Rapaport: Bills won’t cut Tyrod, fine with paying 6 mill bonus

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 minutes ago, GG said:

Just a reminder that Matt Shaub looked more than adequate in a Dennison offense, and no reason to believe that Foles would have been a horror show

 

I was a big fan of Matt Schaub.  I followed his career. 

 

Tell me, in that Dennison offense (it wasn't, actually) where Schaub looked "more than adequate", what was the OL like and who were the WR?

[JohnC]

6 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

He’s talking about Foles

My mistake. I would still take Foles over Tyrod.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Even the draft picks who develop into a decent NFL QB, more often or not, have a ceiling at or below what Cousins has shown.

And then there are those who don't.

 

I'm not dissing on the "draft" idea.  I think every team has to look at their roster and decide how much they can "pay the man" at QB and still develop, so if Cousins went over their price, I'm good with moving to the next plan. 

 

I just don't think it's realistic to paint Cousins as "not the sort of QB you build your franchise around" but plan to get someone better through "draft and develop".  You'll be lucky to get someone who winds up as good after 3 years, you have to live through those 3 years, and then you gotta start figuring out how to pay him.

 

You're certainly entitled to your opinion, but after watching him for a number of years it's where I land.  As an organization, you have to trust the scouts and coaching staff to find and develop a QB.  During that time there is a 5 year window with known cost. 

[bobobonators]

I can take another year of Tyrod on the field.  I can’t take another year of the Tyrod convo on these boards. The discussion becomes nauseating. 

 

Every week, win or loss, the conversation turns into how many yards did he throw for; how many progressions did he miss; bring out the All-22 experts; create 20 weekly threads about Tyrod sucking. 

 

Its brutal. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 minutes ago, JohnC said:

I'm not advocating for Cousins.

 

We're talking about Foles

[BillsFan130]

6 minutes ago, GG said:

 

Just a reminder that Matt Shaub looked more than adequate in a Dennison offense, and no reason to believe that Foles would have been a horror show

Dennisons offence? I think you mean Kubiaks. 

 

Kubiaks offence was effective 10 years ago. It’s very outdated.

 

Combine Dennison calling plays, an outdated offensive scheme,  and a QB who doesn’t fit that awful scheme, equals up to one one the worst offences in the league 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 minutes ago, JohnC said:

My mistake. I would still take Foles over Tyrod.

 

Aren't you pretty strongly on record as you would take anyone over Tyrod?  Glennon, Mccarron, Glass-leg Bradford, Bridgewater, McCown, Moore etc?

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

38 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Me, too.  Was never gonna happen, alas.

 

But let me ask you this:  If the Bills had signed him, how do you think he would have performed with our OL and our WR corps, and Dennison?

I don't think he would be as good with the Bills until they made some upgrades.

 

I will say this though, and this is just my opinion. If we had Foles in the playoff game I think we win that game. Also if the Eagles had Taylor I don't see them winning that super bowl.

[GG]

4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I was a big fan of Matt Schaub.  I followed his career. 

 

Tell me, in that Dennison offense (it wasn't, actually) where Schaub looked "more than adequate", what was the OL like and who were the WR?

 

It doesn't matter that Dennison was running Kubiak's offense in Houston, because Dennison was running a version of it in Buffalo.  If you're going to attribute Tyrod's weak passing to a deficient WR corps, what would you call Foles' supporting cast in St Louis?

 

You saw a glimpse of the passing offense design being more dynamic with Peterman under center, and I will argue that Foles doesn't throw wounded ducks that are ripe for picking.   There's a high probability that Matthews is far more effective early on with Foles as QB.

 

Bottom line is that TT has led to 2 OCs getting the boot because he's not really a good QB

[OldTimer1960]

18 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Even the draft picks who develop into a decent NFL QB, more often or not, have a ceiling at or below what Cousins has shown.

And then there are those who don't.

 

I'm not dissing on the "draft" idea.  I think every team has to look at their roster and decide how much they can "pay the man" at QB and still develop, so if Cousins went over their price, I'm good with moving to the next plan. 

 

I just don't think it's realistic to paint Cousins as "not the sort of QB you build your franchise around" but plan to get someone better through "draft and develop".  You'll be lucky to get someone who winds up as good after 3 years, you have to live through those 3 years, and then you gotta start figuring out how to pay him.

 

Edit: You added the "Just like GB did with Rodgers" after I responded, but there's a very telling point there: at the point where GB developed Rodgers (and San Diego developed Rivers.  And possibly as NE developed Garappolo), they had a HOF starting QB.  So if it's "just like Green Bay", who is our HOF QB (or even our capable vet) we can play and win with while our draft-and-develop plays out?

Agreed.

[Paul Costa]

9 hours ago, yungmack said:

Jackson's completion % is horrible.

Jim Kelly’s completion % was lower in College. So by using this rationale you wouldn’t have drafted Jim Kelly?

8 hours ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

Paying 6mil to get a 5th rd pk isn't that cost prohibitive. 

Agree with Mcbeane we must keep all our options open. It could backfire as you suggest. TT is much more tradeable with a 10 Million cap hit. We will see his worth ? Maybe a higher pick maybe a player? Maybe TT is our QB in 18?

[JohnC]

19 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

We're talking about Foles

See my response to Kirby. 

[26CornerBlitz]

29 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Even the draft picks who develop into a decent NFL QB, more often or not, have a ceiling at or below what Cousins has shown.

And then there are those who don't.

 

I'm not dissing on the "draft" idea.  I think every team has to look at their roster and decide how much they can "pay the man" at QB and still develop, so if Cousins went over their price, I'm good with moving to the next plan. 

 

I just don't think it's realistic to paint Cousins as "not the sort of QB you build your franchise around" but plan to get someone better through "draft and develop".  You'll be lucky to get someone who winds up as good after 3 years, you have to live through those 3 years, and then you gotta start figuring out how to pay him.

 

Edit: You added the "Just like GB did with Rodgers" after I responded, but there's a very telling point there: at the point where GB developed Rodgers (and San Diego developed Rivers.  And possibly as NE developed Garappolo), they had a HOF starting QB.  So if it's "just like Green Bay", who is our HOF QB (or even our capable vet) we can play and win with while our draft-and-develop plays out?

 

It's called a bridge QB.  It's not required to have a HoF QB on board to take that path.

[nedboy7]

27 minutes ago, bobobonators said:

I can take another year of Tyrod on the field.  I can’t take another year of the Tyrod convo on these boards. The discussion becomes nauseating. 

 

Every week, win or loss, the conversation turns into how many yards did he throw for; how many progressions did he miss; bring out the All-22 experts; create 20 weekly threads about Tyrod sucking. 

 

Its brutal. 

 

Yeah another year of making the playoffs would be brutal.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

21 minutes ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

I don't think he would be as good with the Bills until they made some upgrades.

 

I will say this though, and this is just my opinion. If we had Foles in the playoff game I think we win that game. Also if the Eagles had Taylor I don't see them winning that super bowl.

 

It's certainly possible we win with Foles.  OTOH, Jax is the team that baited Big Ben into 5 INTs the first time they met.  They specialize in deceptive coverage.  Foles is far more of a passer than Tyrod, which is both blessing and curse.  When he's confused by the coverage, Tyrod's primal QB instinct is to be cautious.  Foles primal QB instinct is to trust his arm to get it there anyway.  And Tyrod is far more able to cope with a sieve-like OL.

 

So You may be wrong for all I know But you may be right

[BillsFan130]

32 minutes ago, bobobonators said:

I can take another year of Tyrod on the field.  I can’t take another year of the Tyrod convo on these boards. The discussion becomes nauseating. 

 

Every week, win or loss, the conversation turns into how many yards did he throw for; how many progressions did he miss; bring out the All-22 experts; create 20 weekly threads about Tyrod sucking. 

 

Its brutal. 

It really is never ending. That’s half the reason I want him gone. The threads and the same posters making the same repetitive arguments and threads every single day 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

It's called a bridge QB.  It's not required to have a HoF QB on board to take that path.

 

I'm not going to get sucked further into the 26CB Circular Argument Carousel, where things are "just like Green Bay" until differences are pointed out, then there's some snarky shallow response.  The point is:

1) teams who can allow a high draft pick QB to sit and develop, are generally speaking teams who have a QB they can win more than they lose with, in house.

2) having an expensive starting QB does not prevent a team from drafting a QB and seeing what they can develop

3) if the Bills want a "bridge QB" while a rookie takes 1-3 years to develop, who is that guy?  Concepts are easy, as Da Bears have found out, finding quality NFL QB is hard.

4 minutes ago, billsfan11 said:

It really is never ending. That’s half the reason I want him gone. The threads and the same posters making the same repetitive arguments and threads every single day 

 

That seems like a really dumb reason.  This board does have an ignore feature.

[grb]

23 minutes ago, GG said:

 

It doesn't matter that Dennison was running Kubiak's offense in Houston, because Dennison was running a version of it in Buffalo.  If you're going to attribute Tyrod's weak passing to a deficient WR corps, what would you call Foles' supporting cast in St Louis?

 

You saw a glimpse of the passing offense design being more dynamic with Peterman under center, and I will argue that Foles doesn't throw wounded ducks that are ripe for picking.   There's a high probability that Matthews is far more effective early on with Foles as QB.

 

Bottom line is that TT has led to 2 OCs getting the boot because he's not really a good QB

 

I tell myself not to respond to this kind of nonsense but here I am :

 

Quote : "You saw a glimpse of the passing offense design being more dynamic with Peterman under center"

Facts : NP : 24 of 49,  49%  252 yds, 5.14 ypa, 2 tds, 21 yds, longest pass, 5 int, 2 fumbles, 12.1 qbr, 38.4 passer rating

 

Quote :  "If you're going to attribute Tyrod's weak passing to a deficient WR corps......"

Fact : Whenever Taylor had Watkins and Woods on the field, this resulted : 63.6% comp. 8.25 YPA. 27 TD passes. 6 INTs

 

Yeah. He's "not really a good QB" - except, of course, for the only time the Bills put a real pair of targets in the game with him. Then he was......

[PromoTheRobot]

17 hours ago, Buffalo Bills Detective said:

Tyrod + Lamar Jackson = worst case scenario, as they are pretty much the same player; Jackson just happens to be a bit taller.

Wait, wait. A bunch of people just told me Jackson is nothing like Taylor. Someone's lying.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm not going to get sucked further into the 26CB Circular Argument Carousel, where things are "just like Green Bay" until differences are pointed out, then there's some snarky shallow response.  The point is:

1) teams who can allow a high draft pick QB to sit and develop, are generally speaking teams who have a QB they can win more than they lose with, in house.

2) having an expensive starting QB does not prevent a team from drafting a QB and seeing what they can develop

3) if the Bills want a "bridge QB" while a rookie takes 1-3 years to develop, who is that guy?  Concepts are easy, as Da Bears have found out, finding quality NFL QB is hard.

 

It's neither snarky nor shallow.  I mentioned Rodgers because he was the example you initially used.  Your #2 point doesn't make any sense because an expensive QB like Cousins is your guy at 29 years old.  I just happen to think he's not a guy I'd want despite the big numbers that attract the eye of you and many others.  We'll just agree to disagree. 

[BillsFan130]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm not going to get sucked further into the 26CB Circular Argument Carousel, where things are "just like Green Bay" until differences are pointed out, then there's some snarky shallow response.  The point is:

1) teams who can allow a high draft pick QB to sit and develop, are generally speaking teams who have a QB they can win more than they lose with, in house.

2) having an expensive starting QB does not prevent a team from drafting a QB and seeing what they can develop

3) if the Bills want a "bridge QB" while a rookie takes 1-3 years to develop, who is that guy?  Concepts are easy, as Da Bears have found out, finding quality NFL QB is hard.

Generally the only way to find a franchise QB is draft and develop though.

 

Out of all the good to great active QBs now, pretty sure almost all of them are draft and develop.

 

Brady, Ben, Rodgers, Newton, Wilson, Luck, Stafford, Flacco (I put him in cause SB win) Eli, Wentz, Ryan, Watson, (looks promising) I’m sure I’m missing more.

 

Only Free agent QBs that have had success are Brees became SD thought his shoulder was screwed, and you can argue Alex Smith a bit.

 

Way more than often draft and develop trumps getting a free agent QB

[Hapless Bills Fan]

30 minutes ago, GG said:

It doesn't matter that Dennison was running Kubiak's offense in Houston, because Dennison was running a version of it in Buffalo.  If you're going to attribute Tyrod's weak passing to a deficient WR corps, what would you call Foles' supporting cast in St Louis?

 

It does matter that Dennison was running Kubiak's offense in Houston, because the version Dennison was running in Buffalo did not have the same quality of situationally appropriate play calls or appropriate use of personnel (Tolbert?  Are you kidding me?)

 

Foles actually had some potentially good WR in St Louis - Kenny Britt had a 1000 yd season the following year, Jared Cook did a very nice job for Oak last year, and he had a 1000 yd rusher.  The real problem was the rookie OCs (Frank Cignetti, fired partway through the year, and Rob Boras now our TE coach) and the OL.

 

I'm less persuaded than some others that our WR corp this year was intrinsically weak - I've argued before that I think Beane made moves on paper that he felt would be good - but injuries, lack of experience with Tyrod (injuries further limit practice during the week), and poor play calls for the coverage hampered it.

 

[PromoTheRobot]

17 hours ago, TheTruthHurts said:

I want a QB that can put up points. Tyrod has lead a couple top 12 scoring offenses. 

 

You can continue to try and upgrade Taylor. Keeping Taylor does not prevent that. I don't know why fans don't understand that. 

Because fans want vengeance.

[Teddy KGB]

3 minutes ago, grb said:

Yeah. He's "not really a good QB" - except, of course, for the only time the Bills put a real pair of targets in the game with him. Then he was......

 

beaten up by Sam Bradford and Alex Smith, then  the redskins defense, then he got too scared to pass the ball while down to the pats.   

 

Big win vs Kellen Moore and Leodis’s int saved the 8-8 season 

 

he was awesome ! ??‍♂️

Just now, PromoTheRobot said:

Because fans want vengeance.

 

Aka more than 3 points in a playoff game

[TheFunPolice]

9 minutes ago, grb said:

 

I tell myself not to respond to this kind of nonsense but here I am :

 

Quote : "You saw a glimpse of the passing offense design being more dynamic with Peterman under center"

Facts : NP : 24 of 49,  49%  252 yds, 5.14 ypa, 2 tds, 21 yds, longest pass, 5 int, 2 fumbles, 12.1 qbr, 38.4 passer rating

 

Quote :  "If you're going to attribute Tyrod's weak passing to a deficient WR corps......"

Fact : Whenever Taylor had Watkins and Woods on the field, this resulted : 63.6% comp. 8.25 YPA. 27 TD passes. 6 INTs

 

Yeah. He's "not really a good QB" - except, of course, for the only time the Bills put a real pair of targets in the game with him. Then he was......

 

Those are interesting stats, because Tyrod put up 2 almost identical years with those guys in 2015 and 2016:

 

2015: 63.7%, 3035 yards, 20 TD 6 INT

2016: 61.7%, 3023 yards, 17 TD 6 INT

 

Nowhere in there do I see 27 TD and 6 INT, unless we are combining seasons and cherry picking games, in which case go ahead and do that for the QBs who actually put up numbers and it will start to look a lot less impressive.

 

 

[BillsFan130]

15 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm not going to get sucked further into the 26CB Circular Argument Carousel, where things are "just like Green Bay" until differences are pointed out, then there's some snarky shallow response.  The point is:

1) teams who can allow a high draft pick QB to sit and develop, are generally speaking teams who have a QB they can win more than they lose with, in house.

2) having an expensive starting QB does not prevent a team from drafting a QB and seeing what they can develop

3) if the Bills want a "bridge QB" while a rookie takes 1-3 years to develop, who is that guy?  Concepts are easy, as Da Bears have found out, finding quality NFL QB is hard.

 

That seems like a really dumb reason.  This board does have an ignore feature.

It’s not a dumb reason to me but I appreciate your classy response..

[Jamie Muellers Ghost]

Leaks are back despite Woody being fired. hmmmmmmmmmm

[eball]

17 hours ago, Buffalo Bills Detective said:

Tyrod + Lamar Jackson = worst case scenario, as they are pretty much the same player; Jackson just happens to be a bit taller.

 

Ignorance is bliss.

[Kirby Jackson]

I haven’t tried this yet but saw it in Bon Appetit. Wine Braised Short Rib:

 

INGREDIENTS

 

• 5 pounds bone-in beef short ribs, cut crosswise into 2-inch pieces
• Kosher salt and freshly ground black pepper
• 3 tablespoons vegetable oil
• 3 medium onions, chopped
• 3 medium carrots, peeled, chopped
• 2 celery stalks, chopped
• 3 tablespoons all-purpose flour
• 1 tablespoon tomato paste
• 1 750 ml bottle dry red wine (preferably Cabernet Sauvignon)
• 10 sprigs flat-leaf parsley
• 8 sprigs thyme
• 4 sprigs oregano
• 2 sprigs rosemary
• 2 fresh or dried bay leaves
• 1 head of garlic, halved crosswise
• 4 cups low-salt beef stock

RECIPE PREPARATION

Preheat oven to 350°. Season short ribs with salt and pepper. Heat oil in a large Dutch oven over medium-high. Working in 2 batches, brown short ribs on all sides, about 8 minutes per batch. Transfer short ribs to a plate. Pour off all but 3 Tbsp. drippings from pot.

Add onions, carrots, and celery to pot and cook over medium-high heat, stirring often, until onions are browned, about 5 minutes. Add flour and tomato paste; cook, stirring constantly, until well combined and deep red, 2-3 minutes. Stir in wine, then add short ribs with any accumulated juices. Bring to a boil; lower heat to medium and simmer until wine is reduced by half, about 25 minutes. Add all herbs to pot along with garlic. Stir in stock. Bring to a boil, cover, and transfer to oven.

 

• Cook until short ribs are tender, 2–2½ hours. Transfer short ribs to a platter. Strain sauce from pot into a measuring cup. Spoon fat from surface of sauce and discard; season sauce to taste with salt and pepper. Serve in shallow bowls over mashed potatoes with sauce spooned over.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

Wait, wait. A bunch of people just told me Jackson is nothing like Taylor. Someone's lying.

 

I don't think anyone told you "Jackson is nothing like Taylor".  They clearly have a similar pattern of QB ability with fantastic athletic chops that makes them great runners.

But as a QB, Jackson shows qualities that Taylor did not in college, and still struggles with, including the ability to operate in a more complex offense, audible, make progressions, and step up in the pocket.  As a result, he has shown significantly higher passing performance than Tyrod did in his Sr year (~36% more production), comparable to Wilson's Jr year, and actually around the same attempts/yardage as Rosen.  He has a lower completion percentage of 59%, but his receivers also dropped 12% of his passes.

 

It would sort of be like comparing Blake Bortles and Ben Roethlisberger because they're both 6'5"

 

13 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

It's neither snarky nor shallow.  I mentioned Rodgers because he was the example you initially used. 

 

The "snarky shallow bit" is the "it's called a bridge QB" rejoinder.  Which you did not address, I note.

[Teddy KGB]

1 minute ago, Kirby Jackson said:

I haven’t tried this yet but saw it in Bon Appetit. Wine Braised Short Rib:

 

INGREDIENTS

 

• 5 pounds bone-in beef short ribs, cut crosswise into 2-inch pieces
• Kosher salt and freshly ground black pepper
• 3 tablespoons vegetable oil
• 3 medium onions, chopped
• 3 medium carrots, peeled, chopped
• 2 celery stalks, chopped
• 3 tablespoons all-purpose flour
• 1 tablespoon tomato paste
• 1 750 ml bottle dry red wine (preferably Cabernet Sauvignon)
• 10 sprigs flat-leaf parsley
• 8 sprigs thyme
• 4 sprigs oregano
• 2 sprigs rosemary
• 2 fresh or dried bay leaves
• 1 head of garlic, halved crosswise
• 4 cups low-salt beef stock

RECIPE PREPARATION

Preheat oven to 350°. Season short ribs with salt and pepper. Heat oil in a large Dutch oven over medium-high. Working in 2 batches, brown short ribs on all sides, about 8 minutes per batch. Transfer short ribs to a plate. Pour off all but 3 Tbsp. drippings from pot.

Add onions, carrots, and celery to pot and cook over medium-high heat, stirring often, until onions are browned, about 5 minutes. Add flour and tomato paste; cook, stirring constantly, until well combined and deep red, 2-3 minutes. Stir in wine, then add short ribs with any accumulated juices. Bring to a boil; lower heat to medium and simmer until wine is reduced by half, about 25 minutes. Add all herbs to pot along with garlic. Stir in stock. Bring to a boil, cover, and transfer to oven.

 

• Cook until short ribs are tender, 2–2½ hours. Transfer short ribs to a platter. Strain sauce from pot into a measuring cup. Spoon fat from surface of sauce and discard; season sauce to taste with salt and pepper. Serve in shallow bowls over mashed potatoes with sauce spooned over.

 

Pot roast and short ribs taste pretty similar or is it just me ?

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I don't think anyone told you "Jackson is nothing like Taylor".  They clearly have a similar pattern of QB ability with fantastic athletic chops that makes them great runners.

But as a QB, Jackson shows qualities that Taylor did not in college, and still struggles with, including the ability to operate in a more complex offense, audible, make progressions, and step up in the pocket.  As a result, he has shown significantly higher passing performance than Tyrod did in his Sr year (~36% more production), comparable to Wilson's Jr year, and actually around the same attempts/yardage as Rosen.  He has a lower completion percentage of 59%, but his receivers also dropped 12% of his passes.

 

It would sort of be like comparing Blake Bortles and Ben Roethlisberger because they're both 6'5"

 

The "snarky shallow bit" is the "it's called a bridge QB" rejoinder.  Which you did not address, I note.

 

It's a direct answer to your point that the only way to develop a QB is if you have a hall of fame caliber QB on board. If you consider that snarky, then I can't help you with that. 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 minute ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

Pot roast and short ribs taste pretty similar or is it just me ?

Just you, short ribs are so much more tender to me. They are a pain to do but if done right are fantastic.

[NoSaint]

8 hours ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

This is just great Tyrod will be the mentor for our next QB which will most likely be a pocket passer. Tyrod the mentor of passers. Lol. Just great I'm so excited.  

 

Maybe he can teach him to run after 1 read. Tuck and run  make sure u don't throw the ball into windows u don't want to throw pks make sure u punt that's much better for us. 

 

Its almost as if we can hire a qb coach 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

3 hours ago, billsfan11 said:

Generally the only way to find a franchise QB is draft and develop though.

Out of all the good to great active QBs now, pretty sure almost all of them are draft and develop.

Brady, Ben, Rodgers, Newton, Wilson, Luck, Stafford, Flacco (I put him in cause SB win) Eli, Wentz, Ryan, Watson, (looks promising) I’m sure I’m missing more.

Only Free agent QBs that have had success are Brees became SD thought his shoulder was screwed, and you can argue Alex Smith a bit.

Way more than often draft and develop trumps getting a free agent QB

 

If you limit to "active right now" you can make a better argument for your first sentence, but you're overlooking some stunning active counter examples.

I will argue Alex Smith a lot as a FA QB who worked out at least for his 1st FA team.  2nd TBD

The currently-active FA poster-child example is of course Drew Brees.  (the 49ers hope) Jimmy Garappolo is one.  And don't overlook this year's NFC Championship game between Keenum and Foles - while neither are established franchise QB, you would have to acknowledge they both looked at least as promising as Wentz, Watson, and Garappolo this past season.  And of course, soon-to-be FA Kirk Cousins, who will be someone's hoped-for franchise dude and has certainly shown more in the last 3 years than most of the guys on your "good to great" list. That's 5, which is a small but significant percentage of 32 teams.

 

If you go a bit further back, I give you Carson Palmer, Kurt Warner, Matt Hasselbeck, Matt Schaub, and of course the posterboy Steve Young.
EDIT: How could I forget Peyton F*cking Manning! 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[SectionC3]

13 hours ago, Augie said:

 

You certainly can’t afford to negotiate from a position of desperation. 

 

Nope.  And interesting that the news leaked before the combine swap meet.  It’s nice that we have a front office that’s proactive and smart about this kind of stuff.

[BillsFan130]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Not sure that first sentence is true.  If you limit to "active right now" you can make a better argument for it I suppose.

 

I will argue Alex Smith a lot as a FA QB who worked out at least for his 1st team

Other examples would include Kurt Warner, Carson Palmer, (the 49ers hope) Jimmy Garappolo who looks at least as promising as Watson, and how can you overlook this year's NFC Championship game between Keenum and Foles?  They both looked at least as promising as Wentz and Watson.

I will give you Palmer and warner but that’s two QBs in what, 17 years?

 

I will grant you Keenum but at the same time do you really think he’s going to go to a team and be successful? I don’t. He played well but had an amazing defence and play makers galore on offence.

 

Foles was amazing for 2 games. I would not give him the keys to the franchise 

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

32 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

It's certainly possible we win with Foles.  OTOH, Jax is the team that baited Big Ben into 5 INTs the first time they met.  They specialize in deceptive coverage.  Foles is far more of a passer than Tyrod, which is both blessing and curse.  When he's confused by the coverage, Tyrod's primal QB instinct is to be cautious.  Foles primal QB instinct is to trust his arm to get it there anyway.  And Tyrod is far more able to cope with a sieve-like OL.

 

So You may be wrong for all I know But you may be right

My question to you is this, if the Eagles had Taylor as their QB in that super bowl do you think they win that game?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, SectionC3 said:

Nope.  And interesting that the news leaked before the combine swap meet.  It’s nice that we have a front office that’s proactive and smart about this kind of stuff.

 

Yes, that's a leak that 100% has "from the Bills FO" written on it.  Which of course does mean other GMs will take it with a salt shaker.

2 hours ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

My question to you is this, if the Eagles had Taylor as their QB in that super bowl do you think they win that game?

 

My answer is "no", but I'm not sure what your point is.  If the Eagles had Wentz, Wilson, Ben Roethlisberger, Drew Brees, Aaron Rodgers, or any number of other very good established QB in that game I don't think they win (Edit: unless their D did a better job stopping Brady than the Iggles did).  If they had one of the QB I view as Taylor's peers for production, they certainly don't win (that would be a Flacco/Dalton/Cutler when good/Bortles/Alex Smith before this year type). 

Foles was a perfect storm of a QB who showed clutch and got hot at the right time, and an OC/HC who changed up their offense enough that it neutralized one of the Hoodies' strongest advantages, namely his ability to game-plan for opponents based off film and analytics.

 

2 hours ago, billsfan11 said:

I will give you Palmer and warner but that’s two QBs in what, 17 years?

 

I will grant you Keenum but at the same time do you really think he’s going to go to a team and be successful? I don’t. He played well but had an amazing defence and play makers galore on offence.

 

Foles was amazing for 2 games. I would not give him the keys to the franchise 

 

Oh, so Brees and Garappolo don't count?  C'mon, if you're going to use Wentz and Watson, Garappolo counts.  Missing Brees is stunning.

And you don't get to count out Smith and Cousins, either, certainly not if you're counting in Flacco, Cam Newton, and Luck (on career production, not rep)

 

If you want to argue that the majority of current NFL franchise QB are drafted and developed, that is true, but you can't overlook the above and claim it's 2 QB in 17 years, either.

 

It's a pretty steady 15-ish%.

 

I think both Keenum and Foles can be successful if they go to a team with good OL and weapons and an OC who fits his scheme to their strengths.  And that's true of a lot of drafted guys on your list as well.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[grb]

33 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

 

Those are interesting stats, because Tyrod put up 2 almost identical years with those guys in 2015 and 2016:

 

2015: 63.7%, 3035 yards, 20 TD 6 INT

2016: 61.7%, 3023 yards, 17 TD 6 INT

 

Nowhere in there do I see 27 TD and 6 INT, unless we are combining seasons and cherry picking games, in which case go ahead and do that for the QBs who actually put up numbers and it will start to look a lot less impressive.

 

 

 

We have here a fail of basic reading comprehension - and / or complete ignorance of Bills' facts on the ground. 

 

I said "whenever Taylor had Watkins and Woods on the field... "  I even underlined "whenever" but didn't make the text bold, for which I apologize. That would exclude half of 2016, when Watkins was on injured reserve, as well as a handful of other games either receiver missed. If you want to call that "cherry picking", go ahead.  I call it a clear response to the canard that receiving talent doesn't matter with TT : Over two years and fifteen games, whenever he had an above-average pair of targets, he responded with well-above-average play.

 

As to comparing other quarterback's performance without their weapons - I don't have to. I'm perfectly willing to concede Dak Prescott or Case Keenum would have been much, much worse players if thrown into the mess of the '17 Bills' offense. Bring - say - Case on board without upgrading the o-line, receivers, back-up rbs, scheme, and I suspect you'll see the same for yourself.

 

Bottom line? Since '15, the Bills dumped Hogan, dumped Watkins, dumped Woods, dumped Goodwin, dumped Gillislee, gave up on Karlos and Percy, and needlessly sabotaged a league-leading rushing attack via scheme change. Taylor then "regressed".

 

Go  figure.......

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by grb