Tyrod Wants to Stay with the Bills, but Won't Take Another Pay Cut

[Bakin]

Let’s not all so quickly forget who was the QB who led the Bills out of the swamp after 17 years. 

 

Was he dominant?

No. 

Was he downright putrid at times?

Sure. 

Did he carry a team after they traded his top 2 receivers to its first playoff birth in ever?

yes. 

 

Let us not forget this. 

 

If we’ve seen the last of TT, the one thing I’ll be left with was that He was a great Buffalo Bill. He wasn’t the best player...but he was a great Buffalo Bill....

Edited February 3, 2018 by Bakin

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

That's fair, I just roll my eyes when reporter's ask uncomfortable questions that they already know the answers to.

 

 

A lot of times when reporters "know" the answer, the answer they get is actually different. It makes sense to ask the question.

 

But I can see we're close on this issue. If the guy does give the expected answer it does seem like a waste of time.

 

 

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

If it is 3rd and 6 and a QBs runs for 7 or throws for 7 which is better? That’s why that argument is stupid. It’s not about yards. It’s about scoring when you have a chance and moving the chains on 3rd down. The Bills didn’t do those things well. Dennison was fired because he was a MASSIVE reason why. His red zone play calling was epically horrible. The offense will be much improved next year regardless of the QB. 

 

 

It's 3rd and 6 and a QB doesn't see a guy who's open for a ten yard pass downfield and instead puts up a nice run of 5 yards.

 

It's not stupid. 

 

Yeah, runs count. But if you can't consistently pass, being able to run as a QB doesn't mean much. Sooner and not later you're going to be replaced.

 

I'm no huge fan of Dennison, but the play people always talk about was the R-P option play that turned into a pass into the end zone and an interference penalty. People talk about what a horrible call it was. And then they talk about what a brilliant call it was to call the R-P option play for Foles that he turns into a passing TD. An awful lot of your success as a play caller depends on the execution of your players. Again, I didn't love Dennison or anything, but I also don't think he was as obviously terrible as some think.

 

 

20 minutes ago, Bakin said:

Let’s not all so quickly forget who was the QB who led the Bills out of the swamp after 17 years. 

 

Was he dominant?

No. 

Was he downright putrid at times?

Sure. 

Did he carry a team after they traded his top 2 receivers to its first playoff birth in ever?

yes. 

 

Let us not forget this. 

 

If we’ve seen the last of TT, the one thing I’ll be left with was that He was a great Buffalo Bill. He wasn’t the best player...but he was a great Buffalo Bill....

 

 

He didn't carry this team. Didn't carry them anywhere. He was their QB. Nobody can take that away, but the offense wasn't good and what carrying the offense did do was mostly done by the running game.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Kirby Jackson]

9 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

A lot of times when reporters "know" the answer, the answer they get is actually different. It makes sense to ask the question.

 

But I can see we're close on this issue. If the guy does give the expected answer it does seem like a waste of time.

 

 

 

 

It's 3rd and 6 and a QB doesn't see a guy who's open for a ten yard pass downfield and instead puts up a nice run of 5 yards.

 

It's not stupid. 

 

Yeah, runs count. But if you can't consistently pass, being able to run as a QB doesn't mean much. Sooner and not later you're going to be replaced.

 

I'm no huge fan of Dennison, but the play people always talk about was the R-P option play that turned into a pass into the end zone and an interference penalty. People talk about what a horrible call it was. And then they talk about what a brilliant call it was to call the R-P option play for Foles that he turns into a passing TD. An awful lot of your success as a play caller depends on the execution of your players. Again, I didn't love Dennison or anything, but I also don't think he was as obviously terrible as some think.

Except you moved the goalposts by changing the scenario... The scenario was run for 7 or throw for 7. I’d actually argue that the run is a better play because it is less likely to be turned over. 

 

He lined Tolbert up wide on 3rd and goal from the 17 and threw him a slant. Dennison shouldn’t have been allowed back in the locker room after that. That call made Chuck Pagano’s fake punt look like the Boise State Statue of Liberty play.

[RalphWilson'sNewWar]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

That’s not right. Every player is a collection of all of their talents. Russell Wilson runs a lot. The goal isn’t to get passing yards, it is to get points. That’s how you win and lose. Cam Newton had 10 rushing TDs, was the MVP of the league and went to the Super Bowl in 2015. Would you say that he failed? 

I’d say his 35 td passes to likes of Ginn, fuchesss and cotchery powered the way to all the success the Panthers found in 2015.

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Just for some perspective Mike Glennon made $16M this year!! 

 

 

 

Most expensive draft smokescreen in history!!

[transplantbillsfan]

4 hours ago, #34fan said:

Can't wait until this scrub is someone else's problem..

 

You'll probably have to deal with him for one more year.

 

Sorry

[Kirby Jackson]

3 minutes ago, RalphWilson'sNewWar said:

I’d say his 35 td passes to likes of Ginn, fuchesss and cotchery powered the way to all the success the Panthers found in 2015.

Again, you are missing the point. It wasn’t one OR the other it was both!! They all count the same. 

 

Saying that you want the passing game to improve is beyond reasonable. Saying that passing is more important than running (or visa versa) isn’t reasonable. They are the same. Army football ran for 4710 yards and threw for 361 yards and won 10 games. All that matters is the score. 

[transplantbillsfan]

3 hours ago, Augie said:

 

Better question: Why would he admit to it in public?

 

That’s just an invitation to the FO. 

 

Exactly!

 

And that's the bind he got himself into last year when he said on clean out day of 2016 that he'd consider restructuring his contract.

3 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

The contract he is on now is the bridge contract right in line with what Sam Bradford signed for when the Eagles were taking Wentz and what Glennon signed for when they were taking Trubisky it is the right market for a Quarterback a team believes can play but are not committing to (obviously the Bears now know Glennon can't play). 

 

Precisely why Taylor's still very likely a Bill for one more year

3 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

.....if what has been reported here about TT as well as Bridgewater not willing to sign with Vikes for back up money, both may have to test the market and I'd venture to say (OPINION) with less than favorable results......then again, crazy money and desperation DOES exist.....stay tuned........

 

Ummmm... except Taylor can't test the open market considering he's under contract  

[reddogblitz]

4 hours ago, John from Hemet said:

Why would he agree to take another pay cut?

 

Really. A deals a deal. The team hadn't sniffed the playoffs in 17 years. A team wins because of it's QB. Finally we do make the playoffs in a big part due to him. And he deserves a pay cut? We should build a statue of him and put it next to Ralph's or name a street after him or something.

 

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by reddogblitz

[fansince88]

Vet minimum or.....buh bye

 

[transplantbillsfan]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

That is a good point. But if he'd wanted he could have avoided the question. "I don't want to talk about the dollars right now," or "That's all in the future." Whatever.

 

Instead he said no. Seems probable to me that he meant it.

 

And rightfully so. He made that mistake last year on locker room clean out day and it really killed any leverage he had in the off-season.

 

We will all have a pretty definitive answer here in a month and a half, but talk about some douche-baggery in this thread.

 

 

 

 

As I get through these pages and read more and more of the vitriol, I realize there are several posters who are the types of people you don't even cross the street to piss on if their heads are on fire.

2 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

 

Find me a QB in the NFL right now that that teams HC would want a QB that needs a specialty offense. That is why Kaep is out of the league and I think alot of people that really like TT are going to see very soon. That he isnt valued as much as they think in the NFL

 

Yah no... that's definitely not why Kaep's out of the league  

[Putin]

50 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that he gets 2 years and $20M guaranteed. Bradford is coming off of a 2 year $36M deal with $22M guaranteed. Mike Glennon got 3 years, $45M with $18.5M guaranteed. That’s the type of deal that he’s looking at. Alex Smith was guaranteed $71M this week!! We need to understand the market. That’s why you don’t take a pay cut. QBs get paid.

 

Tyrod has been on an extremely team friendly deal. It has been considered one of the best values in football. He may not get $18M a year but he can get a good chunk of money guaranteed. That’s why he won’t take a pay cut. 

I agree with you and I understand the value of a QB in today’s market , 

but again we’re talking about a backup QB and IMO I don’t think any/team would offer anything more then a one year $5 - 7 million deal , 

10 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

And rightfully so. He made that mistake last year on locker room clean out day and it really killed any leverage he had in the off-season.

 

We will all have a pretty definitive answer here in a month and a half, but talk about some douche-baggery in this thread.

 

 

 

 

As I get through these pages and read more and more of the vitriol, I realize there are several posters who are the types of people you don't even cross the street to piss on if their heads are on fire.

 

Yah no... that's definitely not why Kaep's out of the league  

SMH

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Does anyone think that he will be?

 

I do.

 

The evidence so far this offseason keeps piling up that Tyrod is a Bill for one more year.

[Kirby Jackson]

Just now, Putin said:

I agree with you and I understand the value of a QB in today’s market , 

but again we’re talking about a backup QB and IMO I don’t think any/team would offer anything more then a one year $5 - 7 million deal , 

So Mike Glennon will get 3 years, $45M and $18.5M guaranteed but Tyrod will get 1 year and $5M-$7M?

 

We disagree, I think that he gets a bridge QB deal somewhere. Somewhere in the neighborhood of Bradford or Glennon. His worst case scenario is the 1 year $10M that Fitz got IMO. We will see I guess.

2 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I do.

 

The evidence so far this offseason keeps piling up that Tyrod is a Bill for one more year.

Financially it probably makes sense and it will be interesting to hear Daboll’s thoughts. With that being said it feels like a break is due for both sides. 

[Putin]

2 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

So Mike Glennon will get 3 years, $45M and $18.5M guaranteed but Tyrod will get 1 year and $5M-$7M?

 

We disagree, I think that he gets a bridge QB deal somewhere. Somewhere in the neighborhood of Bradford or Glennon. His worst case scenario is the 1 year $10M that Fitz got IMO. We will see I guess.

I think Glennon got that deal because he was going to start , 

in your opinion a bridge QB = backup QB ? 

 

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Except you moved the goalposts by changing the scenario... The scenario was run for 7 or throw for 7. I’d actually argue that the run is a better play because it is less likely to be turned over. 

 

He lined Tolbert up wide on 3rd and goal from the 17 and threw him a slant. Dennison shouldn’t have been allowed back in the locker room after that. That call made Chuck Pagano’s fake punt look like the Boise State Statue of Liberty play.

 

 

 

Yeah, of course I changed the scenario. You made your point with your scenario and I'm making my point with mine.  Which is that you actually make 7 yards more often passing than running.

 

Passes make more yards on average than runs do. Even if Tyrod is your QB. Compare his YPA to his YPR.

 

And I'm also thinking particularly of one play by Tyrod, in one of his best games as a Bill, the 2016 Seahawks game. 1:17 left in the 4th, Bills down by six, first and 10. Tyrod back to pass, leaves the pocket early goes right, holds the ball, holds the ball, run, gets out of bounds for an eight yard gain. Great play!!! Eight yard gain on first and ten. Except that the next three plays lose yardage and the Bills turn the ball over on downs. And except that on that first and ten play the coaches film showed a guy wide open in the end zone, I mean, unguarded and open by close to ten yards, who Tyrod doesn't see and pulls it down and runs.

 

The game was there to be won on a pass. Tyrod didn't see it. Ran the ball on what looked like a good play but was actually a back-breaker.

 

 

 

On the Tolbert play, was that the only read? Was he even the first option? Had Tyrod been told to ignore his other options? I didn't like that Tolbert play either but different things could have happened.

 

 

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Again, you are missing the point. It wasn’t one OR the other it was both!! They all count the same. 

 

Saying that you want the passing game to improve is beyond reasonable. Saying that passing is more important than running (or visa versa) isn’t reasonable. They are the same. Army football ran for 4710 yards and threw for 361 yards and won 10 games. All that matters is the score. 

 

 

 

Great example, Army. Where's the modern NFL counterpart of that?

Edited February 3, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Kirby Jackson]

38 minutes ago, Putin said:

I think Glennon got that deal because he was going to start , 

in your opinion a bridge QB = backup QB ? 

 

Pretty much what Glennon was. A guy that can start somewhere bringing in a young QB. A team looking at Lamar Jackson would make sense. FA coming first means that guys like Tyrod, Bradford, etc... sit out there and sign when the team doesn’t get their guy. What has happened in the past though (just like Glennon) those teams get insurance with a guy like Tyrod in case they can’t get their guy. A team like Arizona gives him a Glennon type of deal and if they get their guy fine but if they don’t they buy time. If they get a guy like Jackson or Allen they probably sit a year anyways.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Kirby Jackson

[Thurman#1]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

You'll probably have to deal with him for one more year.

 

Sorry

 

 

 

Don't be sorry for having a bizarre opinion, dude. That's your problem, not ours. We're sorry for you on that.

 

 

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

And rightfully so. He made that mistake last year on locker room clean out day and it really killed any leverage he had in the off-season.he types of people

 

 

He didn't make a mistake there and he didn't lose any leverage. The Bills didn't think he was worth keeping at that salary. If he hadn't taken the cut he'd have been elsewhere. What he said then had no effect, any more than what he said this year did.

 

Both were reasonable answers. Both opinions about a difficult-to-predict future. Neither had or will have much effect on his contract situation.

 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Kirby Jackson]

45 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Yeah, of course I changed the scenario. You made your point with your scenario and I'm making my point with mine.  Which is that you actually make 7 yards more often passing than running.

 

Passes make more yards on average than runs do. Even if Tyrod is your QB. Compare his YPA to his YPR.

 

And I'm also thinking particularly of one play by Tyrod, in one of his best games as a Bill, the 2016 Seahawks game. 1:17 left in the 4th, Bills down by six, first and 10. Tyrod back to pass, leaves the pocket early goes right, holds the ball, holds the ball, run, gets out of bounds for an eight yard gain. Great play!!! Eight yard gain on first and ten. Except that the next three plays lose yardage and the Bills turn the ball over on downs. And except that on that first and ten play the coaches film showed a guy wide open in the end zone, I mean, unguarded and open by close to ten yards, who Tyrod doesn't see and pulls it down and runs.

 

The game was there to be won on a pass. Tyrod didn't see it. Ran the ball on what looked like a good play but was actually a back-breaker.

 

 

 

On the Tolbert play, was that the only read? Was he even the first option? Had Tyrod been told to ignore his other options? I didn't like that Tolbert play either but different things could have happened.

 

 

 

Great example, Army. Where's the NFL counterpart of that?

Passing certainly gets more yards than rushing but more can go wrong as well. If a guy has a lane for a 1st down I’d prefer that he run it. It may be conservative and not have the big play potential but it is more likely to convert. I’m also a guy that wants to run power on 2nd and 1. You can run a play action bomb but you might have a holding call. Good things can happen but bad things can too. The play in Jax is a great example. There are examples to support all sides of the debate. Good and bad things can happen either way. The trick is maximizing the good while minimizing the bad. That’s not easy.

 

For me coaching is the difference in a game of inches. The Bills outscored their opponents by a lot in 2016. The Bills were outscored by 3 and a half points a game this year. One year they went to the playoffs and one year they were 7-9. You need to be able to execute in close games. Good coaches do and bad ones don’t. McDermott proved to be strong in year 1. 

 

In terms of the Tolbert play I’m not sure what else was out there. I am sure that any play with Tolbert our wide, running a slant is an awful one. That shouldn’t be in the playbook. I honestly think that play had a huge impact on Dennison getting fired. The fact that was even an option at that point was enough to can him.

 

Army is a total extreme which is why I used them. They threw for 361 yards on the season!! I wanted to find a team on the opposite end with a similar record but couldn’t think of one. I guess the old Hawaii teams would fit. In the NFL typically teams are more balanced. The point was just that you can win a variety of ways. The Jags are a run heavy team and the Pats a pass heavy team. They battled to the end to go to the Super Bowl. You can win a variety of ways as long as you make plays at the right time. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Kirby Jackson

[Thurman#1]

16 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Pretty much what Glennon was. A guy that can start somewhere bringing in a young QB. A team looking at Lamar Jackson would make sense. FA coming first either means that guys like Tyrod, Bradford, etc... sit out there and sign when the team doesn’t get their guy. What has happened in the past though (just like Glennon) those teams get insurance with a guy like Tyrod in case they can’t get their guy. A team like Arizona gives him a Glennon type of deal and if they get their guy fine but if they don’t they buy time. If they get a guy like Jackson or Allen they probably sit a year anyways.

 

 

How does the Glennon deal look now? If they had it to do over again, would they bring in someone cheaper like McCown or Fitz? I think they would. The Bradford deal is a bit better but he was injured again and they might easily let him go figuring it's just too much for what he's likely to be.

 

I agree with you that I think Tyrod's going to get a good deal more than $5 mill a year somewhere. But I'd guess that you're overestimating a bit. My guess is more like $8 - $12 mill per year for two or three year. Guess we'll see.

 

 

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I think that he gets 2 years and $20M guaranteed. Bradford is coming off of a 2 year $36M deal with $22M guaranteed. Mike Glennon got 3 years, $45M with $18.5M guaranteed. That’s the type of deal that he’s looking at. Alex Smith was guaranteed $71M this week!! We need to understand the market. That’s why you don’t take a pay cut. QBs get paid.

 

Tyrod has been on an extremely team friendly deal. It has been considered one of the best values in football. He may not get $18M a year but he can get a good chunk of money guaranteed. That’s why he won’t take a pay cut. 

 

 

I think you used the wrong verb tense there. When you say, "It has been considered one of the best values in football," you should have used the simple past, not the present perfect. There was a time when some people thought that. That time was exclusively in the past. The fact that nobody thinks that way anymore should be wildly obvious from the fact that he was forced to re-negotiate and take $10 mill less. And is now being asked about it again. And is unlikely to be here even though nobody argues he's the best QB on the roster right now.

 

In any case, if he plays next year and then leaves, it will cost the Bills $23.6 mill on the cap, $18 mill on the 2018 cap and $5.6 mill on the 2019 cap. For one year of Tyrod Taylor. 

 

That isn't one of the best values in football, it just isn't.

[dave mcbride]

5 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

Why did he last year?

But you're good at your job.

Weak. Do better. This is a hardcore site (or should be). Kirby brings it all of the time with good analysis. Do the same or refrain from engaging.

Edited February 3, 2018 by dave mcbride

[Thurman#1]

12 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Passing certainly gets more yards than rushing but more can go wrong as well. If a guy has a lane for a 1st down I’d prefer that he run it. It may be conservative and not have the big play potential but it is more likely to convert. I’m also a guy that wants to run power on 2nd and 1. You can run a play action bomb but you might have a holding call. Good things can happen but as things can too. The play in Jax is a great example. There are examples to support all sides of the debate. Good and bad things can happen either way. The trick is maximizing the good while minimizing the bad. That’s not easy.

 

For me coaching is the difference in a game of inches. The Bills outscored their opponents by a lot in 2016. The Bills were outscored by 3 and a half points a game this year. One year they went to the playoffs and one year they were 7-9. You need to be able to execute in close games. Good coaches do and bad ones don’t. McDermott proved to be strong in year 1. 

 

In terms of the Tolbert play I’m not sure what else was out there. I am sure that any play with Tolbert our wide, running a slant is an awful one. That shouldn’t be in the playbook. I honestly think that play had a huge impact on Dennison getting fired. The fact that was even an option at that point was enough to can him.

 

Army is a total extreme which is why I used them. They threw for 361 yards on the season!! I wanted to find a team on the opposite end with a similar record but couldn’t think of one. I guess the old Hawaii teams would fit. In the NFL typically teams are more balanced. The point was just that you can win a variety of ways. The Jags are a run heavy team and the Pats a pass heavy team. They battled to the end to go to the Super Bowl. You can win a variety of ways as long as you make plays at the right time. 

 

 

Yeah, I understand why you used Army. And what I will point out again is that that simply does not happen in the NFL, not since, what, the '30s? "Typically" more balanced? Try "absolutely without exception a great deal more balanced."

 

I'm not sure what else was out there on the Tolbert play either. But unless we know Tyrod had been told not to look at other options, some of the blame goes to execution. Maybe a lot and maybe a little. As I say, I don't love Dennison. But I also suspect that an awful lot of the problem was execution. And I'm not against Tolbert being lined up outside. What kind of matchups does it bring about? Was a DB on Tolbert? Did that create a bad matchup elsewhere? Bad play as run, certainly, but maybe not a bad play as drawn up.

[Bakin]

1 hour ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

A lot of times when reporters "know" the answer, the answer they get is actually different. It makes sense to ask the question.

 

But I can see we're close on this issue. If the guy does give the expected answer it does seem like a waste of time.

 

 

 

 

It's 3rd and 6 and a QB doesn't see a guy who's open for a ten yard pass downfield and instead puts up a nice run of 5 yards.

 

It's not stupid. 

 

Yeah, runs count. But if you can't consistently pass, being able to run as a QB doesn't mean much. Sooner and not later you're going to be replaced.

 

I'm no huge fan of Dennison, but the play people always talk about was the R-P option play that turned into a pass into the end zone and an interference penalty. People talk about what a horrible call it was. And then they talk about what a brilliant call it was to call the R-P option play for Foles that he turns into a passing TD. An awful lot of your success as a play caller depends on the execution of your players. Again, I didn't love Dennison or anything, but I also don't think he was as obviously terrible as some think.

 

 

 

 

He didn't carry this team. Didn't carry them anywhere. He was their QB. Nobody can take that away, but the offense wasn't good and what carrying the offense did do was mostly done by the running game.

He was the teams offensive leader. 

He showed up. 

He made some great plays. 

Ultimately he helped to get the team to the playoffs. 

 

Was he great?  No. 

Was he good?  Sometimes. 

 

Deny it all you want. 

Tyrod led our team to the Playoffs. 

And he is a great Buffalo Bill

[Kirby Jackson]

4 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

How does the Glennon deal look now? If they had it to do over again, would they bring in someone cheaper like McCown or Fitz? I think they would. The Bradford deal is a bit better but he was injured again and they might easily let him go figuring it's just too much for what he's likely to be.

 

I agree with you that I think Tyrod's going to get a good deal more than $5 mill a year somewhere. But I'd guess that you're overestimating a bit. My guess is more like $8 - $12 mill per year for two or three year. Guess we'll see.

 

 

 

 

I think you used the wrong verb tense there. When you say, "It has been considered one of the best values in football," you should have used the simple past, not the present perfect. There was a time when some people thought that. That time was exclusively in the past. The fact that nobody thinks that way anymore should be wildly obvious from the fact that he was forced to re-negotiate and take $10 mill less. And is now being asked about it again. And is unlikely to be here even though nobody argues he's the best QB on the roster right now.

 

In any case, if he plays next year and then leaves, it will cost the Bills $23.6 mill on the cap, $18 mill on the 2018 cap and $5.6 mill on the 2019 cap. For one year of Tyrod Taylor. 

 

That isn't one of the best values in football, it just isn't.

It was considered great value for his first 2 seasons here. I think that they move on this year but the $8.6M of dead space makes it a little trickier. If they keep TT it is an $18M cap hit. If they release him $8.6M is dead this year. They’d have to find similar value at about $9.5M or less or they are paying more at the position. I don’t think anyone has a problem doing it for the right guy. As an example though if they give Bradford $15M they will have $23.6M on the cap for QB. If they draft a guy and keep Tyrod they can just take the $5.6M dead in 2019 and move on. 

 

I think that the likiest scenario is that they trade up for a day one starter like Rosen or Baker and get an inexpensive #2. I’ve thrown out Trevor Siemian but there are a bunch of guys that could fit. If they do get a guy that’s not ready day 1 though they’ll need a bridge. That could be about a 10 different guys.

[BringBackOrton]

7 minutes ago, dave mcbride said:

Weak. Do better. This is a hardcore site (or should be). Kirby brings it all of the time with good analysis. Do the same or refrain from engaging.

It was a joke.

 

Lighten up.

[Kirby Jackson]

36 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Yeah, I understand why you used Army. And what I will point out again is that that simply does not happen in the NFL, not since, what, the '30s? "Typically" more balanced? Try "absolutely without exception a great deal more balanced."

 

I'm not sure what else was out there on the Tolbert play either. But unless we know Tyrod had been told not to look at other options, some of the blame goes to execution. Maybe a lot and maybe a little. As I say, I don't love Dennison. But I also suspect that an awful lot of the problem was execution. And I'm not against Tolbert being lined up outside. What kind of matchups does it bring about? Was a DB on Tolbert? Did that create a bad matchup elsewhere? Bad play as run, certainly, but maybe not a bad play as drawn up.

There is certainly more balance in the NFL. The point remains that you can win being great at running or passing as long as you are competent at the other. The Jags are great at running the ball and the Patriots are great at throwing it. The Saints may be the most balanced team in football and they sucked until they were.

 

In terms of the Tolbert play, anything that has him split wide is a fail. There is nothing that he could have done there on 3rd and goal to contribute. If the concern is did he take up a DB a WR would have been much more effective in doing that. If the question is did they stay in base because of it? Why would a team be in base defense on 3rd and goal from the 17? You would have extra DBs. It was an abomination. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by Kirby Jackson

[Bills Pimpin']

1 hour ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Again, you are missing the point. It wasn’t one OR the other it was both!! They all count the same. 

 

Saying that you want the passing game to improve is beyond reasonable. Saying that passing is more important than running (or visa versa) isn’t reasonable. They are the same. Army football ran for 4710 yards and threw for 361 yards and won 10 games. All that matters is the score. 

Army...

[Kirby Jackson]

11 minutes ago, Bills Pimpin' said:

Army...

I tried to watch the game against Navy and there were like 3 pass attempts. It was horrible to watch. 

[wppete]

I like Tyrod, great guy I think a good QB. This year was frustrating watching him play, just playing it safe , checkdowns all the time and not going after it. That’s it. I think a lot of people feel the same way about him. Maybe it was Dennison and his offense. If so and they feel the new OC will do things differently why not bring him back? Draft a QB First round to sit and learn. 

Edited February 3, 2018 by wppete

[reddogblitz]

28 minutes ago, wppete said:

I like Tyrod, great guy I think a good QB. This year was frustrating watching him play, just playing it safe , checkdowns all the time and not going after it. That’s it. I think a lot of people feel the same way about him. Maybe it was Dennison and his offense. If so and they feel the new OC will do things differently why not bring him back? Draft a QB First round to sit and learn. 

 

I thought this season was exciting as hell watching us win 4 out of 6 down the stretch. Getting the wins we had to have instead of figuring out new ways to lose like we did the previous 17 years. We tried in the snow bowl but came through as a team. Great stuff. Winning is fun! There are no style points in football. Just win.

[xRUSHx]

1 hour ago, wppete said:

I like Tyrod, great guy I think a good QB. This year was frustrating watching him play, just playing it safe , checkdowns all the time and not going after it. That’s it. I think a lot of people feel the same way about him. Maybe it was Dennison and his offense. If so and they feel the new OC will do things differently why not bring him back? Draft a QB First round to sit and learn. 

OC#4?

SMH, maybe OC#4, maybe he will get OC#5 by the end of a even more horrible 2018, it would be so Billsy to once again trot not good enough at QB once again.  It sure would prove the QB purgatory is more of a OBD problem then the GM/HCs that have failed here for so long.

 

If they are banking once again with blaming another one of Tyrods fired OCs then the head coach and GM can start getting there tickets ready to get kicked out of town land with all the other HC/GMs that have made the exact mistakes of avoiding the QB position while trying to build the rest of the team first. IMO look at the QB track record here, nothing but fail since Kelly.

 

Truth is without a real QB a staff is on its way out within 3 years regardless of a fluke wild card year1. If they stay with Tyrod for OC#4 they all deserve to get fired. 

 

Should have moved on from Rex choice at QB when Rex got fired, let's be honest here this team got a lucky wild card because of Cinci otherwise it would have just been another fail of a season at a miss at the playoffs because of the garbage QB play. 

37 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

I thought this season was exciting as hell watching us win 4 out of 6 down the stretch. Getting the wins we had to have instead of figuring out new ways to lose like we did the previous 17 years. We tried in the snow bowl but came through as a team. Great stuff. Winning is fun! There are no style points in football. Just win.

Yeah the snow game that Tyrod did not play was a great game. 

Too bad this season had Tyrods worse just look at his wonderful NO game. SMH

Tyrod should have never been brought back in 2017 and if this staff does it again for 2018 I will be counting the days they are also gone.

Edited February 3, 2018 by xRUSHx

[Putin]

2 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Really. A deals a deal. The team hadn't sniffed the playoffs in 17 years. A team wins because of it's QB. Finally we do make the playoffs in a big part due to him. And he deserves a pay cut? We should build a statue of him and put it next to Ralph's or name a street after him or something.

 

 

? did you really write that with a straight face 

[xRUSHx]

1 hour ago, Bakin said:

He was the teams offensive leader. 

He showed up. 

He made some great plays. 

Ultimately he helped to get the team to the playoffs. 

 

Was he great?  No. 

Was he good?  Sometimes. 

 

Deny it all you want. 

Tyrod led our team to the Playoffs. 

And he is a great Buffalo Bill

Is this a joke?

He showed up?

When did this happen?

When was he good in 2017?

Every game we won it was the D not Tyrod.

Deny it all you want, Tyrod did NOT led this team to the playoffs.

Our D led our team to the playoffs with some big help from Cinci,  if it wasnt for Cinci we would have not got that wild card. 

 

Tyrod was benched for a reason this season, because he stunk and stunk bad.

Edited February 3, 2018 by xRUSHx

[transplantbillsfan]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

Don't be sorry for having a bizarre opinion, dude. That's your problem, not ours. We're sorry for you on that.

 

 

Question: will you tuck and run like your typical self when you're wrong if Taylor is retained on his current contract this year?

 

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

He didn't make a mistake there and he didn't lose any leverage. The Bills didn't think he was worth keeping at that salary. If he hadn't taken the cut he'd have been elsewhere. What he said then had no effect, any more than what he said this year did.

 

Both were reasonable answers. Both opinions about a difficult-to-predict future. Neither had or will have much effect on his contract situation.

 

 

That's interesting opinion you have there.

 

It's certainly not a fact...

 

but it's an interesting opinion, nonetheless  

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, Kirby Jackson said:

There is certainly more balance in the NFL. The point remains that you can win being great at running or passing as long as you are competent at the other. The Jags are great at running the ball and the Patriots are great at throwing it. The Saints may be the most balanced team in football and they sucked until they were.

 

In terms of the Tolbert play, anything that has him split wide is a fail. There is nothing that he could have done there on 3rd and goal to contribute. If the concern is did he take up a DB a WR would have been much more effective in doing that. If the question is did they stay in base because of it? Why would a team be in base defense on 3rd and goal from the 17? You would have extra DBs. It was an abomination. 

 

 

Yeah, you can win balanced.

 

Can you win titles balanced?

 

The record says it happens but unless you've got a QB who really gets respect in the pass game, it happens very infrequently.

 

Went back and looked at the Tolbert play. It was 2nd down, not third down. 2nd and goal at the 18.

 

And taking up a DB with Mike Tolbert is great, assuming it works out that way. On that play McCourty covered him and the Pats had nobody deep at safety. You're right that they certainly aren't likely to be in base at that time, but still might have one or two athletic LBs on the field and might still feel uncomfortable making the decision with little time to consider it, to put an LB out wide. It might produce a better matchup elsewhere.

 

Again, not thrilled with the play. But if it had been executed differently it might have made it a shorter more achievable 3rd down play.

 

In this case, Gilmore was on Benjamin with no deep help anywhere and he had to go back and around Tolbert. There was something there, though not deep. Tyrod didn't look at anything but Tolbert. The two guys on the other side were also mildly open with no clear options on deep routes. Putting Tolbert out there didn't hurt. The Pats had no deep safety. Going to Tolbert on the play doesn't seem to have been the best choice, though it should have been caught. But it would have given them maybe a third and goal on the twelve or so or maybe a bit better if they'd gone to someone else.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Thurman#1

[xRUSHx]

4 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Question: will you tuck and run like your typical self when you're wrong if Taylor is retained on his current contract this year?

 

 

That's interesting opinion you have there.

 

It's certainly not a fact...

 

but it's an interesting opinion, nonetheless  

You have been pounded so many times by Thurm and you posts this garbage? Same old Trans still in blind love for the not good enough Tyrod. I wonder if you will join JM over on the other no name board when all is said and done when the Tyrod era finally  comes to a bitter end this off season. The failed SE is over there as well, you will fit right in.

[Thurman#1]

 

 

36 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Question: will you tuck and run like your typical self when you're wrong if Taylor is retained on his current contract this year?

 

 

That's interesting opinion you have there.

 

It's certainly not a fact...

 

but it's an interesting opinion, nonetheless  

 

 

Gee, thanks for pointing that out. I'd thought it was a fact till you said that. Brilliant.

 

But you're right, it's an opinion ... Like it's an opinion that Aaron Rodgers is better than Blake Bortles. No real way to prove it actually factual. Everyone knows it, but yeah, strictly speaking an opinion. Some stupid answer in a press conference two months before the negotiations come to a head have something on the order of a 0.01% chance of having any real effect on negotiations, particularly when the answer given is only an evasion anyway. So yeah, an opinion. But also pretty much the only sensible opinion. Of course it didn't hurt Tyrod's position two months beforehand to say essentially, "We'll see what happens."

 

But if anyone is an expert on skipping on to the next subject and never commenting when he was wrong, it's you. I've been wrong a bunch of times. I admit it. I've done so many times on both boards over the years.

Edited February 3, 2018 by Thurman#1

[transplantbillsfan]

9 minutes ago, xRUSHx said:

Is this a joke?

He showed up?

When did this happen?

When was he good in 2017?

Every game we won it was the D not Tyrod.

Deny it all you want, Tyrod did NOT led this team to the playoffs.

Our D led our team to the playoffs with some big help from Cinci,  if it wasnt for Cinci we would have not got that wild card. 

 

Tyrod was benched for a reason this season, because he stunk and stunk bad.

 

Taylor "showed up" enough to be critical for Ws in enough games in 2017.

 

He made huge plays on critical downs against really solid defenses against the Falcons, Broncos and Chiefs.

 

We don't win the Bucs game without Taylor, which is an often overlooked game.

 

Ultimately, Taylor played a role in every game he played, and a significant enough one to say he was critical to our playoff run, like it or not.

 

 

You're right about one thing... Tyrod was benched for a reason, we as fans just don't know what that reason is... but, ya know... there were some interesting reports out there :

 

 

[MrEpsYtown]

Honestly, if he becomes a UFA I don't see him making even half of his projected salary. Maybe 5 million? The market was not kind to him last year and will be worse this year with all of the QBs available in free agency and the draft. Paying him 18 million would be insanity. I think his ceiling is what Nick Foles got to be a high level backup, 2 years 11 million. 

[transplantbillsfan]

5 minutes ago, xRUSHx said:

You have been pounded so many times by Thurm and you posts this garbage? Same old Trans still in blind love for the not good enough Tyrod. I wonder if you will join JM over on the other no name board when all is said and done when the Tyrod era finally  comes to a bitter end this off season. The failed SE is over there as well, you will fit right in.

 

Pounded by Thurm... bwahahahahaha!!!  

 

You talking about the poster who religiously scurries into the wall to hide when he's wrong about something?

 

Yah, okay