Thurman#1 Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 EXACTLY...its mind boggling around here. But that is way too much logic on TSW to make sense to the anti TT crowd. We're all aware the $27.5 mill is not 2017 cap. But it will all hit the cap, every cent of it, plus the extra $3 million of his salary guaranteed in 2018. Every penny that becomes guaranteed also is guaranteed to hit the cap. And it's a pretty good majority - and a sensible majority - who feels Tyrod is likely to not last more than a year or two here, and that a year of Tyrod isn't worth the $30 mill it would cost us on the 2017 ad 2018 cap. Nor is two years of Tyrod worth the $40+ mill it would cost us on the 2017, 2018 and 2019 cap. It's only when his service theoretically reached 4 or 5 years that the average money given him becomes reasonable. And I don't think there's more than maybe a 5% chance he lasts that long. Essentially, he's a bridge QB with a contract that pays him at franchise QB rates if he only stays a year or two. And that's why Rappaport is reporting that with Dennison here, the chances that Tyrod could stay have increased ... If he re-negotiates. I personally would like to have Tyrod here as a bridge QB if they can re-negotiate him down to money that's bridge QB money.
aristocrat Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 What's mind boggling is how you guys watched the Pats/Ravens/Cincy/Oakland/Pitt games and still want this guy around. He's the Jeff Fisher of qb's. its amazing you don't understand the importance of a great defense to a team
Maury Ballstein Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) its amazing you don't understand the importance of a great defense to a team Yes we should get a great defense and get Dilfer a helmet. Edited January 21, 2017 by Ryan L Billz
JohnC Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 EXACTLY...its mind boggling around here. But that is way too much logic on TSW to make sense to the anti TT crowd. It's apparent to me that the issue for the organization is more than how good TT is. What's more important is the context in which factors beyond his talent level are factored in to decide whether to keep him or not. If the organization has come to the decision that they want to be involved in an authentic rebuild and that their goal is not to just qualify for a wild-card spot then letting him go makes a lot of sense. On the other hand if the front office is under pressure to, at the minimum, get into the playoffs for the sake of breaking that embarrassing and ignominious streak then the organization will keep TT, even under his current contract or with an adjustment. Let's not forget that the Pegulas are not thinking small as owners. They demonstrated with their hockey team that they aren't afraid of tearing it down in order to more properly build it back up. If it is accepted that the owners want to own a more serious and relevant team and it is concluded that TT is not the caliber of qb capable of leading such a challenging endeavor then letting him go is a reasonable approach to take from a talent and cap standpoint. Debating how good TT is in itself a reflection that the consensus is that he isn't good enough to get you where you want to go if it is more than being average. Cold calculations are part of the business. Some people find that harsh reality too daunting to be comfortable with. My recommendation to you is don't be so dismissive of people who are arguing for him to be let go. There are good arguments to be made for both sides of this vexing issue. And I will say with confidence that if the organization has decided to go for the gold rather than be satisfied with the bronze then in that context keeping TT makes little sense.
reddogblitz Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 I want keep Hotrod so he and Sean and all the guys can break the streak and lift a Lombardi in the not too distant future.
MPT Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 How can a team lead the league in rushing and still rank 25th in TOP? A crap QB, that's how. That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The only way to lead the league in rushing and rank 25th in TOP is with a defense that can't get off the field. Opposing running backs literally set records against our defense this year. Even the league's best run game couldn't match the historic ineptitude of our defense. This fact is completely independent of QB play. Also, Tyrod had one of the lowest turnover totals in the league. Please explain how a QB who protects the ball and contributes to the league's most effective run game is responsible for the TOP deficit. That is a paradox.
Thurman#1 Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. The only way to lead the league in rushing and rank 25th in TOP is with a defense that can't get off the field. Opposing running backs literally set records against our defense this year. Even the league's best run game couldn't match the historic ineptitude of our defense. This fact is completely independent of QB play. Also, Tyrod had one of the lowest turnover totals in the league. Please explain how a QB who protects the ball and contributes to the league's most effective run game is responsible for the TOP deficit. That is a paradox. First, our offense was 18th in time of possession per drive. They weren't exactly strangling teams to death with a lack of time. So this logic doesn't hold up, maybe because we couldn't hold the ball all that well (16th in plays per drive). TOP is also related a ton to being behind so that other teams just run and run to burn time. As for "historic ineptitude," 19th. I know you folks love Tyrod, but wildly exaggerating how bad the defense is doesn't particularly help your case. They were bad, not awful. Not historically bad. Not even close to it. Edited January 21, 2017 by Thurman#1
Kirby Jackson Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 First, our offense was 18th in time of possession per drive. They weren't exactly strangling teams to death with a lack of time. So this logic doesn't hold up, maybe because we couldn't hold the ball all that well (16th in plays per drive). TOP is also related a ton to being behind so that other teams just run and run to burn time. As for "historic ineptitude," 19th. I know you folks love Tyrod, but wildly exaggerating how bad the defense is doesn't particularly help your case. They were bad, not awful. Not historically bad. Not even close to it. They were historically bad down the stretch allowing 17 TDs on 18 RZ possessions!!! That's almost impossible and if it's been done before it isn't often. In terms of the TOP, getting run all over plays the biggest role (29th against the run). On offense they had too many 3 and outs (but converted 3rd down at a higher percentage than our opponents) and at the same time scored a lot. They never turned the ball over so that doesn't account for much. They were 46 seconds away from being 19th and less than 2 minutes from being top 5. Again, I'm not concerned about TOP when we were 7th in scoring through week 16. You win by scoring points not winning the time of possession battle.
Thurman#1 Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 They were historically bad down the stretch allowing 17 TDs on 18 RZ possessions!!! That's almost impossible and if it's been done before it isn't often. In terms of the TOP, getting run all over plays the biggest role (29th against the run). On offense they had too many 3 and outs (but converted 3rd down at a higher percentage than our opponents) and at the same time scored a lot. They never turned the ball over so that doesn't account for much. They were 46 seconds away from being 19th and less than 2 minutes from being top 5. Again, I'm not concerned about TOP when we were 7th in scoring through week 16. You win by scoring points not winning the time of possession battle. Agreed that TOP means very little, generally. The K-Gun offense used to lose the TOP battle by huge amounts, while running up a lot of points by just running plays at a quick pace. And yes, you win by scoring points. And preventing the other guy from doing so. But again, scoring points is a team stat. The defense and STs have huge influence on points scored, much more so than they do in yards run up by the offense.
PolishDave Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 Agreed that TOP means very little, generally. The K-Gun offense used to lose the TOP battle by huge amounts, while running up a lot of points by just running plays at a quick pace. And yes, you win by scoring points. And preventing the other guy from doing so. But again, scoring points is a team stat. The defense and STs have huge influence on points scored, much more so than they do in yards run up by the offense. Makes you wonder how many more points the Bills offense would have scored this year if the defense and special teams had been a little better.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Agreed that TOP means very little, generally. The K-Gun offense used to lose the TOP battle by huge amounts, while running up a lot of points by just running plays at a quick pace. And yes, you win by scoring points. And preventing the other guy from doing so. But again, scoring points is a team stat. The defense and STs have huge influence on points scored, much more so than they do in yards run up by the offense. Thats true, but they didn't score much or turn the ball over as often as in years past. They were tied for 18th in INT and tied for 24th in fumble recoveries. They were tied for 23rd in takeaways which is the best thing a defense does to help scoring. I was trying to look for average starting field position stats as well but couldn't find them. Intuitively our poor kicking game and lack of turnovers would tell me that the Bills probably ranked pretty poorly in average starting field position (although Tate is pretty good). That's the other area where the defense really aids scoring. If the defense isn't turning it over or getting the ball in good field position they are hurting scoring more than they are helping it. Other team's defenses are contributing much more in those two areas. Edited January 21, 2017 by Kirby Jackson
Wayne Arnold Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 But again, scoring points is a team stat. The defense and STs have huge influence on points scored, much more so than they do in yards run up by the offense. This would only apply to the 2016 Bills if the defense and special teams were above average. Which we know they were not.
Maury Ballstein Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 Makes you wonder how many more points the Bills offense would have scored this year if the defense and special teams had been a little better. A lot less without garbagetime.
FireChan Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 Moving on is one thing but they aren't similar. Your point is well taken though. If they aren't good enough to win a title what's the best course of action? I believe the ONLY other option is to tank 2017 and build assets for 2018. That's where the QB talent is and you need the assets to get one. That's true but it's something Whaley will not do due to the warmth of his seat.
Dr. Who Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 Does wanting a better qb than Taylor = not wanting a good defense? I don't see a logical correlation. Since I don't think Taylor is a franchise qb and I think having such is what makes a team consistently dangerous, I think taking multiple shots at getting such is a priority. Of course, if it is legitimately determined a particular draft lacks viable candidates, you go elsewhere. The last draft had a DE (in the new system) and a LB (that may not fit, but I think he will adapt) at the top of the draft. Thinking it might be a good idea to spend a high pick on the offense is not a dismissal of the importance of defense.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 That's true but it's something Whaley will not do due to the warmth of his seat.Then he has to keep Tyrod. That's why the reports are so weird. It is HIGHLY unlikely that you will improve QB play in 2017. You may get better long-term if you get the right guy. If his seats is as hot as it appears I can't imagine he's looking to rebuild despite what's been hinted. It makes no sense. Does wanting a better qb than Taylor = not wanting a good defense? I don't see a logical correlation. I think that the argument is that the offense was good enough this year to at least play until the divisional round. We always use Alex Smith as the comparison. They are almost identical since he got to KC (I posted the comparison in another thread). Is that good enough? It's a tough question and one that multiple teams are struggling with. Is pretty good, good enough?
Dr. Who Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 I think that the argument is that the offense was good enough this year to at least play until the divisional round. We always use Alex Smith as the comparison. They are almost identical since he got to KC (I posted the comparison in another thread). Is that good enough? It's a tough question and one that multiple teams are struggling with. Is pretty good, good enough? Okay, I see it. I think we top out at wild card material with Taylor.
Kirby Jackson Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Okay, I see it. I think we top out at wild card material with Taylor.Yeah, it's tricky and it's a question that faces Miami, Cincinnati, Minnesota, KC, Baltimore, the Bills and maybe a few others. What do you do when you have decent QB play? Baltimore is the only team in that bunch that has done any damage in the playoffs. It's that game manager tier from Gunner's list. It's an odd tier for sure, it's guys that we think that we know who they are, that are definite starters, but not franchise guys. Do you hope that things come together at the right time like they did for Baltimore or do you keep swinging knowing you are more likely than not going to get someone worse? It's tricky. So far teams have taken the conservative route and locked those guys up. Is that the wise decision? I have no idea? Edited January 21, 2017 by Kirby Jackson
Dr. Who Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 (edited) Yeah, it's tricky and it's a question that faces Miami, Cincinnati, Minnesota, KC, Baltimore, the Bills and maybe a few others. What do you do when you have decent QB play? Baltimore is the only team in that bunch that has done any damage in the playoffs. It's that game manager tier from Gunner's list. It's an odd tier for sure, it's guys that we think that we know who they are, that are definite starters, but not franchise guys. Do you hope that things come together at the right time like they did for Baltimore or do you keep swinging knowing you are more likely than not going to get someone worse? It's tricky. So far teams have taken the conservative route and locked those guys up. Is that the wise decision? I have no idea? It is tricky and different psychologies react differently. Some folks are so starved for the Bills to make the playoffs, they think it's crazy to discard a reasonable player. Myself, the longer the drought, the more I am willing to take a shot at someone who can be upper echelon. The suffering just isn't worth it to be pretty good at best, imo. Edited January 21, 2017 by Dr. Who
PolishDave Posted January 21, 2017 Posted January 21, 2017 Then he has to keep Tyrod. That's why the reports are so weird. It is HIGHLY unlikely that you will improve QB play in 2017. You may get better long-term if you get the right guy. If his seats is as hot as it appears I can't imagine he's looking to rebuild despite what's been hinted. It makes no sense. I think that the argument is that the offense was good enough this year to at least play until the divisional round. We always use Alex Smith as the comparison. They are almost identical since he got to KC (I posted the comparison in another thread). Is that good enough? It's a tough question and one that multiple teams are struggling with. Is pretty good, good enough? I think Whaley's biggest risk to his job is releasing Tyrod and having Tyrod lead his next team to the playoffs while the Bills miss the playoffs again. That would probably piss off the Pegulas as Terry has admitted (if I recall correctly) to liking Tyrod as a Qb. Only way Whaley would get away with it, in my opinion, is if 1) something happened to Tyrod (season ending injury) on that other team 2) if that other team ended up sucking more with Tyrod than the Bills would likely suck without Tyrod. 3) The Bills make the playoffs next year with a different quarterback leading them I don't think any of those scenarios is very likely. Whaley's safe bet is to pick up the option for Tyrod and hope this coach can go around 500 or better with him next year even with all the other changes. That is why I expect them to lean towards picking up Tyrod's option rather than letting him walk.
Recommended Posts