Bridge QB Reality Check

[John from Riverside]

9 hours ago, atlbillsfan1975 said:

Ok, fair point. Why would you want Tyrod around a high draft pick? Do you want Tyrod to stay QB for another year? 

I am thinking if this happens the high pick would probably supplant Tyrod at some point in the season.

 

One thing that really hasnt been talked about.....the bills have never really created a dynamic where Tyrod felt uncomfortable to keep his job based on lack of production with latter round picks

 

Competition is a good thing.......I am not even saying I want Tyrod back....but it could end up in this scenario

[Thurman#1]

13 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Why do people think guys like Bradford, AJ, Keenum, etc are realistic targets as bridge QB's to a high rookie draft pick this year?  Why on earth would they come to Buffalo to do that?

 

1. We have a first time OC who has a terrible NFL record as an OC and known for power run game on a team that has been a run first team here.  And our OL isnt exactly stellar at keeping QB's upright with some holes to fill on it still.
2. They dont know if they will start the whole season, or even at all if the rookie comes out hot in preseason.
3. The bridge QB will be on a short leash and cant afford bad games because they can lose their job at any moment.  And Buffalo is a run first team who plays outdoors in bad weather, not exactly an ideal location to try and hold a job on a short leash.  Plus we have an injury prone #1 WR and a young WR in Zay at #2 who struggled bad in his rookie year.
4. They will have multiple teams interested in their services, so they WONT sign in Buffalo for 1 year.  Means Buffalo will need to give them more expensive deal than Tyrod and it will be a multi year deal.
   1. That leaves the Bills with an expensive backup after this year chewing up cap space...whereas Tyrod comes off the books after this year and clears the way for a cheap backup in Peterman (if he can earn the job) or signing a low budget FA QB to be a backup.
5. Who cares who the bridge QB is?  Its a temp job and they may not even start a single game.  It does NOT matter who it is.  What does matter is cap space, and using cap space stupidly is not going to do the Bills any favors in building a winner.  And overpaying to have a bridge whose name isnt Tyrod is a bad use of cap space, especially on a multi year deal.

 

Bottom line, Tyrod is a substantially SMARTER move to be a bridge behind a top QB prospect.  He is cheap and only has 1 year left on his deal.  Plus he knows the team and players, is the hardest working guy on the roster, respected by his teammates as a leader, has a winning record despite 2 HC's and now 4 OC's in Buffalo, dealt with poor arsenal of revolving door of WR's (due to injuries, trades, and FA), and just made the playoffs.

 

If we can trade Tyrod, even better as we get something for him now and Peterman can be the bridge or we sign a CHEAP FA QB, not Bradford level, on a 1 year deal to keep seat warm like a McCown or even someone like Kap...guys who wont have as many other options or leverage in negotiating the deal.  At the end of the day, does not matter who the guy out there is...its short lived and they may even lose their job before the season begins if the rookie starts hot.  

 

But a pricey "bridge" like Bradford, Keenum, etc just isnt happening unless Bills make a bad decision by over paying on a multi year deal to try and get them to choose Bills over better situations.  Now if they want to sign Bradford as the starter and forego drafting a rookie, then sure, they can sign him.  But I don't think anyone thinks thats a good idea, and I doubt Beane does either.

 

 

 

While some of your arguments make  a lot of sense, Daboll isn't thought of as a bad OC choice. Just the opposite, he has a terrific reputation as a smart guy with success in a lot of places, including Alabama and New England. Nobody's going to hold a bad year in KC with Matt Cassel as the QB against him. Nobody.

 

Our bridge QB will likely be signed before the draft.  He won't know if or when we will draft someone. And teams that will bring him in could all draft someone. 

 

The bottom line is this, it'll depend where the chips fall. There are so probably gonna be so many good FA QBs available this year after Minny makes their decisions that it's an unusual year. There isn't usually a Cousins out there for FA QBs to compete against, nor such a number of good draft QBs that teams like the Giants, Denver, Cleveland etc. might or might not be committed to. It's gonna be a bit of a tough year for FAs, even pretty good ones. They're not gonna be able to sit back and take only the best opportunities. 

 

And the problem with Tyrod is he isn't a good bridge. He just isn't. A good bridge QB allows you to input the offense you want to run after the bridge guy is gone. Tyrod doesn't do that as shown by the tidal wave of "we need to change the offense to fit Tyrod's skills" choruses last year. That's not who you want as a bridge. As a backup or a team that believes in him as a longer-term starter, Tyrod's style would be a good match. As a bridge, no. As a bridge on a team that wants to run a system that requires a guy who can throw from the pocket, emphatically absolutely decisively no.

 

 The last thing you want is a guy who'll cause you to spend $23 mill in cap for one year's service and then make you change the playbook if you expect him to have success. The very last thing.

 

You may well be right that we end up with a cheap bridge guy rather than an expensive one. Very possible. But it could also happen the other way.

Edited February 26, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

7 hours ago, TigerJ said:

I'm not so anti-Taylor that I'd jump ship like some fans i the Bills retained him, but I disagree with several of the OP's points.  

 

#1 Free agency precedes the draft.  If Buffalo sign's a free agent QB, that QB will have no idea what is going to happen in the draft, because the Bills won't know.  They will likely tell an potential signee, "You will have every chance to start, but we are going to continue to try and do what is best for the team."   Any QB with the right attitude will be unafraid of that kind of situation because they think they are good enough to win a competition.  I don't think the Bills are locked in to having a youngster start at any given point if the Bills are winning with a veteran acquisition.

 

#2 I suspect if the Bills sign a top level veteran QB, they will not draft a top QB.  They will draft a second or third tier guy with the chance to develop.  Jimmy Garapolo was one of those a few years back.

 

#3 If Tyrod is retained as a starter/bridge QB or whatever, the offensive coordinator will have to run an unconventional offense built around Tyrod's abilities and limitations.  Dennison tried to go more conventional last season, and the offense suffered as a result.  If you have to run an unconventional offense, then whatever developmental QB you have on your roster is going to be disadvantaged, if he is a more conventional.  He's not going to be able to develop his strengths because that's not the offense the Bills are running.  If you then draft an unconventional QB because that's the offense you're running, you push to the future any ability to run a more typical offense because you've got nobody who can run it, unless Nate Peterman develops.  I think creativity is a wonderful thing in football, but there is a reason conventional offenses with more passing is the norm.  It works!

 

A more conventional veteran QB will be advantageous to a young developmental guy because the young guy can learn the things a conventional QB needs to do, things he can't learn very well from watching Tyrod.

 

#4 Like a lot of fans, I think Buffalo has a chance to be improved next year.  Like a lot of fans, I also believe that Tyrod will likely hold back and limit te amount of improvement the offense can make.  Therefore, I care very much who the QB is, whether he's a bridge or a long term starter.  As I said, I won't jump ship if Ty is the guy, but I have to admit, I'm very skeptical that the Bills offense can substantially improve with Tyrod at QB.

 

 

 

 

 

Nice post.

[Buffalo Barbarian]

No

 

 

[PrimeTime101]

13 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

 

Another worthless and utterly lazy comment that has nothing to do with the thread where it deals directly the REALITY of what our OPTIONS truly are as a BRIDGE.  And the thread literally says TRADING TT would be ideal.  

 

But thanks for trying...well not really.  And sorry, but to call my post a look at me thread is stupid.  I could care less...but I wanted to discuss the real realities of what our REAL choices for bridges are where we focused on the real variables of what will make one possible over the other.  

 

Just wondering how many Tyrod Taylor threads you plan on making? Its a legit response.. Enough is enough.

[NastyNateSoldiers]

15 hours ago, Alphadawg7 said:

Why do people think guys like Bradford, AJ, Keenum, etc are realistic targets as bridge QB's to a high rookie draft pick this year?  Why on earth would they come to Buffalo to do that?

 

1. We have a first time OC who has a terrible NFL record as an OC and known for power run game on a team that has been a run first team here.  And our OL isnt exactly stellar at keeping QB's upright with some holes to fill on it still.
2. They dont know if they will start the whole season, or even at all if the rookie comes out hot in preseason.
3. The bridge QB will be on a short leash and cant afford bad games because they can lose their job at any moment.  And Buffalo is a run first team who plays outdoors in bad weather, not exactly an ideal location to try and hold a job on a short leash.  Plus we have an injury prone #1 WR and a young WR in Zay at #2 who struggled bad in his rookie year.
4. They will have multiple teams interested in their services, so they WONT sign in Buffalo for 1 year.  Means Buffalo will need to give them more expensive deal than Tyrod and it will be a multi year deal.
   1. That leaves the Bills with an expensive backup after this year chewing up cap space...whereas Tyrod comes off the books after this year and clears the way for a cheap backup in Peterman (if he can earn the job) or signing a low budget FA QB to be a backup.
5. Who cares who the bridge QB is?  Its a temp job and they may not even start a single game.  It does NOT matter who it is.  What does matter is cap space, and using cap space stupidly is not going to do the Bills any favors in building a winner.  And overpaying to have a bridge whose name isnt Tyrod is a bad use of cap space, especially on a multi year deal.

 

Bottom line, Tyrod is a substantially SMARTER move to be a bridge behind a top QB prospect.  He is cheap and only has 1 year left on his deal.  Plus he knows the team and players, is the hardest working guy on the roster, respected by his teammates as a leader, has a winning record despite 2 HC's and now 4 OC's in Buffalo, dealt with poor arsenal of revolving door of WR's (due to injuries, trades, and FA), and just made the playoffs.

 

If we can trade Tyrod, even better as we get something for him now and Peterman can be the bridge or we sign a CHEAP FA QB, not Bradford level, on a 1 year deal to keep seat warm like a McCown or even someone like Kap...guys who wont have as many other options or leverage in negotiating the deal.  At the end of the day, does not matter who the guy out there is...its short lived and they may even lose their job before the season begins if the rookie starts hot.  

 

But a pricey "bridge" like Bradford, Keenum, etc just isnt happening unless Bills make a bad decision by over paying on a multi year deal to try and get them to choose Bills over better situations.  Now if they want to sign Bradford as the starter and forego drafting a rookie, then sure, they can sign him.  But I don't think anyone thinks thats a good idea, and I doubt Beane does either.

 

 

 

 

What makes u think Bradford will be costly.  What team is crazy enough to give a long term deal when there's other options available? Bradford,  Keenum,  McCarron,  Bridgewater and Tyrod if we do the right thing and wash our hands with him. These 5 QBs will all sign either a Glennon/ Bortles type deal with multiple yrs and less Gurantee Dollars with multiple outs or they will sign 1yr prove it deals.  No team will commit to them without them proving it first. 

 

Buffalo will get a QB easily if they choose to dump Tyrod in the trash where he belongs. Why because we are not sitting at the top of the draft in position to draft one of these elite prospects at the QB position.  These players will take into account that the Browns, Broncos & Jets will be drafting QBs very high or outright signing there answer in Cousins.  Arz Buff & Minn are better options because they will probably be using mid to late first or 2/3 to draft there QBs so there's no gurantee or pressure to play those guys right away . The chances of a Allen, Lamar or even Rudolph even developing into franchise QBs are slim to none as well as the 2nd and 3rd prospects.  So there's a better chance these Bridge Types can possibly stick for the longterm in Buffalo.  Especially the likes of McCarron and Bridgewater. 

[GunnerBill]

So my response to the original post would be this....

 

1. Case Keenum isn't going anywhere as a bridge.  He will be a starter in the NFL in 2018.  More than likely that is in Minnesota but even if it's not he will not be going anywhere to be a bridge.  The right question with Case Keenum is what will his contract look like?  It isn't going to be the now accepted two years bridge type deal.  It will be much more like the initial contract extension that Tyrod signed here in my mind, where they make a long term commitment but give themselves outs just in case 2017 was a fluke.  There was a point when you could have had Case Keenum as a cheap bridge.... it was last offseason.

 

2. Sam Bradford I think will only have a market made up of bridge opportunities.  Nobody is signing Bradford as their long term starter.  He signed a bridge deal in Philly which was traded to be a bridge deal in Minnesota. That is what the NFL now sees him as.  A guy who is capable but not top class and not reliable.  I doubt he gets a contract anywhere that is longer than 2 years and the deal he took from Philly was two years with the guaranteed money pretty much accounted for in year 1 so we know that he is absolutely open to signing that kind of deal. He could even take a 1 year deal betting on himself to stay healthy and play well next season and then have another go around at FA next year when the draft looks less likely to provide solutions and the FA crop is more limited.  That is in fact what I would be advising him to do if I was his agent.  Will he have better options for a 1 or 2 year bridge deal than Buffalo? Maybe, maybe not.  Totally depends where Cousins lands and how the rest of the market then falls in behind him.  

 

3. Tyrod Taylor staying is not just about who is the best Quarterback available.  The psychology of everything that has gone on here come into play.  The "are they or aren't they" nature of the Bills commitment to Tyrod has hung around this franchise for at least two years.  It was a distraction last season to the extent that it nearly sunk the season when the lack of true belief in the Quarterback within the coaching staff and front office led to an ill judged benching.  My view is very simple, the Bills have to rip off the band aid.  Tyrod might be better than what replaces him if it is a Josh McCown or AJ McCarron type but he isn't a lot better and they come without any of the other baggage and you are able to start and bench them without any of the dramatic story lines that follow.  Imagine for a second the Bills draft Baker Mayfield, Tyrod starts the season the Bills go 3-1 but Tyrod continues to be the tentative quarterback we have repeatedly seen.... then the Bills bench him with a winning record, again, for Baker Mayfield.  That is a distraction that whoever your 2018 rookie is does not need.  Nobody will bat an eye if the Bills pull Josh McCown.  

 

[NastyNateSoldiers]

15 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

He's rarely healthy, true. But he's also very average even when healthy. Definitely not 'very good' and definitely no more than a bridge.

I beg to differ over the last 2yrs Bradford has played he's been a very good top 12 QB and if it wasn't for his injuries he would not be available. 

 

2017- 32-43 for 75% completion 

2015/16 over 29 gms played 68.3

Adjusted comp % was 80.3

Deep passer rating 121.5

Passer rating under pressure 87.7 

He also had nearly a 3 to 1 td/to ratio so he protects the ball very well.

 

Tyrod can only dream of putting up these types of #s . My point is I'd rather take a chance of catching lighting in bottle with Bradford then go with a bottom 3 passer like Tyrod. We already seen the best Tyrod has to offer and it ain't much 3pts in a playoff gm when it matters most. I'm sorry i can't watch him anymore. 

[GunnerBill]

10 minutes ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

I beg to differ over the last 2yrs Bradford has played he's been a very good top 12 QB and if it wasn't for his injuries he would not be available. 

 

2017- 32-43 for 75% completion 

2015/16 over 29 gms played 68.3

Adjusted comp % was 80.3

Deep passer rating 121.5

Passer rating under pressure 87.7 

He also had nearly a 3 to 1 td/to ratio so he protects the ball very well.

 

Tyrod can only dream of putting up these types of #s . My point is I'd rather take a chance of catching lighting in bottle with Bradford then go with a bottom 3 passer like Tyrod. We already seen the best Tyrod has to offer and it ain't much 3pts in a playoff gm when it matters most. I'm sorry i can't watch him anymore. 

 

Bradford has definitely played the best football of his career since in the past 2 and a half years, but he has also had yet more injuries and lost two more starting jobs in the process.  That is why he is almost certainly seen as a bridge only. He can play... but for how long is always the question.  

[NastyNateSoldiers]

16 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Bradford has definitely played the best football of his career since in the past 2 and a half years, but he has also had yet more injuries and lost two more starting jobs in the process.  That is why he is almost certainly seen as a bridge only. He can play... but for how long is always the question.  

I'll take the chance with him as my Bridge any day over watching Tyrod for another season. 

 

I think the Bills should follow the same plan the Eagles had in 2016 they signed Chase Daniels then moved up in draft for Wentz and already had Bradford via trade from previous season.  In our case it would to sign Bradford and either trade up for QB or take one at our spot in the draft . I'd even sign a Derek Anderson or Chad Henne to add to depth. 

Bradford 

Anderson 

Rookie

Peterman 

 

If Peterman is looking good in camp u can trade the veteran bkup for a conditional pk or a late rder like we did with Cassell a few yrs bk.

[BuffaloHokie13]

2 hours ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

I beg to differ over the last 2yrs Bradford has played he's been a very good top 12 QB and if it wasn't for his injuries he would not be available. 

 

2017- 32-43 for 75% completion 

2015/16 over 29 gms played 68.3

Adjusted comp % was 80.3

Deep passer rating 121.5

Passer rating under pressure 87.7 

He also had nearly a 3 to 1 td/to ratio so he protects the ball very well.

 

Tyrod can only dream of putting up these types of #s . My point is I'd rather take a chance of catching lighting in bottle with Bradford then go with a bottom 3 passer like Tyrod. We already seen the best Tyrod has to offer and it ain't much 3pts in a playoff gm when it matters most. I'm sorry i can't watch him anymore. 

You almost sold me on how good he is by reporting 2 versions of his completion %

 

Over the past 3 years he's started 31 games. That's just over 10 per season, which you might balk at because he only started 2 in 2017, but it is right on his average for his career. 80 starts, 8 years. His completion % in those 31 starts is 68.6%, which is good. His YPA is 7.08, which is alright (It's lower than Tyrod who some people believe is a checkdown artist). He's accounted for 42 TDs in those 31 games, or 1.355 per game (Tyrod is at 1.477 over the same span). He's accounted for 27 turnovers, which makes his TD/TO rate 1.56, not 3 to 1 as you claim (Tyrod's at a 3.25 and he's scoring more per game). His TD% is 3.38% and his TO% is 2.17%. His ANY/A is actually nearly identical to Tyrod's over those 3 years at 6.23 to 6.25 respectively.

 

If you really want to switch to a guy who accounts for more yards, less scoring, and more turnovers that's fine, but he's no more than a bridge.

[Rochesterfan]

12 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

Coaches teach young QBs about mechanics, understanding the offense, progressions, etc.

 

Where the hell does this assumption that the 1st string QB teaches that to the 2nd string QB come from?

 

If a young QB can glean anything from a vet QB he’s sitting behind, it would be leadership and work ethic, and Taylor would get high marks in both categories, I’m sure.

 

 

The coaches teach - what do they use to teach?  They use practice and game film and game planning sessions and if your #1 QB does not make correct reads and/or requires a unique offense to run or requires an entirely different set-up - that takes away from what you are going to be able to teach him.

 

Everyone complained about the Bills not building an offense around TT, but if he is only a bridge you do not build around the bridge - you choose the scheme you want to run - you draft and acquire players to fit that - and that includes finding the developmental QB you want to grow in that system.  If TT was the long term answer then by all means build an offense to fit him.

 

The most important thing a young QB can learn is how to watch film and to understand the progressions and what to look for and the coaches can teach that, but if the game film does not show your starter doing those things - that is a detriment to his growth.  Additionally- how awkward is it in the film study to watch TT make plays and the QB coach basically saying you need to key here and throw at this point when TT did something completely different and completed a pass later in the route.  You are in a room teaching and ripping apart your stater at the same time.

 

Sal from WGR was talking about this when he was saying why the offensive coaches were so frustrated with TT last year - they needed him to progress and at least attempt to follow the game plan, but when the real bullets fly in the game - he reverts to his old form just winging it, not following the flow of the game.

 

The assumption is not that the QB #1 has to teach QB #2 anything - it is that QB#1 will do enough things correctly that the coaches can actually use the film and the practice time to show the Rookie what to read and why.  If your QB #1 is so different and does not follow the basic tenets of the offense - you are now trying to teach without the ability to show things in real situations with your real personnel.

 

It can be done, but it makes it harder and less effective.

 

TT may or may not be back, but if he does come back and the Bills draft a tall in the pocket QB - I think having TT makes the transition harder rather than easier.  If you are drafting a pocket passer - I would rather see a McCown type QB as the bridge - even if it is 2 years than see TT as the bridge.  If you are drafting a Mayfield or Jackson with a bit more mobility and play making outside the pocket - then by all means keep TT and teach based upon his plays, but that does not seem to be what the GM and Coach say they want out of the position.

 

 

[xRUSHx]

I see zero reason to keep him. He is by no means a mentor he offers nothing but to make the OC have to have a special scheme just for him while the rookies will have to practice a different one. I do not see how he will help a rookie at all, Tyrod does not want to give up his job and sadly the other players that are his friends will play like a Chargers game to help the rookie look bad so Tyrod would return to the starting lineup. Also keeping him gives us 2019 dead money. The OP says he does not care if we lose every game with Tyrod as the starter and that would accualy help us for 2019, then why not let Peterman be the starter till our new rookie is ready and use Tyrod bonus/contract money elsewhere?

 

Keeping Tyrod is counter productive because all it does in my opinion is divide the team and fans even more as to wanting Tyrod to remain the starter while wasting time and money on a short bus with a flat tire on its way to the junk yard.

 

So many Tyrod threads, so many excuses plassing blame, so many OCs. This board sure could use a break from Tyrod, I for one hope he is long gone before the season. Move on to better things, Rex choice at QB ended when he was fired.

Edited February 26, 2018 by xRUSHx

[BillsFan130]

5 minutes ago, xRUSHx said:

I see zero reason to keep him. He is by no means a mentor he offers nothing but to make the OC have to have a special scheme just for him while the rookies will have to practice a different one. I do not see how he will help a rookie at all, Tyrod does not want to give up his job and sadly the other players that are his friends will play like a Chargers game to help the rookie look bad so Tyrod would return to the starting lineup. Also keeping him gives us 2019 dead money. The OP says he does not care if we lose every game with Tyrod as the starter and that would accualy help us for 2019, then why not let Peterman be the starter till our new rookie is ready and use Tyrod bonus/contract money elsewhere?

 

Keeping Tyrod is counter productive because all it does in my opinion is divide the team and fans even more as to wanting Tyrod to remain the starter while wasting time and money on a short bus with a flat tire on its way to the junk yard.

 

So many Tyrod threads, so many excuses plassing blame, so many OCs. This board sure could use a break from Tyrod, I for one hope he is long gone before the season.

No chance that Beane goes into the season with a rookie and Peterman as the only two QBs

[simool]

I wonder how many light bulbs could be powered with the energy spent here on pointless hypotheses and theories? It has to be a BIG number.

[NastyNateSoldiers]

1 hour ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

You almost sold me on how good he is by reporting 2 versions of his completion %

 

Over the past 3 years he's started 31 games. That's just over 10 per season, which you might balk at because he only started 2 in 2017, but it is right on his average for his career. 80 starts, 8 years. His completion % in those 31 starts is 68.6%, which is good. His YPA is 7.08, which is alright (It's lower than Tyrod who some people believe is a checkdown artist). He's accounted for 42 TDs in those 31 games, or 1.355 per game (Tyrod is at 1.477 over the same span). He's accounted for 27 turnovers, which makes his TD/TO rate 1.56, not 3 to 1 as you claim (Tyrod's at a 3.25 and he's scoring more per game). His TD% is 3.38% and his TO% is 2.17%. His ANY/A is actually nearly identical to Tyrod's over those 3 years at 6.23 to 6.25 respectively.

 

If you really want to switch to a guy who accounts for more yards, less scoring, and more turnovers that's fine, but he's no more than a bridge.

In 2016 he had 23TD passes and 5pks. He was definitely on his way last yr before the injury to his knee. He's a much better passer then Tyrod and way better fit in pass heavy Erhardt Perkins system . 

 

Btw the Vikings oline was horrible in 2016 and Bradford never played with a bk like Shady . We add a couple of wrs to complement Benjamin and were definitely gonna be putting up major pts on offense. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

In 2016 he had 23TD passes and 5pks. He was definitely on his way last yr before the injury to his knee. He's a much better passer then Tyrod and way better fit in pass heavy Erhardt Perkins system . 

 

Btw the Vikings oline was horrible in 2016 and Bradford never played with a bk like Shady . We add a couple of wrs to complement Benjamin and were definitely gonna be putting up major pts on offense. 

He had 20 TDs, not 23. What is the aversion to using actual numbers?

[BillsFan130]

14 minutes ago, NastyNateSoldiers said:

In 2016 he had 23TD passes and 5pks. He was definitely on his way last yr before the injury to his knee. He's a much better passer then Tyrod and way better fit in pass heavy Erhardt Perkins system . 

 

Btw the Vikings oline was horrible in 2016 and Bradford never played with a bk like Shady . We add a couple of wrs to complement Benjamin and were definitely gonna be putting up major pts on offense. 

Bradford is so overrated in my opinion.

 

Here is basically the sum up of Bradford’s career:

 

A team will invest a lot to get him.

 

Plays well for a few games.

 

Plays mediocre for a few games.

 

Gets injured.

 

Rinse and repeat 

[Mr. WEO]

13 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:

 

i mean, joe namath is in the hof, so i donno

fair points you made

i still don't see alex smith as anything more than a game manager prior to this season

he's not a guy who elevates a bad team

he's a guy who you put on an already good team

honestly?

if he was in new england instead of brady i think he'd have a couple of rings himself though

i don't think he's bad by any means

he's an average to above average QB who had a standout season this year

this season was most likely a fluke

he'll go 6-10 next year since the skins are hot trash

 

Smith took the 49ers to 13-3 and the NFCC game in his only full season as starter.

 

I don't see him winning any of those close SBs in NE.          

 

Skins were on a trajectory to go 6-10 with Cousins and everyone wants to make him the highest paid player in the NFL.                                                             

[Big Gun]

1 hour ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

 

 He's accounted for 42 TDs in those 31 games, or 1.355 per game (Tyrod is at 1.477 over the same span).

Only in the world of TT defenders is ONLY passing stats NOT used when doing QB comparisons. I doesn't  make him look good and hurts the defenders narrative. 

 

Passing TDs 42 in 31 games or 1.355 for Bradford

Passing TDs 51 in 43 games or 1.18 for Tyrod

 

Talk about aversion to using QB passing stats.  

 

FWIW, I don't want Bradford or Tyrod QBing the Bills this year.

Edited February 26, 2018 by PeterGriffin