GunnerBill Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Edelman over Woods any day of the week. If that is even a questions I'm a Dutchman... and I'm not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billschinatown Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Seriously. Edelman is a very good WR. Always open, catches everything and a pain in the ass to cover. Edelman over Woods any day of the week. Lol not a fair comparison. Let Woods work in that offense with Brady and watch him become a 70 million dollar man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BADOLBILZ Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Seriously. Edelman is a very good WR. Always open, catches everything and a pain in the ass to cover. Edelman over Woods any day of the week. There is a huge lazy Bills bias with Bob Woods. Many Bills fans think that he could be a great slot receiver and has an array of other abilities that he just can't put on display because.....you know.......EJ/Thad/Tuel/Orton/Taylor. Here is the reality.........Woods strength is as an intermediate receiver......if he can break down a DB's cushion he is smooth out of breaks on those mid-range routes and can get open there. But not quick enough to play slot, catch screens etc.. and not fast or big enough to be a deep threat. Not a redzone asset and his lack of RAC ability is a major flaw in his game. He is what he is and that will ALWAYS limit his production regardless of where he goes. At least HERE he has always been the #2 or occasional #1 WR option........so assuming he will do better elsewhere is assuming his ceiling is that much higher. It reminds me of the "Chris Kelsay is a good run defender but can't rush the passer" takes. Basically it was just ASSUMED that must be the case because he wasn't hitting QB's. He was actually a liability against the run....could not set the edge to save his life......and despite his lack of production by far the better part of his game was rushing the passer. We've seen similar lazy misconceptions with Stevie Johnson and CJ Spiller.........how many people thought those two would be BETTER on better teams? Julian Edelman is a very good wr/fotball player.......great in the slot......good intermediate......tremendous on special teams and trick plays.......not a deep threat but otherwise excellent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill from NYC Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 He was actually a liability against the run....could not set the edge to save his life......and despite his lack of production by far the better part of his game was rushing the passer. We've seen similar lazy misconceptions with Stevie Johnson and CJ Spiller.........how many people thought those two would be BETTER on better teams? Kelsay was too small and weak to play the run. He was almost always 1 step too slow vs. the pass. He WOULD often get through but it was just a bit too late almost all of the time. In the credit where it's due department, he had 2 or 3 really good games. He just didn't have the size or athletic ability to do his job consistently. Refresh my memory if you will.....didn't he receive a big, ridiculous contract? Spiller (along with Whitner) were draft picks I could never, ever understand. I still have no idea why any team would ever have selected them early. Round 4? I guess and as you know, this is not 20-20 hindsight. You are right about Stevie. Imo, part of what made him effective was that he and Fitz were second and/or 3rd stringers together and practiced often. He wasn't going to get better on another team, but he was a huge value for a 7th round pick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Well if Rodak said it must be true. Yeah - i went to Rodak's twitter though and he didn't tweet it. Since that is his like mouthpiece as he can't write a competent article... I'll take it with a grain of salt. The guy has 0 insider knowledge, and its Feb 2nd. Who knows what the roster decision will be.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 There is a huge lazy Bills bias with Bob Woods. Many Bills fans think that he could be a great slot receiver and has an array of other abilities that he just can't put on display because.....you know.......EJ/Thad/Tuel/Orton/Taylor. Here is the reality.........Woods strength is as an intermediate receiver......if he can break down a DB's cushion he is smooth out of breaks on those mid-range routes and can get open there. But not quick enough to play slot, catch screens etc.. and not fast or big enough to be a deep threat. Not a redzone asset and his lack of RAC ability is a major flaw in his game. He is what he is and that will ALWAYS limit his production regardless of where he goes. At least HERE he has always been the #2 or occasional #1 WR option........so assuming he will do better elsewhere is assuming his ceiling is that much higher. It reminds me of the "Chris Kelsay is a good run defender but can't rush the passer" takes. Basically it was just ASSUMED that must be the case because he wasn't hitting QB's. He was actually a liability against the run....could not set the edge to save his life......and despite his lack of production by far the better part of his game was rushing the passer. We've seen similar lazy misconceptions with Stevie Johnson and CJ Spiller.........how many people thought those two would be BETTER on better teams? Julian Edelman is a very good wr/fotball player.......great in the slot......good intermediate......tremendous on special teams and trick plays.......not a deep threat but otherwise excellent. i think woods is a good number 2 all around wr he has been injured a lot Yeah - i went to Rodak's twitter though and he didn't tweet it. Since that is his like mouthpiece as he can't write a competent article... I'll take it with a grain of salt. The guy has 0 insider knowledge, and its Feb 2nd. Who knows what the roster decision will be.... rodent is more about tweeting others scoops and creatying drama....he is not a source guy basically he is navel lint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moshermw Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) Would be something if TT goes to the Browns and leads them to the playoffs. Would be poetic and par for Bills fans. I'd like to see what he could do now that David Lee is gone and if Mcdermott fixes the D. Edited February 3, 2017 by moshermw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Would be something if TT goes to the Browns and leads them to the playoffs. Would be poetic and par for Bills fans. I'd like to see what he could do now that David Lee is gone and if Mcdermott fixes the D. heck yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) There is a huge lazy Bills bias with Bob Woods. Many Bills fans think that he could be a great slot receiver and has an array of other abilities that he just can't put on display because.....you know.......EJ/Thad/Tuel/Orton/Taylor. Here is the reality.........Woods strength is as an intermediate receiver......if he can break down a DB's cushion he is smooth out of breaks on those mid-range routes and can get open there. But not quick enough to play slot, catch screens etc.. and not fast or big enough to be a deep threat. Not a redzone asset and his lack of RAC ability is a major flaw in his game. He is what he is and that will ALWAYS limit his production regardless of where he goes. At least HERE he has always been the #2 or occasional #1 WR option........so assuming he will do better elsewhere is assuming his ceiling is that much higher. It reminds me of the "Chris Kelsay is a good run defender but can't rush the passer" takes. Basically it was just ASSUMED that must be the case because he wasn't hitting QB's. He was actually a liability against the run....could not set the edge to save his life......and despite his lack of production by far the better part of his game was rushing the passer. We've seen similar lazy misconceptions with Stevie Johnson and CJ Spiller.........how many people thought those two would be BETTER on better teams? Julian Edelman is a very good wr/fotball player.......great in the slot......good intermediate......tremendous on special teams and trick plays.......not a deep threat but otherwise excellent. Agreed that Edelman is much better, and you're right about Woods, too, IMHO. A good solid guy who would be better with a really good QB but would never be an Edelman. But Kelsay was a good run defender. He was excellent at setting the edge. The thought that he wasn't is based on a few plays when fine backs faked him out of his jock and got around him. Those were the plays people remembered, because they were highlights. But anyone setting the edge will get faked occasionally. People forgot the 98% of plays where he did an excellent job of setting the edge and someone else made the tackle. Edited February 3, 2017 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 so....you want to lose in hopes of getting a high pick yep...that works out most of the time the "bridge option" makes TT a 20 something level qb for the next 2 years....not exactly that out there Well, as long as you live in a glorious, apple blossom-filled land filled with moonbeams and nectar and bridge QBs who get paid an average of $20.25 mill a year ... then yeah, he might be a "20 something level QB for the next 2 years." He's guaranteed $40.5 mill if he stays for two years. Any guaranteed money must be paid. Any money that's paid will hit the cap. If he stays two years and leaves, the Bills cap will be hit for $40.5 mill, and that's a guarantee. That's behind 12 QBs, not 20. And those 12 QBs, in order, are: Andrew Luck Carson Palmer Drew Brees Joe Flacco Aaron Rodgers Russ Wilson Ben Roethlisberger Eli Manning Philip Rivers Cam Newton Matt Ryan, and Tom Brady Tyrod would be right nested up to Brady, costing the Bills $40.5 mill for two years of his service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John from Riverside Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Well, as long as you live in a glorious, apple blossom-filled land filled with moonbeams and nectar and bridge QBs who get paid an average of $20.25 mill a year ... then yeah, he might be a "20 something level QB for the next 2 years." He's guaranteed $40.5 mill if he stays for two years. Any guaranteed money must be paid. Any money that's paid will hit the cap. If he stays two years and leaves, the Bills cap will be hit for $40.5 mill, and that's a guarantee. That's behind 12 QBs, not 20. And those 12 QBs, in order, are: Andrew Luck Carson Palmer Drew Brees Joe Flacco Aaron Rodgers Russ Wilson Ben Roethlisberger Eli Manning Philip Rivers Cam Newton Matt Ryan, and Tom Brady Tyrod would be right nested up to Brady, costing the Bills $40.5 mill for two years of his service. is that cap hit or actual money once again,,,,i do not care about actual money and neither should you Tyrod is a "decent" starting NFL qb in the NFL...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 is that cap hit or actual money once again,,,,i do not care about actual money and neither should you Tyrod is a "decent" starting NFL qb in the NFL...... Sadly Thurman doesn't know what he is talking g about, he just keeps going on and on as a broken record with the same wrong bull ****. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Except of course Thurman is right. On 11th March this year Tyrod's $12m salary; $15.5m signing bonus and $3.25m of his 2018 salary become fully guaranteed. That is $30.75m fully guaranteed money. You can say "oh it isn't all 2017 cap" and of course that is true... but it is money that has to count against our salary cap at some point. Then because the signing bonus fully guarantees the dead money makes cutting Tyrod after 2017 pretty much a non starter so the remainder of his 2018 salary would guarantee on the 3rd day of the 2018 league year. Now there is a just about affordable out after 2018 ($9m dead money) but if we take that out Thurman is absolutely right we will have paid Tyord $40m for two years. It will be spread out over 3 (and if we designated him as a post 1 June 2019 cut spread out over 4 years) but the fact is he will have pocketed $40m all of which will have counted agains our cap at some point... for 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) is that cap hit or actual money once again,,,,i do not care about actual money and neither should you Tyrod is a "decent" starting NFL qb in the NFL...... Any time an NFL team pays any player any money ... any money at all ... for salary, roster bonus, signing bonus, workout bonus, incentives, guaranteed or non-guaranteed ... any time any money is paid to a player, it hits the salary cap. There's no way to avoid that. Trade him? Cut him? He dies suddenly? It hits the cap. All money paid to a player hits the cap. Or rather there's only one way ... if the guy "fails or refuses" to practice or play, basically if he retires extremely early ala Barry Sanders, teams must sometimes be paid back part of their signing bonus by the player and that money would be put back on the team's cap. But that situation isn't in play here. So once Tyrod's money is guaranteed, it MUST be paid; that's what a guarantee means. And any money that's paid hits the cap. So Tyrod's guaranteed money will all hit the cap. Every penny. It may wait a year or two to do so but it will absolutely hit the salary cap whether he is on or off the team. John, if you have serious salary cap questions, go here. Great site for explaining a very complex subject: http://www.askthecommish.com/SalaryCap/Faq.aspx Edited February 3, 2017 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) 1) The "make him be a quarterback" stuff is not an explanation......it's your misinterpretation of a comment. What it meant was that they wanted to keep him in the pocket.......which is by nature a passive, tentative maneuver on defense. That was a tactic that worked on a guy like Doug Flutie........the Bills were the most talented team in the AFC in 1999 but ended up in Tennessee because they lost two home games that season to bad teams(Raiders/Giants) that simply kept him in the pocket and forced him to make throws from within it.......which literally stifled everything they wanted to do on offense. The tactic really didn't work that well on Tyrod because he can do things Doug could not....... his strong arm allowed Tyrod to hit deep outs that Flutie would one-hop. And of course.......the deep ball. Tyrod is as tremendous at it. No. If that's what your interpretation that that would mean that they want to keep a QB in the pocket, then we're 100% agreed on the explanation. That's what they want to do with Tyrod. Because it works, it forces him to throw and he's not that effective at it. Much the same as teams did to Flutie. Yeah, Tyrod's better than Flutie, but not all that much. Flutie's 2000, his last year in Buffalo, was probably better than Tyrod's 2016. Flutie was 10th in YPA and Tyrod was 26th, and Flutie's passer rating was 9th while Tyrod was 20th. I'd put Tyrod a bit ahead of Flutie as a passer, but not all that much, and being a tiny bit better than Flutie isn't all that impressive. And yeah, Flutie couldn't throw the deep out anymore, whereas Tyrod doesn't throw the deep and intermediate middle throws. Keeping Tyrod in the pocket throwing is exactly what teams want to do with Tyrod. They want him throwing because he's not that good at it. Passive? Tentative? Nah. Forcing someone towards his area of weakness is the opposite of passive. That's indeed what they meant when they said "Make him be a quarterback." Get him throwing because he can't do it nearly as well as the run game could run. 2) Teams feared Michael Vick plenty. Any take to the contrary is revisionist to be kind. He went into Lambeau and beat Favre in the playoffs for fuxake. Tyrod is a better version of Vick.......a killer running the ball but a much more dangerous passer and that makes him an even greater facilitator of the running game.......which was really the main selling point of Vick. Vick by nature made the Falcons run game better..........but not like Tyrod has with the Bills. It's on another level. Facts are facts.......check the stats if you disagree. Agreed that teams feared Michael Vick. Most especially his running. He was a lot like Tyrod, even better at running - and Tyrod's very very good at running - but neither guy particularly good at passing. But it's very arguable that Vick was better. But no, Vick didn't beat Favre. The Falcons beat the Packers; that's the way football works. And while Vick wasn't bad in that game, he wasn't particularly good at passing either. 13 for 25 for 117 yards and 64 yards rushing. Scrambled very well, as usual. But a blocked punt recovered in the end zone, a muffed punt recovered by Atlanta at the GB 21 that led to a short TD drive, a fine defensive goal line stand and having Ahman Green, and the Pack's top two recievers, Donald Driver and Terry Glenn knocked out of the game had an awful lot to do with it. Vick's passing not all that much. As for Tyrod "facilitating" the run game, that's not a fact. Check the stats all you like. Yeah, the Bills run better, but no there's no particular reason to think Tyrod makes all that big a difference beyond his yardage, and Vick's yardage killed Tyrod's. 3) What do Lynch, Stewart and Blount have in common? Big physical backs that wear down defenses. If ever there is a running back that should have a GREAT ypc it's a big play scatback like LeSean McCoy. He brings zero to the physical aspect of the game. Yet the big backs that handled all the short yardage duty for him ALSO out-produced him significantly on a huge number of carries on ypc and long TD runs. It's not just the ypc, it's also the TD production, which you guys just can't grasp the impact of. You can try to write it off all you want........the stats just KEPT ON PROVING THE TAPE CORRECT......... and that's what you miss......it's about the tape where the big backs were taking the inside lanes and able to get momentum into holes because the OL was allowed to get into their blocks. Without the benefit of the time that Tyrod buys that OL to reach it's blocks and the RB's to get upfield it is an entirely different looking rushing attack. About 1 ypc LESS....which is a TON. League average ypc is 4.2 and the Marrone Bills lead the league in rushing before with an average not much higher than that. The boost in the run game from Tyrod in this system has been EXTRAORDINARY. I understand there is a lot of football ignorance on this board but it's right there on tape if you care enough to educate yourself. Dude, you're just spitting words on the page here. There simply is no proof or even indication that Tyrod is the cause of all this. It's what you want to believe so you interpret all data through that filter and lo and behold it comes out looking to you like it's obvious. Pure confirmation bias. Again, teams prepare for the most dangerous guy, the guy who gets most of the carries and the change of pace back looks different and is more productive; this simply happens all the time. I gave six or seven teams as examples where it happened this year, and that was after only looking at about eight or nine teams. As for TD production, here's one thing about it ... we scored 29 rush TDs, 17 pass TDs and 3 defensive TDs. In the same year, no other NFL team scored more run TDs than pass TDs. And yet ... your theory is that opposing defenses said, "If we eliminate their weakness, we've got them at our mercy. Let's eliminate their bad pass game rather than concentrating on the run game that's number one in the league"? Neither the stats nor the tape prove the run game comes largely from Tyrod, or that teams try to attack the pass game first. In fact, it just doesn't make sense. 4) You are literally contradicting yourself with the last two highlights. Penetration kills slow developing running games.........so why weren't teams that aggressive EVERY week? "Penetration kills slow developing running games." Bull ****. You say that as if it's a fact, but as with nearly any blanket statement applied to the extremely complex environment of the NFL, that's nonsense. To make it more reasonable you'd basically have to say, "Penetration kills slow developing running games ... sometimes. And sometimes not. Depending on a ton of other factors." But you ask a good question. If it was so easy to stop our slow developing run game by being aggressive ... yeah, why weren't teams aggressive every week? How come our run game was absolutely sensational when all teams had to do was feed their defenses on raw steaks and testosterone shots to stop it? Correct answer: it's not that easy. If it were, everyone would do it. Roman's blocking schemes, the complexity and the frequency of guys pulling are only two factors that makes it sometimes hurt the defense a lot to be aggressive. Edited February 3, 2017 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PolishDave Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 As for Tyrod "facilitating" the run game, that's not a fact. Check the stats all you like. Yeah, the Bills run better, but no there's no particular reason to think Tyrod makes all that big a difference beyond his yardage Do you think teams are worried about Tyrod running with the football? Correct answer: Of course they worry about it and game plan for it. And that fact alone forces coordinators to alter their defenses in order to stop 2 possible runners on every running play instead of just focusing on the back. With Tyrod back there the defense has to determine not just if it is a run or pass or play action, but also, if it is a run, who is going to run with the ball and if it is a pass - is the QB really going to pass or is he going to take off running with the ball. The defenders can't react as quickly as they could if there was a predictable statue QB and single running back. It is quite easy to see how that helps the running game. It is that strength that causes players to vote for Tyrod for the Probowl. Players know it is a lot harder to defend that. You don't think that helps the running game? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 Yeah - i went to Rodak's twitter though and he didn't tweet it. Since that is his like mouthpiece as he can't write a competent article... I'll take it with a grain of salt. The guy has 0 insider knowledge, and its Feb 2nd. Who knows what the roster decision will be.... I think anything you read about the Bills going forward will come from agents and sources outside of OBD. The leaks have all sealed shut since Rex left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 I think anything you read about the Bills going forward will come from agents and sources outside of OBD. The leaks have all sealed shut since Rex left. It's more than Rex -- there were leaks during the Marrone regime -- but I agree they finally appear to have been sealed. Which is a great thing, by the way. I'm ok with not knowing the story until it actually breaks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hondo in seattle Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 (edited) As for Tyrod "facilitating" the run game, that's not a fact. Check the stats all you like. Yeah, the Bills run better, but no there's no particular reason to think Tyrod makes all that big a difference beyond his yardage, and Vick's yardage killed Tyrod's. Thurman#1, you are again right in a limited kind of way. It is not a fact that TT facilitated the run game. It's a theory. Just like evolution is a theory, and Newton's theory of gravity, and Einstein's theory of relativity - all of which are accepted by the overwhelming majority of scientists. Facts are things that are directly observable. Theories explain the facts. The facts are the Bills led the NFL in rushing yards and YPC. The fact is that TT/Lynn combo scored 27 points per game. The theory (explanation) that lots of intelligent observers have is that the success of the Bills offense hinged partially on Tyrod's running skills. You can deny this all you want. People on the fringe deny evolution, global warming, and a lot of other theories that are well supported by facts. But there's no stat line that can prove - or disprove - that Tyrod facilitated the run game. And if you didn't see it with your own eyes in the way Roman designed his plays or Lynn called the plays, there's no way to convince you. There's a saying in India: "When a pickpocket walks down the street, all he sees is pockets." Likewise, when a hungry guy drives down the street, he notices all the restaurants. When a horny guy watches a movie, he notices all the hot girls. And whey a Tyrod-hater watches All-22, he notices all Tyrod's shortcomings - and none of his strengths. We tend to see what fulfills our desires and backs up our opinions. Many of us here actually agree with some of your statements: TT wasn't successful with the deep ball last season, he has trouble finding open receivers, he has accuracy issues and so on. But I think we're a little more nuanced in our evaluations and see that he brought some good to the table with the bad. While we all hope to eventually have a better QB under center, we can easily imagine worse. We're Bills fans, we've had worse. That's why I'm all in favor of drafting a QB if a good one is available, but keeping Tyrod until someone beats him out for the job. Edited February 3, 2017 by hondo in seattle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdand12 Posted February 3, 2017 Share Posted February 3, 2017 It's more than Rex -- there were leaks during the Marrone regime -- but I agree they finally appear to have been sealed. Which is a great thing, by the way. I'm ok with not knowing the story until it actually breaks. goodness yes, and finally. Quite a feat by upper Pegulas to nail this thing down. Bravo ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts