Wayne Arnold Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 Why do we know that's the answer? The Hoyer "interest" could have easily been some last minute posturing and leveraging. And if it was, it worked. I wish people would stop pretending they know what happened, or worse, team intentions, during that time period. After a while, some get a really good feel for what out there is true and what is false.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 After a while, some get a really good feel for what out there is true and what is false. And what GB said is true, and what you tried to sell isn't.
Wayne Arnold Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 And what GB said is true, and what you tried to sell isn't. It's pretty easy for agents to find out what his client would command on the open market. This isn't rocket science.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) It's pretty easy for agents to find out what his client would command on the open market. This isn't rocket science. Yes, yes it is. That's not the nonsense you peddled. I'll make it clearer for you. At no time were the Bills planning on cutting ties with Tyrod. They had contingencies in place if he decided to choose other options. Edited October 24, 2017 by BuffaloHokie13
GunnerBill Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 Why do we know that's the answer? The Hoyer "interest" could have easily been some last minute posturing and leveraging. And if it was, it worked. I wish people would stop pretending they know what happened, or worse, team intentions, during that time period. I'm not suggesting he was their preferred option... I think that was always Tyrod. But we do know he was the fallback.
Wayne Arnold Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 Yes, yes it is. That's not the nonsense you peddled. Then you completely misconstrued my post.
grb Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 Not quite. If the Bills took up the option the $15.5m was payable immediately. It was spread across the contract for cap purposes but in cash terms he'd have received it up front in March. He then had under the old deal base salaries of $12m in 2017 and $13m in 2018. So over the two years that the new contract covers we'd have paid him $40.5m. The new deal pays $30.5m over those same two years. That is a $10m pay cut. It is also possible for the Bills to pay him LESS than that $30.5m if they cut him after this season. They will have paid him $14.5m in cash this year and will be on the hook for just over $8.5m dead money next year. So cutting him after this season (which I don't think will happen or want to happen btw) will mean he has taken a pay cut from $40.5m over two years to $23m over the same two years - though he would then admittedly have the chance to sign somewhere else and add new salary on top of that income. Confession : Contract details like this make my head spin. But as near as I can tell you're correct. On the bright side, Taylor apparently gets 500K for the playoffs, 1mil for the AFC Championship Game, and 2mil for the Super Bowl.......
BuffaloHokie13 Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 Then you completely misconstrued my post. There were options to consider that all had their plusses and minuses, one of which with current hindsight would've been exceptional. Ultimately he chose a short deal to work with skill players he likes playing with and OC he enjoys working with.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 Myself personally, I've been very critical of T Mobile , but I'm also the only poster that believes Taylor worthy of becoming the face of the franchise. The little engine that could... The only one Fig? I'd put you between 5th and 8th on that list.
GunnerBill Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) Confession : Contract details like this make my head spin. But as near as I can tell you're correct. On the bright side, Taylor apparently gets 500K for the playoffs, 1mil for the AFC Championship Game, and 2mil for the Super Bowl....... Haha. No worries. I am 99% sure I am right. I wasn't attempting to criticise your original post either - the details are complicated. I was really interested at the time of Tyrod's deal because I was one of those on the fence about keeping him on the old deal. On the new deal it was a no brainer to keep him. What they'd have done had Tyrod refused to renegotiate is pure speculation, but we know there was a backup plan that involved Hoyer in some regard which leads me to believe there was a scenario (probably a total refusal to renegotiate at all) under which they were willing to countenance not having Tyrod here this year. There was clearly a spectrum between that decision and the point and which they would keep him. Who knows where on that line the eventual deal they came to falls? Edited October 24, 2017 by GunnerBill
Figster Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 The only one Fig? I'd put you between 5th and 8th on that list. hey man, I admit to it though, hehe
transplantbillsfan Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 No. More often than not, the simplest answer is the correct one. Maybe in real life, but not in the case of a business negotiation process.
BringBackOrton Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 Haha. No worries. I am 99% sure I am right. I wasn't attempting to criticise your original post either - the details are complicated. I was really interested at the time of Tyrod's deal because I was one of those on the fence about keeping him on the old deal. On the new deal it was a no brainer to keep him. What they'd have done had Tyrod refused to renegotiate is pure speculation, but we know there was a backup plan that involved Hoyer in some regard which leads me to believe there was a scenario (probably a total refusal to renegotiate at all) under which they were willing to countenance not having Tyrod here this year. There was clearly a spectrum between that decision and the point and which they would keep him. Who knows where on that line the eventual deal they came to falls? Nailed it.
Alphadawg7 Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) 1.) Our running game is superior to our passing offense, yes, whether it be a RB or QB running the ball. (that was the context in the original post mind you) 2.) Okay, lets actually look at some statistics here.... 2017 SB: Pats vs Falcons, Pats Ranked 7th Rush offense vs Falcons 5th ranked rush offense, Brady's arm won (and broke records too). 2016 SB: Broncos vs Panthers, Broncos ranked 17th rush offense, Panthers ranked 2nd, Broncos won, and also had a higher ranked pass offense than their rush, which was ranked 14th (so much for a team built on running). 2015 SB: Patriots vs Seahawks, Pats ranked 18th rush offense, Seahawks ranked 1st, Pats won. 2014 SB: Seahawks vs Broncos, Seahawks 1st ranked rush offence vs 15th ranked Broncos, Fair play Seahawks destroyed them, albeit it was never a close game to begin with and the running game didn't win them the game. 2013 SB: 49ers vs Ravens, Ravens ranked 11th rush offense, 49ers ranked 2nd, Ravens won. Idk man, rush heavy doesn't work, and it will NEVER work especially if you don't have a QB that can ball out when needed or even when complimented with a beautiful run game, doesn't running open up the pass? Never work? Are you serious? In your own examples you listed teams who were rush first teams, some of which won the SB. Again, that was THE SUPER BOWL participants. And again, YOU said that you can't remember a time when a rush dominant team did anything yet in all the recent SB's except for last year, at least one of the teams was a poor passing team whose strength was in ground and pound and defense. lol...thanks for only furthering my point of how poorly conceived your original post I called out for being full of inaccurate information. Edited October 24, 2017 by Alphadawg7
transplantbillsfan Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 It's pretty easy for agents to find out what his client would command on the open market. This isn't rocket science. No, it's not. But Taylor said he told his agent he wanted to be back in Buffalo. This is where Taylor said he wanted to be. And even though no one is ever going to find a single report that Buffalo was going to cut Taylor if he didn't accept the paycut, there are reports that at least 3 teams (SF, NYJ, and Cleveland) were interested in signing Taylor if he was released. So the posters here saying there was just no interest in Taylor just seem to be in their own worlds. The thing is, again, Taylor told his agent he wanted to stay in Buffalo. Stay in Buffalo or go to SF, Cleveland or the New York Jets (and the New York market)... seems pretty understandable. You honestly think those teams wouldn't have given Taylor more than what he renegotiated to?
OldTimeAFLGuy Posted October 24, 2017 Posted October 24, 2017 (edited) I'm not suggesting he was their preferred option... I think that was always Tyrod. But we do know he was the fallback. ....have to agree GB......Wrecks decimated the defense like no other......McD's background is defense, tutored by the late Jim Johnson and it has been resurrected FAR quicker than I EVER thought........2016 Special Teams, especially the kicking game was suspect so they shored that up.....retaining Crossman?......jury is out but Money Steve may have saved his butt.....so the remaining third phase is the offense....only have so much putty to fill the holes so Taylor becomes Dennison's project whether 2017 only or consideration for 2018+ WITHOUT wavering on a QB in the 1st of 2018.....what remains baffling to me is why Dennison and Castillo had to wait until the bye to make the adjustments we saw in the TB game?....McCoy resurfaces, Jones has some nice yardage, DiMarco forces my yap shut with a key block. OL performs well even with surprising insertion of Dawkins on left side, Taylor throws for 268 and allowed to demonstrate his wheels/athleticism, yada yada... AND...we come from BEHIND to win......why the wait?....just curious.............. Edited October 24, 2017 by OldTimeAFLGuy
26CornerBlitz Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 @PFF_Steve PFF QB rankings after Week 7 https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-nfl-qb-rankings-by-pff-grade-after-week-7 7. Tyrod Taylor, Buffalo Bills – 84.4 overall grade Taylor continues to play at a very high level, playing to his strengths and avoiding any detrimental mistakes, which allows his team to be in position to win close games. Although his accuracy was off a bit early on, he settled in with a few big runs and key conversions on third down, including a deep cross completion to WR Deonte Thompson in tight coverage while taking a shot in the process. Taylor was fairly aggressive down the field throughout, going 4-of-10 for 116 yards (third-most this week) and a touchdowns on throws traveling 20-plus yards, including his biggest play of the game, when he stepped up through the pocket and found Deonte Thompson yet again for a 59-yard gain that flipped the field and put them in position for a game tying touchdown in the fourth quarter.
Wayne Arnold Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 @PFF_Steve PFF QB rankings after Week 7 https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-nfl-qb-rankings-by-pff-grade-after-week-7 7. Tyrod Taylor, Buffalo Bills – 84.4 overall grade Taylor continues to play at a very high level, playing to his strengths and avoiding any detrimental mistakes, which allows his team to be in position to win close games. Although his accuracy was off a bit early on, he settled in with a few big runs and key conversions on third down, including a deep cross completion to WR Deonte Thompson in tight coverage while taking a shot in the process. Taylor was fairly aggressive down the field throughout, going 4-of-10 for 116 yards (third-most this week) and a touchdowns on throws traveling 20-plus yards, including his biggest play of the game, when he stepped up through the pocket and found Deonte Thompson yet again for a 59-yard gain that flipped the field and put them in position for a game tying touchdown in the fourth quarter. Still dead last in time to throw. In light of that, it makes me think his "Passer Rating vs. Pressure" rank is misleading. He invites the pressure by holding the ball for so long. Still one of the least-aggressive passers in the league. https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/passing#aggressiveness
26CornerBlitz Posted October 25, 2017 Author Posted October 25, 2017 Still dead last in time to throw. In light of that, it makes me think his "Passer Rating vs. Pressure" rank is misleading. He invites the pressure by holding the ball for so long. Still one of the least-aggressive passers in the league. https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/passing#aggressiveness You are funny man.
BuffaloHokie13 Posted October 25, 2017 Posted October 25, 2017 Still dead last in time to throw. In light of that, it makes me think his "Passer Rating vs. Pressure" rank is misleading. He invites the pressure by holding the ball for so long. Still one of the least-aggressive passers in the league. https://nextgenstats.nfl.com/stats/passing#aggressiveness I see no correlation between that stat and successful QB play. It's also odd terminology, in that I expected it to factor in depth of throw in some regard.
Recommended Posts