Jump to content

Mason Rudolph/Lamar Jackson/Tyrod Taylor


Mikie2times

Recommended Posts

All the conversation is focused on a big FA signing or a trade up. Would it surprise anyone if we didn't land Cousins? At which point you either execute your trade up or you are likely looking at the scenario in the subject line. The scenario nobody wants to talk about which puts Taylor back in play. It's all in preference but I don't want to hang my hat on Rudolph or Jackson for the next 3-4 years. Don't kid yourself when it comes to the franchise QB game. We need to play it but the wrong choice has just as strong of an impact as the right choice. If we don't get our guy I would rather we move on.    

 

I don't want Taylor one more year and I sure as heck don't want to see the above scenario, but I'm surprised it's not being discussed.  If nothing happens in FA or a trade up I would think this is the most likely position we will find ourselves in. An interesting sub plot to this is we will get some direction in the next 30 days. Tyrod is due 6 million on 3/16, if he is on the roster after that it could indicate Buffalo being defensive toward the scenario outlined in this post. If we move on Tyrod it could indicate Buffalo's confidence in delivering on a FA or trade up.      

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, KzooMike said:

All the conversation is focused on a big FA signing or a trade up. Would it surprise anyone if we didn't land Cousins? At which point you either execute your trade up or you are likely looking at the scenario in the subject line. The scenario nobody wants to talk about which puts Taylor back in play. It's all in preference but I don't want to hang my hat on Rudolph or Jackson for the next 3-4 years. Don't kid yourself when it comes to the franchise QB game. We need to play it but the wrong choice has just as strong of an impact as the right choice. If we don't get our guy I would rather we move on.    

 

I don't want Taylor one more year and I sure as heck don't want to see the above scenario, but I'm surprised it's not being discussed.  If nothing happens in FA or a trade up I would think this is the most likely position we will find ourselves in. An interesting sub plot to this is we will get some direction in the next 30 days. Tyrod is due 6 million on 3/16, if he is on the roster after that it could indicate Buffalo being defensive toward the scenario outlined in this post. If we move on Tyrod it could indicate Buffalo's confidence in delivering on a FA or trade up.      

 

Well, it’s being discussed (or, as some might call it “disgust”) now! It’s certainly one possibility, but it seems they are pretty determined to move on. However.....you never know. 

  • Haha (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if TT could be an option as a bridge if Daboll believes he can put together an offense that would maximize the strengths of TT while the drafted rookie learns some of the nuances to being a QB in the NFL.  I don't believe they will find a starter for the 9 million it costs the Bills to keep TT another year (minus the dead cap).  Also, though many on this board would believe otherwise, Peterman might improve immensley in yr 2 and beyond.  He reminds me a lot of Cousins, minus all the interceptions.  I still like Peterman.  Just wish he had a stronger arm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, baskingridgebillsfan said:

They have to move on fro Taylor.  He gets worse every year .   The league know how to beat him and when they play a good defense they look like a high school offense 

i don't think it was really that taylor got worse. i would say he pretty much stayed the same. the coordinators, scheme, and players all changed around him. a lot. but he remained fairly consistent. you know what you have, and you know how to make it work. either design the offense to utilize his strengths or let him go. he is a great person, but a flawed qb. and there are too many people giving this guy crap that he just doesn't deserve. having said that, i have been ready to move on from him for quite a while now. i am ready to adapt to the modern day passing game. i hope they are too.

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, richardb1952 said:

I wonder if TT could be an option as a bridge if Daboll believes he can put together an offense that would maximize the strengths of TT while the drafted rookie learns some of the nuances to being a QB in the NFL.  I don't believe they will find a starter for the 9 million it costs the Bills to keep TT another year (minus the dead cap).  Also, though many on this board would believe otherwise, Peterman might improve immensley in yr 2 and beyond.  He reminds me a lot of Cousins, minus all the interceptions.  I still like Peterman.  Just wish he had a stronger arm.

 

 

They made it clear what a QB needs in their system. One thing. He has to be able to play from the pocket. Tyrod can't.

 

The whole point of a bridge QB is that he's there to make the future better. The way to do that is to play decent ball (Tyrod can do this), and to allow the offense to put in the offense and run it and practice it so that when the new guy comes in the whole offense has had a year or more of time to run the offense, to ingrain it, to make it second nature. Tyrod can't do this. 

 

You yourself say they would have to put together an offense that would maximize the strengths of TT. That's NOT what a bridge QB does, force you to build an offense around him that you'll then have to change when he's gone.

 

If they have a bridge guy it's likely to be someone like Fitz or McCown or Foles or Bradford or even if we're lucky Bridgewater. A guy who can run the offense these coaches want to input and be using for the foreseeable future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

If they have a bridge guy it's likely to be someone like Fitz or McCown or Foles or Bradford or even if we're lucky Bridgewater. A guy who can run the offense these coaches want to input and be using for the foreseeable future.

 

Foles would cost draft picks and I would guess Eagles might want to keep him since he is good insurance at a reasonable cost for a team that is a returning SB champ.   Fitz will probably win you a couple TT wouldn't but will also lose you a couple TT would win by not turning the ball over.  Would love Bradford without injury concerns but I would wonder if he still doesn't consider himself to be a starter and not a bridge.  Bridgewater;  who knows what you are getting there (injury and really, how productive was he when he did play?), and I can't say I know anything about McCown except that he would be 39.  I guess they all have their warts.  

Myself, I would like Bradford if he checks out medically.  He's basically had a year to rehab and was active for the playoff run.  Bills would just have to realize that Peterman would be the second stringer with whomever they draft inactive for most of the year.  Problem there is that Bradford would want more than a one or two year contract and would want starter money.

I just wouldn't be surprised if the Bills kept TT for another year, and while he isn't a perfect fit, maybe Daboll runs an offense better suited to TT while incorporating principles for when the change is made.  I just remember watching the Alabama offense look entirely different when Hurst was removed in the second half of the Championship Game.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

They made it clear what a QB needs in their system. One thing. He has to be able to play from the pocket. Tyrod can't.

 

The whole point of a bridge QB is that he's there to make the future better. The way to do that is to play decent ball (Tyrod can do this), and to allow the offense to put in the offense and run it and practice it so that when the new guy comes in the whole offense has had a year or more of time to run the offense, to ingrain it, to make it second nature. Tyrod can't do this. 

 

You yourself say they would have to put together an offense that would maximize the strengths of TT. That's NOT what a bridge QB does, force you to build an offense around him that you'll then have to change when he's gone.

 

If they have a bridge guy it's likely to be someone like Fitz or McCown or Foles or Bradford or even if we're lucky Bridgewater. A guy who can run the offense these coaches want to input and be using for the foreseeable future.

 

I agree 100% - TT would be a terrible bridge QB.  To be effective you need to build a specific style and that is not what you want.

 

You also need a bridge QB to help work with the younger QB and in the film room talk about what you are seeing and what you read and TT does not make the reads you want.  

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick Foles just won the Superbowl against our arch rivals.  I agree we could use upgrade at QB.  But let's not get robbed trying to trade up for a lottery ticket at QB.  There are 22 starting positions, and we can improve quite a few with the picks and cap room we have.  Me personally would rather have the 2000 Ravens D and Trent Dilfer or the 1985 Bears D with Jim McMahon then 2015 Colts with Andrew Luck.  My mantra has been to stay put and let draft and QB come to us.  And to stockpile picks this and next year.  Let's build our oline and fix our front 7.  Pass rush would benefit this team more then anything IMO

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, richardb1952 said:

I wonder if TT could be an option as a bridge if Daboll believes he can put together an offense that would maximize the strengths of TT while the drafted rookie learns some of the nuances to being a QB in the NFL.  I don't believe they will find a starter for the 9 million it costs the Bills to keep TT another year (minus the dead cap).  Also, though many on this board would believe otherwise, Peterman might improve immensley in yr 2 and beyond.  He reminds me a lot of Cousins, minus all the interceptions.  I still like Peterman.  Just wish he had a stronger arm.

 

If Daboll even whispered a hint about such a plan, I'd hope Pegula, McD, or Beane would show him the door immediately.

 

I think it's pretty clear at OBD that the TT ship has sailed. Heck, Pegula fired a coach over keeping TT back in 2016! If we're still playing that game in 2018 then it's time to just close up shop.

 

It doesnt matter what plays you scheme up for TT. He simply WILL NOT throw the ball. It killed Roman. It killed Dennison. And it will kill Daboll if they try something that stupid. Which they wont.

 

 

2 minutes ago, LABILLBACKER said:

Wave goodbye to Tyrod

21. Rudolph

22. Jackson 

QB3. Peterman

No bridge vet qb

May the best man win!

Use the 2nd, 3rd rounds and FA to

shore up Oline & Dline.

 

 

As crazy as that plan sounds, I'm not against it.

Edited by DrDawkinstein
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Pete said:

So how many QB's the past 20 years have been worth trading up for?  And how many big trades for a QB have failed the past 20 years?  The numbers are pretty grim

 

The grimmest thing of all is the Bills' historical approach to finding a QB. Time to start taking shots. Even if that means taking risks.

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

The grimmest thing of all is the Bills' historical approach to finding a QB. Time to start taking shots. Even if that means taking risks.

I am all for taking shots at QB.  But I am not down for trading multiple picks for a high risk/high reward position.  I would draft a QB almost every year- but in rounds 2-5.   Like I stated beforen- "Me personally would rather have the 2000 Ravens D and Trent Dilfer or the 1985 Bears D with Jim McMahon then 2015 Colts with Andrew Luck"

 

How about you?

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If we don't pick up a top FA QB or move up in this draft I wouldn't pick any leftover QB's like Rudolph, Allen or Jackson till late 2nd or 3rd round. These are project QB's and wil take a year or 3 to develop IMO

 

I just do not see Allen Rudolph or Jackson as 1st rd worthy although a team may reach for them early. Heck I wouldn't touch Allen in the 2nd.

 

 

Edited by ddaryl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Pete said:

I am all for taking shots at QB.  But I am not down for trading multiple picks for a high risk/high reward position.  I would draft a QB almost every year- but in rounds 2-5.   Like I stated beforen- "Me personally would rather have the 2000 Ravens D and Trent Dilfer or the 1985 Bears D with Jim McMahon then 2015 Colts with Andrew Luck"

 

How about you?

 

I'll take the Star QB every time. We've tried winning through building the D and getting a game manager. That doesnt cut it anymore. You have to be able to sling it. You have to have a high powered offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

I'll take the Star QB every time. We've tried winning through building the D and getting a game manager. That doesnt cut it anymore. You have to be able to sling it. You have to have a high powered offense.

I will take Nick Foles and the and the Eagles team over Mitch Trubinski.  And Defense wins

Edited by Pete
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Pete said:

Nick Foles just won the Superbowl against our arch rivals.  I agree we could use upgrade at QB.  But let's not get robbed trying to trade up for a lottery ticket at QB.  There are 22 starting positions, and we can improve quite a few with the picks and cap room we have.  Me personally would rather have the 2000 Ravens D and Trent Dilfer or the 1985 Bears D with Jim McMahon then 2015 Colts with Andrew Luck.  My mantra has been to stay put and let draft and QB come to us.  And to stockpile picks this and next year.  Let's build our oline and fix our front 7.  Pass rush would benefit this team more then anything IMO

 

It's the buffalo way. never take a chance, never take a risk, never try. Just draft a DT in the first round.

 

:lol:

 

 

 

6 minutes ago, Pete said:

I will take Nick Foles and the and the Eagles team over Mitch Trubinski.  And Defense wins

 

No, it really doesn't. We've had a lot of good defenses in the drought but never a great offense.

 

Edited by joesixpack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, ddaryl said:

If we don't pick up a top FA QB or move up in this draft I wouldn't pick any leftover QB's like Rudolph, Allen or Jackson till late 2nd or 3rd round. These are project QB's and wil take a year or 3 to develop IMO

 

I just do not see Allen Rudolph or Jackson as 1st rd worthy although a team may reach for them early. Heck I wouldn't touch Allen in the 2nd.

 

 

Completely agree with your scepticism regarding Allen. I don't see Mason or Lamar lasting past pick 35-40 tops. Would it be so horrible to use both 21/22 on them. One of them have to pan out. I guess I view this like the lottery.  The more tickets you buy the better your chances of winning big!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...