ndirish1978 Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 After having listened to the interview all the way through I think I'd like to walk back my comments about prepping the road for getting rid of Tyrod. Murphy sounded fairly defensive throughout the interview, to the point where Cosell kind of just said "this may not be popular but I'm not the only one who believes this"
jeffismagic Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 After having listened to the interview all the way through I think I'd like to walk back my comments about prepping the road for getting rid of Tyrod. Murphy sounded fairly defensive throughout the interview, to the point where Cosell kind of just said "this may not be popular but I'm not the only one who believes this" Cosell wasn't diplomatic at all. I would have been defensive as a Bills fan! He basically said Tyrod could only succeed if 5 other variables were working in sync. I wouldn't even go that far and people know what camp I am in. Bills radio guys haven't been selling a position per se but this is shocking if they decide to keep him.
BullBuchanan Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 BullBuchanan, that's not true.. Finance figures into it. It just does. Through the years plenty of potential bridge QBs have gotten cut when it would've cost too much to keep them even if they were the best QB on the team. You only have to go back to the Bills cutting Fitz. He was the best QB on the team, but he was asking for too much money. They made the right move dumping him. He might have won a game or two more that year but he wasn't the long-term answer, he wasn't taking them to the Super Bowl and he wanted too much money. Same situation here. Of course the money matters. If it didn't this wouldn't even be a discussion. However, with guys like Gilmore and likely a few more off the books, this team has plenty of money to get the job done. If you aren't going to pay a guy you know can play at least a little, what difference does it make if you use that money to grab supporting cast when your starting QB is [insert EJ Manual clone here]. You just can't win that way. At MINIMUM you're saying we aren't going to be competitive for a Super Bowl in 2017, and what does that say to a guy like Kyle Williams or any long in the tooth FA you might want to bring in for a push? It says we're looking at another 3-5 year rebuild. I'd rather re-tool. There's no reason that you can't bring back Taylor, use literally every draft pick you have on QBs and fill out the rest of the roster with journeyman FAs.
GoBills808 Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 Of course the money matters. If it didn't this wouldn't even be a discussion. However, with guys like Gilmore and likely a few more off the books, this team has plenty of money to get the job done. If you aren't going to pay a guy you know can play at least a little, what difference does it make if you use that money to grab supporting cast when your starting QB is [insert EJ Manual clone here]. You just can't win that way. At MINIMUM you're saying we aren't going to be competitive for a Super Bowl in 2017, and what does that say to a guy like Kyle Williams or any long in the tooth FA you might want to bring in for a push? It says we're looking at another 3-5 year rebuild. I'd rather re-tool. There's no reason that you can't bring back Taylor, use literally every draft pick you have on QBs and fill out the rest of the roster with journeyman FAs. I can comfortably say I don't care even a little if Kyle Williams doesn't want to take an objective view of the team's long term interest, and he's probably my favorite Bill. And that retool you described (facetiously, but still) sounds a lot like another 7-9.
BullBuchanan Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 I can comfortably say I don't care even a little if Kyle Williams doesn't want to take an objective view of the team's long term interest, and he's probably my favorite Bill. And that retool you described (facetiously, but still) sounds a lot like another 7-9. Perhaps, but it's critically important to mention that we lost 6 games by a touchdown or less and in every single one of those games our fate ended up being decided by a single play that we didn't execute. 6 plays was the difference between 13-3 and 7-9 for us. Can this team make those 6 plays next year? I'd rather gamble on that then on drafting the first rookie QB to lead his team to a Super Bowl. This is really a situation where we can have our cake and eat it too. I think we have another out on Taylor's deal after 2 years, so I think the only way you don't make this deal is if it's political. You have to spend the money somewhere, and I'd rather we spend it on a QB we know isn't a total disaster than roll the dice on some cornerback that won't put any W's on the board..
John from Riverside Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 No! No! aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnnd....No! The names get really desparate after Tyrod dont they That is the WHOLE POINT They've already pretty much decided Gilmore is a goner. They can pick up Tyrod and still resign Brown.... they did a solid job picking up FAs tight to the cap last offseason. I think the problem is Gilmore simply is not worth his asking price It is interesting that Bucky Brooks has corner as the 10th pick (I would not do this but) - McDermott is a D guy - Gilmore gone - Darby becomes your number 1....but had a down year last year after looking fantastic in year 1
GoBills808 Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 Perhaps, but it's critically important to mention that we lost 6 games by a touchdown or less and in every single one of those games our fate ended up being decided by a single play that we didn't execute. 6 plays was the difference between 13-3 and 7-9 for us. Can this team make those 6 plays next year? I'd rather gamble on that then on drafting the first rookie QB to lead his team to a Super Bowl. This is really a situation where we can have our cake and eat it too. I think we have another out on Taylor's deal after 2 years, so I think the only way you don't make this deal is if it's political. You have to spend the money somewhere, and I'd rather we spend it on a QB we know isn't a total disaster than roll the dice on some cornerback that won't put any W's on the board.. Re: the close game...I'll only follow you so far down that path, because while it's true that technically we were 6 plays from 13-3, we scored a fair amount of points in losses after the outcome was pretty well decided. Also, we looked a lot more like a 7-9 team doing it than 13-3. So in that I guess it's fine to keep Taylor for however long you want, provided your highest ambitions ride in the "10-6/backdoor a wildcard/pray for an elite defense/PS no injuries" lane. For our fanbase that might be appealing to a majority. I just don't agree.
John from Riverside Posted March 4, 2017 Posted March 4, 2017 Re: the close game...I'll only follow you so far down that path, because while it's true that technically we were 6 plays from 13-3, we scored a fair amount of points in losses after the outcome was pretty well decided. Also, we looked a lot more like a 7-9 team doing it than 13-3. So in that I guess it's fine to keep Taylor for however long you want, provided your highest ambitions ride in the "10-6/backdoor a wildcard/pray for an elite defense/PS no injuries" lane. For our fanbase that might be appealing to a majority. I just don't agree. Whatever it takes to get to the playoffs
simpleman Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 Of course the money matters. If it didn't this wouldn't even be a discussion. However, with guys like Gilmore and likely a few more off the books, this team has plenty of money to get the job done. Our cap space is already limited if we don't resign Gilmore and any of our free agents. Even journeyman FA beyond backup quality FA, cost millions to play as starters. If we don't resign our free agents, we still have to use up our already meager cap space to replace them. We lucked out last year with Brown's and Lorax's one year deals. That is a rarity, not a regularity. We hit the gold mine with Incognito because of off field issues. Expecting those things to happen again is not that realistic. Letting TT go actually adds to our meager cap space. Not paying Woods, Gilmore and others does not add a penny to our existing cap space. About the only other contracts beyond Kyle that realistically frees up a substantial amount of cap space without a ton of dead money are Wood and Graham.
machine gun kelly Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 I rest on e side of keeping him and draft one later in rounds but trade up if a better crop next year. If he is saying there's not a good one in the draft, no better free agent, why cut him? That's just stupid.
fansince88 Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 I would like to know Cosell's thoughts on Chad Kelly.he was on JM Friday. He hasnt watched any tape on Kelly
cd1 Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 (edited) Our cap space is already limited if we don't resign Gilmore and any of our free agents. Even journeyman FA beyond backup quality FA, cost millions to play as starters. If we don't resign our free agents, we still have to use up our already meager cap space to replace them. We lucked out last year with Brown's and Lorax's one year deals. That is a rarity, not a regularity. We hit the gold mine with Incognito because of off field issues. Expecting those things to happen again is not that realistic. Letting TT go actually adds to our meager cap space. Not paying Woods, Gilmore and others does not add a penny to our existing cap space. About the only other contracts beyond Kyle that realistically frees up a substantial amount of cap space without a ton of dead money are Wood and Graham. So, if we let TT go, we don't have to pay any money toward a QB in 2017? Edited March 5, 2017 by cd1
jeffismagic Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 So, if we let TT go, we don't have to pay any money toward a QB in 2017? I'm fine with letting Cardale Jones, Mahomes (or other 1st round QB) AND Chad Kelly in the 6th round duke it out. Someone will emerge that can hand the ball to Shady and throw for 200 yards a game.
ALF Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 I'm fine with letting Cardale Jones, Mahomes (or other 1st round QB) AND Chad Kelly in the 6th round duke it out. Someone will emerge that can hand the ball to Shady and throw for 200 yards a game. I agree , but take Chad in the 5th rd to make sure.
simpleman Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 (edited) So, if we let TT go, we don't have to pay any money toward a QB in 2017? We don't have to pay 30 million over the next 2 years for a QB. TT is strictly a bridge QB. You can trade for or pay a QB to be what they actually are, a bridge QB. Why pay a bridge QB huge starting money. If you are not going to make the SB anyway this year, what is the difference between a 6-8 without TT and an 8-8 with TT. Use the cap space to start the rebuild now instead of in two years. Have a team already around the new QB when we find him that can help him succeed. Get a decent ROT and the WRs to support him. Beef up at S, CB and LB to pick up the defense. Fill those holes now instead of kicking it down the road due to the cap hole we are now being crippled by. Trade for a McCown or a Siemian type Qb with a low cap hit, or sign a reasonable vet FA QB as a bridge. Forget the high priced QBs if you are not in a position to make a serious run at the SB this year. I'm fine with letting Cardale Jones, Mahomes (or other 1st round QB) AND Chad Kelly in the 6th round duke it out. Someone will emerge that can hand the ball to Shady and throw for 200 yards a game. That might be fine but I would rather trade down in the 1st and get the QB and WR in the late 1st and 2nd rounds. Use our extra pick to fill our many other holes. Edited March 5, 2017 by simpleman
machine gun kelly Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 Polian raved about Chad Kelly. I wouldn't' mind taking him late in the draft.
Maury Ballstein Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 Polian raved about Chad Kelly. I wouldn't' mind taking him late in the draft. Polian looks like he drinks gin for breakfast
cd1 Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 We don't have to pay 30 million over the next 2 years for a QB. TT is strictly a bridge QB. You can trade for or pay a QB to be what they actually are, a bridge QB. Why pay a bridge QB huge starting money. If you are not going to make the SB anyway this year, what is the difference between a 6-8 without TT and an 8-8 with TT. Use the cap space to start the rebuild now instead of in two years. Have a team already around the new QB when we find him that can help him succeed. Get a decent ROT and the WRs to support him. Beef up at S, CB and LB to pick up the defense. Fill those holes now instead of kicking it down the road due to the cap hole we are now being crippled by. Trade for a McCown or a Siemian type Qb with a low cap hit, or sign a reasonable vet FA QB as a bridge. Forget the high priced QBs if you are not in a position to make a serious run at the SB this year. That might be fine but I would rather trade down in the 1st and get the QB and WR in the late 1st and 2nd rounds. Use our extra pick to fill our many other holes. Thanks, that makes sense.
Clemfield2622 Posted March 5, 2017 Posted March 5, 2017 I agree 100% with his assessment. Read this and then read his assessment of Watson and tell me that TT isn't Watson's ceiling.
Recommended Posts