Shaw66

Teef - That's exactly why they installed the three-day rule. They knew teams were cheating, and it was reasonable to cheat. But the rule was written to allow the early discussions only if the player's contract is expiring. For a guy who's contract is expiring, his team has the EXCLUSIVE right to negotiate with him. That's the single benefit that survives from the old days when there was no free agency. It's exclusive. But everyone realized that if by the last two or three days of the guy's old contract he and the team hadn't agreed to a new deal, then there probably WOULDN'T be a deal. Plus, the players were saying "how can I know whether what my old team is offering is in the market if I can't talk to some other teams who are interested." So the NFL legalized the "cheating," but only if the guy's contract was expiring. It doesn't apply when a team is talking to one of its players about renegotiating. There are NO informal permissible informal conversations between the Chiefs, say, and Sammy Watkins just because the Bills and Sammy may be talking about an extension. Absolutely can't do it. So, as someone pointed a few pages back, here's what happened to the Chiefs for talking to Jeremy Maclin early: "Kansas City will forfeit its third-round pick in the 2016 NFL Draft and its sixth-round pick in the 2017 NFL Draft and pay a fine of $250,000. In addition, Head Coach Andy Reid has been fined $75,000 and General Manager John Dorsey has been fined $25,000." In 2015, Woody Johnson said about Revis “I’d love for Darrelle to come back” when he was still under contract with the Patriots. Jets got fined $100,000 just for saying that. No negotiations, no contract discussion, no nothing. Just a public statement. The NFL takes it seriously. So I think what's naive is to think that some team is going to say to Taylor on the QT "we'll give you $18 million a year for four years, guaranteed," knowing that statement like that could cost them multiple draft picks and some serious money. Especially when they look at how Taylor has produced over the past two years and can see that it would be near lunacy for the Bills to let him go. Why take that risk. The conversations that happened almost certainly went like this: "Hi agent. Thanks for the call. Tyrod's not a free agent, so we can't talk right now. I won't put any kind of number out there. If your man becomes a free agent, we definitely would be interested - please don't sign anywhere without giving us a call. What? No, I won't speculate about a range, or anything like that. You should know, because if we do that it could cost you your license to represent players. Thanks for understanding."

I think you're right, but we're saying the same thing. I'm not worried so much about what year he gets paid; I'm looking at his total compensation that he was guaranteed. I believe he was guaranteed about $40 million if the Bills didn't cut him by the March deadline this year. That $40 million was going to get paid over the next three seasons. (Again, I'm not sure, but I think that's about right.) Now he's got $15 million guaranteed, this season. If the Bills keep him for 2018, he gets another $15 million. Then he's a free man. So what did he give up? In terms of guaranteed money, I think he gave up about $25 million. That is, if he'd said no to a restructure and the Bills had kept him (which I believe they would have), he would have had $25 million more guaranteed, and he would have been under contract through the 2021 season, earning about $15 million a year. What did he get in exchange? Well, there's a very high likelihood the Bills would under any circumstances keep him for 2018 (cutting him would create a lot of dead cap money, so even if the Bills somehow had come up with the second coming of Peyton Manning in his prime, they still would keep Tyrod as the backup because they get no benefit cutting him). So Tyrod has a virtual guarantee on another $15 million. Career-ending injury is his only real risk there. So that means Tyrod is down "only" $10 million for the 2019 season; that is, I think his new deal means he "gave back" about $10 million in exchange for his ability to test the free agency market again in 2019. What I'm saying is that's a pretty good bet on his side, because unless his career really blows up in the next two seasons (and he certainly doesn't believe that will happen), he's going to get at least $10 million from someone in 2019. He'll be 30 years old, prime age for a QB. That's even under the second-coming-of-Peyton scenario, because under that scenario the league will view him as a starter who was beaten out by a Hall of Famer; he won't be damaged goods. If under the more realistic scenario, if for two seasons he's a starter hanging in or around the top 10 QBs, he'll get more than $20 million a year on a five or six year deal (remember, the salary cap is still rising), which will be a huge raise for him over what he would have made under his old deal. If he's a starter hanging in or around the top 20 QBs, he'll get a deal worth $10 million or more for a few years, which is what his old deal was worth. Why? Because if he's a starter around the top 20, he'd be a real improvement for a half dozen teams whose current experiment at QB is failing and who need a QB to start now while they look for the next savior. Fitzpatrick and McCown have been worth $5 million a year getting hired into exactly that situation, and Taylor has played better than both. So the new deal is bad for Tyrod only if his career blows up on him, because of a really big on-field deterioration or a major off-field screw up of Vick-like or Rice-like proportions. Taylor has confidence in himself, so he was willing to take that bet. In other words, Taylor took a pay cut because he doesn't believe there's a real chance that he actually will end up any less money than his old contract guaranteed him, and in exchange he got the freedom to make a lot more money if, as he believes will happen, he takes the Bills to the playoffs once or twice in the next two seasons.

No. If he didn't restructure, he was still under contract with the Bills. What anyone expected doesn't matter; when he's under contract, unless the contract is expiring, it is strictly against the rules for any other team to talk to him about his future. Teams get penalized doing it.

He's getting paid the same thing, or a bit more, than he was going to get paid under the old contract. That's not a pay cut. What he gave up was guaranteed money for 2019. He did that because he was willing to bet, quite reasonably, I think, that absent injury he always will be able to get a one-year $15 million deal in 2019. Why? Well, if he gets beaten up by a real star in Buffalo, he'll be in demand as an average starter when he becomes a free agent in 2019. And if he becomes a star in Buffalo, he'll be worth a LOT more than his old contract would have given him. LIke $50 million more. Only downside to his current deal is if he falls apart completely and no one wants him in 2019. Even then, he's probably always worth $3 million. Look at Fitzpatrick. He's averaged about $5 million a year for nearly 10 years. Josh McCown got a three year $14 million deal from the Browns. He got $6 million from the Jets for a year. I don't think Tyrod was worried about making some money in 2019.

I'm not an expert, but I think you really misunderstand what the rules are. First, the Bills didn't "pick up" the option on Taylor's contract. Taylor was under contract. The Bills had a deadline by which they could cut him without suffering touch cap and guarantee consequences. If the Bills did nothing, Taylor simply remained under contract with the Bills. The only way Taylor would have become a free agent would have been if the Bills had cut him. Under those circumstances, teams can't talk to Taylor. Do you think if there was a rumor the Pats were going to cut Brady, teams could negotiate with him. And I don't think in those situations, teams talk contract terms with players. As others have pointed out, there are serious penalties. Imagine if the Bills could just call up Aaron Rodgers and suggest to him how much they'd pay him to come to Buffalo. The league is worried that players would start tanking seasons so their teams would negotiate to get out of deals. it would be a disaster. Unless the guy is about to become a free agent, teams aren't going to talk to him.

Notice that your analysis is based on the assumption that the Bills would cut Taylor. There's no evidence of this. And I don't think the Bills ever intended to cut him. That's the real reason teams didn't make serious big offers to him. They knew there was no point. But I also agree that Taylor didn't want to leave. Good fans, liked the coach, great running back and receiver. I'm sure the conversation went like this: "we want you here but we need help on your contract." "I want to be here and I like my contract. I let you tie me up for six years at a price below what I'm going to be able to earn in another year or two." "well, maybe, maybe not. If you believe that, lets tear up the long-term deal and do another two-year deal." "sounds good to me."

This is the kind of stuff I referred to in my post. I try to follow the news pretty carefully, and especially back a few months ago when there were all these reports, and I never saw a report saying anyone with any authority within the Bills organization had said the Bills would let Taylor go. This Bleacher Report you cite says only "As Rodak noted, however, the Bills were expected to release Taylor if he did not agree to the restructured deal." So far as I know, the only people who ever said the Bills were expected to cut Taylor were reporters and columnists. It just doesn't make any sense. The Bills were committed to paying Taylor about $40 million, I think, for three seasons. $13 million a season. He's been a mid-range starter in the NFL for two seasons, and $15 a year is cheap for a mid-range starter. But what happens if the Bills come up with Dak II and they have to take a big cap hit. So what? If you have a franchise QB, who cares? the Cowboys took the hit. If it happened, the Bills would have a starter at $3 million and a backup at $15. So what? That's less than most teams have invested in QBs. I'm sure the Bills never intended to cut Taylor. They wanted to change the contract, and they gave Taylor his freedom to make the change.

I don't know the draft. I don't know the QBs. I think what the Bills are doing is what they say they always do, and what I believe ALL teams do: They evaluate ALL the players who may be of interest so that they can put together their board. They rank players in order and, generally, they take the highest player who is left on their board. Now, if they have a QB at 10 and he's there, will they take him? I doubt it, but I don't know. But if they have a QB at 14 and he's sitting there when their turn comes up in the second round, they're taking him. So I think that's why they're looking at all these guys. They need to know what they think about each of these guys, because an opportunity may arise to steal someone. Like it or not, that's why they traded up for Ragland - they thought he had a much higher draft rank than where he had fallen, and they traded up not to miss out on him.

Someone told me to come look at this thread, so I did. Of course, it's impossible to read the whole thing or, frankly, to even follow the last couple of pages. Anyway, I'll tell you what I think about Tyrod. A lot of you know me and maybe you've heard it before. 1. I like Taylor. Great athlete, good arm, dedication, running is a plus. I've heard all the arguments about anticipation, throwing people open, seeing the field, throwing over the middle, too short. All possible, but I'm not convinced of any of that, not yet. Could be true, but I think he's still growing, and I want to see another year out of him. 2. I SERIOUSLY doubt that the Bills were going to cut Taylor. There were plenty of rumors, and so far as I could tell, they all were started by the press, that the Bills were going to cut him and that Whaley didn't want him. Everyone got all excited about that. No one got excited when, in the last few weeks, all the press rumors were that the Bills would keep him. Why do I doubt they'd cut him? Because he played starter-quality football for two seasons, because starters are hard to find and because the Bills couldn't expect to find a starter in the draft or free agency. The Bills were NOT going to start over at quarterback. They might keep looking for one better than Taylor; I think they should. But they are not going to leave themselves in the same position they did with Manuel - a rookie start or a journeyman failure as the only options. Taylor is a legitimate threat at QB, and until the Bills get someone better, they are not going to let him go. 3. So what was going on with Taylor's contract? My theory is this: Taylor is ambitious, wants to start, has a lot of confidence in himself and expects to get paid eventually. He took a cheap contract to be a starter in Buffalo when he left the Ravens. Why did he take so little? Because he had the option to get out after two seasons, and he knew if he started somewhere he'd get paid a lot more. That's exactly what happened. He played well his first season in Buffalo, and the Bills didn't want to lose him after the second season and they didn't want to have to match some other team's offer. Still, they wanted the right to cut him if he flopped his second season. Taylor didn't want to get tied up long-term unless he got some real money. So they negotiated the six-year deal, Taylor gets decent money if he stays and the Bills get the option to get out of the deal if they didn't like his 2016. So then Taylor has a decent but uninspiring 2016 and the Bills aren't sure they want him on the terms of the contract. Plus, they want some cap relief. So they talk to Taylor, not to cut him but to get the right to cut him in another year without a huge cap hit. Taylor says you can't have it both ways. If you want the right to get out, then I want to have the right to get out too. So they agree to a two-year deal. For two years Taylor gets paid more or less what he would have made in two years under the deal. What did Taylor give up? The third year guaranteed. Why did he do that? Because he's confident in his ability, and it's much more likely than not that he can get $10 million a year somewhere in 2019, in which case he's no worse off than he was under his original Buffalo deal. In other words, because the Bills wanted to keep Taylor for 2017 and maybe 18 before committing to him long-term, Taylor got the right, again, to be a free agent in the prime of his career. Good deal for both sides. 4. Why was there no more interest in Taylor? As someone pointed out, he wasn't a free agent and it's tampering to talk contracts with someone who isn't a free agent. It happens, I know, when a guy's contract is expiring, but Taylor's contract wasn't expiring. If anyone had talked contract with Taylor, that would have affected the Bills' ability to renegotiate - they would have screamed tampering. Teams lose draft picks for tampering. Don't think for a minute teams weren't interested. Six teams, at least, would be markedly improve their QB situation with Taylor. You think the Jets woudn't have grabbed him? And don't argue that no one was interested because Taylor is a marginal QB. Taylor's stats for 2016 were mediocre; in 2015 they were great. He played all of 2016 injured. He didn't have his #1 receiver, and he didn't have much of anything else in the receiving department. He played for a dysfunctional head coach. Taylor would have gotten $15 million a year for a few years if he'd hit the market, probably more. Now he's going to start for the Bills for 2017. If he has a season like he did in 2015, guess what? The Bills will be back at the negotiating table AGAIN, because they won't want him to be come a free agent in 2018. If he has a mediocre 2017, they'll roll the dice and let him play out his contract. If he's great in 2018, it'll cost the Bills a lot to keep him. If he's mediocre, they'll let him walk and he'll get $20-30 million guaranteed someplace else. 5. OF COURSE, McDermott wanted to keep him, and if you want to say it was driven by fear, fine. You can call it fear, but it's better described as brains. You're taking over a team that led the league in rushing for two consecutive years in no small part because you have the best running QB in the league. He also happens to have a passer rating around the top 10 in the league over the past two seasons. You're going to let him go so WHO can be your QB? WHO? It would be a colossally dumb move in your first year as an NFL head coach to dump your team's starting QB in favor of no one just so you can put your mark on the team. Who would do that?