metzelaars_lives Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) Tyrod is effectively now on a 1 year deal. I don't want him to have the option of hitting free agency next year. I would rather sign him to an extra year or 2 with a bump in pay. The bridge idea that everyone keeps floating is best case scenario for both the team and Tyrod. It gives him security after next year if he regresses or (heaven forbid) gets hurt and it gives the Bills time to work out exactly what he is and what he should be paid. It seems like a no brainer and I have no idea how people don't like this idea. Yes but remember they could still franchise him next year if he is bitter toward the Bills for not extending him this season. I think they explain to him, look, we're super tight to the cap right now, we're trying to re-sign the two guys who protect your blindside, we're the ones that gave you this opportunity, show us last year wasn't a fluke and we'll give you the monster contract. Edited February 26, 2016 by metzelaars_lives
3rdand12 Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 Yes but remember they could still franchise him next year if he is bitter toward the Bills for not extending him this season. I think they explain to him, look, we're super tight to the cap right now, we're trying to re-sign the two guys who protect your blindside, we're the ones that gave you this opportunity, show us last year wasn't a fluke and we'll give you the monster contract. nice sales pitch !!
Gugny Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 1. What are "fluffy statistics?" Can any of you envision a world where EJ Manuel put up the numbers Taylor did last year and Gugny expressed skepticism by calling them "fluffy?" Please elaborate. 2. He was 8-6. Not bad with a horrendous defense. With the 2014 defense they waltz into the playoffs. 3. Yes the runs were incredibly exciting. Did you not think so? 1. Why do you keep comparing him to Manuel? That comparison is irrelevant. Fluffy = when they don't count for schit. When the Bills NEEDED to move the ball, he failed. Almost all the time. 2. (W-L) is not a QB statistic. It's a team statistic. 3. Barry Sanders was exciting, too. Agreed. But he improved all season imo. Maybe incrementally but improvement nontheless I expect as Roman lets it loosen up and TT gets more reps with ALL of his WRs we shall see a decent step forward. I actually think he regressed all year. And I think Roman is reluctant to loosen up because he knows TT isn't good enough. Once defenses take the sidelines away (the only place he is even halfway decent) he won't be able to run. And speaking of that, he's too fragile to run as much as he's going to have to. All of this, of course, is simply my opinion and I would love nothing more than to be wrong.
3rdand12 Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) 1. Why do you keep comparing him to Manuel? That comparison is irrelevant. Fluffy = when they don't count for schit. When the Bills NEEDED to move the ball, he failed. Almost all the time. 2. (W-L) is not a QB statistic. It's a team statistic. 3. Barry Sanders was exciting, too. I actually think he regressed all year. And I think Roman is reluctant to loosen up because he knows TT isn't good enough. Once defenses take the sidelines away (the only place he is even halfway decent) he won't be able to run. And speaking of that, he's too fragile to run as much as he's going to have to. All of this, of course, is simply my opinion and I would love nothing more than to be wrong. Well, we can disagree. np. I saw him scanning the field with his eyes (not head) and working through his progressions. and then he starting taking risks chucking the ball to Sammy when doubled and or bracketed with success and i felt his pocket presence improved. But that's all just the eye test. I am quite the Homer btw Edited February 26, 2016 by 3rdand12
Gugny Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 Well, we can disagree. np. I saw him scanning the field with his eyes (not head) and working through his progressions. and then he starting taking risks chucking the ball to Sammy when doubled and or bracketed with success and i felt his pocket presence improved. But that's all just the eye test. I am quite the Homer btw Oh, believe me, I've had my homer moments. Specifically about EJ (just ask Metz). Since week 1, I've been very pessimistic about TT. At one point, I started to think, "well, maybe ..." But then the TEN game came along. I just think he stinks. I know it's an unpopular opinion.
3rdand12 Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) Oh, believe me, I've had my homer moments. Specifically about EJ (just ask Metz). Since week 1, I've been very pessimistic about TT. At one point, I started to think, "well, maybe ..." But then the TEN game came along. I just think he stinks. I know it's an unpopular opinion. I respect your opinion regardless of how wrong you may be ! Edited February 26, 2016 by 3rdand12
Doc Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 i think he meant that they might need to tag him or TT next year so want to extend one or the other between now and then. Oh, OK. Got it. Thanks.
BmarvB Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 Most likely a reasonable deal that protects them. That would make sense.
eball Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 Oh, believe me, I've had my homer moments. Specifically about EJ (just ask Metz). Since week 1, I've been very pessimistic about TT. At one point, I started to think, "well, maybe ..." But then the TEN game came along. I just think he stinks. I know it's an unpopular opinion. TT is far from a proven commodity at this point, but I have to admit I'm perplexed by the level of disdain you have for his play last year (and potential).
Maury Ballstein Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 As long as the contract requires him to throw the ball before 10 Mississippi I guess it might be okay.
Gugny Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 TT is far from a proven commodity at this point, but I have to admit I'm perplexed by the level of disdain you have for his play last year (and potential). The type of football he plays has been proven to be unsustainable and unsuccessful for years. And I'm also pretty sure the last 16 years have a lot to do with my outlook.
metzelaars_lives Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) 1. Why do you keep comparing him to Manuel? That comparison is irrelevant. Fluffy = when they don't count for schit. When the Bills NEEDED to move the ball, he failed. Almost all the time. 2. (W-L) is not a QB statistic. It's a team statistic. 3. Barry Sanders was exciting, too. I actually think he regressed all year. And I think Roman is reluctant to loosen up because he knows TT isn't good enough. Once defenses take the sidelines away (the only place he is even halfway decent) he won't be able to run. And speaking of that, he's too fragile to run as much as he's going to have to. All of this, of course, is simply my opinion and I would love nothing more than to be wrong. I gotta go but 1. Not true. The "garbage time stats" argument is thrown around by the anti-Tyrod legion on here all the time but it's simply not true. First of all, every QB puts up some garbage time numbers (the anti-Taylor contingent's golden boy, Blake Bortles, being an exaggerated example). Taylor actually put up less garbage time numbers than just about any QB in the league last year. In fact, the only game in which they were out of it and he threw any TD's at all was the Washington game in which he threw 2 meaningless second half TD's. Every other TD he threw was in a game in which the outcome was undecided or they were winning (do you not count Tom Brady's TD's when he's winning?) 2. I agree and preach this all the time but I wrote that in response to YOU citing his record. Which again, was 8-6. 3. Yes Barry Sanders had many exciting runs. Not sure where you were going with that one. Oh, believe me, I've had my homer moments. Specifically about EJ (just ask Metz). Since week 1, I've been very pessimistic about TT. At one point, I started to think, "well, maybe ..." But then the TEN game came along. I just think he stinks. I know it's an unpopular opinion. The Tennessee game was like his fifth game as a pro and THEY WON. And he played pretty heroically in the second half on a sprained knee. Through 14 games as a pro (which is more than 5) EJ Manuel completely sucked and you were still exuberantly optimistic about him. How is anyone supposed to believe that you are objective about these two QB's? Edited February 26, 2016 by metzelaars_lives
Gugny Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 (edited) I gotta go but 1. Not true. The "garbage time stats" argument is thrown around by the anti-Tyrod legion on here all the time but it's simply not true. First of all, every QB puts up some garbage time numbers (the anti-Taylor contingent's golden boy, Blake Bortles, being an exaggerated example). Taylor actually put up less garbage time numbers than just about any QB in the league last year. In fact, the only game in which they were out of it and he threw any TD's at all was the Washington game in which he threw 2 meaningless second half TD's. Every other TD he threw was in a game in which the outcome was undecided or they were winning (do you not count Tom Brady's TD's when he's winning?) 2. I agree and preach this all the time but I wrote that in response to YOU citing his record. Which again, was 8-6. 3. Yes Barry Sanders had many exciting runs. Not sure where you were going with that one. The Tennessee game was like his fifth game as a pro and THEY WON. And he played pretty heroically in the second half on a sprained knee. Through 14 games as a pro (which is more than 5) EJ Manuel completely sucked and you were still exuberantly optimistic about him. How is anyone supposed to believe that you are objective about these two QB's? I didn't say garbage time. I said he puts up nice stats that don't result in points when they're needed. Kind of like if a baseball player hits 40 HR, but they're all solo shots. Pretty, but not as effective as they would be if he did it when guys were on base. He doesn't have a record. The Bills do. Barry Sanders was very exciting and put up gorgeous statistics, but it never helped the Lions win. They won the TEN game after he played HORRIBLY for 56 minutes, then pulled one out of his ass against the worst team in football. Awesome. EDIT - again this goes back to EJ. Why? Edited February 26, 2016 by Gugny
John from Riverside Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 The type of football he plays has been proven to be unsustainable and unsuccessful for years. And I'm also pretty sure the last 16 years have a lot to do with my outlook. Except when Russell Wilson did it
Gugny Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 Except when Russell Wilson did it That is not a good comparison by any stretch.
Saxum Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 Wow! um.. Dareus, Kyle, Karlos & Aaron Williams, Darby, Gilmore, Wood, C. Glenn, McKelvin, Sanborn, Schmidt, Watkins say hello. Please do not confuse him with facts when he is on one his neurotic rages.
3rdand12 Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 Please do not confuse him with facts when he is on one his neurotic rages. you could be referring to many of us here
C.Biscuit97 Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 1. What are "fluffy statistics?" Can any of you envision a world where EJ Manuel put up the numbers Taylor did last year and Gugny expressed skepticism by calling them "fluffy?" Please elaborate. 2. He was 8-6. Not bad with a horrendous defense. With the 2014 defense they waltz into the playoffs. 3. Yes the runs were incredibly exciting. Did you not think so? 1 - not sure what EJ has to do with Taylor's long term deal but I'll answer. If Taylor was EJ's size, I would definitely feel better about him. I don't like smaller Qbs. 95% of the time, they don't substain. 2 - I hated our defense but it was far from horrendous. It was the main reason we won the Tennessee and Dallas games. Our offense was brutal in both of those games. There is no need to rush into a deal. He needs another year to prove it. Our offense was built around him not throwing a lot which doesn't thrill me if I'm giving a qb $15 million/ year. I know you hate him, but at this point, Taylor is closer to Manuel (minus the turnovers which is huge) than he is Rodgers. He will get paid if he produces with more on his plate. He was a game manager who was capable of big plays.
Saxum Posted February 26, 2016 Posted February 26, 2016 1. What are "fluffy statistics?" Can any of you envision a world where EJ Manuel put up the numbers Taylor did last year and Gugny expressed skepticism by calling them "fluffy?" Please elaborate. Fluffy statistics are whatever statistics that do not back up Gungy's point of view. you could be referring to many of us here Yes I think many posters have a allergy to facts. Perhaps I am not fannish enough for I try to look at both sides of every debate and am willing to change my point of view when there are facts do not fit. An example is E=mc2 except when in very, high gravity fields; there were some scientists for years who would refuse to look at any evidence to contrary and had a physics professor who would put questions on that formula and mark off anyone who provides any answer in which it was not an absolute.
Recommended Posts