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

[transplantbillsfan]

12 hours ago, Call_Of_Ktulu said:

I'll bet you 1,000 $ right now that Taylor never wins a super bowl. 

 

You'd lose that bet already.

 

He won one with Baltimore

[BillsFan130]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

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.

 

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.  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.

 

 

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.

Garalappo hasn’t done anything yet. (Neither has Watson in which I listed him) They look promising but haven't accomplished anything yet

 

I would say the number is closer to 5 to 10 percent in my opinion 

Edited February 23, 2018 by billsfan11

[simool]

17 hours ago, xRUSHx said:

I am ready to jump man. OBD stupid ways of the constant backup QBs does nothing but get all the staffs fired over and over again. If they keep Tyrod another season it wasn't Whaleys QB purgatory it was OBDs.

 

I hear ya it's early but sadly I have been expecting this stupid garbage to continue  the entire time with this new staff when Tyrod was brought back last season. Hey maybe OC#4 or 5.  SMH

 

You butt hurt Sally's crack me up.  Do you realize how stupid these statements are?  You don't have all of the variables, but yet you KNOW solution to the equation is wrong. I REALLY don't like Tyrod.  Never have.  However I am not going to go around beating my fist on the table and screaming to the world that I know better than the career football guys steering this ship.

 

I have no clue as to what happens in:

• Practice
• Workouts
• Locker Room
• Private discussion with Tyrod
• Private discussions with the leaders on the Team
• Internal coach discussions.

I also don't know:

• What play was called.
• Whether the receiver is running the correct route.
• Whether it was blocked correctly.
• Whether someone was supposed to pick up a blitz.
• What the big picture salary cap plan is.
• Why Dennison was fired after one season and why Daboll was hired.
• Who is taking who in Free Agency.
• Who is drafting Who and where.

Newsflash... NEITHER DO YOU!

 

Basically I know what they choose to share and what my eyes can tell me.  Well they have not released any information that would lend any credence whatsoever to your ridiculous takes, and unless you can see into other dimensions -- your eyes are not offering any thing either.  But hey go ahead and dust off those Miss Cleo skills and tell us what is REALLY going on with this team. Please. You are like friggin' chatty cathy dolls, just keep on pulling those strings ladies.

 

[JohnBonhamRocks]

Have we come to an agreement as to whether or not Taylor is a good QB yet?

 

It feels like we're so close. 

[FappyTheClown]

Michael Rapaport > Ian Rapaport

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, JohnBonhamRocks said:

Have we come to an agreement as to whether or not Taylor is a good QB yet?

 

It feels like we're so close. 

 

Minds are being changed here. 

[transplantbillsfan]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

This is not about keeping Tyrod folks. That ship has still sailed. This is about maximising his trade value. 

 

The Bills are essentially willing to take a cap hit by paying the option to buy a draft pick (or an improved draft pick). 

 

Cleveland remains my prediction. They have zero at the position and might be taking a guy in Darnold who is not ready day 1. Arizona is in play too depending on what their draft plan is. 

 

The problem with your theory of "that ship has sailed" is that McBeane will have a "fair market value" in their heads of how much they expect to give up and in return of such a trade.

 

I agree that's what plan A almost certainly is to do exactly what you said.

 

But if you think plan B, where Buffalo doesn't get what they feel is fair market value and so keeps Taylor for 1 more year while also drafting a QB in the 1st... I think you're being naive.

Edited February 23, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, FappyTheClown said:

Michael Rapaport > Ian Rapaport

 

Actually different last names with Ian's being Rapoport.

[FappyTheClown]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Actually different last names with Ian's being Rapoport.

 

I still don't see why people put so much stock in Ian. Michael was in some cool movies, TV shows, and even made a great documentary on A Tribe Called Quest.

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

56 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

You'd lose that bet already.

 

He won one with Baltimore

That's like our sub in bowling who didn't play in the championship game talking **** to the other team after we won. Yea he has a ring but he did nothing, just like our Taylor lead offense does nothing.

 

 

[SouthNYfan]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

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.

 

 

Just some info on those guys:

-brees: by all accounts had a career ending injury, even his surgeon publicly said it was a miracle he could even throw again. The chargers drafted Rivers with the assumption Brees wouldn't recover. Miami passed because of this. Saints hit the lottery.

-jimmy G: drafted as backup/possible heir to Brady, who is playing at a high level longer than expected.

-hasselbeck: he wasn't a free agent with the Seahawks, he was a backup to favre, traded as a throw in with a first round pick so the Packers could move up in the draft, but he was projected as a backup.

-Palmer: similar to Brees, Cincinnati thought he was done for and didn't pay him after injuries.

-warner: great story. Love me some Kurt. Similar to Brady, an accurate, smart, hard worker who landed with a coach who maximized his strengths, flopped with the Giants, then came back again with the Cardinals. He's a great story.

-young: benefited from a great situation and mentorship in SF, good story, fits the narrative well.

[transplantbillsfan]

2 hours 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

 

So confused... Foles sucked in St Louis. What are you arguing?

[Mat68]

3 hours ago, OldTimer1960 said:

If it hasn't already been stated, this looks like it means the Bills won't be in the Cousins Derby.  I don't think they would spend that $6M on Taylor's bonus if they were pursuing the FA QB that is going to cost a boatload of $.

 

My understanding is that the bonus is not until the 3rd day of the league year.  They sign or trade for a Qb on day 1 or 2 they can still cut Taylor and avoid paying the roster bonus.  Who could they sign that is 100% better then Taylor?  Imo you have Cousins, Keenum, and a healthy Bradford.  The rest of the crop of FA qb have not shown to be more consistent or more productive then Taylor, and would likely cost more as well.  Could they pull off a trade for Luck or Foles?  Those would be options but I do not expect either Indy or Philly rushing into making that decision by the third day of the league year.  So that all leads back to paying Taylor's bonus. 

 

If either trade materializes for Luck or Foles they could include Taylor because either team would need a back up Qb.  They also could do what Philly did with Bradford when they found out Wentz was the real deal.  Trade Taylor in training camp when a contender loses their starter to injury.  The qbs with the highest upside this year may not be ready to start week 1.  They draft Allen, Darnold, or Jackson they all could benefit from sitting behind a Qb.  Say all you will about Taylor, but any rookie could benefit from learning and seeing how to be a pro.  They all would have more talent but could see how you need to prepare and work to be a starting Qb,  A few weeks ago I thought the chances of Taylor staying a Bill was higher than many thought.  I think its 50/50 he is Buffalo Bill week 1.  I am happy, as a fan of the Bills that wants a winning team each year, that they will not fall into the same trap they fell into with Ej.  They listened to public sentiment about Fitzpatrick and cut him without a better option on the roster.  They drafted Ej who had alot of upside but was forced to see the field early because there was not a better option on the team.  Average Qb play is better than bad Qb.  Yes average is not good or great, but no need to settle for less when you are looking for better.

Edited February 23, 2018 by Mat68

[BADOLBILZ]

10 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

I don't understand your post...it reads like you are mocking my comment, but you seem to have the exact same opinion as me, that Bradford and those types are NOT going to sign to be a 1 year bridge here.  That was my whole point...so not sure if your response reads wrong or if you misread my post, but you seem to literally just echo the same thing I just said multiple times.

 

For someone to land one of those guys its going to take more than a 1 year deal and more money than TT.  So Bills as a team are better off keeping TT who comes off the books next year and is cheaper anyway.  Then in 2019, if the rookie had not already taken over in 2018, they will certainly be the starter and we dont have a cap eating high priced bench warmer like Bradford and TT is off the books and gone.  We then sign a cheap backup option (unless Peterman wins that job who is also cheap) to our new shiny rookie we drafted this year.  

 

I agree completely.

 

People who think these guys are lining up to be the tomato can that gets knocked over by a rookie later in the year are crazy.

 

And lining up to MENTOR this rookie?  For reals?  People are funny.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by BADOLBILZ

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, NoSaint said:

Its almost as if we can hire a qb coach 

 

And there's the thing: do we have one?

[Alphadawg7]

9 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

I agree completely.

 

People who think these guys are lining up to be the tomato can that gets knocked over by a rookie later in the year are crazy.

 

And lining up to MENTOR this rookie?  For reals?  People are funny.

 

 

 

Ha, gotcha...and yes TOTALLY 100000% agree. 

[BADOLBILZ]

2 hours 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......

 

 

Bump to the stat show.

 

The Watkins/Woods numbers of Tyrod have been posted before but they deserve repitition.

 

Also.......as I have said........Watkins and Woods put up BETTER combined receiving numbers with Tyrod in 2015 than they did with the Rams and Goff in 2017.

 

Quality and familiarity of targets matters A LOT.

 

And Peterman was utter garbage from preseason thru the playoffs..........50% of the time flings the ball to a spot and sometimes it looks like an impressive tight window throw.........the other 50% of the time he misses the target altogether or throws it to the defense.     Those are not even remotely acceptable numbers in the NFL.   

[26CornerBlitz]

3 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

Bump to the stat show.

 

The Watkins/Woods numbers of Tyrod have been posted before but they deserve repitition.

 

Also.......as I have said........Watkins and Woods put up BETTER combined receiving numbers with Tyrod in 2015 than they did with the Rams and Goff in 2017.

 

Quality and familiarity of targets matters A LOT.

 

And Peterman was utter garbage from preseason thru the playoffs..........50% of the time flings the ball to a spot and sometimes it looks like an impressive tight window throw.........the other 50% of the time he misses the target altogether or throws it to the defense.     Those are not even remotely acceptable numbers in the NFL.   

 

 

Pretty much. 

[TheFunPolice]

1 hour ago, grb said:

 

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.......

 

 

Oh I understood your point perfectly. In fact, you have effectively illustrated how statistics can be both true and totally misleading.

 

You are falling into a fallacy of reasoning when you say his play was "well above average" because you are comparing this totally subjective time span where he went 27 TD to 6 INT against some standard that you fail to identify. What is the "average" that he is well above in the cases you cited?

 

I hope you aren't pretending that taking one QBs best games over 2 seasons and comparing them to a typical QB's 16 game season proves anything. Especially with your condescending tone. That would just be embarrassing, although ignorance and arrogance tend to go together like peanut butter and jelly.

 

Did you do the same thing for all the other NFL starters, only counting games where they had all their WRs healthy? In your reply you mention OL, backups, and scheme. Did you take all of this into account for every other NFL starter, put together a sample size equal to whatever number of games you used for Tyrod, THEN compare them to see what actually IS average and what is "well above" average in that scenario?

 

Because if you didn't then your numbers and assertion that Tyrod's play was "well above average" means absolutely nothing. There is no significance to your statistics.

 

Also, taking Tyrod's best games over 2 different seasons and coming up with 27 TD and 6 INT is actually not all that impressive. Good QBs in this league throw 3-4 TD in one game. It happens all the time. Assuming you used 16 games, 27 TD is less than 2 TD a game. And that is with all his targets, and when he is supposedly playing "well above average." Do you watch NFL games outside of the Bills?

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

36 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

Just some info on those guys:

-brees: by all accounts had a career ending injury, even his surgeon publicly said it was a miracle he could even throw again. The chargers drafted Rivers with the assumption Brees wouldn't recover. Miami passed because of this. Saints hit the lottery.

 

This is flat out incorrect.  The Chargers drafted Rivers (or rather Eli Manning) in 2004.  At that time, Brees was totally uninjured.  He had 3 years in the league and was not looking like "All That".  2004 happened, Brees threw 27 TD to 7 INT and won "Comeback Player of the Year" and probowl honors.  The Chargers franchised Brees in 2005.

 

THEN he got hurt, and the Chargers worried he wouldn't recover - so worried they offered him something like 4 years, $40M (which was big money back in 2006) but the contract had little guaranteed and was loaded with incentives - after all, the Chargers had a high 1st round pick sitting on the bench for 2 years at that point, so.....  The Saints offered the same on a per-year basis, but a longer contract and more guaranteed/less incentives, so Brees took it.

 

Yes, Brees was a risk for the Saints, but the whole narrative above about Chargers drafting Rivers because they worried Brees wouldn't recovered is just wrong.  One reason the Chargers were willing to play games with Brees contract is that they had a  high 1st round pick as a backup plan.

 

MANNING!  I knew I forgot someone in that free agent thing.  The Broncos and Peyton F*cking Manning, who was also a high risk/reward thing.  Yo!  OP I responded to!  Peyton F*cking Manning

 

36 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

-jimmy G: drafted as backup/possible heir to Brady, who is playing at a high level longer than expected.

 

Jimmy G would be exactly the poster child of why there are other ways than the draft to acquire a franchise QB (assuming he pans out, along with Wentz and Watson) - let someone ELSE draft a QB at a spot where 80% never amount to anything, and once he's shown he's in the 20% - GRAB HIM.

 

36 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

-hasselbeck: he wasn't a free agent with the Seahawks, he was a backup to favre, traded as a throw in with a first round pick so the Packers could move up in the draft, but he was projected as a backup.

 

Not sure what your point is here - the question isn't FA, the question is whether the draft is the only way to acquire a franchise QB.  The fact that Hasselbeck was Favre's backup and won out over Trent Dilfer to start really doesn't matter - (and he wasn't a "throw in", Holmgren, who'd been grooming him 3 years at that point, brought him in when he went to the Seasnakes).  The point is, Hasselbeck became a franchise QB for the Seahawks after not being drafted.  No, the Seahawks weren't a very good team much of that time, but you don't keep a guy for 10 years unless you think he's "The Man".

 

36 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

-Palmer: similar to Brees, Cincinnati thought he was done for and didn't pay him after injuries.

 

Nah, that's not right either.  Palmer was under contract to Cincinnati!  He wanted out, asked for a trade, didn't get it, and took his ball/went home/retired.  Oakland lost their starter mid-season, Hue Jackson thought they could contend with Palmer (whom he coached in college and with the Bengals), and the Raiders piled up the goodies until the Bengals said "that is an offer we can no longer refuse" - a 1st round and a conditional 2nd round that could have become a 1st - and blinked.

 

Still not sure what your point is - whatever the reasons were, these are all examples of guys who were for some time "The Man", the franchise QB, on teams that didn't draft them.

[Stank_Nasty]

5 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

 

Oh I understood your point perfectly. In fact, you have effectively illustrated how statistics can be both true and totally misleading.

 

You are falling into a fallacy of reasoning when you say his play was "well above average" because you are comparing this totally subjective time span where he went 27 TD to 6 INT against some standard that you fail to identify. What is the "average" that he is well above in the cases you cited?

 

I hope you aren't pretending that taking one QBs best games over 2 seasons and comparing them to a typical QB's 16 game season proves anything. Especially with your condescending tone. That would just be embarrassing, although ignorance and arrogance tend to go together like peanut butter and jelly.

 

Did you do the same thing for all the other NFL starters, only counting games where they had all their WRs healthy? In your reply you mention OL, backups, and scheme. Did you take all of this into account for every other NFL starter, put together a sample size equal to whatever number of games you used for Tyrod, THEN compare them to see what actually IS average and what is "well above" average in that scenario?

 

Because if you didn't then your numbers and assertion that Tyrod's play was "well above average" means absolutely nothing. There is no significance to your statistics.

 

Also, taking Tyrod's best games over 2 different seasons and coming up with 27 TD and 6 INT is actually not all that impressive. Good QBs in this league throw 3-4 TD in one game. It happens all the time. Assuming you used 16 games, 27 TD is less than 2 TD a game. And that is with all his targets, and when he is supposedly playing "well above average." Do you watch NFL games outside of the Bills?

 

 

 

he didn't take only his best games. he took the games where he actually had legit nfl starters at the wr position...... why exactly are you having such a hard time separating that for you "best games" theory. the proof was in the pudding. when the guy had his starting talent out there he produced. 

 

and can you actually say without cracking a smile there have been more than a handful of qb's in the last 3 seasons that have routinely dealt with so many injuries and lack of talent at the wr positon as the bills have? 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Stank_Nasty

[Steptide]

Apologies for the horrendous music in this video, but their are throws we see from this rookie that we never saw from Tyrod in 3 starting seasons. Yes, his completion percentage over all was 50%, but even that is a bit twisted. He never started and finished a full game (including pre season). Yes the Chargers game was horrible, but in almost every game he played, it was either at the very end, part of the middle (pre season) or a half. Give the dude a full off season with camp and a few better recievers, and I bet he's much improved 

 

 

[Stank_Nasty]

3 minutes ago, Steptide said:

Apologies for the horrendous music in this video, but their are throws we see from this rookie that we never saw from Tyrod in 3 starting seasons. Yes, his completion percentage over all was 50%, but even that is a bit twisted. He never started and finished a full game (including pre season). Yes the Chargers game was horrible, but in almost every game he played, it was either at the very end, part of the middle (pre season) or a half. Give the dude a full off season with camp and a few better recievers, and I bet he's much improved 

 

 

good lord. quit it.

 

this doesn't surprise me anymore though. I'm fairly certain that you said earlier in this thread you wouldn't watch a game all year if taylor was back. have fun with that. i'll enjoy another season of them being in the playoff hunt instead of tanking... all while probably having an elite prospect waiting on the bench for 19. sign me up.

 

i'm perfectly fine with moving on from taylor. but not just for the sake of it. and most definitely not for #2 up there! thankfully I think the bills FO doesn't think like the maniacs on this board and isn't going "we just need anyone but tyrod... and we don't care what that means"

Edited February 23, 2018 by Stank_Nasty

[BuffaloHokie13]

10 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

Oh I understood your point perfectly. In fact, you have effectively illustrated how statistics can be both true and totally misleading.

 

You are falling into a fallacy of reasoning when you say his play was "well above average" because you are comparing this totally subjective time span where he went 27 TD to 6 INT against some standard that you fail to identify. What is the "average" that he is well above in the cases you cited?

 

I hope you aren't pretending that taking one QBs best games over 2 seasons and comparing them to a typical QB's 16 game season proves anything. Especially with your condescending tone. That would just be embarrassing, although ignorance and arrogance tend to go together like peanut butter and jelly.

 

Did you do the same thing for all the other NFL starters, only counting games where they had all their WRs healthy? In your reply you mention OL, backups, and scheme. Did you take all of this into account for every other NFL starter, put together a sample size equal to whatever number of games you used for Tyrod, THEN compare them to see what actually IS average and what is "well above" average in that scenario?

 

Because if you didn't then your numbers and assertion that Tyrod's play was "well above average" means absolutely nothing. There is no significance to your statistics.

 

Also, taking Tyrod's best games over 2 different seasons and coming up with 27 TD and 6 INT is actually not all that impressive. Good QBs in this league throw 3-4 TD in one game. It happens all the time. Assuming you used 16 games, 27 TD is less than 2 TD a game. And that is with all his targets, and when he is supposedly playing "well above average." Do you watch NFL games outside of the Bills?

I really like the part where you complain about comparisons with different sample sizes and then try to compare single games for a 'good QB' to the average of Tyrod's stats in 15 games. Not a single QB over the past 3 years has averaged 3-4 TDs in one game. Tyrod does, however, have a few games where he passed for 3.

Edited February 23, 2018 by BuffaloHokie13

[Steptide]

2 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

good lord. quit it.

 

this doesn't surprise me anymore though. I'm fairly certain that you said earlier in this thread you wouldn't watch a game all year if taylor was back. have fun with that. i'll enjoy another season of them being in the playoff hunt instead of tanking... all while probably having an elite prospect waiting on the bench for 19. sign me up.

Nope I never said that. What I said is that I'd rather Peterman start all of 2018 rather than having to watch Tyrod play another snap for the bills. Never once said I wouldn't watch. And my point is/was that a 5th round rookie/sophomore probably wouldn't be much worse than our 31st ranked passing attack with Taylor. By the way, this all assuming that we can't get a guy in the draft/free agency 

[TheFunPolice]

1 minute ago, Stank_Nasty said:

he didn't take only his best games. he took the games where he actually had legit nfl starters at the wr position...... why exactly are you having such a hard time separating that?

 

and can you actually say without cracking a smile there have been more than a handful of qb's in the last 3 seasons that have routinely dealt with so many injuries and lack of talent at the wr positon as the bills have? 

 

Fine, take the games where he has "legit NFL starters." Just understand a few things:

 

First, that is totally subjective. What is a "legit NFL starter?"

 

Second, in order to actually make that assertion we would have to know what "average" is under the conditions he specified actually would be.

 

So we would need to do the following for EVERY QB we are including in the comparison:

 

* Figure out some standard for "legit NFL starter"

* Take only games where they have ALL of their "legit NFL starters" in the game over 2 seasons

* Determine a numerical average for the stats we want to compare (TD, INT, completion percentage)

* Figure out what the sample size would be (10 games? 16 games? 20 games?) If the sample sizes are different than raw numbers mean nothing. One guy might have "legit NFL starters" for 10 games over 2 years and one might have them for 16 games.

 

Then we could have a serious conversation.

[PolishDave]

10 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

For someone to land one of those guys its going to take more than a 1 year deal and more money than TT.  So Bills as a team are better off keeping TT who comes off the books next year and is cheaper anyway.  Then in 2019, if the rookie had not already taken over in 2018, they will certainly be the starter and we dont have a cap eating high priced bench warmer like Bradford and TT is off the books and gone.  We then sign a cheap backup option (unless Peterman wins that job who is also cheap) to our new shiny rookie we drafted this year.  

 

You may very well be right about this.

 

There are a lot of free agents on the market though and there are only a limited number of teams who are going to want to sign any one of them long term.    If one of these available Qb's (like McCarron perhaps) doesn't get that longer term big money offer, then I can totally see them settling for a very short term deal with a team that is good enough for them to showcase their talents for the following year's free agency market.

 

Obviously a short term deal is not their ideal choice.   But I think teams are going to be very reluctant to pull an Osweiler move.

 

And, I think even a QB like Fitzpatrick or McCown might take a decent 1-2 year offer comparable or even less than Taylor to start simply because they might not get a chance to start anywhere else.     And both of those guys are closer to the mold of a pocket passer that Beane says he wants than Taylor is.    And both of those guys are more experienced veterans who may be better mentors at the QB position. 

 

I think really anything is possible at this point.    I just think that keeping Taylor puts the coach between a rock and a hard spot when it comes to developing their rookie assuming they draft one high.     He could very likely end up in a situation where he is pressured from (fans, media, Pegulas) to play that rookie before he wants to or before he should.   Only way he avoids that is if the Bills start out on a winning streak next year and Taylor is playing well.    Both of those things would need to happen.   Not a good bet for the coach.

 

If Taylor ended up having another one of those <100 yard passing games at any point - the fans are going to bring pitchforks and clubs to the next game.

 

If they start a different veteran QB and he flops right out of the gate - McDermott and Beane can at least claim they tried to upgrade the QB position while waiting for the rookie to be ready to start.

[TheFunPolice]

6 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

I really like the part where you complain about comparisons with different sample sizes and then try to compare single games for a 'good QB' to the average of Tyrod's stats in 15 games. Not a single QB over the past 3 years has averaged 3-4 TDs in one game. Tyrod does, however, have a few games where he passed for 3.

 

I said good QBs in this league throw for 3-4 TDs in one game, not that they average that. The point was that if you are taking someone BEST GAMES from 2 seasons (which is what you are essentially doing if you are taking only the games where he has everyone healthy) I would expect better than 27 TD.

 

The problem with comparing Tyrod's stats to other starting QBs is that it only looks good for Tyrod if we tie ourselves in knots and play games with the numbers.

 

Everyone plays one season at a time, and Tyrod's numbers have never been near the top in passing, and have never been "well above average"

 

It's total nonsense.

Edited February 23, 2018 by TheFunPolice

[Stank_Nasty]

2 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

 

Fine, take the games where he has "legit NFL starters." Just understand a few things:

 

First, that is totally subjective. What is a "legit NFL starter?"

 

Second, in order to actually make that assertion we would have to know what "average" is under the conditions he specified actually would be.

 

So we would need to do the following for EVERY QB we are including in the comparison:

 

* Figure out some standard for "legit NFL starter"

* Take only games where they have ALL of their "legit NFL starters" in the game over 2 seasons

* Determine a numerical average for the stats we want to compare (TD, INT, completion percentage)

* Figure out what the sample size would be (10 games? 16 games? 20 games?) If the sample sizes are different than raw numbers mean nothing. One guy might have "legit NFL starters" for 10 games over 2 years and one might have them for 16 games.

 

Then we could have a serious conversation.

the bolded makes me know you are just being difficult for the sake of it now. if you watched the games and who was playing and what they've done in other stints you would know the answer to this as well..... but I hey. I get it. you wanna be difficult for the sake of it becuz ..... tyrod taylor.

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, TheFunPolice said:

I said good QBs in this league throw for 3-4 TDs in one game, not that they average that.

 

The problem with comparing Tyrod's stats to other starting QBs is that it only looks good for Tyrod if we tie ourselves in knots and play games with the numbers.

 

Everyone plays one season at a time, and Tyrod's numbers have never been near the top in passing, and have never been "well above average"

 

It's total nonsense.

And I said Tyrod has done that, multiple times.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, billsfan11 said:

Garalappo hasn’t done anything yet. (Neither has Watson in which I listed him) They look promising but haven't accomplished anything yet

I would say the number is closer to 5 to 10 percent in my opinion 

 

Garoppolo has won 7 NFL games (5 of them on a franchise that was Loooooosing until he came in) with 67% completions, 12 TD to 5 incompletions, and (in SF) 260 ypg.  If you list Watson (or Wentz), you gotta give Garoppolo his propers.

 

OK, now we're getting somewhere.  Whether you think the number is 10% or 15%, the point is - draft and develop is NOT the only way to find a franchise QB.  FA or trade are not common ways to find one, but they're frequent enough to flick the meter.  This past year, 8/32 teams were substantially led by QB they didn't draft.  2 of those (Taylor and McCown) are arguably not on anyone's radar to become franchise QB.  That means 6/32 (19%) were led by QB who are/were or might become - Foles, Brees, Smith, Keenum, Garoppolo, Palmer.  (Yes, I think Foles and Keenum might become franchise QB in the right situation, when you see a full season of good QB and playoffs out of a QB, most GMs start to think that too)

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[TheFunPolice]

2 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

And I said Tyrod has done that, multiple times.

 

Great! How come his stats for a 16 game season don't compare favorably to other NFL starters?

 

Also, is he the only starter who has guys get hurt, or gets injured himself? Or do other guys play games without some of their WRs  or miss games entirely and still put up better numbers?

 

That's the problem here. I'm fine with making the comparison: let's take 16 of Tyrod's best games over 2 seasons where he had all of his "legit NFL starters" and compare them to the 16 best games over 2 years of every other starter when THEY also had all of their "legit NFL starters" healthy.

 

THEN we can see whether his play actually WAS average, below average, well above average or whatever.

 

Without that it's all meaningless. 27 TD and 6 INT was the stat. Cool. IT means nothing because there is ZERO CONTEXT.

Edited February 23, 2018 by TheFunPolice

[SouthNYfan]

29 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This is flat out incorrect.  The Chargers drafted Rivers (or rather Eli Manning) in 2004.  At that time, Brees was totally uninjured.  He had 3 years in the league and was not looking like "All That".  2004 happened, Brees threw 27 TD to 7 INT and won "Comeback Player of the Year" and probowl honors.  The Chargers franchised Brees in 2005.

 

THEN he got hurt, and the Chargers worried he wouldn't recover - so worried they offered him something like 4 years, $40M (which was big money back in 2006) but the contract had little guaranteed and was loaded with incentives - after all, the Chargers had a high 1st round pick sitting on the bench for 2 years at that point, so.....  The Saints offered the same on a per-year basis, but a longer contract and more guaranteed/less incentives, so Brees took it.

 

Yes, Brees was a risk for the Saints, but the whole narrative above about Chargers drafting Rivers because they worried Brees wouldn't recovered is just wrong.  One reason the Chargers were willing to play games with Brees contract is that they had a  high 1st round pick as a backup plan.

 

MANNING!  I knew I forgot someone in that free agent thing.  The Broncos and Peyton F*cking Manning, who was also a high risk/reward thing.  Yo!  OP I responded to!  Peyton F*cking Manning

 

 

Jimmy G would be exactly the poster child of why there are other ways than the draft to acquire a franchise QB (assuming he pans out, along with Wentz and Watson) - let someone ELSE draft a QB at a spot where 80% never amount to anything, and once he's shown he's in the 20% - GRAB HIM.

 

 

Not sure what your point is here - the question isn't FA, the question is whether the draft is the only way to acquire a franchise QB.  The fact that Hasselbeck was Favre's backup and won out over Trent Dilfer to start really doesn't matter - (and he wasn't a "throw in", Holmgren, who'd been grooming him 3 years at that point, brought him in when he went to the Seasnakes).  The point is, Hasselbeck became a franchise QB for the Seahawks after not being drafted.  No, the Seahawks weren't a very good team much of that time, but you don't keep a guy for 10 years unless you think he's "The Man".

 

 

Nah, that's not right either.  Palmer was under contract to Cincinnati!  He wanted out, asked for a trade, didn't get it, and took his ball/went home/retired.  Oakland lost their starter mid-season, Hue Jackson thought they could contend with Palmer (whom he coached in college and with the Bengals), and the Raiders piled up the goodies until the Bengals said "that is an offer we can no longer refuse" - a 1st round and a conditional 2nd round that could have become a 1st - and blinked.

 

Still not sure what your point is - whatever the reasons were, these are all examples of guys who were for some time "The Man", the franchise QB, on teams that didn't draft them.

 

I thought they were all FA examples, so I just misunderstood the context.

 

Hasselbeck was a throw in because he was still slated to be the backup to dilfer.

I wasn't "groomed" for 3 years by holmgren.

He was drafted in 1998

Holmgren went to Seattle in 1999

Since you are playing the "correction" game and all.

 

The rest cool I'll concede.

Edited February 23, 2018 by SouthNYfan

[Stank_Nasty]

6 minutes ago, Steptide said:

Nope I never said that. What I said is that I'd rather Peterman start all of 2018 rather than having to watch Tyrod play another snap for the bills. Never once said I wouldn't watch. And my point is/was that a 5th round rookie/sophomore probably wouldn't be much worse than our 31st ranked passing attack with Taylor. By the way, this all assuming that we can't get a guy in the draft/free agency 

fair enough. you'll still watch. my bad.... i'm assuming you didn't enjoy the playoff season this year just becuz taylor was the qb? yikes. sorry about you're luck. it was the most enjoyable season I've witnessed as an emotionally invested adult. 

 

and the bolded is what you gleaned from watching Peterman? geez man. just becuz he's made a couple throws tyrod wont pull the trigger on.... you are right about that! I saw 5 in one half. you see a couple of flashy throws and all of sudden he's a upgrade. 

 

and i'm perfectly confident that no matter who the vet qb is next year they will be drafting their guy. unless its a high profile vet and I think we can all agree that's a slim chance.

[Alphadawg7]

8 minutes ago, PolishDave said:

 

You may very well be right about this.

 

There are a lot of free agents on the market though and there are only a limited number of teams who are going to want to sign any one of them long term.    If one of these available Qb's (like McCarron perhaps) doesn't get that longer term big money offer, then I can totally see them settling for a very short term deal with a team that is good enough for them to showcase their talents for the following year's free agency market.

 

Obviously a short term deal is not their ideal choice.   But I think teams are going to be very reluctant to pull an Osweiler move.

 

And, I think even a QB like Fitzpatrick or McCown might take a decent 1-2 year offer comparable or even less than Taylor to start simply because they might not get a chance to start anywhere else.     And both of those guys are closer to the mold of a pocket passer that Beane says he wants than Taylor is.    And both of those guys are more experienced veterans who may be better mentors at the QB position. 

 

I think really anything is possible at this point.    I just think that keeping Taylor puts the coach between a rock and a hard spot when it comes to developing their rookie assuming they draft one high.     He could very likely end up in a situation where he is pressured from (fans, media, Pegulas) to play that rookie before he wants to or before he should.   Only way he avoids that is if the Bills start out on a winning streak next year and Taylor is playing well.    Both of those things would need to happen.   Not a good bet for the coach.

 

If Taylor ended up having another one of those <100 yard passing games at any point - the fans are going to bring pitchforks and clubs to the next game.

 

If they start a different veteran QB and he flops right out of the gate - McDermott and Beane can at least claim they tried to upgrade the QB position while waiting for the rookie to be ready to start.

 

Yeah, I cant really disagree with anything you said.  This is an unusually deep offseason of QB options between veteran FA's and the Draft.  Still I think guys like Bradford, Keenum, Teddy, etc will have better situations to choose from.

 

I also think Tyrod is a better choice as a QB over McCown and Fitz which is why he still makes sense over anyone else.  So while I do see there are guys like them that could be brought in, I think we are still better off as TT over them personally.  So I am really comparing him to guys that could be as good or an upgrade, and I don't think there are that many choices out there that fit that description in FA.  

[TheFunPolice]

Ryan Fitzpatrick threw for 7200 yards and 48 TD in his best 2 seasons as Bills starting QB.

 

I didn't check to see how many of those games he had "legit NFL starters" though. Those Bills teams were pretty stacked and nobody ever got hurt back then and missed games.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2018 by TheFunPolice

[dave mcbride]

15 minutes ago, PolishDave said:

 

You may very well be right about this.

 

There are a lot of free agents on the market though and there are only a limited number of teams who are going to want to sign any one of them long term.    If one of these available Qb's (like McCarron perhaps) doesn't get that longer term big money offer, then I can totally see them settling for a very short term deal with a team that is good enough for them to showcase their talents for the following year's free agency market.

 

Obviously a short term deal is not their ideal choice.   But I think teams are going to be very reluctant to pull an Osweiler move.

 

And, I think even a QB like Fitzpatrick or McCown might take a decent 1-2 year offer comparable or even less than Taylor to start simply because they might not get a chance to start anywhere else.     And both of those guys are closer to the mold of a pocket passer that Beane says he wants than Taylor is.    And both of those guys are more experienced veterans who may be better mentors at the QB position. 

 

I think really anything is possible at this point.    I just think that keeping Taylor puts the coach between a rock and a hard spot when it comes to developing their rookie assuming they draft one high.     He could very likely end up in a situation where he is pressured from (fans, media, Pegulas) to play that rookie before he wants to or before he should.   Only way he avoids that is if the Bills start out on a winning streak next year and Taylor is playing well.    Both of those things would need to happen.   Not a good bet for the coach.

 

If Taylor ended up having another one of those <100 yard passing games at any point - the fans are going to bring pitchforks and clubs to the next game.

 

If they start a different veteran QB and he flops right out of the gate - McDermott and Beane can at least claim they tried to upgrade the QB position while waiting for the rookie to be ready to start.

My gut sense is that McDermott and Beane like Taylor more than a lot of people think they do. I don't think they think he's a great qb, but I suspect they view him as a tough-minded gamer who has the total respect of his teammates (which is very likely the case). He can also game-manage the team to victories more often than not. Assuming you're going to draft a qb in the first, getting rid of him for an unknown doesn't seem like a wise move on the face of it.

Edited February 23, 2018 by dave mcbride

[NastyNateSoldiers]

9 hours ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

Which, honestly could make a world of difference. Tyrod can't see over the middle. I'm not saying it's a guarantee it's all a crap shoot. But Tyrod is the best this team has probably had since Bledsoe or even kelly. Give him 3 inches, and the same playmaking ability, he could be great. I know it's not a popular opinion, but him with some more height could be huge...

 

It also could mean he'd have some effed up knees by now though, so it's a risk either way. Not that I want Jackson, but I don't think he's the worst risk to take.

Flutie and Bledsoe much then Tyrod.

[BuffaloHokie13]

10 minutes ago, TheFunPolice said:

Great! How come his stats for a 16 game season don't compare favorably to other NFL starters?

 

Also, is he the only starter who has guys get hurt, or gets injured himself? Or do other guys play games without some of their WRs  or miss games entirely and still put up better numbers?

In 2015 he started in 14 games, in 2016 he started in 15 games, and in 2017 he started in 14 games. Comparing totals to 16 game starters is never going to look good that way.

 

At the end of the day it boils down to attempts, and there are several things that factor into attempts. In 2015 Tyrod was 35th in pass attempts per game (29.7), in 2016 he was 28th (31.9), and in 2017 he was 36th (31.1). Do I think he maintains his 7.99 YPA in 2015 if his attempts per game goes up by 5-7? No, but I also don't make that claim. His overall yardage numbers most certainly would have gone up though. Just like receiving numbers and targets.

 

And of course everyone deals with injuries, but the fact that in 29 games one of his top 2 targets didn't play 48% of the time is pretty bad.

Edited February 23, 2018 by BuffaloHokie13

[Steptide]

5 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

fair enough. you'll still watch. my bad.... i'm assuming you didn't enjoy the playoff season this year just becuz taylor was the qb? yikes. sorry about you're luck. it was the most enjoyable season I've witnessed as an emotionally invested adult. 

 

and the bolded is what you gleaned from watching Peterman? geez man. just becuz he's made a couple throws tyrod wont pull the trigger on.... you are right about that! I saw 5 in one half. you see a couple of flashy throws and all of sudden he's a upgrade. 

 

and i'm perfectly confident that no matter who the vet qb is next year they will be drafting their guy. unless its a high profile vet and I think we can all agree that's a slim chance.

I agree that the bills will get another qb one way or another. 

 

And yes I enjoyed the playoff run just as much as any bills fan, but I put maybe 20% of the reason we got there on Tyrod. The other 80% would be a mix of defense and shady.