Bills met this week about Taylor; it may be up to McDermott

[yungmack]

NFL Network Insider Ian Rapoport echoed Carucci's report but added that there is a "very real possibility" Taylor will be amenable to altering his salary-cap number as long as it doesn't involve a pay cut.

 

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000785278/article/real-possibility-tyrod-taylor-open-to-altered-contract

I think this is very do-able and even likely. Restructure the bonus $ over 3 or more years and in return, add more $ to the total package. That would help the Bills right now and put more money in TT's pocket

[PolishDave]

just pay Tyrod. Gain some ground in this draft toward next years 1st. Just in case.

Build around him. its really only two- 3 years Bills would have to keep him.

 

Bird in hand thing. you know.

it would be two years with a rookie anyways, before we saw anything much considering this draft class.

 

This is what I think is going to end up happening with or without a restructure of Tyrod's contract.

 

If you think about it simply for a minute:

 

Everyone agrees the most important position on the team is QB. When you have an existing QB on the team and that guy is getting paid commensurate with his playing history/ability, you hang onto that guy unless you are confident you are upgrading from him.

 

That's why I think the Bills hang onto Tyrod until they are confident they have a guy who is an overall upgrade at that position.

 

If you are honestly trying to win games (at least in the immediate future), that is really the most logical path.

 

I think the Bills McDermott, Dennison and Whaley are going to make their decision on Tyrod based on whether they are confident they are upgrading at the position or not based on all their available options. And with their limited options this year, logic tells me that Tryod is very likely going to stay here either with or without a renegotiated contract.

[GunnerBill]

When you have an existing QB on the team and that guy is getting paid commensurate with his playing history/ability, you hang onto that guy unless you are confident you are upgrading from him.

Even if I think that play and a commensurate pay is not at a level I can win a Championship with? Why?

[Maury Ballstein]

Absolutely. However, the chances of a rookie QB in year 1 or even two being better then Tyrod is slim to none.

 

30th in passing yards with frequent no shows will be such a tough task to match

 

 

http://youtube.com/watch?feature=onebox&v=mXUvHzCGrkU

[PolishDave]

Even if I think that play and a commensurate pay is not at a level I can win a Championship with? Why?

 

Because your job as a staff member of a team is to try to win as many games as possible. That is why it is logical.

 

If you ignore the fact that you want to win games, then anything is possible. You could make any number of higher risk gambles. Doing that isn't logical though; it is gambling.

 

Regardless of whether or not you think your guy is good enough to win you a championship, you still should always be looking to upgrade - which is what I expect they will try to do. It just seems illogical to try starting a less talented guy during the time frame in which you are trying to upgrade.

 

To me, it seems totally illogical to intentionally downgrade in hopes that you might upgrade in a couple years. No need to downgrade first. Why not just keep trying to upgrade without the downgrade? Get me?

 

At the price Tyrod costs to remain on the team, it seems entirely logical that they would keep him and try to upgrade the position at the same time. (assuming they intend to try upgrading through the draft) When they are confident the replacement guy is going to outplay Tyrod, then they start him.

Edited February 13, 2017 by PolishDave

[GunnerBill]

 

Because your job as a staff member of a team is to try to win as many games as possible. That is why it is logical.

 

If you ignore the fact that you want to win games, then anything is possible. You could make any number of higher risk gambles. Doing that isn't logical though; it is gambling.

 

Regardless of whether or not you think your guy is good enough to win you a championship, you still should always be looking to upgrade - which is what I expect they will try to do. It just seems illogical to try starting a less talented guy during the time frame in which you are trying to upgrade.

 

To me, it seems totally illogical to intentionally downgrade in hopes that you might upgrade in a couple years. No need to downgrade first. Why not just keep trying to upgrade without the downgrade? Get me?

 

At the price Tyrod costs to remain on the team, it seems entirely logical that they would keep him and try to upgrade the position at the same time. (assuming they intend to try upgrading through the draft) When they are confident the replacement guy is going to outplay Tyrod, then they start him.

 

Pretty much every team that drafts and starts a rookie (whether immediately or later in their rookie season) is accepting a short term downgrade for what they believe will be a long term upgrade. If you haven't got a guy you can win a Championship with then that is a gamble you should be taking.... certainly more often than 3 times in the first three rounds over a 12 year period. Instead we stuck with Fitz cos we couldn't see an immediate upgrade and now people are advocating sticking with Taylor for the same reason.

 

I just think this "it is illogical to move on from Tyrod" narrative stands up to zero scrutiny. I can absolutely see the reasons you hang onto him... but there are very logical and reasonable reasons to move on too.

[PolishDave]

 

Pretty much every team that drafts and starts a rookie (whether immediately or later in their rookie season) is accepting a short term downgrade for what they believe will be a long term upgrade. If you haven't got a guy you can win a Championship with then that is a gamble you should be taking.... certainly more often than 3 times in the first three rounds over a 12 year period. Instead we stuck with Fitz cos we couldn't see an immediate upgrade and now people are advocating sticking with Taylor for the same reason.

 

I just think this "it is illogical to move on from Tyrod" narrative stands up to zero scrutiny. I can absolutely see the reasons you hang onto him... but there are very logical and reasonable reasons to move on too.

 

Personally, I don't think they held onto Fitz long enough. If they had held onto him, Whaley wouldn't have had to force the draft for EJ which ended up being a waste essentially. But honestly I don't want to rehash that whole discussion. I would rather look forward.

 

If the Bills coaching and management believe there is a guy in this draft that represents an immediate (or very near future) upgrade from Tyrod - and they believe they can get that guy in the draft, then I am sure they will part ways with Tyrod and take that guy.

 

I just don't think there is a QB in this draft that they think fits that situation. And I think they realize that bringing in a proven loser vet is not good for ticket sales or for building the fan base. (Romo would be an upgrade - everybody else I know of would not in my opinion.)

 

It is remotely possible that they would cut ties with Tyrod entirely, then draft the best QB available at 10 and start that guy immediately. They could claim they are trying to win and would sell seats and optimism. Then if that QB has a really bad year - do the same thing the following year but maybe wait to start the new rookie until year 2 or bring in a vet then (which would appear to be an upgrade at QB).

 

I don't think they make that gamble though. The reason I don't think so is because if that rookie fell on his face (whether it was mostly his own fault or not) and the Bills had a wretched season (like 3-13 or something), then I think fan outrage pushes for Whaley's head to hit the guillotine.

 

And Whaley knows that. Talking about winning a championship when your team can't even make the playoffs is a joke and everyone knows it. Whaley wants the playoffs badly, very, very badly. Intentionally downgrading at QB for a year or two isn't likely to get you to the playoffs.

 

However, getting to the playoffs with Tyrod while having a younger promising QB on the roster makes for a happy fan base and lots of optimism as they try to "find the final pieces" which may include a new QB.

Edited February 13, 2017 by PolishDave

[GunnerBill]

Wrong.

 

They stuck with Fitz and did NOTHING to upgrade the position while they had Fitz. They didn't draft any QBs once they had Fitz.

 

I think the pro Tyrod camp is advocating keeping Tyrod AND drafting one early again.... which is what they should've done with Fitz. And for what it's worth, I'd take Tyrod over Fitz any day of the week.

 

What did I say that was wrong? I didn't say they did upgrade on Fitz. I'm saying they took the passive "a rookie is probably worse" and so stood pat. I also made no comment on whether Tyrod is better than Fitz... he is... that is obvious. If sticking with Tyrod meant just a 1 year commitment I'd be 100% for keeping him and drafting one. It is a two year $40m commitment. I think that makes it much more finely balanced...... if he ends up as a backup in the second year (or even both years if you end up with a Russell Wilson on your hands) that is a horrible cap situation.

I don't think they make that gamble though. The reason I don't think so is because if that rookie fell on his face (whether it was mostly his own fault or not) and the Bills had a wretched season (like 3-13 or something), then I think fan outrage pushes for Whaley's head to hit the guillotine.

 

If we are making decisions based on fan outrage we are already sunk. As Marv used to say.... once you start listening to the fans you are closer to sitting with them.

[GunnerBill]

You weren't wrong.

 

 

However, if he ends up a back up in his second year then the guy who took his spot must be pretty damn good and the Bills would have solidified their QB situation at which point they should be winning more then losing.... So the cap situation with Tyrod will be moot, IMO.

 

Depends how much talent it requires you to lose. It wouldn't matter who the name was..... this has been my opinion on Tannehill's contract and on Dalton's contract. We are led to believe the Chiefs are considering moving on from Smith to Romo because they accept now that he leaves them in the same spot. I don't think you commit long term to these game manager types at larger cap $$s.

[PolishDave]

If we are making decisions based on fan outrage we are already sunk. As Marv used to say.... once you start listening to the fans you are closer to sitting with them.

 

If you think they ignore the fans then you are naive sir. It certainly isn't their primary decision factor but it certainly is a major factor nonetheless. This is especially true for people in public positions like football Gm's and coaches.

 

Even people that consider public opinion of utmost importance will publicly say "they don't pay any attention to it at all".

[GunnerBill]

If you think they ignore the fans then you are naive sir. It certainly isn't their primary decision factor but it certainly is a major factor nonetheless. This is especially true for people in public positions like football Gm's and coaches.

 

Even people that consider public opinion of utmost importance will publicly say "they don't pay any attention to it at all".

I don't think they ignore the fans. I just think they should. Set an organisational direction and course and do be blown off it by the winds of public opinion.

[BADOLBILZ]

 

Depends how much talent it requires you to lose. It wouldn't matter who the name was..... this has been my opinion on Tannehill's contract and on Dalton's contract. We are led to believe the Chiefs are considering moving on from Smith to Romo because they accept now that he leaves them in the same spot. I don't think you commit long term to these game manager types at larger cap $$s.

 

1) The Bills need to get to the point where they don't need that last 10% of the cap to field a winning team.......and by 2018 that's about what $20M will be.....10% of the cap.

 

2) The Bills aren't in the same conversation with the Chiefs........they've been to the playoffs 4 straight years......a game manager that would get the Bills to the playoffs a couple times would be a great start at this point.

[PolishDave]

I don't think they ignore the fans. I just think they should. Set an organisational direction and course and do be blown off it by the winds of public opinion.

 

Everybody thinks that and wishes it. It just ins't reality.

 

Unless Whaley is some chivalrous knight willing to die by being publicly stoned to death, he won't make a really high risk move that could lay the blame squarely at his feet if it failed.

[Kirby Jackson]

 

Depends how much talent it requires you to lose. It wouldn't matter who the name was..... this has been my opinion on Tannehill's contract and on Dalton's contract. We are led to believe the Chiefs are considering moving on from Smith to Romo because they accept now that he leaves them in the same spot. I don't think you commit long term to these game manager types at larger cap $$s.

I think that this is the most interesting debate of the offseason. Those 4 guys (I would throw Bradford in and Flacco too despite his Super Bowl win) are the most interesting group. In the past they have been compensated at the level near the franchise guys. Teams have been more comfortable paying a guy that can get you as winning record but probably can't win you a Super Bowl. Flacco, again, is the exception. They have believed, to this point, that it is better to get competent QB play than the unlikely scenario of finding an upgrade.

 

The pendulum seems to be swinging the other way at the moment. Taylor and Alex Smith are the best examples. I would not at all be surprised if Tannehill and Dalton are next. The teams seem to be more willing to look now than they were 3 years ago. I suspect, what is going to happen is that a tier will develop for those guys. I think that TT may be the 1st guy there (although Bradford kind of is already). It will be something like 3 years $45M with $30M guaranteed. It will be a smaller AAV, smaller guaranteed and shorter term deals than what those guys currently have. They can get away without the dead cap space on the back end if they decide to move on. That, imo, will become the new norm for those type of guys. The teams will jump in bed with those guys but not commit long-term.

[PolishDave]

However, if he ends up a back up in his second year then the guy who took his spot must be pretty damn good and the Bills would have solidified their QB situation at which point they should be winning more then losing.... So the cap situation with Tyrod will be moot, IMO.

 

You bring up a good point.

 

Suppose they did pick up the option on Tyrod as-is right now. They draft a guy this year or next year or both.

 

One of those guys ends up replacing Tyrod as the starter in 2 years because that guy has shown that he is an upgrade over Tyrod. Bills are stuck with an expensive backup and maybe have to eat some cap at some point in the last 2 or 3 years of that contract.

 

Wouldn't you agree that it would be a fair trade to eat that much cap as a cost of doing business when you just landed yourself an above average starting NFL quarterback. Because if the guy is substantially better than Tyrod, then that guy is going to be very close to if not actually be a top 10 quarterback. The Bills should be in the playoffs regularly if they got such a guy. I would think that eating cap at that point would be totally worth it.

 

And if their prospect quarterbacks don't turn out to be that good, well then we are stuck with an average starting quarterback who is making below average money as we continue looking for an upgrade. I can think of a lot worse situations to be stuck in.

[GunnerBill]

I think that this is the most interesting debate of the offseason. Those 4 guys (I would throw Bradford in and Flacco too despite his Super Bowl win) are the most interesting group. In the past they have been compensated at the level near the franchise guys. Teams have been more comfortable paying a guy that can get you as winning record but probably can't win you a Super Bowl. Flacco, again, is the exception. They have believed, to this point, that it is better to get competent QB play than the unlikely scenario of finding an upgrade.

 

The pendulum seems to be swinging the other way at the moment. Taylor and Alex Smith are the best examples. I would not at all be surprised if Tannehill and Dalton are next. The teams seem to be more willing to look now than they were 3 years ago. I suspect, what is going to happen is that a tier will develop for those guys. I think that TT may be the 1st guy there (although Bradford kind of is already). It will be something like 3 years $45M with $30M guaranteed. It will be a smaller AAV, smaller guaranteed and shorter term deals than what those guys currently have. They can get away without the dead cap space on the back end if they decide to move on. That, imo, will become the new norm for those type of guys. The teams will jump in bed with those guys but not commit long-term.

 

I have Flacco higher than you, but yea throw Bradford in. I think the pendulum has swung and I think part of it is teams realising that the new rookie pay structure means that if your rookie contract QB plays even at a game manager level you have a window. Because you get what a Tyrod or a Smith or a Tannehill gives you but you get circa $20m of cap space too and so they think (and I agree) they only need to be paying for a level of play that is already Championship calibre.

[Lothar]

Also, if you think you've found your potential franchise guy in 2018 or 2019, TT's contract wouldn't be hard to trade in 3 years. And at ~16 mi! per at that point, he would have been a reasonable bridge starter while we upgraded the defense. The shame would be not making any playoffs while we have Shady and a decent OL for running the ball.

[Saxum]

 

do the right thing McD, move on

 

Listen to Barbarian on QBs he knows what he is talking about.,

Trade a 1st to Miami for Mario Williams and trade him to whomever owns rights to John Skelton and problem is solved.

What problems tanking for first pick of course!

[3rdand12]

Also, if you think you've found your potential franchise guy in 2018 or 2019, TT's contract wouldn't be hard to trade in 3 years. And at ~16 mi! per at that point, he would have been a reasonable bridge starter while we upgraded the defense. The shame would be not making any playoffs while we have Shady and a decent OL for running the ball.

This could have happened actually if the Defense was as promised. I hope Whaley has learned from the Rex experience as I did.

Take money out of the equation, and it really is not that hard to do for TTs potential contract upcoming, and he is the most likely to get the Bills to the playoff until Bills draft another.

No one lets go of a FA QB because no one has two. Eagles tried. Redskins tried too didn't they ??

Bill are going to have to draft one. After force feeding us EJM i sure hope it likely aint happenin' in 2017 draft even if the go after one at ten.

 

Logical is a fine choice of words. Tanking away the talent the Bills do have, is not

[Saxum]

 

we can win with tyrods passing and running production. the year seattle won the sb they were 31st in passing attempts and 26th in yards. The talk back then was whether or not he was hurting the seahawks. They were winning games like 14-12 cause their defense was unreal. now that he has the big cap hit they are throwing a lot more. now tyrod hasn't been asked to throw more. can he keep or better his completion percentage?

 

He was asked to throw more when running game was not effective and in most games he could not do it but was that due to lack of practice due to concentration on running game, poor pass schemes, WRs (definitely a downgrade from 2015) or TT's ability? This is what they NEW coaches need to determine using interviews (when allowable from NFLPA), game film. etc. Hopefully the new coaching staff asked the old coaching staff any questions they have before they dumped them.

 

I do not think it is a cut and dry situation like many on both sides of issue on board try to make it.