Beef Jerky Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) Yes, many teams do this. But not quite so many when the bridge QB has a contract which guarantees him $30.5 mill if he only stays one year and $40. 5 mill if he stays two. That is nice his cap hit which is all that matters won't be bad. Edited January 26, 2017 by Beef Jerky Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) That is nice his cap hit which is all that matters won't be bad. Saying the cap hit is all that matters is correct. The cap hit of the $30.5 million guaranteed is ... wait for it ... $30.5 million. The minute money is guaranteed, it is absolutely guaranteed that that money will hit the cap. What you're saying is that only money that hits the cap THIS YEAR matters. And that's bull ****. To repeat for like the eleven millionth time, if Tyrod stays for one year, he will be guaranteed $30.5 million. That will be a $30.5 million dollar hit to our cap, around $16 million this year and around $14 million next year as dead money. Total, $30.5 million that can not be used to bring in other players at a time when we're desperate for money. $30.5 million for one year of Tyrod Taylor. If Tyrod stays for two years he will be guaranteed $40.5 million. That will be a $40.5 million hit to our cap, around $16 mill the first year, around $15 or $16 mill the second year and the rest in dead money in the third year. Again, total, $40.5 million that can not be used to bring in other players. For two years of a quarterback with the talent level of Tyrod Taylor. Point still stands. Yes, some teams keep a bridge QB while they bring in new guys. Not many do so when the bridge QB will cost them $30.5 million if they only keep him for one year and $40.5 million if they keep him for two years. Osweiler got more than that guaranteed. They weren't thinking of him as a bridge guy. I can't think of a single bridge guy who has ever been guaranteed that much. Or anything close. Edited January 26, 2017 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Saying the cap hit is all that matters is correct. The cap hit of the $30.5 million guaranteed is ... wait for it ... $30.5 million. The minute money is guaranteed, it is absolutely guaranteed that that money will hit the cap. What you're saying is that only money that hits the cap THIS YEAR matters. And that's bull ****. To repeat for like the eleven millionth time, if Tyrod stays for one year, he will be guaranteed $30.5 million. That will be a $30.5 million dollar hit to our cap, around $16 million this year and around $14 million next year as dead money. Total, $30.5 million that can not be used to bring in other players at a time when we're desperate for money. $30.5 million for one year of Tyrod Taylor. If Tyrod stays for two years he will be guaranteed $40.5 million. That will be a $40.5 million hit to our cap, around $16 mill the first year, around $15 or $16 mill the second year and the rest in dead money in the third year. Again, total, $40.5 million that can not be used to bring in other players. For two years of a quarterback with the talent level of Tyrod Taylor. Point still stands. Yes, some teams keep a bridge QB while they bring in new guys. Not many do so when the bridge QB will cost them $30.5 million if they only keep him for one year and $40.5 million if they keep him for two years. Osweiler got more than that guaranteed. They weren't thinking of him as a bridge guy. I can't think of a single bridge guy who has ever been guaranteed that much. Or anything close. Eagles signed Bradford, and Daniels, then traded up for wentz. Could we not do the same thing? Except trade Tyrod next year if said rookie proves to be an upgrade? Why cut him and put all ur chips in on one rookie? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) His two pro bowl invites, low turnover rate and running ability would make him quite attractive in free agency. Nah. Pro Bowl invites mean absolutely nothing in FA. Nothing. Running ability and low turnover rate? Yeah, both pluses. The fact that he couldn't put together a good passing offense working with the number one running offense in the league, though, and that he regressed, that would reduce his value. However, both my points still stand. You didn't address either with that - admittedly beautiful - sentence. 1) He might want to come back to Buffalo, especially if the new OC wants to work with him if he re-negotiates. 2) There is no way to be sure at this point how much teams would give for him, and no way at this point to know if he'd want to go to the places that want him. Statistically his passing numbers are average. But his running skills are a wild card. Two years in a row he's led a top ten scoring offense. His passing numbers are average? 20th in passer rating is average? 26th in YPA is average? Most sacked QB in the league is average, even in 15 games? That's the 4th highest sack percentage among QBs with more than 100 attempts, behind Cutler, Griffin and Goff. That's average? The one thing in terms of passing that he has always done well and continues to do well is avoid INTs. But other than that, he's simply been below average this year. And that top ten scoring offense is mostly because of our terrific run game. "Make him be a QB." People don't say that about franchise QBs. Edited January 26, 2017 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaaadThingsMan Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 What if Whaley pulls off a trade for a QB? He's shown he knows the league with his player aquisitions and trades, can he get a franchise QB in this fashion? Is there one out there? Todd Hundley AJ McCarron Chase Daniel Aaron Murray Mike Glennon Are any of these guys capable of being the guy? All are behind established QBs but young enough to play awhile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 (edited) Eagles signed Bradford, and Daniels, then traded up for wentz. Could we not do the same thing? Except trade Tyrod next year if said rookie proves to be an upgrade? Why cut him and put all ur chips in on one rookie? You wouldn't put all your chips on one rookie. You'd bring in a cheaper bridge QB. If there were a Bradford out there, I'd try to sign him, as I think Bradford might be more than a bridge guy. But the only guy at that level out there appears to be Romo. And Romo's too old to be a bridge guy. If you bring him in, you have to try to win a title in the next two or three years. Don't see us getting him anyway. As for trading Tyrod next year, it would leave us a $14+ million dead cap hit. I suppose it's possible. I'd argue it would mean that picking up his contract was a bad idea in the first place. Edited January 26, 2017 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Arnold Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 His passing numbers are average? 20th in passer rating is average? 26th in YPA is average? Most sacked QB in the league is average, even in 15 games? That's the 4th highest sack percentage among QBs with more than 100 attempts, behind Cutler, Griffin and Goff. That's average? The one thing in terms of passing that he has always done well and continues to do well is avoid INTs. But other than that, he's simply been below average this year. And that top ten scoring offense is mostly because of our terrific run game. "Make him be a QB." People don't say that about franchise QBs. I love how you continue to ignore his 2015 season where he was 8th in passer rating and 5th in YPA. Is 8th and 5th average? Your agenda is showing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 This. I dont get why this is so hard. Right. I would imagine coaches look at a roster before they sign off. "Can I win with these guys?" "If I have to rebuild is there enough young talent there to build a winner in the time Ive been given?" QB has to be one of the 1st things they look at. just seems logical don't it ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 No. For several reasons. The first is how wildly expensive his contract is unless he actually lasts four or five years here, which is wildly unlikely. We are close to the cap ($29 million under when we only have 37 guys under contract, and those 37 include guys like Enemkpali, Walter Powell, Jerel Worthy, Kolby Listenbee, Gerald Christian, Blake Annen, Jonathan Dowling and Phillip Thomas) and that will hurt our ability to turn over the roster The second is that "He's the best of a bunch of bad options, so we should ignore his too-high salary and the fact that he's just not good enough to get us a championship," is an excellent argument for people who favor the short-term over the long-term. We shouldn't do that. Whaley finally shows signs of understanding that. The third is that one or two or maybe at a real stretch three extra wins in the next couple of years isn't going to make us competitive for a Super Bowl, but it is going to get is worse draft picks, and better draft picks will increase our chances to get a better QB. The fourth is that he's a bridge quarterback and you can get one of those much cheaper. Agreed that he won't be as good. But that's not a huge concern over the next couple of years when our priority will be turning over the roster and bringing in a QB for the future. Or two. "If," indeed. Sound strategy but I'm afraid the wrong guy is going to be overseeing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 I love how you continue to ignore his 2015 season where he was 8th in passer rating and 5th in YPA. Is 8th and 5th average? Your agenda is showing. He's trending down. He regressed in almost every category this year. Ignoring that would be indicative of an agenda. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 2017 cap space $29,492,67 if Taylor stays 2017 Bill's Free Agents http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/free-agents/buffalo-bills/ I would want to keep Zach Brown and Robert Woods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 He's trending down. He regressed in almost every category this year. Ignoring that would be indicative of an agenda. Do you think it's because he got worse as a player, or because of other factors? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ALF Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Taylor not seeing wide open receivers is scary. They are scoring ok with few turnovers. He is a bridge QB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Arnold Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 He's trending down. He regressed in almost every category this year. Ignoring that would be indicative of an agenda. FireChan logic: One poor season = "trending down" And "poor" in this case is performing at the same level as the current contract expects (20th highest QB contract). The same contract that a few here oddly want to get out of. These few folks are not the brightest bulbs. Do you think it's because he got worse as a player, or because of other factors? Nah, couldn't have had anything to do with Sammy missing most of the season and Taylor's starting receivers for too many of his games being Marquise Goodwin, Justin Hunter, and someone named Walter Powell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Do you think it's because he got worse as a player, or because of other factors? I think the tape is out and he didn't improve at all. In this league, if you aren't getting better, teams will catch up and make you look worse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 You wouldn't put all your chips on one rookie. You'd bring in a cheaper bridge QB. If there were a Bradford out there, I'd try to sign him, as I think Bradford might be more than a bridge guy. But the only guy at that level out there appears to be Romo. And Romo's too old to be a bridge guy. If you bring him in, you have to try to win a title in the next two or three years. Don't see us getting him anyway. As for trading Tyrod next year, it would leave us a $14+ million dead cap hit. I suppose it's possible. I'd argue it would mean that picking up his contract was a bad idea in the first place. The rookies gonna play... that's just how it is with them. If you have someone u believe may be more than a bridge qb in Tyrod than u keep him. What's available as a bridge qb is a bunch of garbage. Bradfords cap hit was 11 to trade him, and he also didn't play a snap. You can overpay your backup qb if you have a rookie starter because of the wage scale as well. I just think getting worse isn't smart Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck Wagon Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 What if Whaley pulls off a trade for a QB? He's shown he knows the league with his player aquisitions and trades, can he get a franchise QB in this fashion? Is there one out there? Todd Hundley AJ McCarron Chase Daniel Aaron Murray Mike Glennon Are any of these guys capable of being the guy? All are behind established QBs but young enough to play awhile. Aaron Murray is a street free agent. Chase Daniel is 30. Mike Glennon is going to get someone to sucker themselves into a Brock Osweiler lite deal this offseason. Hundley and McCarron are cheap backups who'll likely command more draft capital than they are worth in trade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Top 7 scoring offense. Historic lack of turnovers on offense. A lot of that was due to Tyrod. Some of it was Tyrod. Some of it was also Jordan Mills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 Some of it was Tyrod. Some of it was also Jordan Mills. Agreed. Without Mills whiffing on some of those blocks Tyrod never would have broken contain and made some of his big plays! They worked together to produce the numbers we got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted January 26, 2017 Share Posted January 26, 2017 http://m.buffalobills.com/news/article-1/Bills-Today-Taylor-receives-unsung-hero-honors/34ca7ca8-4a23-4912-a485-6f6a1417cc7e If you want to read the tea leaves from the Buffalo Bills Politburo of Information, the uptick of positive Tyrod Taylor articles suggests he's sticking around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts