentage of the roster. I think one normally builds an NFL team differently. I'm not convinced the Cleveland idea will ever turn out well. Edited January 6, 2017 by Dr. Who Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave mcbride Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 After giving it some thought, I think JohnC is all over this one. Whaley's not reckless or "preserving" himself at the expense of the team -- he has made a reasonable, logical decision about what Tyrod can and can't do, and is not willing to "waste" another season of watching receivers he drafted and acquired not getting the ball. At least not at that price. You can either agree or disagree with Whaley's assessment, but throwing the baby out with the bath is not a logical reaction to this news. I think it's not illogical at all to react this way. Disagree with you on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 Because you build a 53 man football team much differently in the NFL than it's done in the NHL. There's no generational savior coming to rescue the Buffalo Bills. Of course it's not exactly the same but the same basic principles apply. One is that you let the current guy take all the flak while you bottom out. Darcy was captain of the titanic. Now it's Whaley's turn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 People keep saying "this aint hockey" like it makes any difference. It's the same ownership group. The same city. They did it with the Sabres and that team is loaded with young talent (still need to start winning but they have promise). If anything, tanking in the NFL could be easier. Eichel and Reinhart are 20 and 21, respectively, and they are in year 2 and 3 of their NHL careers. NFL rookies come in older (and more ready) than the Sabres two key players are now. NHL teams basically draft 18 year old kids, so the payoff is delayed. Think big picture. Darcy and Lindy Ruff were a team for 16 years before they were both sent packing. Whaley is entering his fourth draft and it's the 1st chance he's getting to pick a HC. The Sabres and Bills scenarios aren't the same. Like I posted earlier, if Pegula is thinking rebuild then Whaley and Rex should have both been canned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Gun Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 The offense averaged 26 PPG with TT under center. I don't see Glennon or McCarron coming anywhere close to that. You either start over (I'm advocating blowing off 2017 and trying to get Darnold) or keep TT and try to fix the defense. If Glennon faced that initial rusher like TT does (always) he'd have been sacked another 20 times. You also have to remove his 580 yards on the ground and 6 TDs. If you just slide those over to passing stats (because who cares how they got there) the new QB will need to average 240 yards a game and have 24.5 TDs to 6.5 INTs for it to be an upgrade. They will need to average more than 26 PPG. I see no chance of any other available QB (with the possible exception of Romo who has a totally different set of concerns) coming anywhere close to that. Again, if they want to move on from TT, I think that they should trade pick 10 for a 2nd in 2017 and a 1st in 2018 (preferably from a bad team). They should clear the cap as best they can in 2017, bottom out and enter 2018 with a really early 1st, another 1st and a bunch of cap space. FWIW TT only had 23 total TDs this year and for comparison in EJs 10 starts in 2013 the team averaged 22.3 ppg. EJ of all people as a rookie not a 6 year vet like Tyrod averaged almost as much, 22.3 - 25.9 ppg. and the CoT is crying that it can't be done with just anybody. BS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheFunPolice Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 The difference, it seems to me, is that you draft NHL talent early and often develop that talent in the minors or international play. NFL shelf life is less and draft picks usually need to contribute right away, though one has to build in maturation time, especially at qb. Also, hockey has an 18 man roster, so a high picks are a significant percentage of the roster. I think one normally builds an NFL team differently. I'm not convinced the Cleveland idea will ever turn out well. If the Browns hit on those picks they will be good quickly. Andy Reid put it best: get me a QB, two tackles, a CB, a S and I'll figure out the rest. Darcy and Lindy Ruff were a team for 16 years before they were both sent packing. Whaley is entering his fourth draft and it's the 1st chance he's getting to pick a HC. The Sabres and Bills scenarios aren't the same. Like I posted earlier, if Pegula is thinking rebuild then Whaley and Rex should have both been canned. They were not fired together. Darcy was kept around for quite a while (IMO) for no other reason than to take the hit for what was coming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 If they are indeed moving on from Tyrod, this must mean taking a QB in the 1st round. Not necessarily. But I hope they do. I have cited this example a number of times so I apologize for the numbing repetition. The Raiders became a serious team when they drafted Carr at the the top of the second round. They also drafted Mack a LB at the top of the draft in the first round. He is arguably one of the top three or four defensive players in the league. Let me ask you a simple question? Who is more important to the team and which player has changed the fortunes for that franchise? The Bills can draft the best safety out of this draft in the first round. What will be the impact? What's the difference? Unless you get credible quarterbacking you get nowhere. Having good qb play makes up for a number of roster deficiencies. That's obvious to me but not to a lot of others who spend a lot of time dissecting the strengths and weaknesses of the safeties in this draft. Too much energy spent on misplaced priorities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewEra Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 If I had to predict who out qb is next year say AJ mccarron. And we'll probably give up a 2nd and 5th this year + a 1st next. Just a hunch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobobonators Posted January 6, 2017 Share Posted January 6, 2017 I'm on it! L. M. A. O. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts