If the Bills get a veteran QB...........

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

14 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't agree about Cousins, but that isn't the point.  I get that some people don't think that he's worth what he'll get.  

 

My point was they are two different cases.   If you want Cousins, it's because you've decided to bet on him for the future.   If you want Smith, it's because you've decided you need a bridge for the future.    If all you're looking for is a bridge, there's no point in paying more than you'd pay to keep Taylor, because either way you're going to have a QB you don't expect can be a big winner for you.   If you're looking for a guy who's your future, you should expect to pay more, whether it's more cash (in the case of Cousins) or more draft picks (in the case of one of the top rookies).

 

with you on that point %100- I hope they are thinking along the same lines.

 

if you want a bridge, buy a bridge.  Do NOT buy a wanna be franchise guy and use as a REALLY EXPENSIVE cap crippling bridge. 

[Shaw66]

4 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

I mostly agree, except for the assessment that a bridge isn't worth paying for SOMETIMES.

 

Example: Peyton Manning was a bridge in Denver.

They knew they had a win now team, couldn't wait to develop a QB.

 

They knew he wasn't the future. 

They didn't have anybody behind him work out though, so far Lynch isn't great either.

 

 

I am not on board with Smith, for the record, unless we are getting a guy to groom for 1-2 years behind him this year as well.

 

If you get Smith and DON'T go for a qb now, Smith is good enough that you'll be in the 7-9 to 10-6 range, fringe playoff, and in the 18-23 pick range again.

 

That's not a good place to be in with a QB who is currently 33.

Well, it's just semantics.   A bridge is about the future - who's the QB who will get us to the future.   Peyton wasn't a bridge.   As you say, he was win-now move.   Peyton wasn't in their future.   

 

I think we agree.   Doesn't make sense to pay much of anything for a true bridge.   Does make sense to pay for the future, and it does make sense to pay for win now.  

1 minute ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

with you on that point %100- I hope they are thinking along the same lines.

 

if you want a bridge, buy a bridge.  Do NOT buy a wanna be franchise guy and use as a REALLY EXPENSIVE cap crippling bridge. 

Right, and that's why the evaluation of Cousins is so critical.    If Cousins is a top 10 QB for the next ten years, he's worth spending money on.   If he's top 15 or top 20, he isn't.   It's all about what Beane and McD see in the guy, and about what they see in some rookie they like.  

[SouthNYfan]

10 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

Well, it's just semantics.   A bridge is about the future - who's the QB who will get us to the future.   Peyton wasn't a bridge.   As you say, he was win-now move.   Peyton wasn't in their future.   

 

I think we agree.   Doesn't make sense to pay much of anything for a true bridge.   Does make sense to pay for the future, and it does make sense to pay for win now.  

Right, and that's why the evaluation of Cousins is so critical.    If Cousins is a top 10 QB for the next ten years, he's worth spending money on.   If he's top 15 or top 20, he isn't.   It's all about what Beane and McD see in the guy, and about what they see in some rookie they like.  

 

Good post. 

Agreed.

 

I just don't think we have a shot at cousins (if Denver or cards are in on him)

[Chuck Wagon]

#21 / #22 / 2019 1st / Philly's 3rd round pick

for

#3

 

That's what I would give up if Darnold or Rosen is still on the board.  It's more than fair with the trade value chart.

 

It allows us to get a QB we can build around while keeping both of our 2nds to hopefully add starters and it doesn't mortgage our entire future.

[transplantbillsfan]

57 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

The only problem with this idea is that there may not be an upgrade QB available.  This is why there are so many "QB needy" teams.  Taylor might the best the Bills can do, and if that's true, then they need to face that squarely and not do what they did in 2013 when they cut Fitzpatrick and picked $$$ over wins.  We'll never know, but it seems likely Marrone and Hackett could have gotten the Bills to the playoffs with Fitzpatrick.   The 2014 team missed by tie-breakers IIRC, and one of their losses came when Orton ran out of bounds rather than trying for the EZ.  Fitz wouldn't have done that.

I

 

completely

 

agree

 

Dear Buffalo #Bills Fans, Your QB is, in fact a solid starter

https://twitter.com/DerekCarty/status/956385226988687361

 

but...

 

just because maybe we should keep Taylor for 2018 because the vet options really aren't much better, if better at all, we should absolutely be trying to find our long term answer at the position in the draft, assuming that this draft class is as top heavy as it seems to be.

Edited January 25, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[SoCal Deek]

As a USC alum, I can tell you that Darnold was nothing short of horrible this past season. He is far from a sure thing.

[reddogblitz]

3 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:

You can't honestly say that, when healthy, we are better than any of those teams

 

You are what your record says you are.

 

After week 1, when is a team healthy?  Football is a game of attrition. 

3 hours ago, SoCal Deek said:

As a USC alum, I can tell you that Darnold was nothing short of horrible this past season. He is far from a sure thing.

 

When a guy lays an egg in a big game, its cause for concern. Not impressed.

Edited January 26, 2018 by reddogblitz

[SouthNYfan]

35 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

You are what your record says you are.

 

After week 1, when is a team healthy?  Football is a game of attrition. 

 

When a guy lays an egg in a big game, its cause for concern. Not impressed.

 

 

Saying a team is better/worse based solely on their record isn't cut and dry like you seem to think it is.

 

Strength of schedule plays a big factor.

 

[reddogblitz]

2 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

 

Saying a team is better/worse based solely on their record isn't cut and dry like you seem to think it is.

 

Strength of schedule plays a big factor.

 

 

I don't care about all that. If you aren't going by record,then its all conjecture and stats and style points.

[SouthNYfan]

2 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I don't care about all that. If you aren't going by record,then its all conjecture and stats and style points.

 

Or it's ignoring the obvious 

[reddogblitz]

21 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Or it's ignoring the obvious 

 

Or you're over processing.  They play the season. The teams with the best records in their division and 2 Wild cards (based on record) go to playoffs. They play off and the team that doesn't lose is the best team. Beyond that, its conjecture, opinion, stats, and style points. 

 

To each his own.

[transplantbillsfan]

10 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

What do you disagree on, in all seriousness.

 

That Denver is better than us defensive?

 

Those other teams being as good or better, even with worse records than us?

 

We had a better record than the Packers, the raiders, and Cardinals. 

 

same record as the Seahawks, Ravens, and chargers

 

You can't honestly say that, when healthy, we are better than any of those teams

 

In terms of what???

 

Talent???

 

 

The Bills may have less talent than some or even all of those teams, but they also might be a better team than some or all of them.

 

That right there would be appealing to a QB.

[TheBrownBear]

Sign Veteran QB.  Hold picks or even trade back for additional future value.  We have a lot of holes, so go BPA.  If that happens to be QB, then great.  If not, then grab another Peterman type in the latter rounds.   We are in a good spot and can get a lot of longtime starters out of this draft.  None of these QBs are sure things. 

[Buffalo Barbarian]

On 1/23/2018 at 7:47 PM, njbuff said:

and let's say the Browns take Allen (I will almost guarantee you that Allen will wow everyone in the process).............

 

Would you want the Bills to trade up to 3 get either Rosen or Darnold? Even if the Bills get a good veteran QB?

 

Yes, Because We Would Need Someone To Take His Place In A Few Years.

 

 

[Thurman#1]

On 1/24/2018 at 9:47 AM, njbuff said:

and let's say the Browns take Allen (I will almost guarantee you that Allen will wow everyone in the process).............

 

Would you want the Bills to trade up to 3 get either Rosen or Darnold? Even if the Bills get a good veteran QB?

 

 

All else being equal, yeah. The more shots you take the better your chances.

 

But who do you mean by "a good veteran"? Cousins? I just don't see them paying for him, though I'd love it, myself. Alex Smith? Yeah, I would like to see them get Alex and at the same time draft someone high. Teddy Bridgewater? Again, I'd love to see them get him and draft someone high and let the two of them fight it out for a few years. The "good veterans" take a drop in quality after that, IMHO.

 

 

13 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

I

 

completely

 

agree

 

Dear Buffalo #Bills Fans, Your QB is, in fact a solid starter

https://twitter.com/DerekCarty/status/956385226988687361

 

but...

 

just because maybe we should keep Taylor for 2018 because the vet options really aren't much better, if better at all, we should absolutely be trying to find our long term answer at the position in the draft, assuming that this draft class is as top heavy as it seems to be.

 

 

Yeah, I can see Tyrod still being here next year. If he takes another pay cut in a renegotiation. And if McDermott becomes ill and misses the season. Kinda kidding about the last bit there, but there's a chance and it's really small. 5%, maybe?

 

That twitter nonsense there cracked me up. How do you "neutralize" for "precipitation"? Take a guess and shove in a somewhat random multiplier to the actual numbers, basically. Same with an awful lot of the other stuff he's "neutralizing" for.

 

They want someone who plays in a different style from Tyrod. And since it would cost us $15 mill more against the cap to keep him ($10 mill this year nad $5 mill dead money in 2019) it just simply isn't likely they keep a guy they actively tried to replace.

 

 

14 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I don't agree about Cousins, but that isn't the point.  I get that some people don't think that he's worth what he'll get.  

 

My point was they are two different cases.   If you want Cousins, it's because you've decided to bet on him for the future.   If you want Smith, it's because you've decided you need a bridge for the future.    If all you're looking for is a bridge, there's no point in paying more than you'd pay to keep Taylor, because either way you're going to have a QB you don't expect can be a big winner for you.   If you're looking for a guy who's your future, you should expect to pay more, whether it's more cash (in the case of Cousins) or more draft picks (in the case of one of the top rookies).

 

 

I don't think it's as simple as you're saying here, Shaw. Smith sure didn't play like a bridge this year. But agreed that Cousins is not a bridge, and should and will cost more money.

Edited January 26, 2018 by Thurman#1

[transplantbillsfan]

5 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

Yeah, I can see Tyrod still being here next year. If he takes another pay cut in a renegotiation. And if McDermott becomes ill and misses the season. Kinda kidding about the last bit there, but there's a chance and it's really small. 5%, maybe?

 

You're pretty confident here, aren't you?

 

Obviously, the proof will be in the pudding, but I would say the chance of Taylor being kept past the March 17th bonus date is more than 50%. 

 

This sounds like you think there's absolutely no chance he will be back here unless he takes a pay cut.

 

Can we just have a little friendly fun? If Taylor is back without renegotiating after that March 17 bonus day, can you just p.m. me "I was wrong"...?

 

I'll do the same for you if he's just cut

Edited January 26, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[GunnerBill]

2 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

You're pretty confident here, aren't you?

 

Obviously, the proof will be in the pudding, but I would say the chance of Taylor being kept past the March 17th bonus date is more than 50%. 

 

This sounds like you think there's absolutely no chance he will be back here unless he takes a pay cut.

 

Can we just have a little friendly fun? If Taylor is back without renegotiating after that March 17 bonus day, can you just p.m. me "I was wrong"...?

 

I'll do the same for you if he's just cut

 

It is definitely less than 50% he is back on the current contract. It is far from impossible but I'd go about 25% chance. 

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

It is definitely less than 50% he is back on the current contract. It is far from impossible but I'd go about 25% chance. 

 

Well we're quibbling now.  I disagree with a definitive statement like "it's definitely less than 50% he is back on the current contract," but even 25% is a helluva lot more than 5%.

 

Like I said, we'll know in less than 2 months.

Edited January 26, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

15 hours ago, TheBrownBear said:

Sign Veteran QB.  Hold picks or even trade back for additional future value.  We have a lot of holes, so go BPA.  If that happens to be QB, then great.  If not, then grab another Peterman type in the latter rounds.   We are in a good spot and can get a lot of longtime starters out of this draft.  None of these QBs are sure things. 

 

..the Richmond has been getting some pretty good press during Senior Bowl week....what is your assessment?......BEWARE that TBD will go into meltdown if this gang does not pick a QB in the 1st........