transplantbillsfan

And I'm saying that McDermott might actually view Tyrod as the QB of the future (let's also remember that those words came out of his mouth almost 2 full months after Taylor restructured his deal, also) now, but has an out if he wants.

Kinda a unique situation here, though. The Bills haven't tried to upgrade the position this offseason. It's pretty clearly a "wait and see" approach. You're making definitive statements as though Taylor "is" or "is not" the QB of the future... like the absolute decision is now. McDermott will clearly use the 2017 season to make that final determination. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have or isn't allowed to form thoughts and feelings based on what he's seen so far in Taylor. And based on his statement and then Dennison's comments the other day about Taylor, this looks like Taylor's team and it looks like there's some excitement about his long term prospects amongst them. The entire year in the NBA pretty much everyone said that it would be the Cavs and Warriors in the NBA finals. Sure looks like they were right. That doesn't mean the season and playoffs didn't need to play out.

This is what's irritating with these posters. They gloss over the fact that I accept their opinions as reasonable but disagree. Apparently they don't realize that message boards are for discussion. Personally, I find discussion most enjoyable when you're able to see different perspectives, even if you don't entirely agree with them. I guess they just want everyone in their party boat where all their opinions are facts.

So don't read my posts if they bother you so much. I'd respond to the rest of that post because I do have responses to it, but it's also clear you don't see any reason when you see that I'm typing it. I understand your position. I respect it. I probably agree with some of it if it were all to be fleshed out at one time. But at this point, it's you and your ilk who are the ones being unreasonable in thinking that you get to decide what are facts and what are opinions. Baiting... More baiting... just sad... Sorry bro. People are complex. Not everyone operates in the exact same way. Because the human factor is involved in this, this is a lot more speculative than you realize.

I'm not saying McDermott thinks Taylor is the QB of the future in the way the Seahawks think Wilson is or the Panthers think Newton is or the way the Raiders think Carr is. McDermott obviously is basing his opinion on only what he's seen on tape and in person. Aren't there varying levels of belief in the same way that wagers in Vegas vary in terms of odds? While the Raiders might give Carr 90/10 odds that he's the QB for the next 10 years, maybe McDermott is giving Taylor 60/40 odds. Those are completely arbitrary and random odds and I'm not saying that those are the numbers, but that means that there's more risk that he won't be, but he stands a better chance of being the QB of the future than not, thus McDermott's statements, thus McDermott's statement about Taylor being the QB of the future and also not addressing the position until late in the draft. But McDermott is smart. He's hedging his bets. He doesn't know for sure or have absolute confidence that Taylor is the long term answer, so while he wants to run with a QB he think can be the long term answer, he'll probably determine that relatively quickly... certainly by the end of the season so the team can get in the position in next year's draft if need be to draft a guy. Why ask him to take this new contract and pay cut? Because it was all already setting up for McDermott by the time he arrived in Buffalo. Taylor had already mentioned that he'd consider restructuring and the game was already afoot in the media. Why would a team not want to free up more money for other players if it can while in this process creating a contract and situation where you can be sure you get your franchise QB sooner rather than later if you're wrong? It's not like there's some lasting relationship McDermott is destroying with Taylor. He just started working with him and can mend the relationship as they progress if there are any problems.

I'm legitimately curious here. Maybe I missed a piece of information here. Is there something that is not speculation that I'm missing or are you just so adamantly against me that my posts cloud your own judgement and you're making something up?

What information contradicts it? Information, not speculation... Why did you ask the question when you knew what my answer was? Were you baiting? This post is pretty childish. I gave you a thoughtful response and you give me this...

Are you being serious here? Did I ever say that the Taylor camp never thought Taylor would get cut? Do you not understand leverage? I think you're (largely incorrect) view of me is clouding your judgment.

I can't say anything as fact because I don't know things that don't happen as fact. I can't slide into alternate realities the way some apparently can and find out. BUT... I think the Bills would have picked up his option. The moment Taylor made that comment on clean out day I said a number of times from there on out that Buffalo would have been fiscally irresponsible to NOT try to get Taylor to renegotiate and that we would be hearing things "out of" OBD from "experts" and "insiders" that would need to be taken with a grain of salt because those types of "private-made-public" comments are often used in these types of scenarios to leverage the other side and get a better deal. It was a big game of chicken and Taylor flinched first. But I really don't think Buffalo was prepared to cut him and go into the 2017 NFL year with Cardale Jones and Josh Woodrum as our QBs with the hope of finding some other capable starter for this year in FA or the draft because I think McDermott wants to win now, not later.

Geez dude... Your entire argument is based on the premise that Buffalo would have released Taylor if he didn't accept the pay cut. That's an opinion. Not a fact. Clearly there's plenty else we disagree on but I think I've been pretty good in terms of explaining things. You've explained yourself, too. I've read your responses and accept them as reasonable. But I still disagree and certainly won't accept just letting it sit as fact for you to always bring up as fact in other discussion connected to it with me. I don't know why you need this opinion to be fact so badly... #anTy

I'm glad you at least sorta kinda maybe understand what I've been arguing about. Maybe now you can accept that what you're arguing are not, in fact, facts.

No periods because you're still speculating. Unless you're a mind reader, you can't say what someone is or was thinking factually because you aren't that person. Period. Why are you fighting this so hard? I said your interpretation is reasonable but not fact. Second. No I'm not and no I don't. You're so wrapped up in being right about something I've already said is reasonable, but you so desperately want to let it sit as fact, when it isn't, that you're forgetting where this originated. No I don't know if Taylor's the QB of the future. He might be. I'm glad we have more time to decide. But this was never about me thinking or (here's a hint to bring you back) saying Taylor is the QB of the future

Yes. Clearly you are guilt free. That is simply inarguable... He might not be a crusader, but it's pretty clear he's crusading that something is a fact or is "inarguable" when, in fact, it's not. The issue here is you aren't even keeping track of this argument. No one, and I mean NO ONE is saying that Tyrod Taylor IS a Franchise Quarterback. EVERYONE is saying we need to see more and he needs to produce better than 2016. And a good deal better than 2016 if he wants McDermott to keep him as his future QB and not draft a guy in the 1st next year. If that's what you think I've been arguing about, let's just forget it. But understand that you are CONSTANTLY talking about things that are NOT fact as though they ARE facts. And you keep on saying it. And you apparently don't listen to the other side of the argument. Evidently the only "reasonable" arguments are those you agree with because right in this post you call certain pro-Tyrod positions unreasonable as you slip words of speculation like "forced" into an otherwise purely factual statement trying to let yet another opinion slide as fact while discrediting those wacky pro-Tyrod posters.

No, you don't get what I'm saying. I'm saying he's LOCKED into Buffalo for 4 years, no matter what, if he plays at a really high level. Buffalo doesn't risk anything because Taylor, if he plays 100% lights out and becomes an All-Pro, is NOT going anywhere until at least 2021 if negotiating a long term contract becomes difficult as it sometimes does.

My bad... couldn't tell...

Dude, you're speculating. Continue to argue that your speculation is fact if you want. Keep crusading with that if you want. But it's not fact. It's a reasonable opinion. It's not fact. You're the one stating something as fact. You prove it as fact. Why would I do legwork for someone else's opinion?

Oh... so you were directing that comment at that other poster, not me?

4 years. This year. Next year. Franchise tag twice like the 'Skins just did with Cousins. 4.

You act like it means nothing, but QBs like Matthew Stafford and Jameis Winston don't gain those extra 2 yards... they lose yards. I haven't even looked at their own designed runs vs. sacks vs. kneeldowns (which you'd have to do), but Winston netted -71 yards and Stafford netted -9 yards after considering their runs and their sacks, while Taylor netted +175 yards. You act like Taylor's the only one who has "crushing, drive killing sacks" in the NFL when in actuality it happens a lot to a lot of QBs.

What's wrong with you? Why do you resort to personal attacks? Don't worry... I just included it for you... see above

I'm with you here, but the other side of the argument actually thinks rushes don't count or matter. But since we're on the subject... if that other side wants to discount how much the Bills actually relied upon him in the passing game by saying "runs don't count," then we would need to look at drop backs that aren't designed runs. Taylor scrambled 47 times last year, or 3.1 times a game. And he was sacked 42 times last year, or 2.8 times a game. That's 5.9 times the ball didn't leave his hand, but the Bills were entrusting him in the passing game. Some of those were positive plays like the scrambles (which he gained 371 yards on) while some were negative plays like the sacks (which he lost 196 yards on). (So he netted 175 yards on those 6 extra attempts per game. So he was gaining 12 extra yards per game on those 6 added drop backs) Although I suspect I'll be accused of "cooking stats," that's the reality of what Taylor was asked to do and actually accomplished on those plays the Bills asked him to pass but he didn't.

Yes. Thanks for admitting you were wrong to do that ...even if you're doing it in a weasly way

Ryan? OMFG... is that the same Ryan who was on here who had Trubisky as his avatar? I was wondering where that guy went. Explains a lot

Cheap tactics. Cheap. Rhetorical. Tactics. If your point wouldn't have been invalidated by saying "28 times a game," then why didn't you do it? In fact, if you were going closer to reality, which rounds to the nearest 10, you would have said "30ish."

All of the first paragraph is what a lot of you guys base your entire argument on: The Bills were going to release Taylor if he didn't take a pay cut! ​I respect your opinion, but I disagree. And it's an opinion, certainly not fact. And it's pure arrogance to call it fact. I've laid out my position on this before so I'm not going to type it again. You've heard it before. I haven't seen any evidence to suggest that your assumptions are anything more than speculation. Just remember... the Bills had ALL the control in that situation. All they had to do was exercise an option on a contract Taylor was already under to keep him.