If we keep Tyrod. I'm done.

[John from Riverside]

Just now, SouthNYfan said:

 

I agree, that's a lot of ifs .

I would love improvement, but I don't see us getting better than 9 wins from last year.

That is pretty interesting as a lot of people didnt expect more then what...7 wins last year?

 

but hey....they did....and made the playoffs.  All this while jettisoning expensive starters for draft picks

 

There is no reason to doubt your team....it appears to be well coached as well......

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

Really?

 

Bradford's a walking injury.

 

I know but I think he's the best available QB. I don't care about the most durable QB if we're putting our hopes on a rookie anyways.

[GunnerBill]

59 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Soooo... you don't understand it because you don't agree with it?   

 

No. You really need to read better. The post I replied to said he didn't understand why some people didn't think you only release Tyrod if you have a proven upgrade.

 

I said I don't think that because I don't agree with it. I understand the counter argument. I understand it fully. I get why people are so petrified of EJ Manuel and JP Losman level QB play that they think "better the devil we know". I totally understand the cautious take no risk approach - keep Tyrod, don't trade away capital, let the draft come to you. 

 

I just don't agree with it. It is the pro-Tyrod side who refuse to try and understand the other side of the argument.

21 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

Guys it's pretty obvious.  They will pay him the roster bonus then see what happens in the draft/FA.

 

That's the smart thing to do IMO.  Can't have Peterman starting next season, or for that matter a 2nd round rookie.

 

I don't expect McBeane to do a silly trade into the top 5, so we're not looking at one of the top QB prospects, have to keep Taylor.

 

We are trading Tyrod and then we are trading up. Book it. 

[Figster]

8 minutes ago, HappyDays said:

 

I know but I think he's the best available QB. I don't care about the most durable QB if we're putting our hopes on a rookie anyways.

Makes sense, and with a run 1st O Bradford wouldn't be relied upon as heavily.

 

One compliments the other...

[SouthNYfan]

24 minutes ago, John from Riverside said:

That is pretty interesting as a lot of people didnt expect more then what...7 wins last year?

 

but hey....they did....and made the playoffs.  All this while jettisoning expensive starters for draft picks

 

There is no reason to doubt your team....it appears to be well coached as well......

 

They exceeded win expectations.

That's a fact.

Generally a team who exceeds expectations by more than 2+ wins, winds up regressing the following year

[transplantbillsfan]

9 hours ago, mjt328 said:

In  understand the frustration for Bills fans.  At this point, it's pretty clear to 95% of observers that Tyrod Taylor isn't the long-term answer.  But when you break down the situation logically, keeping him on the roster (at least for the time being) actually makes lots of sense.

 

1.  There are basically two options for Buffalo when it comes to adequately addressing the Quarterback position.  Either sign Kirk Cousins to a massive contract OR make a play for one of the top 4-5 draft prospects. 

 

2.  The odds of us landing Cousins are very small.  We don't have the cap space that some other teams have, and Cousins has already expressed most of his interest in Minnesota and Denver.

 

3.  If we bring in ANYONE else, the only purpose will be to serve as a veteran-bridge or backup.  That's it.  Case Keenum, Sam Bradford, Teddy Bridgewater, AJ McCarron, Josh McCown, Mike Glennon would all be signed as temporary place-holders. 

 

4.  An argument could be made that Taylor is a better on-field option than any of these other veteran guys.  Yes, Bradford is a significantly better QB.  But he has NEVER been able to stay healthy.  Yes, Keenum was pretty good last year.  But was he a legitimate break-out, or a one-year-wonder? 

 

5.  Replacing Taylor would also be a MUCH bigger hit on the salary cap.  If we keep him on the roster, his cap hit is $18.08 million.  If we cut him, that cap hit is reduced, but still accounts for $8.6 million in dead money.  But then you need to factor in signing ANOTHER veteran free agent, which most are expecting to range between $14-19 million per year.  So overall, replacing Taylor would commit an extra $5-10 million to the QB position - while knowing that player is destined to eventually give-way to a rookie replacement.

 

6.  Smart teams know how to take advantage of the Compensatory Pick Formula.  This formula is based on net gain versus net loss on free agents.  If guys like EJ Gaines and Preston Brown sign decent contracts, we could be looking at some nice Comp picks.  Signing a veteran like Keenum or Bradford wipes that out, and could ultimately result in losing a 3rd or 4th Round selection.

 

 

Really?  Is there even 5% who still think Tyrod is the long term answer?  I think you're seriously overestimating there.

 

7 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Judging by their comments again yesterday I'm sure the Front Office sees Tyrod as a last resort only.  They want to rip off the band aid.  

 

What comments indicate to you that they view him as a last resort only?

 

This is the kind of ridiculous hyperbole that causes friction here.

 

 

I think we can ALL acknowledge that Tyrod is not choice #1 as who to put under center in a vacuum in 2018.  The problem is, this decision won't be made in a vacuum.  So, while McBeane very likely would love to have Rosen/Darnold/Cousins/Mayfield/Luck/Brees under center in 2018 over Tyrod Taylor, there are things they need to consider and weigh in terms of their options... things that it sounds like you won't understand simply because you don't agree with these things, but just a couple of them include:

 

- We have an aging team with plenty of holes and 5 draft picks in the first 3 rounds we could use to build a foundation for this team and make them younger... acquiring Rosen/Darnold/Mayfield would require us to sacrifice the youth movement for at least another year

 

- Cost of signing/acquiring a vet QB like Cousins/Luck/Brees

 

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

But was his mother a hamster?  And what did his father smell like?

 

 

IMHO Rosen is the only sure initial or mid-season starter with Darnold a strong maybe.  But that's just my opinion.

 

Baker is a day 1 guy. There isn’t a ton of growth left for him. He’s going to be 23 at the draft and has played a ton of football. He shredded the best defenses in college football as well. 

[transplantbillsfan]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Well obviously I don't speak for the OP.  But my view is absolutely not an emotional one. I don't think it has to be a "better vet" to make moving on from Tyrod the right move. I agree you can't have a slightly worse vet (which is the bracket I put a McCown or a Fitz in) and have a rookie who might need to sit the whole year (Jackson for example).  That would be a stupid move.  But I think you can have a slightly worse vet, at a cheaper price, with less baggage and a rookie who you think can start by week 5 latest - Rosen, Mayfield maybe Darnold.  I also know which way round FA and the draft come... but I think the Bills have to devise their plan and stick to it.  I don't think Tyrod features in that plan unless something goes very wrong.  

 

Okay... so now it's very clear that you are completely reliant in your plan on trading up in the draft because that's the only way we acquire Rosen/Mayfield/Darnold.

 

And that's fine.

 

I'd love that, actually.

 

And at that point, I 100% agree that the odds of Taylor being gone increase exponentially and would be perfectly happy, at that point, acquiring a QB in the McCown/Fitz tier.

 

 

Where I think we differ is in the fact that you seem to believe that trade up is inevitable or easy or the only thing McBeane are really considering doing.

 

I'd love it if we traded up for one of those 3 guys.  We might do it.  But lately I'm thinking it's less and less likely with the age of this team and how many holes we're going to need to fill over the next couple years.

1 hour ago, T-Bomb said:

Guys it's pretty obvious.  They will pay him the roster bonus then see what happens in the draft/FA.

 

That's the smart thing to do IMO.  Can't have Peterman starting next season, or for that matter a 2nd round rookie.

 

I don't expect McBeane to do a silly trade into the top 5, so we're not looking at one of the top QB prospects, have to keep Taylor.

 

This seems to be where you and I differ from GunnerBill after just reading one of his posts.

 

He seems to think there's a clear and obvious plan to trade up for Darnold/Rosen/Mayfield.

 

I won't speak for you, but I know I'll be excited if that happens, I just don't think it will.  McDermott and Beane really strike me as pragmatists and I think Beane's statements on valuing draft picks highly isn't just a smokescreen.  I don't think he makes that trade unless he thinks the value is at least fair if not better for us than the other team.  And I just think that'll be difficult to do.

 

Less than 2 weeks to the new league year when all the really insanity commences!!!   

Edited March 1, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

The fact that the schedule is harder this year than last year??

 

The fact that we most likely will be making a QB change, with a new OC, we may see some growing pains.

 

 

We are playing away at:

-jax

-chargers

-Titans

-pats

-jets

-lions

 

All of those are tough games.

 

At home we have for tough games:

-Ravens

-Packers

-Texans

-Vikings

-pats

-jets

 

Detroit is most likely a shootout with Stafford, so I'm not sure we will outscore them.

-Texans will be tough if Watson is back healthy

-bears are a top10 D, but their offense sucks, but it's away so yeah, it's not an ez game.

 

Looking at our whole schedule, 9 teams were not playoff teams, but of those 9 teams, Baltimore, chargers, Packers, Texans are all very good

Miami isn't bad if Tanny is healthy.

 

 

Again, it's a harder schedule than we had this year, and our QB situation and OC are still unknowns.

 

Going into 2017, the Bills were regarded as having the 5th most difficult schedule in the NFL.

 

Going into 2018, the Bills are regarded as having the 18th most difficult schedule in the NFL.

 

 

Right now you're just trying to justify an argument with evidence that's seriously underwhelming.

 

Next year the teams the Bills play on the whole might very well be better than they were in 2017, but you're really bending over backwards to try to make that true just because you seem to want it to be true, for some reason.

1 hour ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Because he's not confident in his QB, and benched him last year in the midst of a playoff push, and still has yet to fully commit to him.

That sounds to me like "well... He's our QB, I don't like him much, but I'm stuck with him..."

 

 

It's okay though trans, I'm sure you take it as "he's the best QB ever I love him"

 

Nope, I actually understand that the world is not black in white and that, in fact, most of the truth falls into the gray...

 

but stick with your ridiculous narrative, though 

Edited March 1, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Nope. It has been 90% consistently. 

 

Taylor will not be retained. 

 

I stand corrected on you saying it was 5% before. 

 

 

 

 

So maybe it only increased 1-4% for you, rather than 5%...

 

still... you're coming around 

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

We are trading Tyrod and then we are trading up. Book it. 

 

I'll be stoked if we do.  I just don't think it's nearly as likely as you do, especially after Wood's early retirement.

52 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

They exceeded win expectations.

That's a fact.

Generally a team who exceeds expectations by more than 2+ wins, winds up regressing the following year

 

So legit question:

 

Does this rule apply to all teams in the NFL or only the Bills?

 

If it applies to all teams, we can apply your rule to the Jags and Vikings who also exceeded expectations by 2+ wins and our schedule gets easier, right?   

Edited March 1, 2018 by transplantbillsfan

[SouthNYfan]

4 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Going into 2017, the Bills were regarded as having the 5th most difficult schedule in the NFL.

 

Going into 2018, the Bills are regarded as having the 18th most difficult schedule in the NFL.

 

 

Right now you're just trying to justify an argument with evidence that's seriously underwhelming.

 

Next year the teams the Bills play on the whole might very well be better than they were in 2017, but you're really bending over backwards to try to make that true just because you seem to want it to be true, for some reason.

 

I can Google "strength of schedule" also, which only takes into account the winning% of the teams from last year.

 

For example:

Last year the bills faced multiple teams who regressed significantly from the previous year, who wound up not being as good as their previous year's record:

-Denver went 9-7 (wound up being terrible)

-colts went 8-8 (terrible last year because they lost luck)

-raiders went 12-4 (huge regression last year)

-dolphins went 10-6 (lost Tanny and sucked)

-chiefs went 12-4 (regressed and we got them at a cold patch)

-bucs went 9-7

-falcons went 11-5 (we got them with Jones out)

 

All those teams regressed, making 2016 easier than it looked.

 

This year we have a few teams who played below expectations in 2017 and look to be on the rise for 201 

Minnesota might have a regression because of their own QB situation, but their defense is downright elite, and will still be a tough draw for us.

 

I'm not bending over backwards, I'm looking at things regarding our schedule that goes beyond "last year's opponents' records"

7 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

I stand corrected on you saying it was 5% before. 

 

 

 

 

So maybe it only increased 1-4% for you, rather than 5%...

 

still... you're coming around 

 

I'll be stoked if we do.  I just don't think it's nearly as likely as you do, especially after Wood's early retirement.

 

So legit question:

 

Does this rule apply to all teams in the NFL or only the Bills?

 

If it applies to all teams, we can apply your rule to the Jags and Vikings who also exceeded expectations by 2+ wins and our schedule gets easier, right?   

 

It actually applies to just about every team, go look into "Pythagorean wins" for NFL teams and how it is pretty accurate.

 

Glad to see your emoji responses are back.

[transplantbillsfan]

1 minute ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

I can Google "strength of schedule" also, which only takes into account the winning% of the teams from last year.

 

For example:

Last year the bills faced multiple teams who regressed significantly from the previous year, who wound up not being as good as their previous year's record:

-Denver went 9-7 (wound up being terrible)

-colts went 8-8 (terrible last year because they lost luck)

-raiders went 12-4 (huge regression last year)

-dolphins went 10-6 (lost Tanny and sucked)

-chiefs went 12-4 (regressed and we got them at a cold patch)

-bucs went 9-7

-falcons went 11-5 (we got them with Jones out)

 

All those teams regressed, making 2016 easier than it looked.

 

This year we have a few teams who played below expectations in 2017 and look to be on the rise for 201 

Minnesota might have a regression because of their own QB situation, but their defense is downright elite, and will still be a tough draw for us.

 

I'm not bending over backwards, I'm looking at things regarding our schedule that goes beyond "last year's opponents' records"

 

So...

 

All of the teams we play next year are going to be as good or much better than they were in 2017 and none are going to regress?

 

That's a rhetorical question because you're pretending to see the future.  It's dumb.

 

Every year people try to predict how easy or difficult the schedule is the following year for all NFL teams and are very often very wrong.

[SouthNYfan]

7 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

So...

 

All of the teams we play next year are going to be as good or much better than they were in 2017 and none are going to regress?

 

That's a rhetorical question because you're pretending to see the future.  It's dumb.

 

Every year people try to predict how easy or difficult the schedule is the following year for all NFL teams and are very often very wrong.

 

Looking at the 2018 schedule, most of those teams I listed as difficult don't look to be having and regression on paper

Over half of the 2016 trans I listed either were expected to regress, or wound up with a major injury (which can happen again this year obviously)

 

If it's so "dumb" to pretend to "see the future" then why do you sit here and wank off to how great tyrod is, was, and is going to be, and how he's definitely going to be our QB next year, etc?

It's just "dumb" to make predictions and have any discussions about the future then, right?

 

As usual, somebody gives you a logical, well said out response, and you just say things like "that's dumb" and flash emojis.

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

55 minutes ago, Kirby Jackson said:

Baker is a day 1 guy. There isn’t a ton of growth left for him. He’s going to be 23 at the draft and has played a ton of football. He shredded the best defenses in college football as well. 

 

I like what I've watched from Baker - a lot.

 

That said, I believe you're mistaken as far as playing in the NFL.  I like Mayfield's footwork and technique.  He's pretty good there.  But the NFL game is faster.  The defenders are bigger and faster.  Again - I like him - but I do see a tendency to roll out rather than to step up into a passing lane and to miss guys downfield going "YOO HOO!" sometimes, IMO because they're hidden from his view by defenders.  He's going to find out that in the NFL, more of his receivers are hidden, he can't roll out as easily, and being a short guy, he better speed-read on how to find those passing lanes and step into them.   He needs to spend some time watching it on film first.

[transplantbillsfan]

53 minutes ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

Looking at the 2018 schedule, most of those teams I listed as difficult don't look to be having and regression on paper

Over half of the 2016 trans I listed either were expected to regress, or wound up with a major injury (which can happen again this year obviously)

 

If it's so "dumb" to pretend to "see the future" then why do you sit here and wank off to how great tyrod is, was, and is going to be, and how he's definitely going to be our QB next year, etc?

It's just "dumb" to make predictions and have any discussions about the future then, right?

 

As usual, somebody gives you a logical, well said out response, and you just say things like "that's dumb" and flash emojis.

 

 

 

Well gee, considering I've never ever ever said Tyrod is going to be great.  And other than talking maybe about his 2015 season, I guarantee I've never categorized his overall play as anything close to great for the duration of a season.

 

I'm done here because you're just getting all upset and illogical and making up ridiculous crap now.  Have fun doing that.  As much as you and your crew love to complain about this stupid CoT thing, you guys are the worst.

 

It's like the moment you see the name "Tyrod Taylor," everything goes red for you at some point during the conversation and you can no longer think straight.  Some of you are just always like that like xRushx.  Some of you at least operate on a little bit of a higher plain intelligence wise so it takes longer for everything to just go completely red.  But when you're just making up complete and utter crap, like you are here, that's when it's clear you've devolved the conversation and it becomes pointless.

 

Enjoy your evening.  Off for a sunset surf session.

[SouthNYfan]

3 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Well gee, considering I've never ever ever said Tyrod is going to be great.  And other than talking maybe about his 2015 season, I guarantee I've never categorized his overall play as anything close to great for the duration of a season.

 

I'm done here because you're just getting all upset and illogical and making up ridiculous crap now.  Have fun doing that.  As much as you and your crew love to complain about this stupid CoT thing, you guys are the worst.

 

It's like the moment you see the name "Tyrod Taylor," everything goes red for you at some point during the conversation and you can no longer think straight.  Some of you are just always like that like xRushx.  Some of you at least operate on a little bit of a higher plain intelligence wise so it takes longer for everything to just go completely red.  But when you're just making up complete and utter crap, like you are here, that's when it's clear you've devolved the conversation and it becomes pointless.

 

Enjoy your evening.  Off for a sunset surf session.

 

You aren't a Tyrod homer?

Jesus.

I can't even.

[3rdand12]

On 2/28/2018 at 10:53 AM, Nihilarian said:

What we know after last season is that OC Rick Dennison sucks and what he did with Peterman really sucks!

 

What the coaches don't know yet is if Tyrod, Peterman can further develop with a quality OC guiding them in Brian Deball. I think they both will improve should things remain the same. Even then the team can still draft a QB to develop or start and trade Taylor later on. 

no where to go but up thinking perhaps

 

  I agree in that case.

in the minority likely as a  fan of acquiring DoBell , Brian. I am feeling he raises the floor just being in the building. Better Coaching improves everyone

[Kirby Jackson]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I like what I've watched from Baker - a lot.

 

That said, I believe you're mistaken as far as playing in the NFL.  I like Mayfield's footwork and technique.  He's pretty good there.  But the NFL game is faster.  The defenders are bigger and faster.  Again - I like him - but I do see a tendency to roll out rather than to step up into a passing lane and to miss guys downfield going "YOO HOO!" sometimes, IMO because they're hidden from his view by defenders.  He's going to find out that in the NFL, more of his receivers are hidden, he can't roll out as easily, and being a short guy, he better speed-read on how to find those passing lanes and step into them.   He needs to spend some time watching it on film first.

He’s either playing day 1 or he will bust out. Baker is 100% ready. Go watch his performance against OSU and UGA. Those defenses are full of NFL players and coaches. He killed them. There isn’t much learning or adapting to him. He’s a plug and play guy. It may not work but he isn’t some guy that’s going to improve a lot at the next level. He and Watson are similar in that sense. They played a lot of football and had a lot of success against the best. Those guys don’t grow a ton. They come in and play.

[T-Bomb]

4 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

We are trading Tyrod and then we are trading up. Book it. 

 

Yeah, I'm not sure any team is giving up assets for Tyrod...

 

IMO, the only reason you give him the roster bonus is in case all your other "plans" take a ****, can't have Peterman starting.

 

Tyrod is the disaster scenario starter if all other QB options dry up.  I think they see the 6 mill as already spent on this.

[BringBackOrton]

We aren't keeping Tyrod.  No worries.