Tyrod Taylor's Highlights

[FireChan]

 

It is.

 

They do?

 

They have Joe Thomas.

 

They don't have a good OL.

 

That wasn't a report, anyway.

Bitonio and Greco are both good/solid.

[BillsFan4]

Someone told me to come look at this thread, so I did. Of course, it's impossible to read the whole thing or, frankly, to even follow the last couple of pages. Anyway, I'll tell you what I think about Tyrod. A lot of you know me and maybe you've heard it before.

 

1. I like Taylor. Great athlete, good arm, dedication, running is a plus. I've heard all the arguments about anticipation, throwing people open, seeing the field, throwing over the middle, too short. All possible, but I'm not convinced of any of that, not yet. Could be true, but I think he's still growing, and I want to see another year out of him.

 

2. I SERIOUSLY doubt that the Bills were going to cut Taylor. There were plenty of rumors, and so far as I could tell, they all were started by the press, that the Bills were going to cut him and that Whaley didn't want him. Everyone got all excited about that. No one got excited when, in the last few weeks, all the press rumors were that the Bills would keep him.

 

Why do I doubt they'd cut him? Because he played starter-quality football for two seasons, because starters are hard to find and because the Bills couldn't expect to find a starter in the draft or free agency. The Bills were NOT going to start over at quarterback. They might keep looking for one better than Taylor; I think they should. But they are not going to leave themselves in the same position they did with Manuel - a rookie start or a journeyman failure as the only options. Taylor is a legitimate threat at QB, and until the Bills get someone better, they are not going to let him go.

 

3. So what was going on with Taylor's contract? My theory is this: Taylor is ambitious, wants to start, has a lot of confidence in himself and expects to get paid eventually. He took a cheap contract to be a starter in Buffalo when he left the Ravens. Why did he take so little? Because he had the option to get out after two seasons, and he knew if he started somewhere he'd get paid a lot more. That's exactly what happened. He played well his first season in Buffalo, and the Bills didn't want to lose him after the second season and they didn't want to have to match some other team's offer. Still, they wanted the right to cut him if he flopped his second season. Taylor didn't want to get tied up long-term unless he got some real money. So they negotiated the six-year deal, Taylor gets decent money if he stays and the Bills get the option to get out of the deal if they didn't like his 2016.

 

So then Taylor has a decent but uninspiring 2016 and the Bills aren't sure they want him on the terms of the contract. Plus, they want some cap relief. So they talk to Taylor, not to cut him but to get the right to cut him in another year without a huge cap hit. Taylor says you can't have it both ways. If you want the right to get out, then I want to have the right to get out too. So they agree to a two-year deal. For two years Taylor gets paid more or less what he would have made in two years under the deal. What did Taylor give up? The third year guaranteed. Why did he do that? Because he's confident in his ability, and it's much more likely than not that he can get $10 million a year somewhere in 2019, in which case he's no worse off than he was under his original Buffalo deal. In other words, because the Bills wanted to keep Taylor for 2017 and maybe 18 before committing to him long-term, Taylor got the right, again, to be a free agent in the prime of his career. Good deal for both sides.

 

4. Why was there no more interest in Taylor? As someone pointed out, he wasn't a free agent and it's tampering to talk contracts with someone who isn't a free agent. It happens, I know, when a guy's contract is expiring, but Taylor's contract wasn't expiring. If anyone had talked contract with Taylor, that would have affected the Bills' ability to renegotiate - they would have screamed tampering. Teams lose draft picks for tampering.

 

Don't think for a minute teams weren't interested. Six teams, at least, would be markedly improve their QB situation with Taylor. You think the Jets woudn't have grabbed him? And don't argue that no one was interested because Taylor is a marginal QB. Taylor's stats for 2016 were mediocre; in 2015 they were great. He played all of 2016 injured. He didn't have his #1 receiver, and he didn't have much of anything else in the receiving department. He played for a dysfunctional head coach.

 

Taylor would have gotten $15 million a year for a few years if he'd hit the market, probably more. Now he's going to start for the Bills for 2017. If he has a season like he did in 2015, guess what? The Bills will be back at the negotiating table AGAIN, because they won't want him to be come a free agent in 2018. If he has a mediocre 2017, they'll roll the dice and let him play out his contract. If he's great in 2018, it'll cost the Bills a lot to keep him. If he's mediocre, they'll let him walk and he'll get $20-30 million guaranteed someplace else.

 

5. OF COURSE, McDermott wanted to keep him, and if you want to say it was driven by fear, fine. You can call it fear, but it's better described as brains. You're taking over a team that led the league in rushing for two consecutive years in no small part because you have the best running QB in the league. He also happens to have a passer rating around the top 10 in the league over the past two seasons. You're going to let him go so WHO can be your QB? WHO? It would be a colossally dumb move in your first year as an NFL head coach to dump your team's starting QB in favor of no one just so you can put your mark on the team. Who would do that?

 

 

Hey, Shaw! Good to see you here. I always enjoyed your posts. I hope you stick around. This place has been pretty good so far. I've even seen guys like John Wawrow posting in some threads and providing info/answering questions etc. (which is pretty cool IMO). This particular thread is not a good representation of what this message board is like as a whole.

[Bill_with_it]

Health aspect? They have a pretty good line.

 

I have it seen reported exactly zero places that teams were unable to contact players under option. If the view of the league was that the Bills would "pick up" the option, then Taylor would technically be an UFA.

 

Furthermore, it's pretty well known there's a underbelly of semi-tampering always.

 

"Show me a report" "No I mean one I agree with!"

He was under contract, with an out for the team. Legal tampering period:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000641702/article/what-is-the-legal-tampering-period%3FnetworkId%3D4595%26site%3D.news%26zone%3Dstory%26zoneUrl%3Durl%253Dstory%26zoneKeys%3Ds1%253Dstory%26env%3D%26pageKeyValues%3Dprtnr%253Daround-the-league%26p.ct%3DAround%2Bthe%2BNFL%26p.adsm%3Dfalse%26p.tcm%3D%2523fff%26p.bgc1m%3D%25230964bf%26p.bgc2m%3D%2523053a74%26sr%3Damp

Notice the key word UFA, now go look at his previous contract....see 2022 UFA? Tha S when the legal tampering process would have apply for Tyrod. Not 2016. Further, I just provided you an article showing the ramifications of tampering. Chiefs lost 2 draft picks and 350k for tampering with regard to Maclin. Just because you say something doesnt mean its true especially when you have been handed information to the contrary.

[FireChan]

He was under contract, with an out for the team. Legal tampering period:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000641702/article/what-is-the-legal-tampering-period%3FnetworkId%3D4595%26site%3D.news%26zone%3Dstory%26zoneUrl%3Durl%253Dstory%26zoneKeys%3Ds1%253Dstory%26env%3D%26pageKeyValues%3Dprtnr%253Daround-the-league%26p.ct%3DAround%2Bthe%2BNFL%26p.adsm%3Dfalse%26p.tcm%3D%2523fff%26p.bgc1m%3D%25230964bf%26p.bgc2m%3D%2523053a74%26sr%3Damp

Notice the key word UFA, now go look at his previous contract....see 2022 UFA? Tha S when the legal tampering process would have apply for Tyrod. Not 2016. Further, I just provided you an article showing the ramifications of tampering. Chiefs lost 2 draft picks and 350k for tampering with regard to Maclin. Just because you say something doesnt mean its true especially when you have been handed information to the contrary.

Are you really going to tell me that teams don't tamper anyway? Are you really going to tell me that TT and or his agent had no idea his value on the market?

[Bill_with_it]

Are you really going to tell me that teams don't tamper anyway? Are you really going to tell me that TT and or his agent had no idea his value on the market?

Im telling you that teams get into significant hot water for it and teams as recent as a year aggo have lost significant assets in the process for their actions.

[Bangarang]

Are you really going to tell me that teams don't tamper anyway? Are you really going to tell me that TT and or his agent had no idea his value on the market?

The only explanation is that Tyrod loves Buffalo sooooooooooooo much.

[FireChan]

The only explanation is that Tyrod loves Buffalo sooooooooooooo much.

Who wouldn't be insanely loyal to a team that says "take a pay cut or we'll cut you"?

[BillsFan4]

Are you really going to tell me that teams don't tamper anyway? Are you really going to tell me that TT and or his agent had no idea his value on the market?

The only explanation is that Tyrod loves Buffalo sooooooooooooo much.

I believe the most Tyrod's agent could do was kind of subtly gauge the interest level other teams had in Tyrod, without getting into any type of specifics like contract details/numbers etc.

 

So I would imagine that they didn't feel Tyrod would get much more than what the Bills offered him in the renegotiated deal. I believe Whaley made a comment along these lines when talking about the renegotiated Tyrod contract.

 

And I also feel that Tyrod likely felt this was the best place for his chances to be successful, compared to the Jets & Browns and whatever other mediocre team might have been interested.

 

Knowing most of his teammates, being a leader in the locker room and not wanting to start over probably factored into it too.

He probably could have gotten the same amount of money (that the Bills ended up paying on the restructure) elsewhere, but felt better about his chances of long term success here.

[Shaw66]

It was reported the Bills were going to cut TT if he didn't restructure. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2697955-tyrod-taylor-takes-10-million-pay-cut-in-contract-to-remain-with-buffalo-bills

This is the kind of stuff I referred to in my post. I try to follow the news pretty carefully, and especially back a few months ago when there were all these reports, and I never saw a report saying anyone with any authority within the Bills organization had said the Bills would let Taylor go. This Bleacher Report you cite says only "As Rodak noted, however, the Bills were expected to release Taylor if he did not agree to the restructured deal." So far as I know, the only people who ever said the Bills were expected to cut Taylor were reporters and columnists.

 

It just doesn't make any sense. The Bills were committed to paying Taylor about $40 million, I think, for three seasons. $13 million a season. He's been a mid-range starter in the NFL for two seasons, and $15 a year is cheap for a mid-range starter.

 

But what happens if the Bills come up with Dak II and they have to take a big cap hit. So what? If you have a franchise QB, who cares? the Cowboys took the hit. If it happened, the Bills would have a starter at $3 million and a backup at $15. So what? That's less than most teams have invested in QBs.

 

I'm sure the Bills never intended to cut Taylor. They wanted to change the contract, and they gave Taylor his freedom to make the change.

[Shaw66]

I believe the most Tyrod's agent could do was kind of subtly gauge the interest level other teams had in Tyrod, without getting into any type of specifics like contract details/numbers etc.

 

So I would imagine that they didn't feel Tyrod would get much more than what the Bills offered him in the renegotiated deal. I believe Whaley made a comment along these lines when talking about the renegotiated Tyrod contract.

 

And I also feel that Tyrod likely felt this was the best place for his chances to be successful, compared to the Jets & Browns and whatever other mediocre team might have been interested.

 

Knowing most of his teammates, being a leader in the locker room and not wanting to start over probably factored into it too.

He probably could have gotten the same amount of money (that the Bills ended up paying on the restructure) elsewhere, but felt better about his chances of long term success here.

Notice that your analysis is based on the assumption that the Bills would cut Taylor. There's no evidence of this. And I don't think the Bills ever intended to cut him.

 

That's the real reason teams didn't make serious big offers to him. They knew there was no point.

 

But I also agree that Taylor didn't want to leave. Good fans, liked the coach, great running back and receiver.

 

I'm sure the conversation went like this: "we want you here but we need help on your contract." "I want to be here and I like my contract. I let you tie me up for six years at a price below what I'm going to be able to earn in another year or two." "well, maybe, maybe not. If you believe that, lets tear up the long-term deal and do another two-year deal." "sounds good to me."

[Shaw66]

Health aspect? They have a pretty good line.

 

I have it seen reported exactly zero places that teams were unable to contact players under option. If the view of the league was that the Bills would "pick up" the option, then Taylor would technically be an UFA.

 

Furthermore, it's pretty well known there's a underbelly of semi-tampering always.

"Show me a report" "No I mean one I agree with!"

I'm not an expert, but I think you really misunderstand what the rules are.

 

First, the Bills didn't "pick up" the option on Taylor's contract. Taylor was under contract. The Bills had a deadline by which they could cut him without suffering touch cap and guarantee consequences. If the Bills did nothing, Taylor simply remained under contract with the Bills.

 

The only way Taylor would have become a free agent would have been if the Bills had cut him. Under those circumstances, teams can't talk to Taylor. Do you think if there was a rumor the Pats were going to cut Brady, teams could negotiate with him.

 

And I don't think in those situations, teams talk contract terms with players. As others have pointed out, there are serious penalties. Imagine if the Bills could just call up Aaron Rodgers and suggest to him how much they'd pay him to come to Buffalo. The league is worried that players would start tanking seasons so their teams would negotiate to get out of deals. it would be a disaster. Unless the guy is about to become a free agent, teams aren't going to talk to him.

[Bangarang]

Notice that your analysis is based on the assumption that the Bills would cut Taylor. There's no evidence of this. And I don't think the Bills ever intended to cut him

Well there is the whole paycut thing. I'm sure you can make a very valid argument that if not for the restructured contract, Tyrod would not be a Bill at the moment.

[transplantbillsfan]

The only explanation is that Tyrod loves Buffalo sooooooooooooo much.

 

It's not the only explanation, obviously.

 

Just don't pretend that the only explanation for Tyrod being back in Buffalo is because he tucked his tail between his legs when he found he wouldn't get much money on the open market and begged Whaley & Co. to keep him at a reduced price.

 

That's the inevitable explanation many have on this message board for Taylor still being in Buffalo.

 

 

FC and I were talking "reports" vs. speculation a little while ago, and then he directed me to an article that was pure speculation that had an actual report built within it:

http://buffalonews.com/2017/03/02/browns-49ers-jets-known-interest-taylor/

 

3 NFL teams were reported on March 2nd to be seriously interested in Tyrod Taylor.

 

And another thing that I feel like people are just not considering, the Browns traded for Brock Osweiler and his $16 million base salary and $16 million CAP hit. They did this about a week after that report above. And they did it the day after Tyrod renegotiated his contract.

 

So I guess 2 questions come out of this:

 

1) Who honestly thinks that Tyrod Taylor is valued less than Brock Osweiler by any NFL team at this point?

 

and since I'm pretty sure we can all agree the answer is (or should be) "no one"

 

 

2) Based on the amount of money Cleveland is now willing to pay Brock Osweiler, why does anyone think they would have paid Taylor any less than they're going to be paying Osweiler?

 

 

 

​People keep saying it's obvious Taylor wasn't going to get much money on the open market and I feel like they neglect the contracts of the likes of Mike Glennon and Brock Osweiler...

Who wouldn't be insanely loyal to a team that says "take a pay cut or we'll cut you"?

 

Who said that?

[FireChan]

 

It's not the only explanation, obviously.

 

Just don't pretend that the only explanation for Tyrod being back in Buffalo is because he tucked his tail between his legs when he found he wouldn't get much money on the open market and begged Whaley & Co. to keep him at a reduced price.

 

That's the inevitable explanation many have on this message board for Taylor still being in Buffalo.

 

 

FC and I were talking "reports" vs. speculation a little while ago, and then he directed me to an article that was pure speculation that had an actual report built within it:

http://buffalonews.com/2017/03/02/browns-49ers-jets-known-interest-taylor/

 

3 NFL teams were reported on March 2nd to be seriously interested in Tyrod Taylor.

 

And another thing that I feel like people are just not considering, the Browns traded for Brock Osweiler and his $16 million base salary and $16 million CAP hit. They did this about a week after that report above. And they did it the day after Tyrod renegotiated his contract.

 

So I guess 2 questions come out of this:

 

1) Who honestly thinks that Tyrod Taylor is valued less than Brock Osweiler by any NFL team at this point?

 

and since I'm pretty sure we can all agree the answer is (or should be) "no one"

 

 

2) Based on the amount of money Cleveland is now willing to pay Brock Osweiler, why does anyone think they would have paid Taylor any less than they're going to be paying Osweiler?

 

 

 

​People keep saying it's obvious Taylor wasn't going to get much money on the open market and I feel like they neglect the contracts of the likes of Mike Glennon and Brock Osweiler...

 

Who said that?

The Bills?

[GoBills808]

Dose highlights doe...

[transplantbillsfan]

Well there is the whole paycut thing. I'm sure you can make a very valid argument that if not for the restructured contract, Tyrod would not be a Bill at the moment.

 

I think it's reasonable to argue that if Taylor didn't take a paycut he wouldn't be a Bill. There's no absolute evidence that supports this, but it's a reasonable argument to make. I think Shaw's was pretty reasonable, too.

 

What's less reasonable, though, is arguing that a team like the Browns would not have been willing to pay Tyrod the same amount of money at least as they're now going to be paying Brock Osweiler.

 

 

People argue over whether Taylor is worth as much as Glennon. I think that's a bad argument. But people saying that Osweiler is worth more or even nearly as much as Taylor are off their rockers...

The Bills?

 

link?

[FireChan]

 

I think it's reasonable to argue that if Taylor didn't take a paycut he wouldn't be a Bill. There's no absolute evidence that supports this, but it's a reasonable argument to make. I think Shaw's was pretty reasonable, too.

 

What's less reasonable, though, is arguing that a team like the Browns would not have been willing to pay Tyrod the same amount of money at least as they're now going to be paying Brock Osweiler.

 

 

People argue over whether Taylor is worth as much as Glennon. I think that's a bad argument. But people saying that Osweiler is worth more or even nearly as much as Taylor are off their rockers...

 

link?

Right, when negotiating with TT, the only leverage the Bills had never came into play.

[BillsFan4]

Notice that your analysis is based on the assumption that the Bills would cut Taylor. There's no evidence of this. And I don't think the Bills ever intended to cut him.

 

That's the real reason teams didn't make serious big offers to him. They knew there was no point.

 

But I also agree that Taylor didn't want to leave. Good fans, liked the coach, great running back and receiver.

 

I'm sure the conversation went like this: "we want you here but we need help on your contract." "I want to be here and I like my contract. I let you tie me up for six years at a price below what I'm going to be able to earn in another year or two." "well, maybe, maybe not. If you believe that, lets tear up the long-term deal and do another two-year deal." "sounds good to me."

I didn't really mean to imply that the Bills would have cut Tyrod. I have no idea if they would have or not. It seems kind of crazy to me that they would have cut him, especially since they had nobody even remotely close to better to replace him with.

But then again, who knows with the Bills...

 

The restructure could have all just been a game of chicken to see who blinks first, or they could have been serious about moving on from TT and signing Hoyer (like the rumors said) if he wasn't willing to take the pay cut. We will probably never know for sure, but I am glad that they kept TT.

 

I do think that Tyrod is betting on himself with this contract though like you said, and I kind of think that Whaley is banking/betting on Tyrod staying the same or failing, because if he does improve, like you said he will most likely make more than what the Bills originally had him locked up at and Whaley will look kind of foolish. At the very least, Whaley hedged his bet.

[Shaw66]

Well there is the whole paycut thing. I'm sure you can make a very valid argument that if not for the restructured contract, Tyrod would not be a Bill at the moment.

He's getting paid the same thing, or a bit more, than he was going to get paid under the old contract. That's not a pay cut.

 

What he gave up was guaranteed money for 2019. He did that because he was willing to bet, quite reasonably, I think, that absent injury he always will be able to get a one-year $15 million deal in 2019. Why? Well, if he gets beaten up by a real star in Buffalo, he'll be in demand as an average starter when he becomes a free agent in 2019. And if he becomes a star in Buffalo, he'll be worth a LOT more than his old contract would have given him. LIke $50 million more. Only downside to his current deal is if he falls apart completely and no one wants him in 2019. Even then, he's probably always worth $3 million.

 

Look at Fitzpatrick. He's averaged about $5 million a year for nearly 10 years. Josh McCown got a three year $14 million deal from the Browns. He got $6 million from the Jets for a year.

 

I don't think Tyrod was worried about making some money in 2019.

I didn't really mean to imply that the Bills would have cut Tyrod. I have no idea if they would have or not. It seems kind of crazy to me that they would have cut him, especially since they had nobody even remotely close to better to replace him with.

But then again, who knows with the Bills...

 

The restructure could have all just been a game of chicken to see who blinks first, or they could have been serious about moving on from TT and signing Hoyer (like the rumors said) if he wasn't willing to take the pay cut. We will probably never know for sure, but I am glad that they kept TT.

 

I do think that Tyrod is betting on himself with this contract though like you said, and I kind of think that Whaley is banking/betting on Tyrod staying the same or failing, because if he does improve, like you said he will most likely make more than what the Bills originally had him locked up at and Whaley will look kind of foolish. At the very least, Whaley hedged his bet.

 

It was a good move by Whaley. Taylor's play in 2016 raised doubts. Whaley wanted to get out from under the cap hit if he had to cut Taylor next year. It will be a happy problem for Whaley if Taylor gets really good. Whaley will have to write a big check to keep TAylor, but Whaley will know he has the guy whose worth it. Plus he got some cap relief for this year, as I understand it.

[Bangarang]

 

It's not the only explanation, obviously.

 

Just don't pretend that the only explanation for Tyrod being back in Buffalo is because he tucked his tail between his legs when he found he wouldn't get much money on the open market and begged Whaley & Co. to keep him at a reduced price

Who is pretending that?

 

I think Whaley always wanted to keep Tyrod, just not at his previous price tag.

 

You used to argue constantly on BBMB that not only would several teams be interested in Tyrod if he were cut but he would make more money in the process. That was clearly not the case.