SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 What does that prove. A restructure is quite literally what it says on the tin... the same money re-structured. If I restructure my house I don't cut it in half do I? You don't? Man did I make a huge mistake. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Why does it matter to you that you are right? Who cares-he's the starting QB for 2017 and every Bills fan should be behind him, but clearly a few are not. He hasn't earned a reputation like that as if he were EJ, or Edwards and such, but gosh darn, you're going to make sure that anyone with something positive to say is going to be wrong. Hahaha. When did I do that? I said something positive about Tyrod earlier in this very thread. And do not insinuate I am not behind him. I am behind every Bills player who takes the field. I just don't understand the constant need to spin the Tyrod situation and can only put it down to the fact that some people struggle to divorce their emotional desire for the Bills to succeed (which I have as much as anyone) from their ability to analyse the reality of what the contract is. I am 100% behind Tyrod and I have never made any sort of claim that he is in the same bracket as EJ Manuel or Trent Edwards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Hahaha. When did I do that? I said something positive about Tyrod earlier in this very thread. And do not insinuate I am not behind him. I am behind every Bills player who takes the field. I just don't understand the constant need to spin the Tyrod situation and can only put it down to the fact that some people struggle to divorce their emotional desire for the Bills to succeed (which I have as much as anyone) from their ability to analyse the reality of what the contract is. I am 100% behind Tyrod and I have never made any sort of claim that he is in the same bracket as EJ Manuel or Trent Edwards. I see you made it on his "haters list". Good luck getting off of it. Ignore his lies and feeble rantings. It's really not worth the time of day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hurricane Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 (edited) I see you made it on his "haters list". Good luck getting off of it. Ignore his lies and feeble rantings. It's really not worth the time of day. It's beyond obsessive... Edited June 28, 2017 by Hurricane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM2009 Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 It's beyond obsessive... I haven't posted much on TT at all the last couple of weeks. many others have. I could not post for a year on him and then I could post one thing, and you'd be right there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 With respect to the highlighted area go ahead and name those teams. I promise you that I won't ask for proof. I have no doubt that some teams had an interest in him. However, their lack of actual response is a statement in itself. "their lack of actual response"?? What on Earth are you talking about? You know that Tyrod was at all times under contract, right? And that any "response" by other teams would be tampering, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 "their lack of actual response"?? What on Earth are you talking about? You know that Tyrod was at all times under contract, right? And that any "response" by other teams would be tampering, right? We have been through this issue a thousand times. You clearly haven't grasped the point. If you don't believe that agents , themselves and through surrogates, send out back door feelers to find out what the market value and interest are then you are unaware of the real world and are naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Call_Of_Ktulu Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 Bills have worse odds in Vegas than the Browns to win AFC. THATS Our QB situation. That's reality and the bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 I don't understand why this is a controversial view on this board. It is as clear as day to anyone who can divorce themselves from the emotion and stand back and look at it logically. Our views are not controversial. There is a misguided notion that if you don't blindly follow the fawning crowd that you are being disloyal to the cause. The former GM wanted to outright cut the qb. The new regime was only willing to keep him on the roster with a reduction in money and term. The conclusion from the acolytes is that the qb took the reduction because of altruism rather than believing that he had no other choice in order to remain on the team. The second part of the fiction is that the running qb ignored more bountiful offers because he was loyal to the organization that mandated that he take a salary cut. The real core issue isn't about his contract and how many teams coveted or did not covet him. The substantive issue is what caliber qb is he and what is his potential? My resolute position is that he is a reasonable bridge qb. That conclusion bothers a lot of people. So be it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mannc Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 We have been through this issue a thousand times. You clearly haven't grasped the point. If you don't believe that agents , themselves and through surrogates, send out back door feelers to find out what the market value and interest are then you are unaware of the real world and are naive. What did you mean by "actual response" and how do you know there was none? The former GM wanted to outright cut the qb. The new regime was only willing to keep him on the roster with a reduction in money and term. Once again, you can't possibly know if either statement is true, and yet you continue to assert them as established facts. At best they are your own personal opinion/speculation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JM2009 Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 That's reality and the bottom line. It's neither because Cleveland has the biggest odds. Bills are 90-1 to win the SB. Cleveland 300-1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanfan Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 Vic can assess all he wants. He can imagine knowledge of TT's psyche all he wants. He can pretend Yates isn't an upgrade over EJ. He and others on the board can opine till the cows come home about TT. But one fact remains: He's our starting QB. And that's not changing anytime soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 We have been through this issue a thousand times. You clearly haven't grasped the point. If you don't believe that agents , themselves and through surrogates, send out back door feelers to find out what the market value and interest are then you are unaware of the real world and are naive. You've revised your stance pretty heavily since the piece I took issue with from what I can tell. What am I making up? If Taylor would not of taken a pay cut with a lesser term he wouldn't even be on the Bills' roster. That's a fact. TT had the ability to decline the lower contract offering and go to another team. There were no other teams interested in him as a starter. If there were then state them. At best TT is a bridge qb for us. He taking a diminished contract illustrates that point. If the organization under the new regime was unwilling to invest in him under his original contract what does that tell you? If Whaley would have been retained TT would have been unceremoniously dispatched. TT has been in the league for at least a half dozen years. He is what he is. Those hoping for him to be something more than what he has already demonstrated are being wishful. TT does serve a useful purpose. But it is not as our long term franchise qb. 'There were no other teams interested in him as a starter.' You don't have to divulge private conversations. I can respect your sense of confidentiality. No one's asking for sources. However, if there were teams interested in TT as a starter then name them. A team can have an interest in a player but if there are no serious overtures then the interest is tepid. TT and his agents are not stupid. If he could have gone to another team and started under his original contract he would have done so. He didn't! Let's remember that TT was not being warmly embraced by the Bills. The departed GM wanted to release him and the new regime was only willing to keep him on with a lesser contract. That's the reality of the situation. Can I have a do over? Would not have-----. I appreciate the correction. You are not scolding. This is what you call a teachable moment. On this issue I unequivocally agree with Whaley and Jeffismagic. Speaking of Jeff he needs to be freed from his unjust imprisonment! I agree, but who said anything about him playing under his original contract? Certainly not me. As I repeatedly stated I believe that TT is a credible bridge qb. I firmly believe that he is not going to be our long term franchise qb. If you think otherwise that is fine. We'll just respectfully disagree. With respect to the highlighted area go ahead and name those teams. I promise you that I won't ask for proof. I have no doubt that some teams had an interest in him. However, their lack of actual response is a statement in itself. The statement I took issue with mentioned nothing about bridge vs. long term. You said no team was interested in him as a starter. There are a handful of teams that would have been quite happy if Buffalo cut ties with Tyrod because he would be their starter. None of them could have put in an offer because he was under contract the entire time. So again I'll ask, what 'actual response' were you expecting to see? I'm not denying that some teams had an interest in him. Just because there is an interest doesn't mean that teams were going to turn that interest into a consummated deal. If teams such as Cleveland or the Jets had an interest in him it would be for the same reason that the Bills would want to retain him (at a lower price) as a bridge qb. That's my point! I don't consider him a long-term franchise qb and I don't see any other team considering in that light. He is the caliber of qb that you seek as a temporary remedy for the position. Could he have gotten more money with another team? Maybe. But I'm confident that whatever contract he would have signed wouldn't be commensurate with a qb that a team is committed to on a long-term basis. As I stated in a prior post if you want to consider him being better than a bridge qb, a legitimate franchise qb, then so be it. I don't have him in that category. And his current contract terms don't demonstrate that he belongs in that category. It's clear to me that if TT wouldn't have modified his contract he wouldn't currently be on the team. Whaley wanted him off the roster while the new regime was willing to keep him under a more limited contract. That is a clear indication what this franchise thinks of him. Yes, you did exactly that... So we went from 'No teams were interested in him as a starter.' to 'No teams were interested in him as a starter under his original contract.' to 'He's a bridge, not a long term option.' to 'I'm not denying teams had interest in him.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 You've revised your stance pretty heavily since the piece I took issue with from what I can tell. 'There were no other teams interested in him as a starter.' I agree, but who said anything about him playing under his original contract? Certainly not me. The statement I took issue with mentioned nothing about bridge vs. long term. You said no team was interested in him as a starter. There are a handful of teams that would have been quite happy if Buffalo cut ties with Tyrod because he would be their starter. None of them could have put in an offer because he was under contract the entire time. So again I'll ask, what 'actual response' were you expecting to see? Yes, you did exactly that... So we went from 'No teams were interested in him as a starter.' to 'No teams were interested in him as a starter under his original contract.' to 'He's a bridge, not a long term option.' to 'I'm not denying teams had interest in him.' All the teams that you claim had an interest in him could have gotten him if they would have given him an attractive contract. None were willing to do so! You don't think that TT wouldn't have flown the nest if the offers were on par or better than his original deal? Let's get serious here. Those teams that you believe were salivating for his services were not going to offer much more than what the Bills gave him with his reduced contract. I'll say it again that TT is an adequate bridge qb. Nothing more. That is not a slight. He is better than what we have had for a generation. That still doesn't mean that he is good enough to be a long-term franchise qb who will lead this team to anywhere meaningful. Would the McDermott regime have kept him on the team if he didn't take a reduction in pay with a lesser term? If you are unwilling to answer the question I'll do it for you: The answer is no. That is a reflection on the caliber of qb he is. That's my point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 You've revised your stance pretty heavily since the piece I took issue with from what I can tell. 'There were no other teams interested in him as a starter.' I agree, but who said anything about him playing under his original contract? Certainly not me. The statement I took issue with mentioned nothing about bridge vs. long term. You said no team was interested in him as a starter. There are a handful of teams that would have been quite happy if Buffalo cut ties with Tyrod because he would be their starter. None of them could have put in an offer because he was under contract the entire time. So again I'll ask, what 'actual response' were you expecting to see? Yes, you did exactly that... So we went from 'No teams were interested in him as a starter.' to 'No teams were interested in him as a starter under his original contract.' to 'He's a bridge, not a long term option.' to 'I'm not denying teams had interest in him.' How's this No teams were interested enough to contact the Bills Front Office to see if any deal could be made for TT. From JohnC I'll say it again that TT is an adequate bridge qb. Nothing more. Today's [sarc] comment A bridge to nowhere. BTW. I'm still waiting for a story link from Teams Interested. (JohnC too probably) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 All the teams that you claim had an interest in him could have gotten him if they would have given him an attractive contract. None were willing to do so! You don't think that TT wouldn't have flown the nest if the offers were on par or better than his original deal? Let's get serious here. Those teams that you believe were salivating for his services were not going to offer much more than what the Bills gave him with his reduced contract. I'll say it again that TT is an adequate bridge qb. Nothing more. That is not a slight. He is better than what we have had for a generation. That still doesn't mean that he is good enough to be a long-term franchise qb who will lead this team to anywhere meaningful. Would the McDermott regime have kept him on the team if he didn't take a reduction in pay with a lesser term? If you are unwilling to answer the question I'll do it for you: The answer is no. That is a reflection on the caliber of qb he is. That's my point! And again you are confusing contracts with roster roles. A handful of teams were interested in Tyrod as their starter if he were to be released. A couple of them would have offered more than Buffalo did. None were offering his original contract, and I have never alluded to that. That doesn't change that the teams wanted him as their starter, which you definitively said no team did. That's my point! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 All the teams that you claim had an interest in him could have gotten him if they would have given him an attractive contract. None were willing to do so! You don't think that TT wouldn't have flown the nest if the offers were on par or better than his original deal? Let's get serious here. Those teams that you believe were salivating for his services were not going to offer much more than what the Bills gave him with his reduced contract. I'll say it again that TT is an adequate bridge qb. Nothing more. That is not a slight. He is better than what we have had for a generation. That still doesn't mean that he is good enough to be a long-term franchise qb who will lead this team to anywhere meaningful. Would the McDermott regime have kept him on the team if he didn't take a reduction in pay with a lesser term? If you are unwilling to answer the question I'll do it for you: The answer is no. That is a reflection on the caliber of qb he is. That's my point! Do you understand that teams can't have made a public response? Whatever teams were interested in him and whatever discussions were had it would have been private, and it technically would have been against the rules too. We don't know what happened behind the scenes, you're just making assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 Do you understand that teams can't have made a public response? Whatever teams were interested in him and whatever discussions were had it would have been private, and it technically would have been against the rules too. We don't know what happened behind the scenes, you're just making assumptions. LOL Lets pretend that something like this (FAKE NEWS) never happens in sports - AdamS tweets - An anonymous source inside (team X) has told me that they are in trade negotiations with Buffalo for TT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnC Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 And again you are confusing contracts with roster roles. A handful of teams were interested in Tyrod as their starter if he were to be released. A couple of them would have offered more than Buffalo did. None were offering his original contract, and I have never alluded to that. That doesn't change that the teams wanted him as their starter, which you definitively said no team did. That's my point! Contracts absolutely do reflect roster roles. If a team had strong enough feelings on a player it would be expressed through their contract offerings. You don't think that if a team that was serious in wanting him it would have offered him an appealing contract that would have enticed him to leave the Bills, an organization that demanded a reduction in salary to stay? No team gave him that type of offer. The reason why TT wasn't released was because he took a reduction in salary. There were plenty of teams that could have theoretically offered him more if they wanted him. They didn't. TT for them, as for us, is a bridge qb. He had value up to a point. And what is telling is that no team, including the Bills, was foolish enough to go beyond the point with their offerings. We can go in circles until the sun goes down. The reality is he stayed with his team under a reduced contract. Were other teams interested in him? Probably so. But that's not a big deal because marginal qbs have a value up to a point. And no team was going to go beyond a reasonable discount price to sign him. The market spoke and TT responded to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted June 29, 2017 Share Posted June 29, 2017 LOL Lets pretend that something like this (FAKE NEWS) never happens in sports - AdamS tweets - An anonymous source inside (team X) has told me that they are in trade negotiations with Buffalo for TT. You're 100% wrong on this. Trades are one thing but teams are not permitted to speak to players under contract with another team, so no there would be no reports in this case. I don't know how else to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts