eball Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 This Carucci gem is on the front page this morning. Come on, Vic. First, he says that Tyrod could be "negatively impacted" because he took a pay cut. Umm, ok. He also says the Bills got "slightly worse" at the QB position. What? Tyrod has an another year of experience and an OC with whom he is familiar -- he got worse? The Bills dumped EJ and added Yates and Peterman to battle for the backup job -- they got worse? You don't have to be a Taylor fan or believe he's a franchise QB to understand that this is simply a pretty poor assessment of the Bills' QBs. Vic is a shell of his former self. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) Is that Negativity or Reality? Some truth, some click bait. Truth - If Bills were convinced Taylor was their long-term franchise QB, there would be a much firmer contractual commitment than the one they have that leaves them an easy out after this season. Truth - Sure, Taylor has plenty of incentive to have the best season of his career. Whether it's from the Bills or another team, he wants to prove that he deserves to get paid. Truth - But there's reason to wonder what his frame of mind will be after being forced to take a pay cut. Taylor also is well aware that, with the use of a fifth-round draft pick on a quarterback (Peterman) and the acquisition of a first-round choice in 2018, the Bills are positioned to replace him if he doesn't make dramatic strides. Truth - Although his fleet feet remain vital to the Bills’ strong rushing production, Taylor remains too quick to run and does a poor job of looking for targets in the middle of the field. Except for the final practice of mandatory minicamp, he had generally mediocre to poor showings through offseason workouts open to the media. Truth - The fact Taylor will be transitioning to yet another new offense is another potential stumbling block. The rest is conjecture imo. Edited June 27, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 He fails to say that TT and Dennison were together with the Ravens. So it's not a new offense to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChanOverChin Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 I think the Bills are better at QB than they were last year. #1 Dennison's offense is taylor-made for Taylor (yes, pun intended). I think this season will bear that out. In addition, Taylor has another year under his belt as a full-fledged NFL starting QB. That has to count for something. In fact, it should help to boost his confidence and allow him to be much more of a leader of the offense. Carucci says that it will hurt Taylor that the Bills haven't committed to him long term. I could just as easily say that it could work to the Bills' favor because he could play with a chip on his shoulder and out to prove that he deserves to be the starting QB for the Bills and to be paid the big money long term. #2 Manuel turned out to be nothing but a big tease. He just doesn't have what it takes upstairs. Yates is easily an upgrade over him. #3 Peterman gives the Bills something they haven't had in a long time.......a young QB who has a real chance to develop into a long time starter. Yet another upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw66 Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 The idea that Taylor's off-season contract negotiation will affect his play is ridiculous. The press often says stuff like this,and it's rarely or ever true. These guys are young athletes. They play as hard as they can every day, and they are focused on the game, not their contracts, when the game is being played. Taylor too quick to run? That's totally wrong. Taylor is first or second in the league in time spent in the pocket. The complaint about Taylor is that he's indecisive and holds the ball too long, not that he's too quick to take off running. Does Vic even watch the games? And I've been saying all off-season. That notion that Taylor was forced into a contract renegotiation is wrong. The Bills weren't going to cut Taylor. A year from now Taylor will have a better contract than the one he had BEFORE he renegotiated. It'll be with the Bills or with someone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transient Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Is that Negativity or Reality? Some truth, some click bait. Truth (imo) If Bills were convinced Taylor was their long-term franchise QB, there would be a much firmer contractual commitment than the one they have that leaves them an easy out after this season. Truth (imo) Sure, Taylor has plenty of incentive to have the best season of his career. Whether it's from the Bills or another team, he wants to prove that he deserves to get paid. Truth (imo) But there's reason to wonder what his frame of mind will be after being forced to take a pay cut. Taylor also is well aware that, with the use of a fifth-round draft pick on a quarterback (Peterman) and the acquisition of a first-round choice in 2018, the Bills are positioned to replace him if he doesn't make dramatic strides. Truth (imo) Although his fleet feet remain vital to the Bills strong rushing production, Taylor remains too quick to run and does a poor job of looking for targets in the middle of the field. Except for the final practice of mandatory minicamp, he had generally mediocre to poor showings through offseason workouts open to the media. Truth (imo) The fact Taylor will be transitioning to yet another new offense is another potential stumbling block. The rest is conjecture. When you have to qualify "truth" with "in my opinion" isn't that essentially conjecture? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RalphWilson'sNewWar Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Bills have worse odds in Vegas than the Browns to win AFC. THATS Our QB situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry Jabber Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 With the Bills trading back with the Chiefs to gain an extra first round pick for next year, you can bet they are going to use both of those picks to move up and draft a QB. The only way that doesn't happen is if Tyrod has a monster year this season. If Watkins, Clay, McCoy and Zay Jones stay healthy for the most part, then Tyrod has a chance of making that happen. I don't agree with Carucci that Tyrod will be less motivated about taking a pay cut. I think Tyrod will be more motivated to prove he is a legitimate franchise QB, if not for the Bills, then another team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buffalo86 Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 This harkens back to the days when we couldn't have a backup better than Thigpen for fear of rattling Fitz's confidence. If your QB lets outside factors like these hurt his play, then he's not the right guy to be leading your offense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Bills have worse odds in Vegas than the Browns to win AFC. THATS Our QB situation. Um, what? Bills Super Bowl Odds: 90/1 Browns Super Bowl Odds: 300/1 Bills AFC Champ Odds: 45/1 Browns AFC Champs Odds: 150/1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PromoTheRobot Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 You might have noticed that Taylor gives zero f###s about doubters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) This Carucci gem is on the front page this morning. Come on, Vic. First, he says that Tyrod could be "negatively impacted" because he took a pay cut. Umm, ok. He also says the Bills got "slightly worse" at the QB position. What? Tyrod has an another year of experience and an OC with whom he is familiar -- he got worse? The Bills dumped EJ and added Yates and Peterman to battle for the backup job -- they got worse? You don't have to be a Taylor fan or believe he's a franchise QB to understand that this is simply a pretty poor assessment of the Bills' QBs. Vic is a shell of his former self. ...guess Sammy should also be negatively impacted because of 5th year option as well.....two negatives equal a positive??.......... Edited June 27, 2017 by OldTimeAFLGuy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 This Carucci gem is on the front page this morning. Come on, Vic. First, he says that Tyrod could be "negatively impacted" because he took a pay cut. Umm, ok. He also says the Bills got "slightly worse" at the QB position. What? Tyrod has an another year of experience and an OC with whom he is familiar -- he got worse? The Bills dumped EJ and added Yates and Peterman to battle for the backup job -- they got worse? You don't have to be a Taylor fan or believe he's a franchise QB to understand that this is simply a pretty poor assessment of the Bills' QBs. Vic is a shell of his former self. The reasoning structure is: -Taylor is the Bills best choice at QB -Taylor's mental outlook may be made worse by taking a pay cut -Therefore the Bills got worse at QB I don't see a 5th round draft choice as 'poised to replace' Taylor - he might, more likely he won't or not in the next couple seasons. In general, NFL players who are "playing for a contract" or "playing to prove themselves" tend to play better, not worse, but of course that does depend upon the individual player and his mental makeup. So using the same reasoning structure, one could equally argue that the Bills got better because Taylor will likely play better in the effort to prove himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4_kidd_4 Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 You might have noticed that Taylor gives zero f###s about doubters. He also feels the same about staying in a clean pocket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share Posted June 27, 2017 The reasoning structure is: -Taylor is the Bills best choice at QB -Taylor's mental outlook may be made worse by taking a pay cut -Therefore the Bills got worse at QB I don't see a 5th round draft choice as 'poised to replace' Taylor - he might, more likely he won't or not in the next couple seasons. In general, NFL players who are "playing for a contract" or "playing to prove themselves" tend to play better, not worse, but of course that does depend upon the individual player and his mental makeup. So using the same reasoning structure, one could equally argue that the Bills got better because Taylor will likely play better in the effort to prove himself. It's an absurd reasoning structure. As you stated, if anything, Taylor is more motivated than ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shaw66 Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 When you have to qualify "truth" with "in my opinion" isn't that essentially conjecture? He was saying that in his opinion what Carucci said was true. There's nothing wrong about having an opinion about whether something is true. For example, if I say OJ killed his ex-wife, you probably have an opinion about whether that statement is true or not. You don't know, but you have an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jr1 Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 TD Mike being gone is a bigger problem Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eball Posted June 27, 2017 Author Share Posted June 27, 2017 TD Mike being gone is a bigger problem When Vic writes another dumb column about the RB situation this comment will have some relevance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM2009 Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 Bills have worse odds in Vegas than the Browns to win AFC. THATS Our QB situation. This is not true. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thurman#1 Posted June 27, 2017 Share Posted June 27, 2017 (edited) The idea that Taylor's off-season contract negotiation will affect his play is ridiculous. The press often says stuff like this,and it's rarely or ever true. These guys are young athletes. They play as hard as they can every day, and they are focused on the game, not their contracts, when the game is being played. Taylor too quick to run? That's totally wrong. Taylor is first or second in the league in time spent in the pocket. The complaint about Taylor is that he's indecisive and holds the ball too long, not that he's too quick to take off running. Does Vic even watch the games? And I've been saying all off-season. That notion that Taylor was forced into a contract renegotiation is wrong. The Bills weren't going to cut Taylor. A year from now Taylor will have a better contract than the one he had BEFORE he renegotiated. It'll be with the Bills or with someone else. It's not incorrect at all that Taylor is too quick to run. You just have to add "sometimes." As in sometimes he runs from clean pockets. That's what he was referring to and it's true, and one of Tyrod's bigger problems. And he's not number one or two in time spent in the pocket from any stat I've seen. He's number one or two in time holding the ball. Which is different. Where he was when he held the ball didn't enter into that stat and sprinting towards the sidelines counts. And often takes more time than staying in the pocket and surveying the whole field. If you're referring to a stat I haven't seen, fair enough, let me know where you saw that. And yeah, you've been saying it all offseason that he wasn't forced into a contract renegotiation. Extremely unconvincingly. Agreed that his negotiations are unlikely to have any major affect on his play. However the article points out that a new offense rather than the one he's been in for two years could cause problems and that's indeed a possibility. He also points out that he had poor showing during most of the offseason workouts and that's pretty reasonable also in terms of evidence. Something must have caused that and that something might (or might not, but it's certainly possible) cause further problems in the future. It's just Vic's opinion. Opinions that he'll do at least as well as last year are also very reasonable at this point. Edited June 27, 2017 by Thurman#1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts