Malazan Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 His cap hits are 16M & 17M, not 20 Could you stop with this facts BS? We're here for a crusade...not accuracy.
BrooklynBills Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 Seems to make my point Lynn hasn't been and wasn't involved in the conversations. I understand the business side but Pegs should have had that convo with his HC upfront, man to man/face to face, not say I am sorry after the fact. If all of this is true and I am Lynn, trust just left the building and so have I. Lynn's small body of work speaks for itself, he took the groceries in the cupboard and produced a quality meal. i dont think you are getting. At the time, the decision to sit Tyrod was completely over Lynn's head. The Bills (ownership and FO) have seemingly already made the decision to move from Taylor. It's non-negotiable, despite what anyone is saying. So they are absolutely not going to let the INTERIM head coach make a decision that could potentially affect the franchise for years down the road because said INTERIM head coach thinks its the right thing to do in order to win a meaningless season finale. 2 starting QBs went down with serious, long term leg injuries just the previous week. If Anthony Lynn does not understand that "business decision," then he is either too ignorant or not intelligent enough to be a HC. So if he reacts in a negative way towards the decision to sit Taylor after taking into account the context of the situation, it should be their decision very easy.
#34fan Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 So you think we're going to pay our backup 20 mill a year? Either he stays, gets paid and starts 1-2 years or he cuts cut. We aren't going to pay him 20 mill a year to be the backup. He isn't going to renegotiate for much less than 17 a year if at all Well, if they can't work anything out, it's goodbye... Again, I hope that doesn't happen... Watching Cook, and McGloin last night drove home the need for a capable backup... If OAK had Tyrod on the bench, that game would have been much, much, better.
bmur66 Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 My question is how do you give a contract to a player that makes it a smart business decision to not play your starting QB and essentially forfeit any realistic chance of winning?
CodeMonkey Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 The decision being taken out of his hands gave Lynn an insight as to how life as the Bills HC would be. My guess is that the subject came up during the interview, Lynn expressed his displeasure at how it went down, the Pegulas realize if Lynn doesn't accept the job in Buffalo they will be hard pressed to find anyone with any ability to take the job. So they "express remorse" hoping to convince Lynn and the other candidates they really aren't meddling owners.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 The decision being taken out of his hands gave Lynn an insight as to how life as the Bills HC would be. My guess is that the subject came up during the interview, Lynn expressed his displeasure at how it went down, the Pegulas realize if Lynn doesn't accept the job in Buffalo they will be hard pressed to find anyone with any ability to take the job. So they "express remorse" hoping to convince Lynn and the other candidates they really aren't meddling owners. That's exactly how I see it and have been saying.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 Not sure saying "Hey, sorry we had to sandbag you in your only game as interim HC, but it was the best choice for the business", is what I would count as "remorse". (Which is how I imagine it went down, and my guess is just as good as Rapaport's, plus Im not trying to create scandal for clicks)
Dopey Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 My question is how do you give a contract to a player that makes it a smart business decision to not play your starting QB and essentially forfeit any realistic chance of winning?It's easy to ask that question after the season. If we're on the playoffs hunt on game 17, TT starts. But...Smart move to sit him and not take a chance of injury. Depending on the injury, wouldn't we be on the hook for the whole contract? Sorry if I'm wrong. If correct, this was the smart move. Pegs can still feel for the coach not making the decision, but Lynn wouldn't be responsible for the cash, pegs would be. Again, smart decision and nothing wrong with how they felt.
26CornerBlitz Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 The decision being taken out of his hands gave Lynn an insight as to how life as the Bills HC would be. My guess is that the subject came up during the interview, Lynn expressed his displeasure at how it went down, the Pegulas realize if Lynn doesn't accept the job in Buffalo they will be hard pressed to find anyone with any ability to take the job. So they "express remorse" hoping to convince Lynn and the other candidates they really aren't meddling owners. No way an interim HC should be allowed to make such an important call. If he can't understand that then too bad.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 The decision being taken out of his hands gave Lynn an insight as to how life as the Bills HC would be. My guess is that the subject came up during the interview, Lynn expressed his displeasure at how it went down, the Pegulas realize if Lynn doesn't accept the job in Buffalo they will be hard pressed to find anyone with any ability to take the job. So they "express remorse" hoping to convince Lynn and the other candidates they really aren't meddling owners. This too. My question is how do you give a contract to a player that makes it a smart business decision to not play your starting QB and essentially forfeit any realistic chance of winning? Business decisions only take precedence once Football is out of the way, and the Bills were officially eliminated from the playoffs. Had the Bills still had a mathematical chance, TT would have played. TT was on a trial, play to get paid, contract. And rightfully so. No way an interim HC should be allowed to make such an important call. If he can't understand that then too bad. Agreed. ALynn has been around the league enough to understand this.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 No way an interim HC should be allowed to make such an important call. If he can't understand that then too bad. I agree. But I also strongly believe the remorse issue was just to allay any fears that it would be a regular occurrence and they are meddlers.
26CornerBlitz Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 I agree. But I also strongly believe the remorse issue was just to allay any fears that it would be a regular occurrence and they are meddlers. Yeah. I can see that being the case.
BADOLBILZ Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 That's exactly how I see it and have been saying. Yes I agree they are tactically "remorseful" but I'm sure they still think it was the right thing to do.
Kelly the Dog Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 Yes I agree they are tactically "remorseful" but I'm sure they still think it was the right thing to do. Absolutely. And it was the right thing to do.
DrDawkinstein Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 Yes I agree they are tactically "remorseful" but I'm sure they still think it was the right thing to do. Exactly. "Sorry for having to do that to you. (But we'd do it again if we had to)"
John from Riverside Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 In the end was it really a "bad" decision? - No chance of playoffs - chance to evaluate other qbs - FIVE spots of draft position
Fan in Chicago Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 In the end was it really a "bad" decision? - No chance of playoffs - chance to evaluate other qbs - FIVE spots of draft position Wow. Didnt realize the impact was that significant. Re-inforces that decision.
Dan Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 I think how it was handled internally is the issue. Made some people look foolish, and perhaps Whaley could have smoothed it better with TT ? It almost certainly good have been handled better. In fact, pretty much everything they've said since Rex's firing could have been communicated better.
bmur66 Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 (edited) Any business decision that takes away from winning reeks of losing and incompetence. How can anyone expect players to give their all when management is not? The fact that this seems acceptable to posters here says a lot about the level of incompetence we are used too. Tyrods contract which most seem to think was brilliant on the Bills part was stupid and amateur. Just like Dareus getting paid millions to play Xbox while suspended. Edited January 8, 2017 by bmur66
26CornerBlitz Posted January 8, 2017 Posted January 8, 2017 Any business decision that takes away from winning reeks of losing and incompetence. How can anyone expect players to give their all when management is not? The fact that this seems acceptable to posters here says a lot about the level of incompetence we are used too. Tyrods contract injury clause which most seem to think was brilliant on the Bills part was stupid and amateur. Just like Dareus getting paid millions to play Xbox while suspended. Give me a break. That week 17 game meant nothing in the long term. An injury clause isn't a big deal in an NFL contract especially when you consider the Bills included offset language. You are off base.
Recommended Posts