Foxx Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 (edited) just a lil' perspective here... ...Teams are 3-34 this year with three or more turnovers. ... one of those teams with a win are the Bengals over the Bills. ... @AP_NFL Tyrod Taylor answered his critics in comeback win over Bucs @john_wawrow http://pro32.ap.org/article/qb-taylor-answers-critics-rallying-bills-beat-bucs ... 3 for 16. not great. Edited October 23, 2017 by Foxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Game Manager Posted October 23, 2017 Share Posted October 23, 2017 Agreed! IMHO, Bucs are a better team with Tyrod over Jameis right now. Says no one Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 Otherwise, Tyrod Taylor has been under contract since then and inquiries from other teams directed at him and his agent would have been considered tampering. That's a fact, Jack Unless the Bills gave his agent ability to bring offers to Bills yes. Fact: Bortles has played in more games then Taylor this year. So you are saying Tyrod has had more rest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 Agreed! IMHO, Bucs are a better team with Tyrod over Jameis right now. Jameis has a LOT of time to change that ahead of hm, so who knows where his career goes moving forward, but the biggest killer to the Bucs offense has been very bad decisions by Winston and his tendency to the turn the ball over. I think there is no doubt his stats would dip significantly if he was the Bills starter throwing to these WR's, and is turnovers likely would RISE too. While I also think there is no doubt that Tyrod would see an increase in his passing stats while keeping his turnovers low throwing to that elite group of weapons, and Tyrod is a much better runner too. I will take 320 combined yards with no turnovers over Winston and his 70 more passing yards and 2 turnovers 100% of the time. There is not a stat more OVER EXAGGERATED than passing yards, its probably the single least important stat in all of professional football. But decades of fantasy football, John Madden football games, and a few all time greats like Rogers, Brady, and Brees has skewed perception. There is SOOOO MUCH more to playing QB than passing yards, and not turning the ball over is 100 times more important than a 300 yard passing game. Case in point...people can go check Winstons record throwing for over 300 yards and ask yourself if it helped them win. They can also ask Drew Bree's if being the most prolific passer in the NFL for the last 5 years helped him make the playoffs while everyone is at it. Spoiler Alert: It didn't. Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangarang Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 Huh? During what contract time? Taylor has never not been under contract with Buffalo since the offseason leading up to 2015. Is that what you're talking about? If so, no surprise considering he hadn't started a game at that point. Otherwise, Tyrod Taylor has been under contract since then and inquiries from other teams directed at him and his agent would have been considered tampering. That's a fact, Jack Tyrod himself said that his agent was speaking with other teams at the combine. Unless they were talking about favorite pizza toppings you should probably assume he was testing the market for his clients services. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 Tyrod himself said that his agent was speaking with other teams at the combine. Unless they were talking about favorite pizza toppings you should probably assume he was testing the market for his clients services. No no, because they didn't get caught, it didn't happen. That's a consistent line of thinking from Bills fans, especially when it comes to the Pats . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Arnold Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 Get ready to lose that bet you made about Peterman starting. Fair critique of what Taylor is. @BMatthewsSports Tyrod Taylor will never be a great NFL QB but I think he doesn't get enough credit for his rare QB skills and he is OK for this Bills team. It's a long season, my friend. I'm certainly rooting for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted October 24, 2017 Author Share Posted October 24, 2017 It's a long season, my friend. I'm certainly rooting for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gugny Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 @JoeBuscaglia Cut the Peterman clamoring, Tyrod deserves a ton of credit for the #Bills win. That and more in my 7 observations: http://www.wkbw.com/sports/bills/joe-b-7-observations-from-buffalo-bills-tampa-bay-buccaneers-10_22_17- @AP_NFL Tyrod Taylor answered his critics in comeback win over Bucs @john_wawrow http://pro32.ap.org/article/qb-taylor-answers-critics-rallying-bills-beat-bucs ORCHARD PARK, N.Y. (AP) — Rather than focus on his critics, Bills quarterback Tyrod Taylor said he was going to spend the week concentrating on beating the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. It was time well spent. There is no one better than John Wawrow when it comes to writing about the Bills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 We won't be better than 9-7 under Tyrod, We will exit in the first round if we squeak by into the playoffs, build for the future, it's obvious this guy doesn't have what it takes to take this team to a Superbowl. Whether he's just eeking out victories with the help of his defense, having his 1-4 dominant games a year, or either totally flopping as a quarterback and losing us games. It alarms me when I think where we'd be if we didn't have such a superior running game, winless possibly? definitely at the bottom, and I can't remember the last time a rush heavy team won the SB in recent years, any team can rush for 100 yds if they run it 50 times. Indy was dead last in the NFL in rush efficiency in 2006 when they beat Chicago in the Super Bowl. I'm no Tyrod hater, he's super fun to watch and has his clutch moments, although I have to be realistic in that I'm not confident that this is the QB that can take us to the Superbowl, we aren't the seahawks, he isn't russel wilson. This will be his 3rd year here and if he produces another mediocre year I don't see the justification in banging our head against the wall thinking he is our savior. You're a dumbass troll who clearly doesn't watch this team. Superior running game, huh? Go away. I'm sorry, what did I post that was wrong? Can you point it out to me instead of making vague accusations? No need to get emotional and reprimand me for posting statistics. Maybe if YOU did some actual research you'd find what I posted isn't false at all? lol.. We aren't a superior running team in 2017, so are you a troll or a moron? 3 for 16. not great. Better than 2 for 16 Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat Did you not understand what he said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 Tyrod himself said that his agent was speaking with other teams at the combine. Unless they were talking about favorite pizza toppings you should probably assume he was testing the market for his clients services. We're back to this again? Oye. Funny how there was so much interest for TT after 15 and now that interest never existed. What a wacky world we live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Arnold Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 Huh? During what contract time? Taylor has never not been under contract with Buffalo since the offseason leading up to 2015. Is that what you're talking about? If so, no surprise considering he hadn't started a game at that point. Otherwise, Tyrod Taylor has been under contract since then and inquiries from other teams directed at him and his agent would have been considered tampering. That's a fact, Jack Eh, if Tyrod was getting any interest in the league to be a starter then he and his agent wouldn't have caved in to the Bills' contract-reduction demands and remained in Buffalo. Bills would have let him go and signed Hoyer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Figster Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 Myself personally, I've been very critical of T Mobile , but I'm also the only poster that believes Taylor worthy of becoming the face of the franchise. The little engine that could... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
grb Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) Eh, if Tyrod was getting any interest in the league to be a starter then he and his agent wouldn't have caved in to the Bills' contract-reduction demands and remained in Buffalo. Bills would have let him go and signed Hoyer. Really? That's so simplistic as to be ludicrous. It's like you're not even trying to think things thru. Let's try a more plausible scenario : (1) From day one The Bills were always looking to bring Taylor back on a short-term deal. There was lots of talk about the front office wanting to dump TT. but never a word came from the front office - not even second hand, unattributed, or anonymous. Read that to mean they were posturing for contract renegotiation but very, very careful not to singe the bridge, much less burn it. (2) Taylor knew the Bills didn't want to commit long-term money, but was satisfied getting equal short-term cash and his freedom. Please remember : He did not take a pay-cut for this year or next. It was only the long-term money he lost. (3) If Taylor finishes the year strong he will do significantly better than with the old deal. Whaley placed a simultaneous bet on Taylor as wild-success or flop. With the latter, he could be dumped this past offseason. With the former, he was locked-up years at a cheap QB rate. Taylor signed because it gave him his first real starter money. (4) No one knows what deal Taylor could have gotten on the open market because things never got that far. It is quite possible - even likely - he would have gotten the same short-term cash he's getting from the Bills. It's highly unlikely he would have gotten the long-term cash of the old deal. So where was the best place for him to play to set himself up for a future contract? Buffalo, or say Cleveland? If you were Taylor and it was all about the next deal, wouldn't you stay put? Doesn't that sound a bit more realistic? Edited October 24, 2017 by grb Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BringBackOrton Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 Really? That's so simplistic as to be ludicrous. It's like you're not even trying to think things thru. Let's try a more plausible scenario : (1) From day one The Bills were always looking to bring Taylor back on a short-term deal. There was lots of talk about the front office wanting to dump TT. but never a word came from the front office - not even second hand, unattributed, or anonymous. Read that to mean they were posturing for contract renegotiation but very, very careful not to singe the bridge, much less burn it. (2) Taylor knew the Bills didn't want to commit long-term money, but was satisfied getting equal short-term cash and his freedom. Please remember : He did not take a pay-cut for this year or next. It was only the long-term money he lost. (3) If Taylor finishes the year strong he will do significantly better than with the old deal. Whaley placed a simultaneous bet on Taylor as wild-success or flop. With the latter, he could be dumped this past offseason. With the former, he was locked-up years at a cheap QB rate. Taylor signed because it gave him his first real starter money. (4) No one knows what deal Taylor could have gotten on the open market because things never got that far. It is quite possible - even likely - he would have gotten the same short-term cash he's getting from the Bills. It's highly unlikely he would have gotten the long-term cash of the old deal. So where was the best place for him to play to set himself up for a future contract? Buffalo, or say Cleveland? If you were Taylor and it was all about the next deal, wouldn't you stay put? Doesn't that sound a bit more realistic? No. Tyrod took a pay cut. The Bills offered him less money or to be outright cut, and he took less money. They weren't betting on him to be successful. If they were, they would've kept him at his affordable original deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 (2) Taylor knew the Bills didn't want to commit long-term money, but was satisfied getting equal short-term cash and his freedom. Please remember : He did not take a pay-cut for this year or next. It was only the long-term money he lost. Not quite. If the Bills took up the option the $15.5m was payable immediately. It was spread across the contract for cap purposes but in cash terms he'd have received it up front in March. He then had under the old deal base salaries of $12m in 2017 and $13m in 2018. So over the two years that the new contract covers we'd have paid him $40.5m. The new deal pays $30.5m over those same two years. That is a $10m pay cut. It is also possible for the Bills to pay him LESS than that $30.5m if they cut him after this season. They will have paid him $14.5m in cash this year and will be on the hook for just over $8.5m dead money next year. So cutting him after this season (which I don't think will happen or want to happen btw) will mean he has taken a pay cut from $40.5m over two years to $23m over the same two years - though he would then admittedly have the chance to sign somewhere else and add new salary on top of that income. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 No. Tyrod took a pay cut. The Bills offered him less money or to be outright cut, and he took less money. They weren't betting on him to be successful. If they were, they would've kept him at his affordable original deal. Link that they were going to cut him? Don't bother looking if you don't want, there isn't one. So all of this is just an opinion. Another equally valid opinion is that all of the stuff from the moment the season ended up until Taylor renegotiated was simply posturing based on a likely mistake tailor-made on clean out day in the locker room when he said he would be open to restructuring his contract. I'd say the second option where they weren't going to cut Taylor but were just trying to leverage him into taking less money is the more likely scenario. After all, who the hell was going to start at QB for the Buffalo Bills in 2017, otherwise? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GunnerBill Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 After all, who the hell was going to start at QB for the Buffalo Bills in 2017, otherwise? We know the answer to this.... it was going to be Brian Hoyer. He was their fallback option. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Arnold Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 Really? That's so simplistic as to be ludicrous. It's like you're not even trying to think things thru. Let's try a more plausible scenario : (1) From day one The Bills were always looking to bring Taylor back on a short-term deal. There was lots of talk about the front office wanting to dump TT. but never a word came from the front office - not even second hand, unattributed, or anonymous. Read that to mean they were posturing for contract renegotiation but very, very careful not to singe the bridge, much less burn it. (2) Taylor knew the Bills didn't want to commit long-term money, but was satisfied getting equal short-term cash and his freedom. Please remember : He did not take a pay-cut for this year or next. It was only the long-term money he lost. (3) If Taylor finishes the year strong he will do significantly better than with the old deal. Whaley placed a simultaneous bet on Taylor as wild-success or flop. With the latter, he could be dumped this past offseason. With the former, he was locked-up years at a cheap QB rate. Taylor signed because it gave him his first real starter money. (4) No one knows what deal Taylor could have gotten on the open market because things never got that far. It is quite possible - even likely - he would have gotten the same short-term cash he's getting from the Bills. It's highly unlikely he would have gotten the long-term cash of the old deal. So where was the best place for him to play to set himself up for a future contract? Buffalo, or say Cleveland? If you were Taylor and it was all about the next deal, wouldn't you stay put? Doesn't that sound a bit more realistic? No. More often than not, the simplest answer is the correct one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
transplantbillsfan Posted October 24, 2017 Share Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) We know the answer to this.... it was going to be Brian Hoyer. He was their fallback option. Why do we know that's the answer? The Hoyer "interest" could have easily been some last minute posturing and leveraging. And if it was, it worked. I wish people would stop pretending they know what happened, or worse, team intentions, during that time period. Edited October 24, 2017 by transplantbillsfan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts