Bridge QB Reality Check

[SouthNYfan]

14 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

 

You said if his D is below average, they lose "90%" of their games.  Their D was great last few years, they won 11-12 games with smith.  Their D is below average this year, they still win 60% of their games.  Played well in the playoff game too.  

 

I was showing you how your claim was wrong bout Smith.

 

i said WHEN THE DEFENSE DOESNT PLAY WELL

 

when they gave up 20+ points he was 2-6

 

sorry, they lost 75% of their games, not 90% 

 

i'm showing you that your attempt at proving my claim wrong was completely off the mark

look at the rest of his career

he doesn't win much without the D holding teams to league average or below

he's not a top flight QB

he's an above average game manager, a guy who can win you games with an elite defense, but not a guy who can carry a team by himself

 

 

only 12 of his 89 career wins have come when his team has given up 21+ points

Edited February 25, 2018 by SouthNYfan

[reddogblitz]

2 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

....so what exactly is he bridging?......his defensive read prowess?......his ability to go through ALL of his progressions in 5 seconds or less?......spotting or trusting his receivers versus throwing to the RW bronze statute out front of the joint?.....ability to take this club down the field with 2:28 left in the 4th down by seven, with an executed 2 minute drill to tie the bad boy up?.....ability to put this club on his shoulders when the running game crashes and execute a prolific aerial attack when needed to get the W?.......can he go tit for tat in a game that become a defenseless shootout?.....I'm thinkin' the "Bridge Over The River Kwai" at this rate......Jesus......as much as I like the kid, let's be realistic here...

 

Winning. PLAYOFFS

 

I wonder if the OP is one of the ones telling us Mario would never come here?

Edited February 25, 2018 by reddogblitz

[Original Byrd Man]

3 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Why do people think guys like Bradford, AJ, Keenum, etc are realistic targets as bridge QB's to a high rookie draft pick this year?  Why on earth would they come to Buffalo to do that?

 

1. We have a first time OC who has a terrible NFL record as an OC and known for power run game on a team that has been a run first team here.  And our OL isnt exactly stellar at keeping QB's upright with some holes to fill on it still.
2. They dont know if they will start the whole season, or even at all if the rookie comes out hot in preseason.
3. The bridge QB will be on a short leash and cant afford bad games because they can lose their job at any moment.  And Buffalo is a run first team who plays outdoors in bad weather, not exactly an ideal location to try and hold a job on a short leash.  Plus we have an injury prone #1 WR and a young WR in Zay at #2 who struggled bad in his rookie year.
4. They will have multiple teams interested in their services, so they WONT sign in Buffalo for 1 year.  Means Buffalo will need to give them more expensive deal than Tyrod and it will be a multi year deal.
   1. That leaves the Bills with an expensive backup after this year chewing up cap space...whereas Tyrod comes off the books after this year and clears the way for a cheap backup in Peterman (if he can earn the job) or signing a low budget FA QB to be a backup.
5. Who cares who the bridge QB is?  Its a temp job and they may not even start a single game.  It does NOT matter who it is.  What does matter is cap space, and using cap space stupidly is not going to do the Bills any favors in building a winner.  And overpaying to have a bridge whose name isnt Tyrod is a bad use of cap space, especially on a multi year deal.

 

Bottom line, Tyrod is a substantially SMARTER move to be a bridge behind a top QB prospect.  He is cheap and only has 1 year left on his deal.  Plus he knows the team and players, is the hardest working guy on the roster, respected by his teammates as a leader, has a winning record despite 2 HC's and now 4 OC's in Buffalo, dealt with poor arsenal of revolving door of WR's (due to injuries, trades, and FA), and just made the playoffs.

 

If we can trade Tyrod, even better as we get something for him now and Peterman can be the bridge or we sign a CHEAP FA QB, not Bradford level, on a 1 year deal to keep seat warm like a McCown or even someone like Kap...guys who wont have as many other options or leverage in negotiating the deal.  At the end of the day, does not matter who the guy out there is...its short lived and they may even lose their job before the season begins if the rookie starts hot.  

 

But a pricey "bridge" like Bradford, Keenum, etc just isnt happening unless Bills make a bad decision by over paying on a multi year deal to try and get them to choose Bills over better situations.  Now if they want to sign Bradford as the starter and forego drafting a rookie, then sure, they can sign him.  But I don't think anyone thinks thats a good idea, and I doubt Beane does either.

 

 

 

 

MONEY!

I don't mind Tyrod for one more year but I don't think Peterman is ready yet.

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, atlbillsfan1975 said:

Ok, fair point. Why would you want Tyrod around a high draft pick? Do you want Tyrod to stay QB for another year? 

 

Its not that I want Tyrod...its that Tyrod makes the most sense.  Im fine with him at QB until the rookie takes his job during the year or next when TT's contract is up.  I would rather trade TT and get an asset then role out with Peterman (I dont care if we lose games while our rookie sits) or some cheap FA backup QB.  I mean if we go QB high in the draft, we aren't thinking super bowl in 2018...we are building for 2019 and beyond.  So the "vet" QB is completely insignificant and best to just keep the affordable guy we have on a 1 year deal or trade him for an asset and role with the rookie as our starter or NP starting a couple games before the rookie comes in.

[GrizzReaper]

Why even bother with a "bridge" QB? Either sign a vet who you think is the long term anwser or draft a QB with the same mind set. Taylor is already here as this supposed "bridge" QB. I see no point wasting time, money, or resources signing a castoff vet from another team to replace our cast off vet.

[Alphadawg7]

1 hour ago, JohnC said:

Trade Tyrod for what? What value does he have on the market? I would rather trade or cut Tryrod and move on. I'm not afraid of going with Peterman if that is the option. With the additional cap space you can have more roster flexibility. As you noted the hope is that the Bills acquire a high end qb prospect . Then hopefully in the immediate or not too distant future the prospect becomes the starting qb. 

 

Although the Bills fortuitously made the playoffs last year I still consider them in a rebuilding mode. So my preference is to get the prospect on the field sooner rather than later and continue on with the building process. The priority is getting the prospect in the pipeline as soon as possible. 

 

Whaley was ready to move on from Taylor but because he lost his authority he couldn't act on it. McDermott was only willing to retain TT on a cheapened contract. After scanning the market with no takers Taylor decided to stay with a lesser contract. He is a seven year veteran and a known quantity. His lack of value in the market is a reflection as to how he plays.

 

I have had enough of this pop warner offense. It's time to move on. If you like Taylor as a player and a person then you should want him to move on and seek a better situation for himself. Being in a situation where the team wants a better option is an awkward situation for him and the teams. 

 

 

 

But why do you care about the QB plays BEFOER the rookie takes over?  In fact, its BEST for the Bills to lose more while the rookie is on the bench to help our draft pick status for 2019 anyway.  Like you said, Bills still are rebuilding parts of this roster, this isnt about 2018...its about 2019 and beyond.  

 

I dont care if we lose every game before the rookie takes over, that actually helps the team even more to be honest.

 

2 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

 

...just differing opinions and CERTAINLY respect yours....exactly how this place is supposed to work......thanks for your response........

 

Yes sir, and always enjoy your comments and opinion too.  

Edited February 25, 2018 by Alphadawg7

[SoTier]

2 hours ago, baskingridgebillsfan said:

I am not sure what Bradford will cost, but he is better than "bridge level.   For me keeping Tyrod isn't an option.  The next domino to fall should be the Vikings.  If Keenum and Bradford both hit free agency then the Board opens up .  Add Cousins and you have three solidvet  qb options, plus the draft  .     With 5 teams in play for starters.  

 

You are not being realistic.  

• The Bills don't have the cap space to sign Cousins without creating more holes that they wouldn't be able to fill except through the draft, so signing him would preclude the team improving over last season except at QB.  You simply cannot count on hitting on all your Day 1 and Day 2 draft picks, especially when you're drafting in the bottom of each round.  
• Minnesota isn't going to let both Keenum and Bradford leave in FA and keep Bridgewater whose knee may or may not hold up to playing full time.  More than likely, they'll pay Keenum and either let both Bradford and Bridgewater leave or keep Bridgewater.  In either case, neither QB is a good candidate for a "bridge QB" because of their bad wheels. 
• However much you don't like it, none of the other available FA vet QBs are as good as Taylor has been when he's had a decent OC and some targets.  That includes both McCown and Fitzpatrick.
• A team cannot assume that any first round rookie QB will be good enough to start immediately ... or at all during his first season.  That means that a team needs to have a competent QB who can start for anything from none to all the games.  That's not the likes of Trevor Siemian and most of the cheap FA vets.

 

2 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said:

#5 is really the biggest point here. And the one the “anyone but Tyrod” maniacs can’t seem to grasp. 

 

Does it really matter who the qb is next year as long as the bills get their guy in the draft this spring? I keep seeing “I can’t sit through another year of Taylor. Blah blah blah..... uhhh I could totally sit through another competitive playoff push knowing a rookie is developing and waiting patiently to take over. 

 

Other than cousins does anyone truly honestly believe any of the vet qb’s out there push the bills past 9 or 10 wins? 

 

Keenum might but I don't believe he leaves Minnesota.  I would think the rest of the FA vets would struggle to get the Bills to even 8 wins, primarily because they tend to produce significantly more TOs and NONE of them are any more "clutch" than Taylor.

 

1 hour ago, SouthNYfan said:

(by the way, i think bradford would be a solid, above average QB if it wasn't for the injury history. i don't trust his knee as far as i can throw him)

 

I feel the exact same way about Bradford which is why I don't want the Bills to waste resources on him.  The ONLY reason Bradford hits  the FA  market at all is his knees. 

 

[Alphadawg7]

35 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Winning. PLAYOFFS

 

I wonder if the OP is one of the ones telling us Mario would never come here?

 

Nope, I am the OP and I was all in on trying to get Mario.  

 

This isn't some victim whine about how no one will play here, its just flat out common sense in this regard.  You think Bradford would take a one year deal with the Bills to be a seat warmer to a rookie when he will have other teams he can choose to sign with?  Even other seat warmer jobs are better than trying to play on a 1 year "prove it" deal in an outdoor bad weather stadium, with a former failed OC, injury prone top WR paired with a kid who struggled his rookie year, on a run first team.

 

You guys act like Bradford wont have other choices and will just do the Bills a favor by taking less money and years to teach a kid how to take his job.  Now if Bills want to commit money and time to Bradford, absolutely we are an option and think he would very much consider us.  But I seriously doubt that Beane is going to look to sign Bradford and NOT draft a QB.  

 

Sure its possible Bills dont draft a QB, but only way I think that happens is if they sign Cousins, which I doubt we will outbid Jets or Broncos for him.  

[SoTier]

1 hour ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

does it bother you I may want to do what I want to do with my sunday? you keeping track? seems you are and it must disturb you in some way to keep mentioning it. for someone who has asked to ignore them, well, here you are.

 

as for the OP and his lamp thread. I have seen countless times where some have caught hell for creating duplicate threads but apparently some over look some and the automated mod lets the OP slide because well, it's a whole new take on tyrod taylor.

 

 

Well, it seems to me that you're claiming the right to do what you want to do but you are denying the OP that same right.  As somebody else said, if you don't like the topic, then don't bother with it.  Sheesh! 

[JohnC]

1 hour ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

But why do you care about the QB plays BEFOER the rookie takes over?  In fact, its BEST for the Bills to lose more while the rookie is on the bench to help our draft pick status for 2019 anyway.  Like you said, Bills still are rebuilding parts of this roster, this isnt about 2018...its about 2019 and beyond.  

 

I dont care if we lose every game before the rookie takes over, that actually helps the team even more to be honest.

 

 

 

Usually your responses are well thought out and coherent. Your response is nonsensical and foolish. 

[Mr. WEO]

2 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

i said WHEN THE DEFENSE DOESNT PLAY WELL

 

when they gave up 20+ points he was 2-6

 

sorry, they lost 75% of their games, not 90% 

 

i'm showing you that your attempt at proving my claim wrong was completely off the mark

look at the rest of his career

he doesn't win much without the D holding teams to league average or below

he's not a top flight QB

he's an above average game manager, a guy who can win you games with an elite defense, but not a guy who can carry a team by himself

 

 

only 12 of his 89 career wins have come when his team has given up 21+ points

 

Jim Kelly:

 

In '95, all 5 of the Bills/Kelly losses were where his D gave up 20 or more.  He was 4-5 in such games.  22 TDs, 13 ints.

 

In '94 all 7 of Kelly's losses came in games where the D gave up 20 or more. He was 2-7 in those types of games. 22 TDs, 17 ints.

 

in the 12-4 '93 SB season 18 TDs and 18 ints.  All 4 losses came in games the D gave up more than 20 points.  He won 1 of 5 such games.

 

In the '92 SB season, 4 of the 5 losses came in games the D gave up 20 or more points.  Kelly won 4 of 8 in games where his D gave up 20 or more.  23 TDs, 19ints.

 

In '90, his 2  losses were when the D gave up 20 or more.  He was 4-2 in such games.

 

In '89, 6 of his 7 losses were when his D gave up 20 or more,  He was 2-6 in such games.

 

In '88,  4-2 in games where the D gave up 20 or more.  15TDs, 17 TDs.  

 

 

 

Jim Kelly is in the Hall Of Fame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Alphadawg7]

8 minutes ago, JohnC said:

Usually your responses are well thought out and coherent. Your response is nonsensical and foolish. 

 

I take no offense, its all good, but I also don't understand what exactly it is you think I said its foolish?  I just do not in any way care about what level of play we get from a bridge QB who really is a seat warmer at most.  We aren't trading up for a rookie QB and letting him sit 3 years.  He will either start out the gate, take over in season, or assume the job fully in 2019.  Anything any other QB does in between then means nothing to me.  

4 hours ago, NoSaint said:

They consider coming here because they are thevstarter until unseated and we may not get that rookie.

 

Fair enough, except there is no way they are going to blindly sign here without knowing the Bills plans in the draft at QB.  They will ask, and if the Bills are serious about a rookie, they will have 2 choices...lie or tell the truth.  

 

I am in the camp that the Bills are all in for a rookie this year but either staying put and drafting at 21 or trading up.  And again, this thread ONLY applies to that scenario.  Absolutely Bradford or someone will consider us if the Bills commit to them as the starter and look to get a rookie another year.  But, all talk is about our eyes being on a QB, so this scenario is assuming we are going after one in the draft.  

Edited February 26, 2018 by Alphadawg7

[SouthNYfan]

9 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Jim Kelly:

 

In '95, all 5 of the Bills/Kelly losses were where his D gave up 20 or more.  He was 4-5 in such games.  22 TDs, 13 ints.

 

In '94 all 7 of Kelly's losses came in games where the D gave up 20 or more. He was 2-7 in those types of games. 22 TDs, 17 ints.

 

in the 12-4 '93 SB season 18 TDs and 18 ints.  All 4 losses came in games the D gave up more than 20 points.  He won 1 of 5 such games.

 

In the '92 SB season, 4 of the 5 losses came in games the D gave up 20 or more points.  Kelly won 4 of 8 in games where his D gave up 20 or more.  23 TDs, 19ints.

 

In '90, his 2  losses were when the D gave up 20 or more.  He was 4-2 in such games.

 

In '89, 6 of his 7 losses were when his D gave up 20 or more,  He was 2-6 in such games.

 

In '88,  4-2 in games where the D gave up 20 or more.  15TDs, 17 TDs.  

 

 

 

Jim Kelly is in the Hall Of Fame.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And what about his wins?

As I said, only 12 of Smith's 89 career wins were where the team gave up 21+

13.6% of his wins were when the defense gave up above the league average

 

 

20 of Kelly's 101 wins were at 21+

21% of his wins were when the defense have up above league average

 

 

A 8% difference

 

 

Are you implying that Alex Smith is a HoF QB?

Or that Alex Smith is as good as Kelly?

[transplantbillsfan]

5 hours ago, baskingridgebillsfan said:

I am not sure what Bradford will cost, but he is better than "bridge level.   For me keeping Tyrod isn't an option.  The next domino to fall should be the Vikings.  If Keenum and Bradford both hit free agency then the Board opens up .  Add Cousins and you have three solidvet  qb options, plus the draft  .     With 5 teams in play for starters.  

 

Wha...

 

bu...

 

I ca...

 

It’s literally like some people here are just going to keep saying whatever they believe even in direct response to threads that essentially and logically nullify it.

 

I mean, after all, why bother reading and understanding someone else’s arguments when I have opinions that are all my own, right?

[Mr. WEO]

11 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

 

And what about his wins?

As I said, only 12 of Smith's 89 career wins were where the team gave up 21+

13.6% of his wins were when the defense gave up above the league average

 

 

20 of Kelly's 101 wins were at 21+

21% of his wins were when the defense have up above league average

 

 

A 8% difference

 

 

Are you implying that Alex Smith is a HoF QB?

Or that Alex Smith is as good as Kelly?

 

Clearly, I'm questioning what you consider a game manager.   The stat you chose dines't really distinguish a guy like Kelly from Smith in the way that you intended.

 

I included Kelly's wins and losses in those seasons where his D gave up 20 or more.  

 

Its 19.8% vs 13.6 %.   Is that all that separates a HOF QB from a a mere "game manager"?  6 or so games (over a career) where the D gives up 20 or more?

 

[transplantbillsfan]

5 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

 

...never said he was the teacher or professor.....what of those traits do you want your 1st round rook and Peterman to inherit?....didn't TT sit behind Flacco to learn and inherit?.....so what is he bringing to the table as your bridge guy and how or what do you want him to bring?.....

 

Coaches teach young QBs about mechanics, understanding the offense, progressions, etc.

 

Where the hell does this assumption that the 1st string QB teaches that to the 2nd string QB come from?

 

If a young QB can glean anything from a vet QB he’s sitting behind, it would be leadership and work ethic, and Taylor would get high marks in both categories, I’m sure.

[SouthNYfan]

13 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

 

Clearly, I'm questioning what you consider a game manager.   The stat you chose dines't really distinguish a guy like Kelly from Smith in the way that you intended.

 

I included Kelly's wins and losses in those seasons where his D gave up 20 or more.  

 

Its 19.8% vs 13.6 %.   Is that all that separates a HOF QB from a a mere "game manager"?  6 or so games (over a career) where the D gives up 20 or more?

 

 

i mean, joe namath is in the hof, so i donno

fair points you made

i still don't see alex smith as anything more than a game manager prior to this season

he's not a guy who elevates a bad team

he's a guy who you put on an already good team

honestly?

if he was in new england instead of brady i think he'd have a couple of rings himself though

i don't think he's bad by any means

he's an average to above average QB who had a standout season this year

this season was most likely a fluke

he'll go 6-10 next year since the skins are hot trash

[transplantbillsfan]

3 hours ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

 

 

does it bother you I may want to do what I want to do with my sunday? you keeping track? seems you are and it must disturb you in some way to keep mentioning it. for someone who has asked to ignore them, well, here you are.

 

as for the OP and his lamp thread. I have seen countless times where some have caught hell for creating duplicate threads but apparently some over look some and the automated mod lets the OP slide because well, it's a whole new take on tyrod taylor.

 

I really don’t care what you do with your Sundays, I just think it’s interesting in terms of choices of what to do on a Sunday, you’re choosing to sit on a Bills message board insulting people rather than fishing or enjoying your day. 

 

Yikes!

[TigerJ]

I'm not so anti-Taylor that I'd jump ship like some fans i the Bills retained him, but I disagree with several of the OP's points.  

 

#1 Free agency precedes the draft.  If Buffalo sign's a free agent QB, that QB will have no idea what is going to happen in the draft, because the Bills won't know.  They will likely tell an potential signee, "You will have every chance to start, but we are going to continue to try and do what is best for the team."   Any QB with the right attitude will be unafraid of that kind of situation because they think they are good enough to win a competition.  I don't think the Bills are locked in to having a youngster start at any given point if the Bills are winning with a veteran acquisition.

 

#2 I suspect if the Bills sign a top level veteran QB, they will not draft a top QB.  They will draft a second or third tier guy with the chance to develop.  Jimmy Garapolo was one of those a few years back.

 

#3 If Tyrod is retained as a starter/bridge QB or whatever, the offensive coordinator will have to run an unconventional offense built around Tyrod's abilities and limitations.  Dennison tried to go more conventional last season, and the offense suffered as a result.  If you have to run an unconventional offense, then whatever developmental QB you have on your roster is going to be disadvantaged, if he is a more conventional.  He's not going to be able to develop his strengths because that's not the offense the Bills are running.  If you then draft an unconventional QB because that's the offense you're running, you push to the future any ability to run a more typical offense because you've got nobody who can run it, unless Nate Peterman develops.  I think creativity is a wonderful thing in football, but there is a reason conventional offenses with more passing is the norm.  It works!

 

A more conventional veteran QB will be advantageous to a young developmental guy because the young guy can learn the things a conventional QB needs to do, things he can't learn very well from watching Tyrod.

 

#4 Like a lot of fans, I think Buffalo has a chance to be improved next year.  Like a lot of fans, I also believe that Tyrod will likely hold back and limit te amount of improvement the offense can make.  Therefore, I care very much who the QB is, whether he's a bridge or a long term starter.  As I said, I won't jump ship if Ty is the guy, but I have to admit, I'm very skeptical that the Bills offense can substantially improve with Tyrod at QB.

 

[The Now Moment]

8 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Sam Bradford has never come close to playing as well as Smith did last year for more than a single game, let alone a season. And regardless of that, Alex Smith isn't going to come anywhere close to replicating his 2017 unless Washington brings in some serious help on O.

All I said is both players got better.  I didn't compare the twos success.  Sam Bradford's 2015 and 2016 would easily be the best two seasons by a Quarterback here in a very very long time.  He started 2017 with a bang too.  I don't care if you don't want him but give the guy credit, he has improved big time and looked to be stepping into the prime of his career before his injury this year.  

[John from Riverside]

9 hours ago, atlbillsfan1975 said:

Ok, fair point. Why would you want Tyrod around a high draft pick? Do you want Tyrod to stay QB for another year? 

I am thinking if this happens the high pick would probably supplant Tyrod at some point in the season.

 

One thing that really hasnt been talked about.....the bills have never really created a dynamic where Tyrod felt uncomfortable to keep his job based on lack of production with latter round picks

 

Competition is a good thing.......I am not even saying I want Tyrod back....but it could end up in this scenario

[Thurman#1]

13 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Why do people think guys like Bradford, AJ, Keenum, etc are realistic targets as bridge QB's to a high rookie draft pick this year?  Why on earth would they come to Buffalo to do that?

 

1. We have a first time OC who has a terrible NFL record as an OC and known for power run game on a team that has been a run first team here.  And our OL isnt exactly stellar at keeping QB's upright with some holes to fill on it still.
2. They dont know if they will start the whole season, or even at all if the rookie comes out hot in preseason.
3. The bridge QB will be on a short leash and cant afford bad games because they can lose their job at any moment.  And Buffalo is a run first team who plays outdoors in bad weather, not exactly an ideal location to try and hold a job on a short leash.  Plus we have an injury prone #1 WR and a young WR in Zay at #2 who struggled bad in his rookie year.
4. They will have multiple teams interested in their services, so they WONT sign in Buffalo for 1 year.  Means Buffalo will need to give them more expensive deal than Tyrod and it will be a multi year deal.
   1. That leaves the Bills with an expensive backup after this year chewing up cap space...whereas Tyrod comes off the books after this year and clears the way for a cheap backup in Peterman (if he can earn the job) or signing a low budget FA QB to be a backup.
5. Who cares who the bridge QB is?  Its a temp job and they may not even start a single game.  It does NOT matter who it is.  What does matter is cap space, and using cap space stupidly is not going to do the Bills any favors in building a winner.  And overpaying to have a bridge whose name isnt Tyrod is a bad use of cap space, especially on a multi year deal.

 

Bottom line, Tyrod is a substantially SMARTER move to be a bridge behind a top QB prospect.  He is cheap and only has 1 year left on his deal.  Plus he knows the team and players, is the hardest working guy on the roster, respected by his teammates as a leader, has a winning record despite 2 HC's and now 4 OC's in Buffalo, dealt with poor arsenal of revolving door of WR's (due to injuries, trades, and FA), and just made the playoffs.

 

If we can trade Tyrod, even better as we get something for him now and Peterman can be the bridge or we sign a CHEAP FA QB, not Bradford level, on a 1 year deal to keep seat warm like a McCown or even someone like Kap...guys who wont have as many other options or leverage in negotiating the deal.  At the end of the day, does not matter who the guy out there is...its short lived and they may even lose their job before the season begins if the rookie starts hot.  

 

But a pricey "bridge" like Bradford, Keenum, etc just isnt happening unless Bills make a bad decision by over paying on a multi year deal to try and get them to choose Bills over better situations.  Now if they want to sign Bradford as the starter and forego drafting a rookie, then sure, they can sign him.  But I don't think anyone thinks thats a good idea, and I doubt Beane does either.

 

 

 

While some of your arguments make  a lot of sense, Daboll isn't thought of as a bad OC choice. Just the opposite, he has a terrific reputation as a smart guy with success in a lot of places, including Alabama and New England. Nobody's going to hold a bad year in KC with Matt Cassel as the QB against him. Nobody.

 

Our bridge QB will likely be signed before the draft.  He won't know if or when we will draft someone. And teams that will bring him in could all draft someone. 

 

The bottom line is this, it'll depend where the chips fall. There are so probably gonna be so many good FA QBs available this year after Minny makes their decisions that it's an unusual year. There isn't usually a Cousins out there for FA QBs to compete against, nor such a number of good draft QBs that teams like the Giants, Denver, Cleveland etc. might or might not be committed to. It's gonna be a bit of a tough year for FAs, even pretty good ones. They're not gonna be able to sit back and take only the best opportunities. 

 

And the problem with Tyrod is he isn't a good bridge. He just isn't. A good bridge QB allows you to input the offense you want to run after the bridge guy is gone. Tyrod doesn't do that as shown by the tidal wave of "we need to change the offense to fit Tyrod's skills" choruses last year. That's not who you want as a bridge. As a backup or a team that believes in him as a longer-term starter, Tyrod's style would be a good match. As a bridge, no. As a bridge on a team that wants to run a system that requires a guy who can throw from the pocket, emphatically absolutely decisively no.

 

 The last thing you want is a guy who'll cause you to spend $23 mill in cap for one year's service and then make you change the playbook if you expect him to have success. The very last thing.

 

You may well be right that we end up with a cheap bridge guy rather than an expensive one. Very possible. But it could also happen the other way.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

7 hours ago, TigerJ said:

I'm not so anti-Taylor that I'd jump ship like some fans i the Bills retained him, but I disagree with several of the OP's points.  

 

#1 Free agency precedes the draft.  If Buffalo sign's a free agent QB, that QB will have no idea what is going to happen in the draft, because the Bills won't know.  They will likely tell an potential signee, "You will have every chance to start, but we are going to continue to try and do what is best for the team."   Any QB with the right attitude will be unafraid of that kind of situation because they think they are good enough to win a competition.  I don't think the Bills are locked in to having a youngster start at any given point if the Bills are winning with a veteran acquisition.

 

#2 I suspect if the Bills sign a top level veteran QB, they will not draft a top QB.  They will draft a second or third tier guy with the chance to develop.  Jimmy Garapolo was one of those a few years back.

 

#3 If Tyrod is retained as a starter/bridge QB or whatever, the offensive coordinator will have to run an unconventional offense built around Tyrod's abilities and limitations.  Dennison tried to go more conventional last season, and the offense suffered as a result.  If you have to run an unconventional offense, then whatever developmental QB you have on your roster is going to be disadvantaged, if he is a more conventional.  He's not going to be able to develop his strengths because that's not the offense the Bills are running.  If you then draft an unconventional QB because that's the offense you're running, you push to the future any ability to run a more typical offense because you've got nobody who can run it, unless Nate Peterman develops.  I think creativity is a wonderful thing in football, but there is a reason conventional offenses with more passing is the norm.  It works!

 

A more conventional veteran QB will be advantageous to a young developmental guy because the young guy can learn the things a conventional QB needs to do, things he can't learn very well from watching Tyrod.

 

#4 Like a lot of fans, I think Buffalo has a chance to be improved next year.  Like a lot of fans, I also believe that Tyrod will likely hold back and limit te amount of improvement the offense can make.  Therefore, I care very much who the QB is, whether he's a bridge or a long term starter.  As I said, I won't jump ship if Ty is the guy, but I have to admit, I'm very skeptical that the Bills offense can substantially improve with Tyrod at QB.

 

 

 

 

 

Nice post.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

No

 

 

[PrimeTime101]

13 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Another worthless and utterly lazy comment that has nothing to do with the thread where it deals directly the REALITY of what our OPTIONS truly are as a BRIDGE.  And the thread literally says TRADING TT would be ideal.  

 

But thanks for trying...well not really.  And sorry, but to call my post a look at me thread is stupid.  I could care less...but I wanted to discuss the real realities of what our REAL choices for bridges are where we focused on the real variables of what will make one possible over the other.  

 

Just wondering how many Tyrod Taylor threads you plan on making? Its a legit response.. Enough is enough.

[NastyNateSoldiers]

15 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Why do people think guys like Bradford, AJ, Keenum, etc are realistic targets as bridge QB's to a high rookie draft pick this year?  Why on earth would they come to Buffalo to do that?

 

1. We have a first time OC who has a terrible NFL record as an OC and known for power run game on a team that has been a run first team here.  And our OL isnt exactly stellar at keeping QB's upright with some holes to fill on it still.
2. They dont know if they will start the whole season, or even at all if the rookie comes out hot in preseason.
3. The bridge QB will be on a short leash and cant afford bad games because they can lose their job at any moment.  And Buffalo is a run first team who plays outdoors in bad weather, not exactly an ideal location to try and hold a job on a short leash.  Plus we have an injury prone #1 WR and a young WR in Zay at #2 who struggled bad in his rookie year.
4. They will have multiple teams interested in their services, so they WONT sign in Buffalo for 1 year.  Means Buffalo will need to give them more expensive deal than Tyrod and it will be a multi year deal.
   1. That leaves the Bills with an expensive backup after this year chewing up cap space...whereas Tyrod comes off the books after this year and clears the way for a cheap backup in Peterman (if he can earn the job) or signing a low budget FA QB to be a backup.
5. Who cares who the bridge QB is?  Its a temp job and they may not even start a single game.  It does NOT matter who it is.  What does matter is cap space, and using cap space stupidly is not going to do the Bills any favors in building a winner.  And overpaying to have a bridge whose name isnt Tyrod is a bad use of cap space, especially on a multi year deal.

 

Bottom line, Tyrod is a substantially SMARTER move to be a bridge behind a top QB prospect.  He is cheap and only has 1 year left on his deal.  Plus he knows the team and players, is the hardest working guy on the roster, respected by his teammates as a leader, has a winning record despite 2 HC's and now 4 OC's in Buffalo, dealt with poor arsenal of revolving door of WR's (due to injuries, trades, and FA), and just made the playoffs.

 

If we can trade Tyrod, even better as we get something for him now and Peterman can be the bridge or we sign a CHEAP FA QB, not Bradford level, on a 1 year deal to keep seat warm like a McCown or even someone like Kap...guys who wont have as many other options or leverage in negotiating the deal.  At the end of the day, does not matter who the guy out there is...its short lived and they may even lose their job before the season begins if the rookie starts hot.  

 

But a pricey "bridge" like Bradford, Keenum, etc just isnt happening unless Bills make a bad decision by over paying on a multi year deal to try and get them to choose Bills over better situations.  Now if they want to sign Bradford as the starter and forego drafting a rookie, then sure, they can sign him.  But I don't think anyone thinks thats a good idea, and I doubt Beane does either.

 

 

 

 

What makes u think Bradford will be costly.  What team is crazy enough to give a long term deal when there's other options available? Bradford,  Keenum,  McCarron,  Bridgewater and Tyrod if we do the right thing and wash our hands with him. These 5 QBs will all sign either a Glennon/ Bortles type deal with multiple yrs and less Gurantee Dollars with multiple outs or they will sign 1yr prove it deals.  No team will commit to them without them proving it first. 

 

Buffalo will get a QB easily if they choose to dump Tyrod in the trash where he belongs. Why because we are not sitting at the top of the draft in position to draft one of these elite prospects at the QB position.  These players will take into account that the Browns, Broncos & Jets will be drafting QBs very high or outright signing there answer in Cousins.  Arz Buff & Minn are better options because they will probably be using mid to late first or 2/3 to draft there QBs so there's no gurantee or pressure to play those guys right away . The chances of a Allen, Lamar or even Rudolph even developing into franchise QBs are slim to none as well as the 2nd and 3rd prospects.  So there's a better chance these Bridge Types can possibly stick for the longterm in Buffalo.  Especially the likes of McCarron and Bridgewater. 

[GunnerBill]

So my response to the original post would be this....

 

1. Case Keenum isn't going anywhere as a bridge.  He will be a starter in the NFL in 2018.  More than likely that is in Minnesota but even if it's not he will not be going anywhere to be a bridge.  The right question with Case Keenum is what will his contract look like?  It isn't going to be the now accepted two years bridge type deal.  It will be much more like the initial contract extension that Tyrod signed here in my mind, where they make a long term commitment but give themselves outs just in case 2017 was a fluke.  There was a point when you could have had Case Keenum as a cheap bridge.... it was last offseason.

 

2. Sam Bradford I think will only have a market made up of bridge opportunities.  Nobody is signing Bradford as their long term starter.  He signed a bridge deal in Philly which was traded to be a bridge deal in Minnesota. That is what the NFL now sees him as.  A guy who is capable but not top class and not reliable.  I doubt he gets a contract anywhere that is longer than 2 years and the deal he took from Philly was two years with the guaranteed money pretty much accounted for in year 1 so we know that he is absolutely open to signing that kind of deal. He could even take a 1 year deal betting on himself to stay healthy and play well next season and then have another go around at FA next year when the draft looks less likely to provide solutions and the FA crop is more limited.  That is in fact what I would be advising him to do if I was his agent.  Will he have better options for a 1 or 2 year bridge deal than Buffalo? Maybe, maybe not.  Totally depends where Cousins lands and how the rest of the market then falls in behind him.  

 

3. Tyrod Taylor staying is not just about who is the best Quarterback available.  The psychology of everything that has gone on here come into play.  The "are they or aren't they" nature of the Bills commitment to Tyrod has hung around this franchise for at least two years.  It was a distraction last season to the extent that it nearly sunk the season when the lack of true belief in the Quarterback within the coaching staff and front office led to an ill judged benching.  My view is very simple, the Bills have to rip off the band aid.  Tyrod might be better than what replaces him if it is a Josh McCown or AJ McCarron type but he isn't a lot better and they come without any of the other baggage and you are able to start and bench them without any of the dramatic story lines that follow.  Imagine for a second the Bills draft Baker Mayfield, Tyrod starts the season the Bills go 3-1 but Tyrod continues to be the tentative quarterback we have repeatedly seen.... then the Bills bench him with a winning record, again, for Baker Mayfield.  That is a distraction that whoever your 2018 rookie is does not need.  Nobody will bat an eye if the Bills pull Josh McCown.  

 

[NastyNateSoldiers]

15 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

He's rarely healthy, true. But he's also very average even when healthy. Definitely not 'very good' and definitely no more than a bridge.

I beg to differ over the last 2yrs Bradford has played he's been a very good top 12 QB and if it wasn't for his injuries he would not be available. 

 

2017- 32-43 for 75% completion 

2015/16 over 29 gms played 68.3

Adjusted comp % was 80.3

Deep passer rating 121.5

Passer rating under pressure 87.7 

He also had nearly a 3 to 1 td/to ratio so he protects the ball very well.

 

Tyrod can only dream of putting up these types of #s . My point is I'd rather take a chance of catching lighting in bottle with Bradford then go with a bottom 3 passer like Tyrod. We already seen the best Tyrod has to offer and it ain't much 3pts in a playoff gm when it matters most. I'm sorry i can't watch him anymore. 

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

I beg to differ over the last 2yrs Bradford has played he's been a very good top 12 QB and if it wasn't for his injuries he would not be available. 

 

2017- 32-43 for 75% completion 

2015/16 over 29 gms played 68.3

Adjusted comp % was 80.3

Deep passer rating 121.5

Passer rating under pressure 87.7 

He also had nearly a 3 to 1 td/to ratio so he protects the ball very well.

 

Tyrod can only dream of putting up these types of #s . My point is I'd rather take a chance of catching lighting in bottle with Bradford then go with a bottom 3 passer like Tyrod. We already seen the best Tyrod has to offer and it ain't much 3pts in a playoff gm when it matters most. I'm sorry i can't watch him anymore. 

 

Bradford has definitely played the best football of his career since in the past 2 and a half years, but he has also had yet more injuries and lost two more starting jobs in the process.  That is why he is almost certainly seen as a bridge only. He can play... but for how long is always the question.  

[NastyNateSoldiers]

16 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Bradford has definitely played the best football of his career since in the past 2 and a half years, but he has also had yet more injuries and lost two more starting jobs in the process.  That is why he is almost certainly seen as a bridge only. He can play... but for how long is always the question.  

I'll take the chance with him as my Bridge any day over watching Tyrod for another season. 

 

I think the Bills should follow the same plan the Eagles had in 2016 they signed Chase Daniels then moved up in draft for Wentz and already had Bradford via trade from previous season.  In our case it would to sign Bradford and either trade up for QB or take one at our spot in the draft . I'd even sign a Derek Anderson or Chad Henne to add to depth. 

Bradford 

Anderson 

Rookie

Peterman 

 

If Peterman is looking good in camp u can trade the veteran bkup for a conditional pk or a late rder like we did with Cassell a few yrs bk.

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 hours ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

I beg to differ over the last 2yrs Bradford has played he's been a very good top 12 QB and if it wasn't for his injuries he would not be available. 

 

2017- 32-43 for 75% completion 

2015/16 over 29 gms played 68.3

Adjusted comp % was 80.3

Deep passer rating 121.5

Passer rating under pressure 87.7 

He also had nearly a 3 to 1 td/to ratio so he protects the ball very well.

 

Tyrod can only dream of putting up these types of #s . My point is I'd rather take a chance of catching lighting in bottle with Bradford then go with a bottom 3 passer like Tyrod. We already seen the best Tyrod has to offer and it ain't much 3pts in a playoff gm when it matters most. I'm sorry i can't watch him anymore. 

You almost sold me on how good he is by reporting 2 versions of his completion %

 

Over the past 3 years he's started 31 games. That's just over 10 per season, which you might balk at because he only started 2 in 2017, but it is right on his average for his career. 80 starts, 8 years. His completion % in those 31 starts is 68.6%, which is good. His YPA is 7.08, which is alright (It's lower than Tyrod who some people believe is a checkdown artist). He's accounted for 42 TDs in those 31 games, or 1.355 per game (Tyrod is at 1.477 over the same span). He's accounted for 27 turnovers, which makes his TD/TO rate 1.56, not 3 to 1 as you claim (Tyrod's at a 3.25 and he's scoring more per game). His TD% is 3.38% and his TO% is 2.17%. His ANY/A is actually nearly identical to Tyrod's over those 3 years at 6.23 to 6.25 respectively.

 

If you really want to switch to a guy who accounts for more yards, less scoring, and more turnovers that's fine, but he's no more than a bridge.

[Rochesterfan]

12 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Coaches teach young QBs about mechanics, understanding the offense, progressions, etc.

 

Where the hell does this assumption that the 1st string QB teaches that to the 2nd string QB come from?

 

If a young QB can glean anything from a vet QB he’s sitting behind, it would be leadership and work ethic, and Taylor would get high marks in both categories, I’m sure.

 

 

The coaches teach - what do they use to teach?  They use practice and game film and game planning sessions and if your #1 QB does not make correct reads and/or requires a unique offense to run or requires an entirely different set-up - that takes away from what you are going to be able to teach him.

 

Everyone complained about the Bills not building an offense around TT, but if he is only a bridge you do not build around the bridge - you choose the scheme you want to run - you draft and acquire players to fit that - and that includes finding the developmental QB you want to grow in that system.  If TT was the long term answer then by all means build an offense to fit him.

 

The most important thing a young QB can learn is how to watch film and to understand the progressions and what to look for and the coaches can teach that, but if the game film does not show your starter doing those things - that is a detriment to his growth.  Additionally- how awkward is it in the film study to watch TT make plays and the QB coach basically saying you need to key here and throw at this point when TT did something completely different and completed a pass later in the route.  You are in a room teaching and ripping apart your stater at the same time.

 

Sal from WGR was talking about this when he was saying why the offensive coaches were so frustrated with TT last year - they needed him to progress and at least attempt to follow the game plan, but when the real bullets fly in the game - he reverts to his old form just winging it, not following the flow of the game.

 

The assumption is not that the QB #1 has to teach QB #2 anything - it is that QB#1 will do enough things correctly that the coaches can actually use the film and the practice time to show the Rookie what to read and why.  If your QB #1 is so different and does not follow the basic tenets of the offense - you are now trying to teach without the ability to show things in real situations with your real personnel.

 

It can be done, but it makes it harder and less effective.

 

TT may or may not be back, but if he does come back and the Bills draft a tall in the pocket QB - I think having TT makes the transition harder rather than easier.  If you are drafting a pocket passer - I would rather see a McCown type QB as the bridge - even if it is 2 years than see TT as the bridge.  If you are drafting a Mayfield or Jackson with a bit more mobility and play making outside the pocket - then by all means keep TT and teach based upon his plays, but that does not seem to be what the GM and Coach say they want out of the position.

 

 

[xRUSHx]

I see zero reason to keep him. He is by no means a mentor he offers nothing but to make the OC have to have a special scheme just for him while the rookies will have to practice a different one. I do not see how he will help a rookie at all, Tyrod does not want to give up his job and sadly the other players that are his friends will play like a Chargers game to help the rookie look bad so Tyrod would return to the starting lineup. Also keeping him gives us 2019 dead money. The OP says he does not care if we lose every game with Tyrod as the starter and that would accualy help us for 2019, then why not let Peterman be the starter till our new rookie is ready and use Tyrod bonus/contract money elsewhere?

 

Keeping Tyrod is counter productive because all it does in my opinion is divide the team and fans even more as to wanting Tyrod to remain the starter while wasting time and money on a short bus with a flat tire on its way to the junk yard.

 

So many Tyrod threads, so many excuses plassing blame, so many OCs. This board sure could use a break from Tyrod, I for one hope he is long gone before the season. Move on to better things, Rex choice at QB ended when he was fired.

Edited February 26, 2018 by xRUSHx

[BillsFan130]

5 minutes ago, xRUSHx said:

I see zero reason to keep him. He is by no means a mentor he offers nothing but to make the OC have to have a special scheme just for him while the rookies will have to practice a different one. I do not see how he will help a rookie at all, Tyrod does not want to give up his job and sadly the other players that are his friends will play like a Chargers game to help the rookie look bad so Tyrod would return to the starting lineup. Also keeping him gives us 2019 dead money. The OP says he does not care if we lose every game with Tyrod as the starter and that would accualy help us for 2019, then why not let Peterman be the starter till our new rookie is ready and use Tyrod bonus/contract money elsewhere?

 

Keeping Tyrod is counter productive because all it does in my opinion is divide the team and fans even more as to wanting Tyrod to remain the starter while wasting time and money on a short bus with a flat tire on its way to the junk yard.

 

So many Tyrod threads, so many excuses plassing blame, so many OCs. This board sure could use a break from Tyrod, I for one hope he is long gone before the season.

No chance that Beane goes into the season with a rookie and Peterman as the only two QBs

[simool]

I wonder how many light bulbs could be powered with the energy spent here on pointless hypotheses and theories? It has to be a BIG number.

[NastyNateSoldiers]

1 hour ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

You almost sold me on how good he is by reporting 2 versions of his completion %

 

Over the past 3 years he's started 31 games. That's just over 10 per season, which you might balk at because he only started 2 in 2017, but it is right on his average for his career. 80 starts, 8 years. His completion % in those 31 starts is 68.6%, which is good. His YPA is 7.08, which is alright (It's lower than Tyrod who some people believe is a checkdown artist). He's accounted for 42 TDs in those 31 games, or 1.355 per game (Tyrod is at 1.477 over the same span). He's accounted for 27 turnovers, which makes his TD/TO rate 1.56, not 3 to 1 as you claim (Tyrod's at a 3.25 and he's scoring more per game). His TD% is 3.38% and his TO% is 2.17%. His ANY/A is actually nearly identical to Tyrod's over those 3 years at 6.23 to 6.25 respectively.

 

If you really want to switch to a guy who accounts for more yards, less scoring, and more turnovers that's fine, but he's no more than a bridge.

In 2016 he had 23TD passes and 5pks. He was definitely on his way last yr before the injury to his knee. He's a much better passer then Tyrod and way better fit in pass heavy Erhardt Perkins system . 

 

Btw the Vikings oline was horrible in 2016 and Bradford never played with a bk like Shady . We add a couple of wrs to complement Benjamin and were definitely gonna be putting up major pts on offense. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

In 2016 he had 23TD passes and 5pks. He was definitely on his way last yr before the injury to his knee. He's a much better passer then Tyrod and way better fit in pass heavy Erhardt Perkins system . 

 

Btw the Vikings oline was horrible in 2016 and Bradford never played with a bk like Shady . We add a couple of wrs to complement Benjamin and were definitely gonna be putting up major pts on offense. 

He had 20 TDs, not 23. What is the aversion to using actual numbers?

[BillsFan130]

14 minutes ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

In 2016 he had 23TD passes and 5pks. He was definitely on his way last yr before the injury to his knee. He's a much better passer then Tyrod and way better fit in pass heavy Erhardt Perkins system . 

 

Btw the Vikings oline was horrible in 2016 and Bradford never played with a bk like Shady . We add a couple of wrs to complement Benjamin and were definitely gonna be putting up major pts on offense. 

Bradford is so overrated in my opinion.

 

Here is basically the sum up of Bradford’s career:

 

A team will invest a lot to get him.

 

Plays well for a few games.

 

Plays mediocre for a few games.

 

Gets injured.

 

Rinse and repeat 

[Mr. WEO]

13 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

i mean, joe namath is in the hof, so i donno

fair points you made

i still don't see alex smith as anything more than a game manager prior to this season

he's not a guy who elevates a bad team

he's a guy who you put on an already good team

honestly?

if he was in new england instead of brady i think he'd have a couple of rings himself though

i don't think he's bad by any means

he's an average to above average QB who had a standout season this year

this season was most likely a fluke

he'll go 6-10 next year since the skins are hot trash

 

Smith took the 49ers to 13-3 and the NFCC game in his only full season as starter.

 

I don't see him winning any of those close SBs in NE.          

 

Skins were on a trajectory to go 6-10 with Cousins and everyone wants to make him the highest paid player in the NFL.                                                             

[Big Gun]

1 hour ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

 

 He's accounted for 42 TDs in those 31 games, or 1.355 per game (Tyrod is at 1.477 over the same span).

Only in the world of TT defenders is ONLY passing stats NOT used when doing QB comparisons. I doesn't  make him look good and hurts the defenders narrative. 

 

Passing TDs 42 in 31 games or 1.355 for Bradford

Passing TDs 51 in 43 games or 1.18 for Tyrod

 

Talk about aversion to using QB passing stats.  

 

FWIW, I don't want Bradford or Tyrod QBing the Bills this year.

Edited February 26, 2018 by PeterGriffin