Shaw66

Not getting enough behind elsewhere?

Actually, I thought it was MUCH better than what we got at Beane's press conference. Reading it you get a nice feel for how close these guys are, how comfortable they are working together. That's a very good thing. Doesn't matter if they don't have the chops to get the job done - coaching and personnel management, but if they do, that kind of relationship is a huge benefit. Also, it clarified the QB situation for those who were reading too much into earlier comments. TT is the starter unless and until (1) someone takes the job from him or (2) he's bad enough that they have to move on.

A couple of things about this. First, I didn't say anything about how many games the Bills are going to win. All I said was that this isn't a rebuild situation. When Kelsay and Stevie were the best players on the team, that's a rebuild situation. But when you have legitimately good players like McCoy, Watkins, Incognito, Wood, Glenn, Dareus, Williams, Alexander and essentially three first round picks (Lawson, Ragland, White) and a guy who's likely to become your #2 receiver in the second, it's not a rebuild situation. It's a situation where you find the best players to fill the other spots and go to work. If the coaching is good, there's more than enough talent on the team to go 8-8 or better. People don't understand what odds makers do. The fact that the Bills are 6 does NOT mean that Vegas thinks the Bills will win 6. It means that 6 is the number that Vegas thinks will get half the betters to pick the over and the other half to pick the under. Buffalo's over under is ALWAYS low, because fans around the country think the Bills are worse than they are. If Vegas set the line at 8, most bettors would flock to the under, and that leaves Vegas exposed. For example, in 2014, the line was 6.5 because no one believed the Bills were going anywhere with Marrone. In 2015 and 16 the line was 8 because the fans across the country believed Rex would build a defense. In each case the line was set to reflect what fans thought, not what Las Vegas thought.

You have to listen in context. McD clearly was saying that no one is guaranteed a job and no one is guaranteed a starting slot. You have to earn it. And QB is no different. He also was saying that competition is good and everyone will be competing for his job all the time. But that doesn't mean that there are presumptive starters. When OTAs start, there has to be a first group, second group, third group. And the presumptive starters will be in the first group. Other guys, as they earn it, will work their way into first group reps. If they're good enough, they could take jobs from presumptive starters. So Beane didn't say something that contradicted McDermott. Beane was talking about who would line up at QB until someone took his job. McDermott was saying everyone would compete for jobs. That's true.

You're right. You have to think back to your high school sports experience, if you have one. I have several. What did the coach do in tryouts? First, he put his presumptive starters on the field or court and ran some plays, then a second group, then a third group. And he watched. Base on his observations, some guys moved up, some guys moved down. Eventually he made cuts. Then it continued in practice. If the presumed starters are doing their jobs well, they keep they're jobs. If a guy isn't doing his job well enough, or if his backup is lighting up, the backup starts getting some reps, and the coach watches. I can't imagine ti will be different for Taylor. It isn't good for the development of players to have a true open competition, sharing reps and all that. It's a new offense, Taylor's the presumed starter, he'll need all the reps he can get. If Yates, Jones or Peterman are really lighting it up through the spring and summer, sure, McDermott should look at the guy as a starter. But on day one, Taylor will be the starter and he'll continue to be the starter unless he can't execute or someone is looking really special.

I read a bit of this thread. I think it's a building year, not a rebuilding year. For rebuilding to make sense as a word, it has to mean taking apart and reconstructing. That isn't what's happening with the Bills. The Bills are in a normal building, ideally continuous improvement, process. It was generally agreed last season that the Bills had one of the better rosters in the conference, and they still do. They're way ahead of the game simply because they have Watkins and McCoy. They have a serviceable quarterback. They have some good offensive linemen. They have Dareus and Hughes plus two quality rookies, essentially, in Ragland and Lawson. They have what should be a good pair of corners. They have veteran safeties. This isn't a rebuilding situation. This is all about continuing to get better. Maybe Watkins leaves, maybe he doesn't, maybe Taylor leaves, maybe he doesn't. They're important parts of the team, but they are by no means all of it. What this year is about is whether McDermott is the right guy, and if he is, how quickly he can get the team headed in the right direction. It might take a season. It might take six games. It might take less.

Transplant - That's true? When you say a winning team, you mean a team with a record over .500, he has ZERO comeback wins? o-35?

Trimming the playbook and simplifying the offense are NOT what Lynn said. Those phrases you're quoting were in Robyn Mundy's report about Lynn's appearance on the John Murphy show. Lynn didn't use those phrases; Robyn did. You can hear what Lynn said here: http://www.buffalobills.com/video/audio/Anthony-Lynn-We-have-got-to-stay-on-the-field/72f7ccf3-3494-44f4-b413-57ec43c4d356 Although you can argue about what Lynn meant by what he said, my take is that he said the Bills were going into games with too many plays on the playlist. He said something about Tyrod may not be able to handle the volume, but it seemed to mean again that the volume on the playlist was too great to manage, not the scale of the playbook. He also said something about simplifying reads, but it wasn't clear if he was talking about Taylor or the entire offense. In general, it sounded like he was saying the offense was too complicated, not that Taylor was unable to handle a normal sized offensive playbook. Recall that in 2015 Incognito said it was the most complicated offense he ever had played in.

I'd never seen that article. Thanks for posting it. It's more amateur analysis, but in this case there's very little subjectivity in the data. Under center or not, count the steps in the drop. Add up attempts, completions and yards. Not too hard. Taylor had so few under center, there may not be enough data to prove anything. But from what there is, it seems like under center isn't a problem for Taylor. I'm not sure the conclusion is fair that the coaches did Taylor a disservice by not letting play under center more. Taylor's the QB and he has to play the offense he's given. He needed to throw better out of the shotgun. One thing he says is something I've said for a year. Taylor looks much better when he drops deep enough to keep the rush in front of him. Passing out of the pocket doesn't work as well for him. With the rush in front of him, he sees the field better and he also scrambles better.

Yes you can. If you trade your two first round picks next year and your first for the following year to move up for a QB next tear, and if he's not your starter, you lost the opportunity to get stronger at THREE positions on your team. If that happens, you have too many QBs. It's why the evaluation of Taylor THIS YEAR is so important. The Bills have postponed the long-term decision on Taylor for two years; they can't postpone it any longer. After the 2017 season they have to decide if they're betting on him for the future, or on someone else. The happy situation for the Bills would be for Taylor or Peterman to really star this season. That would make all the decisions easy.

Ten wins, playoffs, Taylor in the top 12 passing, I'm thinking long and hard before I go after a QB at the top of the draft. It's like drawing to an inside straight.

"people who are recently unemployed." You mean, like the Director of the FBI? Did the FBI bug OBD? I hope Dennison hasn't been talking to the Russians. Got it. Thanks. That's very interesting news. And you're right, Dennison has a year to show McD and B that his judgment was correct. It was interesting reading about Dennison when the Bills hired him. Seems like a pretty deep thinker for a football coach.

So, Hokie, is this just a theory you have, or do you have some inside knowledge that tells you this? I've wondered about Dennison's role in all this. Frankly, if that's true, I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. After all, Chan Gailey really wanted to work with Ryan Fitzpatrick. Everyone can make mistakes. Still, regardless of how we got here, here we are. Tyrod is almost certainly the starter in 2017. I DO feel good that his offensive coordinator is someone who has worked with him before, someone who is installing the system they worked on together. That's a plus for Taylor, and therefore it's a plus for the Bills.

I don't trust anything from the media unless (1) I'm watching video of someone who has direct knowledge of what he's talking about or (2) I'm reading something with quotation marks, quoting someone with direct knowledge of what he's talking about. Everything else i get from the media is suspect.

this is an interesting comment. Last season the Chiefs went to a quick-release game, much more than they ever had in earlier years. Smith was getting the ball out incredibly quickly. Three significant things happened. 1. Smith's rushing yards dropped dramatically. For the previous three years, he'd been one of the leading rushers among QBs. In 2016 he fell way back into the pack. 2. His sacks dropped way down. Just like Taylor, he'd run around back there and extend plays, which has a benefit and a problem. Extended plays often lead to gains you wouldn't otherwise get. They also lead to sacks you wouldn't otherwise get. 3. The Chiefs' offense didn't get markedly better or worse. For the past several years they haven't gained a lot of yards, and that didn't change. But they were generally a pretty good scoring offense, and they were in 2016. Not stellar, but okay. So if your prediction is correct, Taylor gets the ball out quicker, it may be that the offense won't get worse, but it also might not get better. This is one of those rat holes that transplant started us down in the beginning of this thread. It's very hard to correlate wins with min-stats, like how quickly someone throws the ball. The game is much too complicated to reduce to concepts like that. However, as for Taylor personally, he becomes a much less valuable guy if you take away his legs. Without his legs, he's VERY ordinary.

Dave - I think your backup scenario IS the real chance of getting caught in QB purgatory again. Taylor gets injured or is underperforming and halfway through the season Peterman becomes the starter. He's apparently a cerebral guy, good decision maker, etc. If the Bills are running a short-passing offense, he could have a lot of success early (not unlike Trent Edwards). The Bills could get all excited about the guy and used their two first rounders to shore up other positions. Then we'd all have to wait and see whether Peterman becomes Edwards or Montana. Percentage. He's been retired for years. Took the guaranteed money.

Sure. But he's a pretty good football fan. And he didn't care much about the details. He negotiated contracts his whole deal, and his point of view is that he always can get more if you give him another chance to negotiate. He wants his guys to be free agents every year. Worst thing that can happen is signing your guy to a long-term deal that undervalues him. If you can negotiate every year, your guy is never undervalued.

That's certainly possible. But that doesn't have anything to do with Taylor. That just means the Bills picked the wrong head coach - again. I really don't think that's too likely though. If everything we've seen in the past couple of months is largely McDermott's doing, he isn't going to be afraid to pull the trigger. In particular, it looks like they really want the trade down from 10, which means they were setting themselves up to take a QB if they need one or want one. If McDermott orchestrated that I doubt he gets cold feet when the time comes to go after a QB. As for Taylor, objectively, if he has a good year (my measure would be passer rating above 94, they ought to keep him. If he's below 88, that'll be two mediocre seasons in a row and it's time to move on. In between, which certainly is possible, we'll see. If McDermott already has his heart said on a new guy, Taylor will be gone, or at least on the bench schooling the new guy. If McDermott is open minded, it'll depend on his view of why Tyrod wasn't good enough and whether it can be remedied.

But all the running QBs who came before them didn't have career ending injuries. They slowed down and became less effective runners, but they didn't get knocked out of their careers. And Taylor was a lot smarter about taking chances last season. So I don't think injury is an unusually big risk.

I think you're right. They would have been looking for the extra year they got. But once they decided to renegotiate, getting more cap room became an objective, for sure. Thanks. But the analysis gets complicated because Taylor gave back guaranteed money. Who does that? Some people say it's evidence that the Bills had him over a barrel. He was worried that he would get cut and no one else would pay him more than a couple million to be a backup. I don't believe that for a minute. Most of the real experts - retired QBs turned commentators, were saying Taylor is a legitimate starter in the NFL. His numbers certainly back up that notion. Not great, but better than backups and better than at least a half dozen to a dozen 2016 starters. Someone would pay him if the Bills didn't want him (without even looking, the Bears, Texans and Jets would have been in the bidding. Probably the Broncos. But beyond that, McDermott would have wanted no part of going into his first season as a head coach with no quarterback. Where was he going to get anyone with productivity like Taylor? Taylor was willing to give up some guaranteed money not because he was afraid he'd be cut and never get a good job again. He gave up guaranteed money so that he could be a free agent again. He said to the Bills "if you aren't willing to invest in me, I'm not willing to invest in you. You want help on the contract, you give me a way to get out. I can make my money someplace else."

I think the Bills wanted (1) to be able to see another year of Tyrod before committing long-term and (2) cap relief. They got what they wanted. They had to pay for it. They paid by giving Taylor the opportunity to force a new deal on the Bills after 2018. They didn't go into the negotiation intending to do that. It's something Taylor asked for. The Bills would rather have had the old deal with just an extra year to decide whether to cut him. Taylor would have been a fool to give them that. As I've said all along, both sides got what they viewed were improvements over the old deal.

Way off the original topic, but since this has turned into a general Tyrod discussion, something else occurred to me. In these discussions about the contract, some people often say a QB wants a long-term deal because you never know when you might get injured and no longer be able to play. I was thinking about that. How many QBs (other than those near the end of their careers, like Romo) have their careers ended by injury? Not many, I think. We may be seeing it happen to Bridgewater. RG III had his career changed by injury, and maybe ended. That guy who got all the concussions who the Bills brought in to start ahead of Manuel. The point is that although it's possible that a QB will have a career ending injury, just like any position player, it doesn't happen all that often. I think that's another reason why low-priced long-term deals aren't very attractive to players. They know that they're likely to be able to play out their careers. They have good reason to believe that they have plenty of pay days ahead of them.

I agree that we won't get anywhere, but you are misquoting yourself. You didn't say I almost make it seem as if. You said my friend was apparently absolutely certain Tyrod go the deal he wanted. The point was that you're off base saying ANYTHING about the deal Tyrod wanted. The point is that he got a better deal than he had.

No. He's talking about my friend the agent when he says Shaw's guy. But Crusher, you seriously misquote. I didn't say Tyrod got the deal he wanted. He wants $75 million guaranteed. What I said is that he liked the deal he got better than the deal he gave up. His new deal is better than the old deal because his upside is much better and isn't downside is relatively not so bad.

You guys miss the point of how these deals are negotiated. The thing of most importance to the players is guaranteed money. If you don't have guaranteed money, nothing else matters much. Job security is important to schleps like us. If you have guaranteed money, you don't care about job security. If you lose your job, you still have the money. In 2016 Tyrod wasn't looking for a long-term contract. Players don't want long-term contracts. They want guaranteed money, and that's what Tyrod was looking for in 2016. He got it, but to get the guarantee he had to give the Bills a long-term deal. Yes guys sign long-term deals, but they sign them for the money, not the long terms. All of the reported negotiations in sports always go the same way - the player wants a lot of money, guaranteed, and he wants it now. The team wants the long term. The negotiation is over how much money for how long. From the player's point of view, he wants the shortest deal possible with the most guaranteed money. If he has guaranteed money and short deal, he has the opportunity to negotiate another deal. Once Taylor got guaranteed money in 2016, he was set for life. It wasn't a ton of money, but enough be set for life. The problem was, it was a long-term deal. He didn't have any way to make any more money in his prime. When the Bills came to him this year, he had his opportunity. He had one good payday in 2016, and Bills were offering him another nice payday for 2017 AND the possibility of negotiating a new deal in a year or two. Yes, he took less money than his old contract gave him, but he still had a lot of guaranteed money. Job security means absolutely nothing to the players. Money is what matters. Taylor gave up some guaranteed money for the opportunity to make a lot more. The Bills weren't offering hundreds of millions. Yes, you sign long term deals when you're getting franchise player money. That's the only to get BIG guaranteed money. Taylor wants BIG guaranteed money. The only way to get is to negotiate it for it when you're in your prime. The opportunity to do that is why he gave up small guaranteed money.