QB comparative data for Tyrod from Cian Fahey to discuss

[BringBackOrton]

 

You're right, the evidence is in the game. And if you watched the games, you would know it has everything to do with the types of routes the WRs were running. They were routes overwhelmingly not designed for YAC. "Relying on those comebacks and outs"...?

 

Dude, he's playing in an offensive system and the plays are called by an Offensive Coordinator, not by Taylor.

Every WR is not running a comeback every play.

 

 

Have you gone through every snap of not just Taylor but those 32 other NFL QBs and charted them using the same "eye test" you used to chart Taylor?

 

If you have, I'd love to read your numbers. If you haven't, that's why his subjective analysis is better than yours.

If you say so.

 

 

Yeah, but at least he's using his own version of the "eye test" across 32 other NFL QBs.

 

One of my biggest issues with all the anti-Taylor posters is that they talk about Taylor in a vacuum as though the bar he needs to meet is arbitrarily set up in our minds when that bar should really be what all those other guys playing the position on 31 other NFL teams are doing comparatively.

 

So, while you might not like Fahey's methodology, at least he does it across the board with all the other QBs in order to give some sort of point of comparison to see where Taylor falls in the hierarchy of certain aspects of the position rather than someone just saying "my eyes tell me he's not good enough."

But Fahey's conclusion is that the WR's got better in 2016 compared to 2015. His methodology is wack if that conclusion can be drawn from it.

 

 

 

I don't really disagree with anything you just said, similar to how I feel, just maybe not quite as strongly as you might feel on it. I think part of the problem with TT and the sideline routes is a combination of 2 things.

 

1. The plays called. WR's generally run the routes designed in the play, barring an audible at the line or a route where the WR has multiple choices based on the D.

2. TT tendency to look to use his legs. When you got a QB who will look to get outside the pocket a lot potentially opening up running lanes to make a play, the WR's will break off their routes and move to that side of the field, hence more sideline throws.

 

I already said it before, I think the biggest flaws in TT game are all very correctable, which is a good thing. Now that doesn't mean he will correct them or improve, but there is reason to be optimistic still that his level of play can improve. Again, all anyone has to do is watch how TT throws to Sammy and then watch how he throws to the other WR's and you can see a very distinct difference. He makes throws to Sammy and takes more chances than he does with any other player on the team, and that is a direct result of Trust and Chemistry.

 

I don't care what anyone says about Robert Woods, he was an average at best #2 WR, and unfortunately was forced to be the main guy way more than intended due to Sammys foot injury. Add into that, Woods himself was constantly battling injuries and often playing less than 100%. TT clearly didnt have the same rapport/trust with Woods and similar with the other guys behind him who had to play a lot due to the injury situation. Getting Sammy 100% (lets all hope at least) and hopefully having Zay emerge as a talented WR opposite Sammy will already make a world of difference. Add in a rebuilt WR group behind them, and there is a good start already to improve the passing game.

 

Its bad enough when a QB lacks the trust/rapport with a WR in general, but its significantly magnified on a QB who is dual threat with his legs. Especially when that QB is being heralded by his coaches for his legs and given the green light to run wild when he feels he needs to. Give him more comfort and trust in that receiving group, focus his mindset on being patient before looking to make a play with his legs, and TT could very well take a big leap forward. He is already good with protecting the ball, has a dominant run game around him, and now just needs to be more patient and I think he can really improve seeing more opportunities down field. We don't need to keep him from wanting to run, just got to move the run option in his progression in his reads back a little bit and that could make a world of difference.

 

BEST PART: We have 2 number 1's and a friendly TT contract going into to next year if things are not progressing the way they MUST this year for TT. Not to mention, I think Peterman has a lot more potential than your typical 5th round QB and was a tremendous value in the 5th. So if TT falters early and we fail out of contention early, we might get a chance to see what Peterman can do second half of this year too. I realize I could say the same for CJ, but I just don't see it in the guy. He wasn't good his last year in college, and shown nothing encouraging in the limited reps on the field. Would love it if he proved me wrong, I have nothing against him, just yet to see anything that made me think he is going to do anything at this level.

Comebacks are going to be a huge part of the offense until TT proves to be proficient in other throws, especially over the middle. I believe that the plays are called to play to our QB's strengths moreso than him being shoehorned into only certain types of throws.

 

Let's all hope he improves or we find someone better.

Edited May 2, 2017 by jmc12290

[transplantbillsfan]

 

I like Taylor but his biggest flaws are progression speed and pocket awareness. This is why he led the league in sacks last year. And those are not correctable - they're God-given.

 

According to Fahey, 7 of Taylor's 39 sacks were avoidable.

 

Of the leftover 32 sacks, 22 were because of a beaten blocker, 2 were because of a blown assignment, and 8 were coverage sacks.

 

8 QBs had more avoidable sacks than Taylor, including Matthew Stafford, Russell Wilson, Jameis Winston, and Alex Smith.

 

Would you say that those QBs also have poor progression speed and pocket awareness?

[BigBuff423]

 

So, what you are telling me is that you are actually fluid in math and science, it's just that you chose to dismiss peer-reviewed, published research by a professor at the Univ. of Cincinnati because it didn't meet your standard for mathematical rigor? Got it.

 

BTW, please vaccinate your kids.

Wow...honestly, I don't think I would have ever anticipated this type of response from you Scott. I've been on this board in one form or another (didn't create an acccount but stopped by to read and review for years before I officially joined) since the Losman Draft, and your posts didn't previously strike me as dismissive and an attempt at shaming merely because someone disagrees with you.

 

First, I didn't say the metrics or analytics didn't have a part in the evaluation process, just that measuring a QB based primarily on that information is faulty and that based on my "eye test" of Tyrod, he is not a long term solution. Which in turn lead to a discussion about aspects of a QB that can't be "measured" which then lead to an example of momentum.

 

As for the standards of math or science, this is merely a discussion that expands on how you evaluate a QB and to not lean too heavily on the science or math and to use your ability to see and discern beyond statistics. Again, disagreement would seem to be healthy for this board and yet you attempt to shame me or bully me through sarcasm and esoteric rhetoric, don't be that guy....be better, be at least a little of what you probably set out to be when you started this whole thing.

 

And then you stooped even further, to try and bring my child (children / "kids") into the fray....ok, Mr. Big Man, well done - you're now attempting to draw me in by slyly insulting my parenting skills and therefore, the authenticy of my fatherhood....bravo, take a bow and then just leave this alone. Please and thank you.

Edited May 2, 2017 by BigBuff423

[QB Bills]

Wow...honestly, I don't think I would have ever anticipated this type of response from you Scott. I've been on this board in one form or another (didn't create an acccount but stopped by to read and review for years before I officially joined) since the Losman Draft, and your posts didn't previously strike me as dismissive and an attempt at shaming merely because someone disagrees with you.

 

First, I didn't say the metrics or analytics didn't have a part in the evaluation process, just that measuring a QB based primarily on that information is faulty and that based on my "eye test" of Tyrod, he is not a long term solution. Which in turn lead to a discussion about aspects of a QB that can't be "measured" which then lead to an example of momentum.

 

As for the standards of math or science, this is merely a discussion that expands on how you evaluate a QB and to not lean too heavily on the science or math and to use your ability to see and discern beyond statistics. Again, disagreement would seem to be healthy for this board and yet you attempt to shame me or bully me through sarcasm and esoteric rhetoric, don't be that guy....be better, be at least a little of what you probably set out to be when you started this whole thing.

 

And then you stooped even further, to try and bring my child (children / "kids") into the fray....ok, Mr. Big Man, well done - you're now attempting to draw me in by slyly insulting my parenting skills and therefore, the authenticy of my fatherhood....bravo, take a bow and then just leave this alone. Please and thank you.

Jeez...lighten up dude

 

Btw, your eye test is wrong

[Figster]

Whether one has advanced degrees in math and science shouldn't preclude the idea that individuals don't tighten up or lose confidence after a succession of bad plays. Rather than use mathematics or hard science as a proof of momentum's existence, the psychology of pressure and (waxing or waning confidence) could explain a lot. As could better coaching and more experience in the big game.

 

 

Something caused the succession of bad plays. Lacking endurance, getting out coached, getting out played by superior players, maybe a combination. You brought up confidence, wouldn't it be more descriptive to say one team is gaining or losing confidence then momentum?

 

Momentum change is a lazy way to describe what really happened in my humble opinion Lothar.

 

with all due respect...

Edited May 2, 2017 by Figster

[transplantbillsfan]

 

 

So then why the low amount of YAC for him - oh yeah - the decisions TT makes and where he throws the ball.

 

I agree he is not negating YAC with his throws - he refuses to throw passes in locations consistently to get YAC.

 

His bread and butter throws have consistently been the comeback routes that he is late on and the WR gets tackled immediately and the out breaking routes that lead the WR to the sideline.

 

He has great completion percentage and that makes his stats look great for a guy like Fahey to compile, but the question is he doing what he needed to do to win. Is he making the plays or not. He does not make mistakes and he does not throw into coverage or into areas where the WR can make a big play, but there is risk.

 

Fahey's numbers are not absolutely wrong, but they provide almost no context because all he is doing is making subjective numbers out of the result of the play. This makes TT numbers look better than a guy like Rodgers (or many other top line QBs) because Rodgers takes some risks and has more interceptable balls and more incompletions, but part of that is the big plays that come from the risk - especially late in games and late in the half.

 

Look TT is still the exact same QB you saw the last 2 years - nothing has changed - he is above average in some limited games, but in too many games he does not do enough when the ball is in his hand. He does not lose games for the team - the defense did enough of that, but he does not win games either. If he wants to become a winner - unfortunately I believe you are going to have to see a major shift in those numbers - he is going to have to take a few more risks and throw to some guys that are covered and throw them open. If not the numbers are just that numbers and are meaningless.

 

I think he has a chance with the new offense, but we will know shortly will he make the plays or will he be replaced and someone else - Peterman/2018 Draft pick will get a shot.

Boy you make a lot of assumptions. How do you know Taylor's numbers look better than Rodgers? Or Brady? Or whoever you want to throw in there? Did you buy the catalogue and look? I never said who was above or below Taylor in any category. If not, what you're doing is just sad.

 

And why the WRs don't get YAC you claim is Taylor's fault for where he chooses to throw the football...? How do you know how much choice the offensive system gave him in where he threw the football?

I truly doubt it's just me.

Do you truly believe it's everyone who's credible?

 

Or do they lose credibility if they disagree?

[Thurman#1]

There's an actual name for this kind of logical fallacy.

 

I can't think of the name right now, though.

 

Anyone...?

 

 

Probably "reasonable" or "smart."

 

If he was that good, he wouldn't have had to take a major contract cut. Which is the reason he's still in Buffalo.

 

Have you gone through every snap of not just Taylor but those 32 other NFL QBs and charted them using the same "eye test" you used to chart Taylor?

 

If you have, I'd love to read your numbers. If you haven't, that's why his subjective analysis is better than yours.

 

 

Not so much. Completeness doesn't by any means automatically imply better analysis. It means more data. It doesn't mean what's done with the data makes any sense whatsoever or reflects reality well.

 

A chimp who watches every play won't produce better analysis than an NFL coach who watches a small selection, for instance.

 

You love to pretend that other QBs need to be compared. They don't. You can easily make judgments about Tyrod just by watching his game.

Edited May 2, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

Another forgotten influence was Roman's route tree which was often impugned as archaic. Modern route​ trees are designed to get guys open and to keep them running after the catch.

Evidently Roman never studied the pass game from the 1980s on. Even Lynn admitted that there were pass concepts he'd like to add, but couldn't due to limited practice time midseason.

 

 

 

Don't quite remember that, but I might easily have missed it.

 

What Lynn also said when he took over and was asked what he was going to change is that he said he was going to simplify the reads. Not complicate. Simplify.

[billsfan714]

You know Jim Kelly had a lot more interceptions than TT, I would take JK all day every day over TT. That interceptable stat means nothing to me.

[transplantbillsfan]

You know Jim Kelly had a lot more interceptions than TT, I would take JK all day every day over TT. That interceptable stat means nothing to me.

Completely different era.

 

 

Probably "reasonable" or "smart."

 

If he was that good, he wouldn't have had to take a major contract cut. Which is the reason he's still in Buffalo.

 

 

 

Not so much. Completeness doesn't by any means automatically imply better analysis. It means more data. It doesn't mean what's done with the data makes any sense whatsoever or reflects reality well.

 

A chimp who watches every play won't produce better analysis than an NFL coach who watches a small selection, for instance.

 

You love to pretend that other QBs need to be compared. They don't. You can easily make judgments about Tyrod just by watching his game.

The ninja strikes again!

 

I'd respond... but why bother considering you're just going to disappear when any reasonable counter-claim is presented as you always do.

[mannc]

 

 

Probably "reasonable" or "smart."

 

If he was that good, he wouldn't have had to take a major contract cut. Which is the reason he's still in Buffalo.

 

 

 

Not so much. Completeness doesn't by any means automatically imply better analysis. It means more data. It doesn't mean what's done with the data makes any sense whatsoever or reflects reality well.

 

A chimp who watches every play won't produce better analysis than an NFL coach who watches a small selection, for instance.

 

You love to pretend that other QBs need to be compared. They don't. You can easily make judgments about Tyrod just by watching his game.

Wow. What a profoundly ignorant post.

[BillsFan17]

 

Except for those pesky facts and stats where it shows he is an NFL level QB.

 

I don't care if you don't think Taylor is good enough, but the fact that you said he is not an NFL level QB might be one of the absolute dumbest things I have read on this board since the Mario for Skelton straight up trade thread. People can disagree on how good he is or can be, I am fine with that...but to say he can't play in the NFL when he has represented the AFC 2 years in a row and was chosen by his peers (people who know football about a million times better than you) says you probably should just stop commenting on him as you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Are you referring to the Pro Bowl? Is that really your measuring stick? How many people had to decline going for him to make the Pro Bowl? A game that has turned into a complete joke and waste of time.

 

Like I have said in the past, Tyrod making the Pro Bowl is the equivalent of him being names prom king at an all girls school.

[transplantbillsfan]

Are you referring to the Pro Bowl? Is that really your measuring stick? How many people had to decline going for him to make the Pro Bowl? A game that has turned into a complete joke and waste of time.

 

Like I have said in the past, Tyrod making the Pro Bowl is the equivalent of him being names prom king at an all girls school.

This just sidesteps the point he was making that saying Taylor isn't an NFL level QB is profoundly stupid, which is true...

[Domdab99]

 

In all due respect, I strongly disagree.

 

 

With all due respect, reality doesn't care if you strongly agree or disagree with it. There is no such thing as momentum in football, or any sport.

[Rochesterfan]

Boy you make a lot of assumptions. How do you know Taylor's numbers look better than Rodgers? Or Brady? Or whoever you want to throw in there? Did you buy the catalogue and look? I never said who was above or below Taylor in any category. If not, what you're doing is just sad.

And why the WRs don't get YAC you claim is Taylor's fault for where he chooses to throw the football...? How do you know how much choice the offensive system gave him in where he threw the football?

 

Do you truly believe it's everyone who's credible?

Or do they lose credibility if they disagree?

 

How do I know because we have already gone through Fahey once before and you are getting the same issues here that you got on BBMB. Fahey rankings are based on his opinion of the play - just as every other fans opinion.

 

I am saying his numbers rank where they rank by Fahey and it means nothing because of the offense he led and where and when he chose to throw the ball - it does make a difference.

 

The answer as to why I think the WR do not get YAC and why that is on TT is two fold. First both of his OC, his HC, and his GM all stated he needed to get more out of the passing game and directed those comments at TT. That tells me they saw what most people saw watching the All-22 - there were plays to be made that he chose not to make. Second after a full off-season the OC was trying to open up the passing game in Baltimore and TT missed throws all game long - he made a few plays here and there, but he did not make the throws needed. Once replaced - the new OC wanted TT to provide more input on routes that were comfortable for Him and we saw more of the same from 2015 lots of comebacks and out routes - so that tells me when combined with the OC talking about simplifying things - that those are the routes TT was comfortable throwing.

 

I understand that TT was a product of the offense, but the offense was also a product of TT. We could see the guys open and yes sometimes TT could not get there due to pressure, but there were times he gets fixated on a single route and never comes off.

 

Look you know where I stand on TT - I always assumed he would be back this year because he is a middling QB and that production is just what we should expect. I anticipate that this year will be little different- TT will have a good completion percentage and low INTs, but he will leave plays on the field.

 

What I truly hope is that like Seattle - We hold a true open competition at the QB spot and see what he can do. I would expect him to make plays with his legs, but I would expect other QBs on the roster to be better in the passing game and maybe we see. Something different.

[BigBuff423]

 

With all due respect, reality doesn't care if you strongly agree or disagree with it. There is no such thing as momentum in football, or any sport.

 

AGAIN, *with* all due respect, I strongly disagree. You don't have to agree, but your final word or anyone else's for that matter does not invalidate my opinion.

[Wayne Arnold]

Did the Falcons lose momentum in the second half of the Superbowl, or did superior coaching make the better adjustments?

 

You really think "superior coaching" was all it took to come back? You don't think the Patriots players gained confidence watching Brady picking the Falcons defense apart? You don't think the Falcons lost confidence watching the same thing? You don't think Ryan and the Falcons offense felt added pressure with each possession in the 4th quarter? Where was this superior coaching when the Pats went down four touchdowns? Was Belichick and his staff not trying then?

 

According to Fahey, 7 of Taylor's 39 sacks were avoidable.

 

Of the leftover 32 sacks, 22 were because of a beaten blocker, 2 were because of a blown assignment, and 8 were coverage sacks.

 

8 QBs had more avoidable sacks than Taylor, including Matthew Stafford, Russell Wilson, Jameis Winston, and Alex Smith.

 

Would you say that those QBs also have poor progression speed and pocket awareness?

 

Interesting data, but I'm not sure I trust it. Taylor holds the ball longer than any other QB in the league.

 

As for the other QB's, I'm sure they do have an issue with either progression speed or pocket awareness. They have other strengths that make up for it - just like Taylor does.

[Shaw66]

Hey, transplant, thanks for this.

 

(For people who know me, this has turned into a typical Shaw essay. Ignore it or read it, whatever you like.)

 

I noticed Fahey a few months ago when someone at BBMB linked to one of his pieces. His stuff is interesting. I dumped on him, and continue to be skeptical, because I don't like "advanced" analysis from someone without credentials. I think he's still under 30. He has zero football experience, so far as I can tell. Possibly played in high school. I think it's extraordinarily difficult to become expert in a field without actually doing it, in this case playing it or coaching it. That's the only way you can have intense interaction with the people who actually understand what's going on.

 

Having said that, it IS possible to become expert without playing or coaching. It takes a lot of work, a lot of thinking, a lot of creativity. Bill James did it, for example. But those guys are few and far between.

 

As for Fahey, I think he actually has a chance to make it. It certainly seems that he is immersing himself into the game completely. He seems to have done nothing since he got to college except study pro football, analyze it and write about it. That's the only way to make if from the outside, and he seems to be doing it. Still, hard work alone doesn't do it. He needs to understand statistics and he needs to be a creative analyst.

 

Bottom line, for me, is that I pay more attention to Fahey than to most of the other stuff out there, because I have no confidence in most of the people who put it together. Football Outsiders is my only exception, and I at least think about what Fahey is doing.

 

As for this data, although he has to make subjective judgments to make these determinations (interceptable balls, failed reception, created reception) those at least are categories that I think a non-coach could make reasonable judgments about by watching film. In other words, if he's actually taken the time to catalog every pass by every QB, his data in those categories probably is pretty reliable. (As opposed to, for example, blocking performance by an offensive lineman, whose performance can't be evaluated effectively by a non-coach if you don't know what the lineman was supposed to do on the play).

 

What do all the ACCURACY categories mean? How is he evaluating "accuracy." Many fans complain that Tyrod doesn't throw the ball into tight windows, doesn't lead receivers well, etc. I've never been sure they're right, but there certainly are plenty of replays supporting the claim. I also don't trust fan analysis on a category like that. So how is Fahey measuring accuracy?

 

Is he third best or third worst in interceptable passes?

 

Finally, avoidable sacks isn't a useful number on its own. Taylor has a lot of sacks because he scrambles and he tries to keep pass plays alive. If he stays behind the line of scrimmage and gets sacked instead of giving up on the play and gaining 1 yard, yes it's an avoidable sack, but it might have been the right decision, because keeping the play alive may result, on average, in gains instead of losses. Plus, some of his avoidable sacks are plays where Taylor was trying to escape and got caught when he could have thrown the ball away. I want Taylor to try to escape in those situations, because when he does escape he often runs for a first down or more. In other words, the important stat is net yards in sack situations. That is, look at all the plays where the QB should be sacked and net all the yards lost to sacks, yards gained because the QB escaped and completed a pass and yards gain because the QB ran. If my QB has a high net, I don't care that he took more sacks than some guy who threw the ball away every time. I'd bet that if someone generated THAT stat, Taylor would be way up in the rankings. And, by the way, in doing that ranking, you have to determine avoidability objectively. That is, when the tackler is running at x miles an hour, he's 4 yards from the QB and the QB has Y room to maneuver, how many times does he avoid the sack? I guarantee you Taylor is way up on that list. That is, what's avoidable can't vary because the nature of the QB. In one sense, Eli has more or less no avoidable sacks, because he just isn't able to avoid any.

 

All of this adds to my sense that the coaches have a much better idea of what's going on. You can come up with all these detailed stats, evaluating little aspects of the game, but it's the combination of all of this kind of analysis that leads to the right conclusions about this This micro-examination, interesting as it is, doesn't really do the trick.

 

Although I don't agree with BigBuff's eyeball test analysis, in a sense it's correct. At least the eyeball test is about the big picture, and that's what really matters. The question is whether the QB is getting the job done. The problem with the eyeball test is that it's hard to say what "getting the job done" means. It's easy to say wins, but despite the QB's importance, it's still a team game, and there are a lot of reasons for losing beside the QB's play. So people go back to stats, because stats at least are an objective analysis (until you get done to avoidable sacks and such).

 

So here's my conclusion. Stats are the best thing we have to analyze QBs. They aren't perfect, but it's all we have. The fundamental point about stats is that they are useful when there is a high correlation between the stats and your eyeball. If the players who LOOK like they're the best running backs also have the most yards per carry, then there's high correlation between the stat and observed performance. That in turn means that a running back's rank in yards per carry is a decent way to evaluate how good he is.

 

The problem with the kind of analysis Fahey does is that the categories are so detailed that there is not good correlation in every case. That is, Taylor being ranked third in some category simply is not evidence that he's anything like the third best QB in the league. It just isn't. On rankings of these minute categories, the best QBs are all over the place. There is low correlation, which means that the stat isn't useful for evaluating the quality of the QB. May be useful for other things, but not evaluating overall performance.

 

And that's why always come back to the passer rating. The guys we all believe are the best QBs in the league have the highest passer ratings. High correlation, which means the stat is useful in separating good play from average or bad play. Same with the QBR, which evaluates more than passing. Neither is perfect, neither is complete, but they both give us a reasonably reliable way to compare the play of the various QBs.

 

So, although I know Fahey wasn't trying to rate the QBs generally, just for the record, let's be clear about Tyrod. In 2015, Taylor had the 8th best passer rating in the league, and the 7th best QBR. In 2016 he was 18th in passer rating and 9th in QBR. Those ratings are consistent with what I saw. (A good passer in 2015, not good enough in 2016, but his QBR is good because he's the best running QB in the league).

 

Bottom line for me is that Fahey's number's are interesting, but at the end of the day they don't prove much to me.

[Shaw66]

 

 

 

 

If he was that good, he wouldn't have had to take a major contract cut. Which is the reason he's still in Buffalo.

 

 

 

This argument is for another thread, but still I want to make the point.

 

TAYLOR DID NOT TAKE A CONTRACT CUT.

 

Taylor gave up about $10 million of guaranteed money so that he could become a free agent in two years instead of five years.

 

I know a professional agent. He has represented some of the biggest names in sports. I mean BIGGEST. I asked him which was a better deal for Tyrod, the one Tyrod had or the one he took in March. He said the one he got in March, no question, no question at all. He said he would have urged Tyrod to take the deal the Bills offered. Free agency in two years is worth MUCH more than the $10 million he gave up.

 

This idea that Tyrod gave in to the Bills because he had no options is just wrong. The Bills came to him with their hats in their hands looking for help. Tyrod gave them something they wanted in exchange for something he wanted - free agency.

 

If Tyrod plays the full season in 2017 and the Bills make the playoffs, Tyrod will get a new contract next year much better than the one he gave up last month. If that happens, everyone will look back and blame Whaley for renegotiating.

[HappyDays]

I know a professional agent. He has represented some of the biggest names in sports. I mean BIGGEST. I asked him which was a better deal for Tyrod, the one Tyrod had or the one he took in March. He said the one he got in March, no question, no question at all. He said he would have urged Tyrod to take the deal the Bills offered. Free agency in two years is worth MUCH more than the $10 million he gave up.

Well this is about the most interesting thing I've heard on Tyrod's contract situation... Thanks for the input Shaw.