Buffalo86 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Pete Prisco, CBS Sports The Bills and Taylor agreed to a restructured five-year deal (really a two-year deal), one that drops his outrageous cap number from $16 million to $10 million, which means he will be the team’s starting quarterback. It’s the right move based on the draft and the free-agent market, but it also sends a strong message: New Bills coach Sean McDermott is the guy with the juice in the building now. The Bills appeared to be readying to hire interim coach Anthony Lynn after the season, but word around the league was that McDermott wowed owners Terry and Kim Pegula during his interview. When that happened, McDermott became the power broker in the building, making general manager Doug Whaley, who many wondered why he still had a job anyway, a guy without the juice anymore. Whaley clearly was not a Taylor guy, which is why he instructed Lynn to sit him late last season rather than risk injury that would have guaranteed him the 2017 salary. That was not a football move at all. It was a Whaley move based on money and the future, even though he’s the one who gave Taylor the bad contract last year. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/free-agency-musings-keeping-tyrod-taylor-shows-whos-in-charge-in-buffalo/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nucci Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 More speculation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beef Jerky Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Yea he has JUICE!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan2313 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Not really Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Complete guessing, speculation, and middle school gossip. The idea that McDermott somehow strong-armed Whaley into restructuring and keeping Taylor, even though Whaley was completely against it, is absolutely ludicrous at every level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Taylor is now one of the lowest paid veteran starters. The first contract wasn't a bad one because there was language in there that allowed them to restructure to this new one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBud420 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Definitely. Whaley has never been high on Tyrod. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Royale with Cheese Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Complete guessing, speculation, and middle school gossip. The idea that McDermott somehow strong-armed Whaley into restructuring and keeping Taylor, even though Whaley was completely against it, is absolutely ludicrous at every level. Yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffAlone Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Doesn't that say that Whaley was smart to sit him the last game,due to money issues? A good GM says "hey,we ain't risking that money until we know what the new coach wants". At which point,they went to work to get the better team deal. That is not signaling lack of power by the GM,rather the opposite. Financially responsible IMO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfanmiami(oh) Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 If Tyrod had played that last game and gotten hurt, the media would have been lambasting the team for backing themselves into a corner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo86 Posted March 9, 2017 Author Share Posted March 9, 2017 Complete guessing, speculation, and middle school gossip. The idea that McDermott somehow strong-armed Whaley into restructuring and keeping Taylor, even though Whaley was completely against it, is absolutely ludicrous at every level. Wasn't Whaley supposedly against hiring Rex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Wasn't Whaley supposedly against hiring Rex? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATeam Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 No. Rex wasn't Whaley's first choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBud420 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Whaley needs to go. He gets walked all over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffAlone Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 If Tyrod had played that last game and gotten hurt, the media would have been lambasting the team for backing themselves into a corner.absolutely without a doubt! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Rex wasn't Whaley's first choice. That doesn't mean he was "against" him. Rex was clearly okayed by Whaley from a football standpoint, no matter how much he tries to absolve himself after the fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWATeam Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 That doesn't mean he was "against" him. Rex was clearly okayed by Whaley from a football standpoint, no matter how much he tries to absolve himself after the fact. The point is, if Whaley was empowered to make the decision, he would not have hired Rex. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 The point is, if Whaley was empowered to make the decision, he would not have hired Rex. Period. Sure. That doesn't mean he was against him. There is a point between "Don't hire this guy, he sucks, Pegulas NOOOO," and "I love this man and he's my favorite candidate." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Dude Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Whaley got what he wanted too. He got Tyrod at his price. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mead107 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Rehash Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bray Wyatt Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 This is all just confirmation bias: con·fir·ma·tion bi·as noun noun: confirmation bias the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd1 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) Taylor injured - hernia. Meaningless game. Why on earth would you play your injured starter? This is what gets me about the whole "Benched" scenario. Edited March 9, 2017 by cd1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CodeMonkey Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 The idea that McDermott somehow strong-armed Whaley into restructuring and keeping Taylor, even though Whaley was completely against it, is absolutely ludicrous at every level. Not "absolutely ludicrous at every level." at all. It is not possible to you that McDermott told the Pegulas that given the current QB situation he wanted to keep TT and the Pegulas told Whaley to make it so? I can see that as a definite possibility. But if true, so much for the non-meddling owners. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeGOATski Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Dysfunction!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 McD went rogue! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
34-78-83 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 nope this is not what you should assume from the result OP. Are we that lost in the ways of using logic as a society? They looked into all the evidence, history, options available and came to an agreement as a management team. Nothing spectacular. They did their job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Not "absolutely ludicrous at every level." at all. It is not possible to you that McDermott told the Pegulas that given the current QB situation he wanted to keep TT and the Pegulas told Whaley to make it so? I can see that as a definite possibility. But if true, so much for the non-meddling owners. Not really. Because I believe that Whaley was always in favor of keeping TT as long as it was under a different price tag. To think that Whaley was 100% against keeping him no matter what, and the Pegulas had to sweep in and dictate his job to him sounds more like a Curcci/LaCanfora report than real life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cd1 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Not "absolutely ludicrous at every level." at all. It is not possible to you that McDermott told the Pegulas that given the current QB situation he wanted to keep TT and the Pegulas told Whaley to make it so? I can see that as a definite possibility. But if true, so much for the non-meddling owners. Wow it must take an enormous amount of effort to keep that fantasy bubble from hitting the ground and popping. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 nope this is not what you should assume from the result OP. Are we that lost in the ways of using logic as a society? They looked into all the evidence, history, options available and came to an agreement as a management team. Nothing spectacular. They did their job. Right? It's so simple and non-dramatic in every way. But that doesnt get clicks or re-tweets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris heff Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Doesn't that say that Whaley was smart to sit him the last game,due to money issues? A good GM says "hey,we ain't risking that money until we know what the new coach wants". At which point,they went to work to get the better team deal. That is not signaling lack of power by the GM,rather the opposite. Financially responsible IMO It is amazing that some people don't recognize this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I'll bet Pete Prisco has a cork board with a bunch of pictures of Whaley and Tyrod connected by string. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 It is amazing that some people don't recognize this. It's been mind-bottling how folks dont see the simple and reasonable truth. And now evidenced by the reports that Taylor made himself available to the Bills this entire offseason, and then agreed to a restructure. He was never "insulted" by the benching, and Whaley wasn't trying to move on completely. It was simply smart business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transient Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 This is further evidence that Obama wire tapped the Bills. Gotta love a world where anyone with keyboard can start a conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CanadianFan Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 I disagree. This was a smart cold logical move without emotions involved. The kind of thing Bills aren't known to make in the past. Contract was structured smartly last year, and now the re-signing is done the same way. Just SMART. Not whaley, not McD, it's a team move. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blargo Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 It's been mind-bottling how folks dont see the simple and reasonable truth. And now evidenced by the reports that Taylor made himself available to the Bills this entire offseason, and then agreed to a restructure. He was never "insulted" by the benching, and Whaley wasn't trying to move on completely. It was simply smart business. If you listened or read the McDermott interview after TT's renegotiated contract he said that TT was insulted by the benching. McDermott then said he talked with TT and he had to get over that and apperently TT did just that and that TT wanted to be in Buffalo... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Definitely. Whaley has never been high on Tyrod. How so Buffalo Bud? I read this a lot on here. However, Doug has now signed Hotrod to his third contract in 3 years. Kind of a funny way to treat a guy you aren't "high" on. Doug handles the 53. If he didn't like him, he could have cut him a couple of times by now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 The point is, if Whaley was empowered to make the decision, he would not have hired Rex. Period. Where is the evidence of this? Read Whaley's own words. The idea that the Pegulas (at least one of which has admitted that the hiring process made his sleepy), with zero experience or clue as to how to pick a HC, not onlyh did NOT heavily rely on Whaley's input---they strong armed him into taking Rex instead of, what Hue Jackson (insert laugh track here anyway)?? And now that same previously bullied GM could not have possibly been strong armed again by his new HC? Makes sense... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikie's Bills Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) Ed WerderVerified account @Edwerderespn Follow More #Bills HC Sean McDermott saved Tyrod Taylor as team's QB. Been w/ Donovan McNabb, Cam Newton. Sees some similarities in skill set With regards to what Prisco said about Whaley giving him the contract... if you looked back at the quotes Whaley said after Taylor's 1st year as starter, he was in no hurry to sign him to an extension. He wanted to wait out another year for more information before making a longeterm decision. Then the extension comes out of nowhere, I'm guessing from pressure from either ownership or coaching staff. Anyways, Whaley deserves credit for getting a restructure done. I would have liked to wait to see if we had a shot at Romo first, but assuming we didn't then I guess it was our best option for a stop gap. Edited March 9, 2017 by Mikie's Bills Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 (edited) Complete guessing, speculation, and middle school gossip. The idea that McDermott somehow strong-armed Whaley into restructuring and keeping Taylor, even though Whaley was completely against it, is absolutely ludicrous at every level. It's ludicrous. But it's also not what Prisco said. Where die he say Whaley was completely against it? Isn't it just as reasonable to assume Whaley was against it under some conditions? Particularly the conditions of theguarantees and the front-loaded nature of the original contract. It would indeed have been ludicrous to say that Whaley strong-armed a GM who was totally against the move, but that was a poor summary of Prisco's position.. What Prisco said was probably reaching a bit, very possible correct, but too little evidence to be anywhere near sure. Edited March 9, 2017 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricojes Posted March 9, 2017 Share Posted March 9, 2017 Wow it must take an enormous amount of effort to keep that fantasy bubble from hitting the ground and popping. It's a definite possibiliy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts