Coach Tuesday Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 pretty obvious he's of the opinion that TT isn't good enough to get the team to the playoffs and have sustained success. I think he sees him as a high quality backup or fringe starter.What we don't know is whether there is another QB that he is targeting to bring in who he thinks can take over with at least same or better results. Could be trade, FA, draft. Or Cardale. THEN WHY DID HE PAY HIM STARTER MONEY MID-SEASON
TheFunPolice Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 Exactly. You normally don't have such a clear example of how an NFL owner operates. Pegula owns the other team in town, and the same guy serves as president of both teams. I think it's fair to look at the history with the Sabres, even though the NHL is not the NFL. It's still the same owners, in the same city, and its still pro sports. One Buffalo, afterall.
Fadingpain Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 Orchard Park and South Towns soon to be transformed into Mordor.
Coach Tuesday Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 Exactly. You normally don't have such a clear example of how an NFL owner operates. Pegula owns the other team in town, and the same guy serves as president of both teams. I think it's fair to look at the history with the Sabres, even though the NHL is not the NFL. It's still the same owners, in the same city, and its still pro sports. One Buffalo, afterall. What?
PromoTheRobot Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 But there was no reason to extend him the way they did, when they did, unless they were already comfortable with him as a starter going forward. There was a reason, to hedge against losing TT to free agency. He could have walked under the old deal. And wouldn't you walk away from a team that paid a starting QB under $3MM?
YoloinOhio Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 But there was no reason to extend him the way they did, when they did, unless they were already comfortable with him as a starter going forward. the contract was done so they would have the option to keep him at a reasonable salary for a starting QB if he showed progress this year. If they hadn't extended him, and he tore it up this year, he would be going into FA right now and commanding a lot more money. They protected themselves from that and have an out if they don't think he's worth it. The contract made a ton of sense.
Maury Ballstein Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 Don't even worry your pretty little head about the contract. It does not matter one bit. If the Bills don't pick him up, Taylor becomes the belle of the free agency ball. He'll make 3X more money there. Yes !!! How many Super Bowls though ? 5 or 10 ?
Dr. Who Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 Let's assume for argument sake that Whaley has a very dim view of TT. If that is the case then his willingness to dispatch TT makes a lot of sense. The biggest issue Whaley probably has with the fleet footed qb is that he doesn't see the whole field. When Whaley watches the tape he sees receivers get open but the qb doesn't properly respond. Whaley repeatedly sees plays develop and the qb's timing to react to the play is just too late to make the connection. This is what the GM sees time and time again. If that is the GM's assessment then in his mind wouldn't it be better to bring in a qb such as McCarron or Glennon who can run a pro offense at a cheaper price? You often cite statistics to strengthen your case. That is a tribute to you. But statistics don't often apply to plays that are not made that could be made. Whaley invested a lot of resources in both Watkins and Clay. You don't think that the GM gets highly aggravated when he sees these receivers get open and the ball isn't thrown to the spot where it should be thrown? I have strong suspicions that Whaley doesn't see the cost $$$$ benefit with TT. He has probably made a judgment that unless this running qb adjusts his contract downward then he is not worth the cost. You may think his approach is injudicious and a tad reckless but I don't. I agree with this analysis. At minimum, it makes a plausible case for why a GM might not want Taylor.
dave mcbride Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 THEN WHY DID HE PAY HIM STARTER MONEY MID-SEASON IIRC, the extension occurred a bit before the season started.
TheFunPolice Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 Fans focus on the here and now. Whaley is a temporary guy kept around to take the PR hits while the team bottoms out. SF is a good example of how this looks, with the difference being that Jed York is a little punk.
YoloinOhio Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 (edited) THEN WHY DID HE PAY HIM STARTER MONEY MID-SEASON it was before the season. A 9 mill salary in 2016 isn't exactly a lot for a starting QB. Edited January 6, 2017 by YoloinOhio
TheFunPolice Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 What? Pegula did the same thing to Darcy that he is doing to Whaley IMO.
Fadingpain Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 pretty obvious he's of the opinion that TT isn't good enough to get the team to the playoffs and have sustained success. I think he sees him as a high quality backup or fringe starter.What we don't know is whether there is another QB that he is targeting to bring in who he thinks can take over with at least same or better results. Could be trade, FA, draft. Or Cardale. That's exactly who Tyrod is. I've said since before this season started. Presumably they have some trick up their sleeve. If they start Cardale, we'll know the tank is on.
Coach Tuesday Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 it was before the season. It was $10M/year too much. They could've given him a raise without putting themselves in this all-or-nothing bind.
JohnC Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 My view? Whaley was involved with the drafting of Roethlisberger in 2004, and to him that's what an ideal QB represents. Hence the drafting of tall, big, and big-armed QBs by him (the only kind he's ever drafted--the 6'4 1/2", 250 lb Manuel and the 6'5" 250 lb Jones). He's in love with a type, and it all goes back to Big Ben. That's my take, at least. Let's just say he would have backed Johnson over Flutie! Whether it is with Big Ben or smaller sized qbs the GM knows the importance of the ability to see the whole field and use the whole field an essential trait for that position. What makes Big Ben great is beyond his size (which certainly is appealing) is that when the play is extended he can react to what develops down field. Go back and review most of TT's completions. What you don't often see is he throwing rhythm passes to spots before the receiver makes his moves. Many people extol the virtue of TT not throwing many interceptions. There is a negative aspect to it because he is unwilling to trust his eyes and throw into tight coverage. In my opinion Whaley has made a judgment on what TT is capable of. He would be willing to keep him but at a lower price. I'm not criticizing the GM for being appropriately analytical in coming to a decision in this case.
dave mcbride Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 I agree with this analysis. At minimum, it makes a plausible case for why a GM might not want Taylor. I think that if you put Taylor on the Bears, they can become an 10-11 win team in relatively short order. They have some very good pieces already (don't be deceived by the poor record) and Fox can coach. Also, perhaps Fox has seen enough of the prototype qb who currently sits atop the depth chart there.
26CornerBlitz Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 Pegula did the same thing to Darcy that he is doing to Whaley IMO. This ain't Hockey.
Maury Ballstein Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 Whether it is with Big Ben or smaller sized qbs the GM knows the importance of the ability to see the whole field and use the whole field an essential trait for that position. What makes Big Ben great is beyond his size (which certainly is appealing) is that when the play is extended he can react to what develops down field. Go back and review most of TT's completions. What you don't often see is he throwing rhythm passes to spots before the receiver makes his moves. Many people extol the virtue of TT not throwing many interceptions. There is a negative aspect to it because he is unwilling to trust his eyes and throw into tight coverage. In my opinion Whaley has made a judgment on what TT is capable of. He would be willing to keep him but at a lower price. I'm not criticizing the GM for being appropriately analytical in coming to a decision in this case. Amen.
TheFunPolice Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 This ain't Hockey. OK Why does that matter?
Coach Tuesday Posted January 6, 2017 Posted January 6, 2017 I think that if you put Taylor on the Bears, they can become an 10-11 win team in relatively short order. They have some very good pieces already (don't be deceived by the poor record) and Fox can coach. Also, perhaps Fox has seen enough of the prototype qb who currently sits atop the depth chart there. The Bears' defense is one of the few defenses with less talent than Buffalo. That said, they play in an easier division, arguably.
Recommended Posts