QB comparative data for Tyrod from Cian Fahey to discuss

[BillsFan17]

He wasn't going to get cut. There was no way the Bills were cutting him. The Bills had NO quarterback for 2017, and as we've now seen, they didn't want to draft one this year. You think McDermott wanted to coach his rookie year as HC with NO quarterback? No way.

 

What the Bills did was a much smarter way to hedge their bets on Taylor. They get to see Taylor for a year or two more AND they set themselves up to take a QB next season if they believe they need one.

 

They did the same thing with Taylor that they did with Watkins - they shortened his deal. And as I think about it, that's why they didn't extend Watkins. If they extended him, Watkins and Taylor would have become free agents the same year, and the Bills could franchise only one of them. The way they did it, they can franchise Watkins next year and, if Taylor really comes of age, they can franchise him the following year.

 

But in any case, Taylor wasn't afraid of being cut. On his two-year body of work, he would have ended up being the starter somewhere - Chicago, Houston, Denver, the Jets. He would have been the best option, by far, available to several teams. He'd have gotten $20-$30 million guaranteed somewhere, because there would have been a bidding war.

Very possible Tyrod would have made out on the open market, yet his agent who met it teams at the combine didnt like we heard. The meeting were informal, but still, Tyrod went from not willing to restructure to all of a sudden being willing?

 

Furthermore, there was rumours we were looking heavily into Hoyer if Tyrod didn't restructure.

 

Again, a lot of hearsay and speculation, but can't discount the fact this deal is better for Buffalo than fot Taylor.

 

Buffalo is showing an utter lack of faith, and Tyrod apparently didn't like what he heard the market would be... so taking a deal with little insurance on his end... sure he could be a FA sooner, but injuries among other things can happen.

[PolishDave]

Very possible Tyrod would have made out on the open market, yet his agent who met it teams at the combine didnt like we heard. The meeting were informal, but still, Tyrod went from not willing to restructure to all of a sudden being willing?

 

Furthermore, there was rumours we were looking heavily into Hoyer if Tyrod didn't restructure.

 

Again, a lot of hearsay and speculation, but can't discount the fact this deal is better for Buffalo than fot Taylor.

 

Buffalo is showing an utter lack of faith, and Tyrod apparently didn't like what he heard the market would be... so taking a deal with little insurance on his end... sure he could be a FA sooner, but injuries among other things can happen.

 

Sorry dude.. No team makes an offer of $15.5 million for a guy they don't have any faith in. You have that backwards. They had more faith in him than any other option available. So much faith in fact that they offered him $15.5 big ones to please, please, please come play for the Bills. He said sure I'll do it for $15 million.

 

I honestly don't know how you guys think this **** up. You are dead wrong.

[Shaw66]

Very possible Tyrod would have made out on the open market, yet his agent who met it teams at the combine didnt like we heard. The meeting were informal, but still, Tyrod went from not willing to restructure to all of a sudden being willing?

 

Furthermore, there was rumours we were looking heavily into Hoyer if Tyrod didn't restructure.

 

Again, a lot of hearsay and speculation, but can't discount the fact this deal is better for Buffalo than fot Taylor.

 

Buffalo is showing an utter lack of faith, and Tyrod apparently didn't like what he heard the market would be... so taking a deal with little insurance on his end... sure he could be a FA sooner, but injuries among other things can happen.

Dave's right.

 

I don't know if Tyrod was ever unwilling to restructure, but if he was unwilling to restructure, do you really think he came to the table because the Bills were threatening to sign Brian Hoyer? Are you kidding? Cleveland needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Houston needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Chicago needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Three teams desperate for QBs, three teams had him on the roster and actually let him START, and all three teams let him walk away. Taylor is clearly and unequivocally better than Hoyer, everyone knows that, and Taylor knows that. Don't suggest that Taylor was quaking in his boots that he get cut to make room for Brian Hoyer.

 

The Bills were asking to renegotiate, not Taylor. The side that asks to renegotiate wants something, so that's the team that had to give up something to get what they wanted.

 

I'll say it again. I know a guy who knows 100 times more about this than you or I, and he told unequivocally that Taylor got what he wanted out of this deal. This was a good deal for Taylor, better than the deal he had last year. Unequivocally.

 

It's very simple. Follow the option. Who had the option to make Taylor a free agent. Taylor had it in 2016. The Bills didn't like that, so they wrote Taylor a contract with a nice guarantee to get the option back. The Bills paid for the option. Then in 2017 they didn't want to decide; they wanted the option to be extended for a year. The Bills paid to extend the option for a year. What did they pay? They gave Taylor the option too. They gave Taylor his freedom.

[CommonCents]

I'm not going to get caught up in the middle of the endless TT debates but this has gone full Looney Tunes at this point. Since when is referencing a friend/agent/OBD worker so casually mentioned and then used as stone cold proof?

 

This is the 3rd instance in the past week of a "friend" telling us what we need to know. Hmm...

 

Saying something that is off the mark is common place, saying something off the mark then using a reference to improve the standing of that remark is sloppy unless we know who it is and what was said.

 

COMMONMAN.

[Crusher]

Dave's right.

 

I don't know if Tyrod was ever unwilling to restructure, but if he was unwilling to restructure, do you really think he came to the table because the Bills were threatening to sign Brian Hoyer? Are you kidding? Cleveland needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Houston needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Chicago needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Three teams desperate for QBs, three teams had him on the roster and actually let him START, and all three teams let him walk away. Taylor is clearly and unequivocally better than Hoyer, everyone knows that, and Taylor knows that. Don't suggest that Taylor was quaking in his boots that he get cut to make room for Brian Hoyer.

 

The Bills were asking to renegotiate, not Taylor. The side that asks to renegotiate wants something, so that's the team that had to give up something to get what they wanted.

 

I'll say it again. I know a guy who knows 100 times more about this than you or I, and he told unequivocally that Taylor got what he wanted out of this deal. This was a good deal for Taylor, better than the deal he had last year. Unequivocally.

 

It's very simple. Follow the option. Who had the option to make Taylor a free agent. Taylor had it in 2016. The Bills didn't like that, so they wrote Taylor a contract with a nice guarantee to get the option back. The Bills paid for the option. Then in 2017 they didn't want to decide; they wanted the option to be extended for a year. The Bills paid to extend the option for a year. What did they pay? They gave Taylor the option too. They gave Taylor his freedom.

So this guy you know knows Taylor got what he wanted? Does he speak with Taylor?

 

If not...you're guy is merely speculating.

 

Players of Tyrods caliber and playing style don't gamble on one year deals...they get a good offer with alot of guaranteed money and smile all the way to the bank. Injuries are far too common for guys to play on a year by year basis. It's quite foolish for a player or an agent to do such a thing.

 

If you're guy was adamant that he unequivocally got what he wanted, then I have to question how he reached that conclusion. I don't think you can make that kind of statement without knowing the played personally.

[BillsFan17]

So this guy you know knows Taylor got what he wanted? Does he speak with Taylor?

 

If not...you're guy is merely speculating.

 

Players of Tyrods caliber and playing style don't gamble on one year deals...they get a good offer with alot of guaranteed money and smile all the way to the bank. Injuries are far too common for guys to play on a year by year basis. It's quite foolish for a player or an agent to do such a thing.

 

If you're guy was adamant that he unequivocally got what he wanted, then I have to question how he reached that conclusion. I don't think you can make that kind of statement without knowing the played personally.

Exactly...

Dave's right.

 

I don't know if Tyrod was ever unwilling to restructure, but if he was unwilling to restructure, do you really think he came to the table because the Bills were threatening to sign Brian Hoyer? Are you kidding? Cleveland needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Houston needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Chicago needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Three teams desperate for QBs, three teams had him on the roster and actually let him START, and all three teams let him walk away. Taylor is clearly and unequivocally better than Hoyer, everyone knows that, and Taylor knows that. Don't suggest that Taylor was quaking in his boots that he get cut to make room for Brian Hoyer.

 

The Bills were asking to renegotiate, not Taylor. The side that asks to renegotiate wants something, so that's the team that had to give up something to get what they wanted.

 

I'll say it again. I know a guy who knows 100 times more about this than you or I, and he told unequivocally that Taylor got what he wanted out of this deal. This was a good deal for Taylor, better than the deal he had last year. Unequivocally.

 

It's very simple. Follow the option. Who had the option to make Taylor a free agent. Taylor had it in 2016. The Bills didn't like that, so they wrote Taylor a contract with a nice guarantee to get the option back. The Bills paid for the option. Then in 2017 they didn't want to decide; they wanted the option to be extended for a year. The Bills paid to extend the option for a year. What did they pay? They gave Taylor the option too. They gave Taylor his freedom.

https://www.google.com/amp/billswire.usatoday.com/2017/03/14/buffalo-bills-tyrod-taylor-contract-pay-cut/amp/

[Bills Pimpin']

Tyrod Taylor is making 15.5 million dollars this year. There are 8 quarterbacks in the league who will be paid more. You all don't think it was a good deal for Taylor. Plus he gets another 15.5 million next year if he plays good? Hmmmm. That seems very fair for both sides maybe a little better for Tyrod if you ask me.

[BillsFan17]

Tyrod Taylor is making 15.5 million dollars this year. There are 8 quarterbacks in the league who will be paid more. You all don't think it was a good deal for Taylor. Plus he gets another 15.5 million next year if he plays good? Hmmmm. That seems very fair for both sides maybe a little better for Tyrod if you ask me.

Where are you getting your numbers? There will be 19 QBS who are paid more than Tyrod. Would have been 20 had Romo not retired.

 

Other than guys on rookie deals, there isn't a true starting QB being paid less. Unless you count Glennon.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/average/quarterback/

Edited May 9, 2017 by BillsFan17

[Bills Pimpin']

Those are salary cap numbers. What they are actually getting paid is different.

 

https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2017/

[transplantbillsfan]

He wasn't going to get cut. There was no way the Bills were cutting him. The Bills had NO quarterback for 2017, and as we've now seen, they didn't want to draft one this year. You think McDermott wanted to coach his rookie year as HC with NO quarterback? No way.

 

What the Bills did was a much smarter way to hedge their bets on Taylor. They get to see Taylor for a year or two more AND they set themselves up to take a QB next season if they believe they need one.

 

They did the same thing with Taylor that they did with Watkins - they shortened his deal. And as I think about it, that's why they didn't extend Watkins. If they extended him, Watkins and Taylor would have become free agents the same year, and the Bills could franchise only one of them. The way they did it, they can franchise Watkins next year and, if Taylor really comes of age, they can franchise him the following year.

 

But in any case, Taylor wasn't afraid of being cut. On his two-year body of work, he would have ended up being the starter somewhere - Chicago, Houston, Denver, the Jets. He would have been the best option, by far, available to several teams. He'd have gotten $20-$30 million guaranteed somewhere, because there would have been a bidding war.

Really interesting perspective on the franchise tag with Watkins and Taylor.

 

I agree that I didn't think they were ever planning on moving on from Taylor, though we're never going to be able to prove it.

Very possible Tyrod would have made out on the open market, yet his agent who met it teams at the combine didnt like we heard. The meeting were informal, but still, Tyrod went from not willing to restructure to all of a sudden being willing?

 

Furthermore, there was rumours we were looking heavily into Hoyer if Tyrod didn't restructure.

Taylor stated right after the season ended he'd consider restructuring.

 

That's what opened Pandora's box and the reason just about anything coming out of OBD should be taken with a grain of salt, including the supposed Hoyer interest, which could simply have been used as leverage.

 

An NFL organization hears that a player is willing to restructure a $40 million guaranteed contract in order to stay with the team...? HELL YEAH you do whatever you can to make it happen while running no risk of losing him since you can always just exercise the option!!!

Edited May 9, 2017 by transplantbillsfan

[transplantbillsfan]

Tyrod Taylor is making 15.5 million dollars this year. There are 8 quarterbacks in the league who will be paid more. You all don't think it was a good deal for Taylor. Plus he gets another 15.5 million next year if he plays good? Hmmmm. That seems very fair for both sides maybe a little better for Tyrod if you ask me.

Where are you getting your numbers? There will be 19 QBS who are paid more than Tyrod. Would have been 20 had Romo not retired.

 

Other than guys on rookie deals, there isn't a true starting QB being paid less. Unless you count Glennon.

 

http://www.spotrac.com/nfl/rankings/average/quarterback/

Those are salary cap numbers. What they are actually getting paid is different.

 

https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2017/

This is interesting and actually does lend some credence to Shaw's argument that Taylor is "betting on himself."

 

But man, look at that list of QBs who are in the top 8...

 

Whoof...

Edited May 9, 2017 by transplantbillsfan

[Thurman#1]

You're correct.

 

However, with the dead cap money, it's almost a certainty that the Bills will keep Taylor for the next two years. The only way the Bills would cut Taylor before the 2018 season would be if they found a great starter AND a better backup than Taylor this year. There's a good chance that Taylor will be the best player to start in 2018, and it's a virtual certainty that he'll be the best possible backup.

 

If someone beats out Taylor this year, it means he's better than Taylor, and it also means the Bills must be pretty good. If theyre good, then going into 2018, they'll want a good backup. It'll cost them at least a few million to get a good backup. The better move would be to keep Taylor - he'll have experience in the system, he'll be better than any backup they can get, and he won't cost that much more money for one year.

 

So I think it's extremely unlikely that Taylor won't be on the team in 2018. Possible, but not likely.

 

Plus, Taylor doesn't care. If he gets cut early in 2018, it will be because Peterman became a star, and that won't hurt Taylor's marketability. Look at Romo. If Romo were five years younger and not such a health unknown, he wouldn't be viewed as damaged goods. Taylor wouldn't be, either. He wouldn't be viewed as a star like Romo, but he'd be viewed as a good starter who came available.

 

 

 

Shaw, you're wrong about the effect that money will have on the likelihood of him getting cut.

 

The way it's structured will make it extremely easy to cut him. Very very easy.

 

Here are the two choices:

 

1) Cut him before March of 2018: He'll cost the team $8.6 mill in dead money against the cap

 

2) Keep him for 2018: He'll cost the team $18 mill against the cap, in salary, a major March roster bonus and the prorated portion of his signing bonus.

 

Cutting him would save them almost $10 mill on the cap. That's not a penalty for cutting him, it's a windfall.

 

And let's not pretend guys don't get cut for money-related reasons even when they beat out (or would beat out) the other QBs on the rosters in the NFL. It happens a lot. Not to the franchise guys, but to the guys farther down, who the team thinks won't allow them to be competitive for a title. And that's Tyrod. Osweiler's a good example, the best QB on that roster but not good enough to make that team competitive, so he's gone before they have any idea what they might get in the draft.

 

We don't know whether or not it's likely. Too much is up in the air in terms of what QBs will be available in the draft when we pick, how much Peterman and Cardale will develop and whether or not Tyrod does as well as they hope in the new system, as well as whether the team and the offense are competitive next year with Tyrod.

 

Unless things fall well for him, it could easily make great sense to cut him. The money is a reason to cut him, not to keep him. They could easily keep him for two but it would be just as easy to cut him.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

He wasn't going to get cut. There was no way the Bills were cutting him. The Bills had NO quarterback for 2017, and as we've now seen, they didn't want to draft one this year. You think McDermott wanted to coach his rookie year as HC with NO quarterback? No way.

 

What the Bills did was a much smarter way to hedge their bets on Taylor. They get to see Taylor for a year or two more AND they set themselves up to take a QB next season if they believe they need one.

 

They did the same thing with Taylor that they did with Watkins - they shortened his deal. And as I think about it, that's why they didn't extend Watkins. If they extended him, Watkins and Taylor would have become free agents the same year, and the Bills could franchise only one of them. The way they did it, they can franchise Watkins next year and, if Taylor really comes of age, they can franchise him the following year.

 

But in any case, Taylor wasn't afraid of being cut. On his two-year body of work, he would have ended up being the starter somewhere - Chicago, Houston, Denver, the Jets. He would have been the best option, by far, available to several teams. He'd have gotten $20-$30 million guaranteed somewhere, because there would have been a bidding war.

 

 

 

Agreed that what the Bills did was smart and hedged their bets. Yeah, they shortened his deal. But they also made it infinitely easier for them to cut him after one year.

 

With the old deal (assuming they'd taken the option, of course) if they'd cut him after one year, they'd have had to pay a penalty of around $14 - $15 mill in dead money. And the alternative - keeping him on the roster through March 2018 - would have meant guaranteeing him about $24 mill more ($40 mill total guaranteed from the beginning of the contract if he was only on the roster in March 2018 ... minus his 2017 impact).

 

If they'd kept the old deal and picked up the option, to keep him or let him go would have cost the Bills a ton more than the new deal will. Either way the Bills save a ton and Tyrod makes a lot less.

 

In the new deal, Tyrod makes $14 mill less money if he's here for one year and $10 mill less money if he's here for two. And his guarantee, a number players fight like rabid dogs to increase, will also be a lot less.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

Taylor stated right after the season ended he'd consider restructuring.

 

 

What he said was that he would consider restructuring but was not willing to do so if he had to give up any money.

 

Whoops.

[Foxx]

I'm not going to get caught up in the middle of the endless TT debates but this has gone full Looney Tunes at this point. Since when is referencing a friend/agent/OBD worker so casually mentioned and then used as stone cold proof?

 

This is the 3rd instance in the past week of a "friend" telling us what we need to know. Hmm...

 

Saying something that is off the mark is common place, saying something off the mark then using a reference to improve the standing of that remark is sloppy unless we know who it is and what was said.

 

COMMONMAN.

sheer lunacy.

 

 

 

Agreed that what the Bills did was smart and hedged their bets. Yeah, they shortened his deal. But they also made it infinitely easier for them to cut him after one year.

 

With the old deal (assuming they'd taken the option, of course) if they'd cut him after one year, they'd have had to pay a penalty of around $14 - $15 mill in dead money. And the alternative - keeping him on the roster through March 2018 - would have meant guaranteeing him about $24 mill more ($40 mill total guaranteed from the beginning of the contract if he was only on the roster in March 2018 ... minus his 2017 impact).

 

If they'd kept the old deal and picked up the option, to keep him or let him go would have cost the Bills a ton more than the new deal will. Either way the Bills save a ton and Tyrod makes a lot less.

 

In the new deal, Tyrod makes $14 mill less money if he's here for one year and $10 mill less money if he's here for two. And his guarantee, a number players fight like rabid dogs to increase, will also be a lot less.

 

 

 

 

What he said was that he would consider restructuring but was not willing to do so if he had to give up any money.

 

Whoops.

it's funny how the mind remembers what it wants to twist things towards the narrative you prefer.

[Bills Pimpin']

Agreed that what the Bills did was smart and hedged their bets. Yeah, they shortened his deal. But they also made it infinitely easier for them to cut him after one year.

 

With the old deal (assuming they'd taken the option, of course) if they'd cut him after one year, they'd have had to pay a penalty of around $14 - $15 mill in dead money. And the alternative - keeping him on the roster through March 2018 - would have meant guaranteeing him about $24 mill more ($40 mill total guaranteed from the beginning of the contract if he was only on the roster in March 2018 ... minus his 2017 impact).

 

If they'd kept the old deal and picked up the option, to keep him or let him go would have cost the Bills a ton more than the new deal will. Either way the Bills save a ton and Tyrod makes a lot less.

 

In the new deal, Tyrod makes $14 mill less money if he's here for one year and $10 mill less money if he's here for two. And his guarantee, a number players fight like rabid dogs to increase, will also be a lot less.

I don't believe there is any argument that The Bills were not going to pick up Taylor at 30 million. I'm not sure how well Taylor would have had to play to get that 30 million but I assume it would have had To be Bradyesque. That is why the initial contract was not so bad as it was told in the media. The Bills were in control of the situation and Taylor was paid fair market value. This deal is no different other than the fact that Taylor may be slightly over paid this year, and was slightly underpaid last year. Could Taylor have gotten 45 million over 4 years with 25 guaranteed? Probably. But is that better than 30 million over 2 years with 15.5 mllioon guarenteed? In a situation that he knows and likes? It's not so clear. Its a good fair deal for both.

[Thurman#1]

sheer lunacy.

 

 

it's funny how the mind remembers what it wants to twist things towards the narrative you prefer.

 

 

 

It is indeed.

 

For a while it was that he wasn't willing to restructure.

 

Which honestly you could understand with a six-year $92 mill contract.

 

But that was the original report.

 

Then the one that he was willing to re-structure but not willing to give up any money.

 

Feb. 9th: "It's pretty much an either or proposition, because, based on everything I've been told, Taylor is unwilling to agree to a restructured contract that would reduce his pay. He and his agent, Adisa Bakari, are firmly convinced they would receive every bit as much as the Bills would have to pay in accordance with the extension -- if not more -- in the open market."

 

http://buffalonews.com/2017/02/09/vic-caruccis-bills-mailbag-taylor-either-proposition/?utm_campaign=puma&utm_medium=social&utm_source=Twitter#link_time=1486679573

 

 

Then the new contract where his pay was reduced.

I don't believe there is any argument that The Bills were not going to pick up Taylor at 30 million. I'm not sure how well Taylor would have had to play to get that 30 million but I assume it would have had To be Bradyesque. That is why the initial contract was not so bad as it was told in the media. The Bills were in control of the situation and Taylor was paid fair market value. This deal is no different other than the fact that Taylor may be slightly over paid this year, and was slightly underpaid last year. Could Taylor have gotten 45 million over 4 years with 25 guaranteed? Probably. But is that better than 30 million over 2 years with 15.5 mllioon guarenteed? In a situation that he knows and likes? It's not so clear. Its a good fair deal for both.

 

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying, particularly in the first sentence.

 

But before the renegotiation there was a very real argument that the Bills were not going to pick up that option to pay that $30.75 mill guarantee. And he didn't have to be Brady-esque to get that guarantee. He didn't even have to throw a single pass. All he had to do was be on the roster this last March, the third day of the league year and ... boom ... $30.75 mill guaranteed.

 

Schefter's original report that the Bills were not going to pick up that option didn't say they didn't want Tyrod. It said that they weren't going to pay that much for him.

Edited May 9, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Bills Pimpin']

I will be more clear. Everyone within the organization as well as Tyrod as well as Tyrods agent knew the Bills were going to cut the quarterback before March 1 and he was going to play elsewhere or he was going to restructure. You don't have to be a genius to know not a single team would sign up for 92 million or whatever the contract was after Taylor's season last year. Taylor did not take a pay cut because the offer he had was never on the table. What Taylor got was a fair market value contract at the place he wanted to play.

[BuffaloHokie13]

Very possible Tyrod would have made out on the open market, yet his agent who met it teams at the combine didnt like we heard. The meeting were informal, but still, Tyrod went from not willing to restructure to all of a sudden being willing?

 

Furthermore, there was rumours we were looking heavily into Hoyer if Tyrod didn't restructure.

 

Again, a lot of hearsay and speculation, but can't discount the fact this deal is better for Buffalo than fot Taylor.

 

Buffalo is showing Whaley showed an utter lack of faith, and Tyrod apparently didn't like what he heard the market would be... so taking a deal with little insurance on his end... sure he could be a FA sooner, but injuries among other things can happen.

 

I will be more clear. Everyone within the organization as well as Tyrod as well as Tyrods agent knew the Bills were going to cut the quarterback before March 1 and he was going to play elsewhere or he was going to restructure. You don't have to be a genius to know not a single team would sign up for 92 million or whatever the contract was after Taylor's season last year. Taylor did not take a pay cut because the offer he had was never on the table. What Taylor got was a fair market value contract at the place he wanted to play.

First, 'Everyone' is an overstatement. Second, Tyrod is still employed by the Bills and those who wanted him gone are not.

 

Food for thought.

[BillsFan17]

 

First, 'Everyone' is an overstatement. Second, Tyrod is still employed by the Bills and those who wanted him gone are not.

 

Food for thought.

So you crossed out buffalo and replaced it with Whaley? Makes zero sense but okay