If we keep Tyrod. I'm done.

[GunnerBill]

8 minutes ago, T-Bomb said:

 

You keep saying this stupid ****...  The only drama is the drama you're creating!

 

 

So you think that week in the run up to the Chargers game last year was pure calm presumably?  You can keep pretending that these decisions don't involve people and just robots, but it isn't true.  If the Bills retain Tyrod start him the first 4 games and are at or above .500 but replace him with their rookie at that point it will be a distraction. Want proof? See A) the reaction both times Tyrod has been benched previously and B) The 2004 New York Giants.  Hell people still rake over that decision now two Superbowls won by said rookie later. 

 

You can pretend that there is no difference pulling Tyrod (for a third time in three years) to pulling say Josh McCown.... but there is.  

[SouthNYfan]

7 hours ago, reddogblitz said:

 

OK

 

They could take Nasty Nate to Xmas dinner.

 

I think Coach McDermott wants to win. Dumping a guy you can go to playoffs with when you don't have anybody better would be   just plain dumb if you're trying to win. I don't think it has anything due to an alleged toxicity level of the relationship. Its just bidness.

 

I gotcha.

I know it's bidness.

Sometimes teams and players have a relationship that they can't fix.

If a player feels disrespected, sometimes, that's the end of it, and they want out.

(Like cousins in Washington)

I do think MCD and the Bills are more mature than the skins management.

I also think Tyrod is smart enough to not be too public about it, but when he's been interviewed, he has been pretty self congratulating and not very "I love Buffalo and want to stay" mentality.

Toxic might be too harsh, but it's certainly not a happy, stable situation from either side, I think we can agree there.

 

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Nope, not toxic. As a matter of fact, you're the one who brought up the word. The guy you replied to didn't use it.

 

Why not dump him now? Trade possibilities, for one thing. What do they lose by keeping him and trying to trade him. They lose nothing till March 16th.

 

As much as reddog and I don't agree, I did use the word "toxic" first, in this instance. 

[mjt328]

In  understand the frustration for Bills fans.  At this point, it's pretty clear to 95% of observers that Tyrod Taylor isn't the long-term answer.  But when you break down the situation logically, keeping him on the roster (at least for the time being) actually makes lots of sense.

 

1.  There are basically two options for Buffalo when it comes to adequately addressing the Quarterback position.  Either sign Kirk Cousins to a massive contract OR make a play for one of the top 4-5 draft prospects. 

 

2.  The odds of us landing Cousins are very small.  We don't have the cap space that some other teams have, and Cousins has already expressed most of his interest in Minnesota and Denver.

 

3.  If we bring in ANYONE else, the only purpose will be to serve as a veteran-bridge or backup.  That's it.  Case Keenum, Sam Bradford, Teddy Bridgewater, AJ McCarron, Josh McCown, Mike Glennon would all be signed as temporary place-holders. 

 

4.  An argument could be made that Taylor is a better on-field option than any of these other veteran guys.  Yes, Bradford is a significantly better QB.  But he has NEVER been able to stay healthy.  Yes, Keenum was pretty good last year.  But was he a legitimate break-out, or a one-year-wonder? 

 

5.  Replacing Taylor would also be a MUCH bigger hit on the salary cap.  If we keep him on the roster, his cap hit is $18.08 million.  If we cut him, that cap hit is reduced, but still accounts for $8.6 million in dead money.  But then you need to factor in signing ANOTHER veteran free agent, which most are expecting to range between $14-19 million per year.  So overall, replacing Taylor would commit an extra $5-10 million to the QB position - while knowing that player is destined to eventually give-way to a rookie replacement.

 

6.  Smart teams know how to take advantage of the Compensatory Pick Formula.  This formula is based on net gain versus net loss on free agents.  If guys like EJ Gaines and Preston Brown sign decent contracts, we could be looking at some nice Comp picks.  Signing a veteran like Keenum or Bradford wipes that out, and could ultimately result in losing a 3rd or 4th Round selection.

 

[2003Contenders]

3 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Again, keeping Tyrod isn't $18 mill. It's $23 mill. If we keep him this year, next year in 2019 he'll be somewhere else and we'll be paying yet another $5.6 mill in dead money. The alternative is cutting/trading him now and taking the $8 mill in dead money this year. Saving $15 mill on a QB who doesn't fit the one requirement our coach gave for a QB makes a lot of sense.

 

 

 

Now you are simply spreading "Fake News" to make your point.

 

But just in case you really do not know, here is the breakdown of Tyrod's contract and the cap ramifications for this season:

Base salary: $10 M

Roster bonus: $6 M

Signing Bonus amortization ($2.08 M)

Total cap hit for 2018: $18.08 M

Dead cap: $8.64 M

 

So this $23M figure you keep spouting is a myth.  If we keep him, the cap hit is $18M this year, whereas if we release/cut him it is $8.64 M. Furthermore, if he is gone that is $8.64 M PLUS whatever we would have to pay for his replacement. That means, assuming you are looking for a bridge veteran QB, finding someone willing to play for less than $10 M in 2018 whose future dead cap space in 2019 is no more than $5.6M (as Tyrod's would be). Playing devil's advocate, I would challenge anyone to name such a player.

 

Please know that I am NOT necessarily advocating keeping him but pointing out the justification for why the Bills may ultimately do so -- and bracing the "Never Tyrod" crowd for what MAY end up happening.  I agree 100% that Tyrod is not the answer at QB. I really hope that the team lands a future franchise QB in the draft, one that could potentially start from day one. 

[GunnerBill]

7 minutes ago, 2003Contenders said:

That means, assuming you are looking for a bridge veteran QB, finding someone willing to play for less than $10 M in 2018 whose future dead cap space in 2019 is no more than $5.6M (as Tyrod's would be). Playing devil's advocate, I would challenge anyone to name such a player.

 

Josh McCown played this year on a 1 year $6.5m contract. 

Ryan Fitzpatrick played on a 1 year $3m contract. 

 

We had this last year as well "it's impossible to get rid of Tyrod and save money without getting a lot worse".  Rubbish I said.  I mentioned three names this time last year:

 

- Case Keenum who played on a 1 year $2m deal and outplayed Tyrod;

- Nick Foles who played on a 2 year $11m deal and won a Superbowl; and

- Brian Hoyer who signed a 3 year $4.5m contract and lost his job. 

 

2 out of those 3 would have been as successful as Tyrod was here.  Now I actually thought once Tyrod renegotiated last summer that keeping him on the new deal was the best solution.  I said early last offseason "don't be surprised if he takes a pay cut to come back" he did.  But having gone through a year of another regime giving him a lukewarm reception and benching him for a Quarterback that sucked and having the chaos that threatened to engulf the whole season that fortnight I don't think even at what I accept is a price that is still in the market of realistic for a bridge Quarterback I think it is right to move on from Tyrod.  

 

I might feel different if you told me today "the Bills are going to draft Lamar Jackson or Josh Allen."  Because then I would be looking at "who is the best Quarterback to make us competitive in 2018 while the rookie redshirts?"  The answer to that is probably Tyrod (I might have a slight preference for Keenum except for the fact that I think he'd be more expensive and harder to jettison after one year so all things considered I'd want Tyrod).

 

But I want the Bills to trade up, I believe they will trade up and I believe Sam Darnold will be gone which could leave Rosen and Mayfield there who for me are the two most pro-ready Quarterbacks in this class.  Get either and I might not want a bridge at all.  I want a backup.  If that backup has to play 3 or 4 games at the start then fine, I'll live with it.  But I want a guy in that position to be easy to bench without any distractions.  The people who believe that the Bills benching Tyrod for the 3rd time in 3 years would not cause a week of potentially distracting talk, questions and intrigue are naive in my mind. The fact that the two previous benchings preceded dreadful Quarterback performances from the replacements will add at least some pressure to a rookie making his first NFL start in a city that hasn't had a franchise Quarterback in forever too.  As I say.... the Giants did this 14 years ago were proved unquestionably to be right and yet still you have people who rake over that decision because they sunk a season where they were above .500.   

 

 

 

[dickleyjones]

despite his weaknesses, i kind of want Tyrod to stay now.

[PromoTheRobot]

The Billsiest thing we could do is cut Tyrod before we know who is going to replace him. Throwing names out isn't "knowing."

[Big Gun]

21 minutes ago, PromoTheRobot said:

The Billsiest thing we could do is cut Tyrod before we know who is going to replace him. Throwing names out isn't "knowing."

Who cares who replaces him as it's not to difficult to navigate a NFL passing attack to the bottom one, two, or three in the league. Geeze even Tyrod did that.

[Rochesterfan]

19 hours ago, SoTier said:

 

How is having a Matt Moore or Chad Henne playing ahead of a rookie QB "creating the best situation for that rookie"?   Are you suggesting that the Bills need to insure that the veteran QB on the roster is absolutely no threat to their "future franchise QB"?  In that case, the Bills should just reprise 2013 and start the season with Peterman, the rookie QB, and a practice squad refugee.   That guarantees that the rookie QB will be starting before mid-season and saves a ton of cap space to boot.

 

Multiple ways - 1st having a guy that actually plays QB - so the film and practice show how to read and progress - how to take a proper drop.  All of those things matters.  The coaches teach, but having a guy that does it correctly makes the teaching easier and better.

 

2nd - TT has been benched each year because of poor play and injuries.  Last year it became a race issue with him questioning how a non African American would be treated.  This has the potential of splitting the locker room when it becomes time to move on again.  You can not risk fracturing the team to continue to play a bridge QB.  At some point you need to move on and be able to get some game experience for your rookie and if it is replacing a fresh face then it is easier.

 

I don’t think competition is the issue - it is finding the right fit and the right player.  TT does a lot of good things, but he is not a bridge or back-up level QB.  The biggest complaint every year preseason has been: well he needs time with the receivers to gel.  You do not get that as a back-up - you may need to come in a just start slinging the ball to guys.  He also does very little in a standard way - his drops and progressions are not normal and his timing on throws is awful - therefore as a training or film study guy - he provides little for the coaching staff to use a teaching material.

 

I think the band-aid analogy is great - it might hurt a bit short term, but long term it is for the best.  Move on - trade him - sign someone else - whatever, but don’t become beholden to the replacement has to be better - the future has to be better - the replacement just needs to get you to the future and help that future grow as much as possible.

[billsredneck1]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

Case Keenum who played on a 1 year $2m deal and outplayed Tyrod;

- Nick Foles who played on a 2 year $11m deal and won a Superbowl;

this should throw out the whole finding someone who can outperform tyrod will cost a fortune argument...

 

anyway, i listened to both mcinterviews yesterday. i think tyrod is definitely going. i think it goes something like this....

 

1. they already have the framework of a trade for a mid to late rd. pick after they pay the bonus lined up.

 

2. they have possible draft day trade partners lined up.

 

3. they trade up and get rosen or mayfield and are content to roll with nate until if or when the rookie is needed or ready.  doing this they could take the dead cap hit and get it out of the way and instead of overpaying one of the upper tier fa's, they have more money for another position(gaines).

 

4. they stand pat and draft rudolph and sign someone like a matt moore or josh mc to a one or two yr. deal for a few mil. (btw i think moore could have a keenum like year here for about 5mil.)

 

 i think it's going to be no.3  there's no way in hell that they are going to pay that much money to tt and also have a hit again next year. not to mention if there were any kind of competition in camp, peterman would beat out tyrod anyway. there is no way tyrod is worth 23 mil. it ain't happening.....thank god.

 

i supported tt at the start of the year and was optimistic even when everyone was crying about how dreadful the schedule looked, but he was flat out horrible. not one ounce of improvement from one year to the next. he's as good as gone.

Edited March 1, 2018 by billsredneck1

[MPT]

8 hours ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Horsecrap. More straw men and nonsense. 

 

I have and will never advocate for making this team worse, but when you go from a capable starting vet with a low ceiling lile Tyrod to a rookie there will be some growing pains. It is possible that means that the Quarterback play in 2018 is on a level or even worse than 2017. The answer is not "hold onto Tyrod in case tje next guy is rubbish." That is a loser attitude.

 

Trade up, get the best guy you can and intend on getting him on the field as soon as you can. Cut out the drama that is Tyrod's story with the Bills and find yourself some veteran insurance where there is less water under the bridge.

 

To me that is the logical way of approaching this offseason. 

 

But yet again anyone suggesting anything that is not "Tyrod" is attacked. Cult. I thought, and hoped, we were past this. 

 

I am all for drafting the best QB we can get. I'd also like to get a better vet QB. But I think trading or signing for a worse QB just to avoid any "drama" you can't deal with is pure nonsense, and I'm sure the front office feels the same. 

[GunnerBill]

2 minutes ago, MPT said:

 

I am all for drafting the best QB we can get. I'd also like to get a better vet QB. But I think trading or signing for a worse QB just to avoid any "drama" you can't deal with is pure nonsense, and I'm sure the front office feels the same. 

 

Judging by their comments again yesterday I'm sure the Front Office sees Tyrod as a last resort only.  They want to rip off the band aid.  

[Ramza86]

Idk if this is something to get that irate about lol....

 

Im not fond of the idea of Tyrod starting...but tbh...if we can bulk up on the lines...I guess i can live with it.

[PromoTheRobot]

55 minutes ago, PeterGriffin said:

Who cares who replaces him as it's not to difficult to navigate a NFL passing attack to the bottom one, two, or three in the league. Geeze even Tyrod did that.

Billsy thinking at its finest. Can you do worse that Tyrod? Oh yes. How short memories are around here!

[MPT]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Judging by their comments again yesterday I'm sure the Front Office sees Tyrod as a last resort only.  They want to rip off the band aid.  

 

Obviously. So does everyone. But if they can't find a better vet for a reasonable price, they're not going to ditch their best option just because some fans can't cope with it. That's not the rational move. Look at the title of this thread for god's sake, and tell me which side is acting on emotion. 

[D. L. Hot-Flamethrower]

1 minute ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Judging by their comments again yesterday I'm sure the Front Office sees Tyrod as a last resort only.  They want to rip off the band aid.  

When I used to coach ice hockey I took a puck to the mouth that resulted in about 50 stitches. Bleed like a bleeping pig all over the rink, in my friends truck etc. Then they got it contained in the emergency room and bandaged. The nurse was then told to get it prepped for stitching. She then proceeded to tear of the bandage and in the process created a "bleeder", it was shooting all over in a stream. They all flipped out and couldn't get it stopped. Very disconcerting....one of the idiots actually said "don't worry, you have a lot of blood!". A friggin' priest walked in and started saying prayers. I'm thinking holy **** this must be worst than I thought...last rites. Eventually this army doctor, just back from Iraq, walks in, calmly grabs a device to cauterize it... stops it.. and says relax everyone I've seen gunshot wounds much worse! .......Then starts the stitching.

[JerseyBills]

Such quality content and insight.

You have a career in journalism my friend ???

[GunnerBill]

1 minute ago, MPT said:

 

Obviously. So does everyone. But if they can't find a better vet for a reasonable price, they're not going to ditch their best option just because some fans can't cope with it. That's not the rational move. Look at the title of this thread for god's sake, and tell me which side is acting on emotion. 

 

Well obviously I don't speak for the OP.  But my view is absolutely not an emotional one. I don't think it has to be a "better vet" to make moving on from Tyrod the right move. I agree you can't have a slightly worse vet (which is the bracket I put a McCown or a Fitz in) and have a rookie who might need to sit the whole year (Jackson for example).  That would be a stupid move.  But I think you can have a slightly worse vet, at a cheaper price, with less baggage and a rookie who you think can start by week 5 latest - Rosen, Mayfield maybe Darnold.  I also know which way round FA and the draft come... but I think the Bills have to devise their plan and stick to it.  I don't think Tyrod features in that plan unless something goes very wrong.  

[26TrapDraw]

13 minutes ago, horned dogs said:

When I used to coach ice hockey I took a puck to the mouth that resulted in about 50 stitches. Bleed like a bleeping pig all over the rink, in my friends truck etc. Then they got it contained in the emergency room and bandaged. The nurse was then told to get it prepped for stitching. She then proceeded to tear of the bandage and in the process created a "bleeder", it was shooting all over in a stream. They all flipped out and couldn't get it stopped. Very disconcerting....one of the idiots actually said "don't worry, you have a lot of blood!". A friggin' priest walked in and started saying prayers. I'm thinking holy **** this must be worst than I thought...last rites. Eventually this army doctor, just back from Iraq, walks in, calmly grabs a device to cauterize it... stops it.. and says relax everyone I've seen gunshot wounds much worse! .......Then starts the stitching.

Congratulations. You have literally nailed what it has been like being a Bills fan for the last 15 years.

[MPT]

1 hour ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Well obviously I don't speak for the OP.  But my view is absolutely not an emotional one. I don't think it has to be a "better vet" to make moving on from Tyrod the right move. I agree you can't have a slightly worse vet (which is the bracket I put a McCown or a Fitz in) and have a rookie who might need to sit the whole year (Jackson for example).  That would be a stupid move.  But I think you can have a slightly worse vet, at a cheaper price, with less baggage and a rookie who you think can start by week 5 latest - Rosen, Mayfield maybe Darnold.  I also know which way round FA and the draft come... but I think the Bills have to devise their plan and stick to it.  I don't think Tyrod features in that plan unless something goes very wrong.  

 

I agree with the last sentence. I just think it's because they're hoping to make the team better and not because they're afraid of some media drama. They wouldn't have benched him in the first place if that were the case. If they're okay with benching their starting QB in the middle of a playoff race for a fifth round QB who obviously wasn't capable of starting, they wouldn't balk at benching him for a first round guy who is regarded as a possible franchise QB. Tyrod's "baggage" is simply a result of him being better than the guy he was benched for. If we get a guy who makes that invalid, then the baggage disappears. The media seized that story because it was an incredibly risky move, and Peterman was not meant to start in his first year. Drafting a guy who is actually meant to start minimizes that risk. If anything, the media would immediately be asking when the rookie was going to start, not second guessing it when he does. And when he does, you could do a lot worse than having Tyrod as a backup and a role model. 

 

Pretty sure this is all moot anyway. Like you said, Tyrod probably won't be here next year. I just want it to be because we got a better (or cheaper) guy, not because they want to appease the media and some blindly emotionally fans like the OP.