As I define it, no. I dont see one in the upcoming draft yet either though so whatever.
As I define it, no. I dont see one in the upcoming draft yet either though so whatever.
Doesn't need to be solved this season. The contract with team buyouts solved that. Cap hit can be adjusted in the spring.
C. Jones is here and another QB will be drafted/signed in the spring regardless.
Right now, we know what we have in Taylor and he's working with his running and limited passing.
Can you explain this?Originally Posted by Night Train
Is there more than 1 buyout for his contract, besides this offseason?
http://www.buffalorumblings.com/2016...act-breakdowns
jimmifli (10-19-2016)
Murph said it best he might be this franchises QB for the next couple of year. I firmly believe that Cardale will get a shot in year 3 or 4 of his current contract. We also need to expect them to draft another QB this year or bring in a cheap vet as EJ will be gone.
You've obviously not been paying a lot of attention to the vocal minority on this board. If a player is getting more then 3.5mil a year and not producing at a hall of fame level he's 'trash and needs to be cut immediately,' because the 'backup is just as good' or there is a magic rookie waiting in the 6th round of this draft who's the next tom brady because, you know tb was a 6th round pick, and wasting any draft pick on a 1st round QB is a waste of time because we could have got the next drew brees or russell wilson late in the draft, and we could use the salary cap room for... the next overpaid piece of trash we're going to cut.
To this group of fan, cutting a player who irritates them is more important then asking the question "what will we replace him with", because he's completely interchangeable with a 6th round draft pick. and if that draft pick can't replace him, then he sucks and needs to be cut because there is this hot 7th rounder their cousin told them about who plays at Coastal Carolina , who is totally going to be the next Brian Urlacher.
seriously
we won't buy him out, because next season even with the option being picked up he'll be the 14th highest payed QB in the league. which is about how he plays. He'll be getting paid what he deserves, even if you think it's too much, that's about what a mid level NFL starter earns.
Last edited by Ingtar33; 10-17-2016 at 08:31 PM.
My wife told me that if I had a dollar for every girl who found me unattractive, girls would find me VERY attractive.
MY WIFE SAID THAT!!!
Tyrod is a game manager in the same way Russell Wilson was in his first two seasons. I give him credit at avoiding turnovers and being a good enough playmaker with his legs yet ultimate he is not a good enough passer. That said if we get to the playoffs with Tyrod this year he stays but I'd be willing to develop guys behind him.
I'm not sure but I know Fitz is not.
You guys really don't think Russel Wilson is that good huh
I'm going with:
We won't know unless he's in a passing scheme... The scheme, along with injuries, reduces his opportunities to show what he can do.
I think he can/could be if he was in a position to throw more and develop his passing.
All that said, I'm not sure it matters that much. He does enough through the air and with his running to win as long as we keep running the ball the way we do.
No, I don't want a change at QB nor to start over. Furthermore, unless Tyrod completely regresses the Bills will pickup his option... He's here for next year at least.
Last edited by X-Era; 10-18-2016 at 06:18 AM.
Ok...so how does what you said make sense?
We have 1 buyout, at the end of this season. Seems to me that we DO need this to be solved this season. If we pick up his option for next year, cutting him in 2017 would give us a cap hit of $18 mil, and cutting him in 2018 would give us a cap hit of $28 mil.
How has this contract solved our dilemma?
TT is good enough for week 6. But he will have to get better. and that means reading a d better. and it means that he will have to run a 2 minute drill effectively and maybe put up a come from behind victory once. he's never done it for us yet. and once he has that mastery, Hopefuly something we see this year, then we can feel like he's taking steps forward.
If the season ended today and the bills were 10-6 and missed playoffs, but he didn't take another step forward, I think you bring him back, but you have to keep looking for someone. if he takes that step, then you can maybe let cardale assume full #2 role next year and keep him developing. I get that we've had significantly worse, but the bills have beat some bad teams that didn't put points up on the board.
TT ,to be someone you feel comfortable with for years, should take a step this year to make it a no brainer. if he stays where he is, the bills have to still keep searching and developing talent actively as I don't think TT will be your qb 3-4 years from now.
Anybody else having fun watching the Jets implode?
Mace (10-19-2016)
tyrod = mark sanchez lucky to be on a rex ryan defense running game led team
mark sanchez wishes he was Tyrod.
Mark Sanchez was a turnover machine, and never put up tyrod's numbers in the air. you really need put down the beer, and post when sober.
Over the course of his career, Luck has thrown about twice as many TDs as INTs. While there's room to improve that ratio, it's not like that guy is strangling his team's chances of winning or anything. I'd also point out that the Colts' offense rests on Luck's shoulders to a much greater degree than the Bills' offense rests on Tyrod's. This season Luck is averaging 280 passing yards per game, compared to just 180 passing yards per game for Tyrod.
Below is the career average yards per pass attempt for several QBs:
Tom Brady: 7.5
Drew Brees: 7.5
Peyton Manning: 7.7
Matt Schaub: 7.6
I've got nothing against Matt Schaub. In his prime he was a solid starter. An important part of his football team. But to suggest he belongs in the same category as Brady, Brees, and Manning is absurd. So why do the numbers make it look like he belongs in that category, even though he clearly does not? Brady, Brees, and Manning quarterbacked pass-oriented offenses. Schaub quarterbacked a run-oriented offense. In a typical run-oriented offense, a comparatively high percentage of a QB's passes will be to targets deep downfield, thereby boosting his average yards per pass attempt. In a pass-oriented offense your passing game will typically become a partial substitute for your running game. Those shorter and intermediate throws tend to dilute the QB's average yards per attempt. That's why Matt Schaub isn't as good as his numbers would make him look.
That logic applies not only to Matt Schaub, but to just about any QB operating from within a run-oriented offense. Including Tyrod Taylor. To his credit, Taylor has done a good job of avoiding turnovers, and of making plays with his legs. There are also some things in the passing game he does well, such as his deep throws. But his weaknesses as a pocket passer will typically keep his yardage totals well below what you'd expect from an Andrew Luck or a Derek Carr. If the Bills run the ball well enough, and play good enough defense, they might be able to continue hiding those weaknesses.
-Luck averages 38 passing attempts per game. Taylor averages 27 since here
-Indy is a passing based offense 237 p/a vs 144 r/a in 2016, 619/386 in 2015 and that's with 8 games of Hasselbeck
-Buffalo is not a passing based offense 168 p/a, 178 r/a in 2016, 465/509 in 2015 and that's with only 12 games of McCoy
You can't really know his perceived weaknesses are weaknesses unless you let him throw 35-40 balls a game. Well why won't they, it's because he can't !
You can't know that either yet, the receiver corps is achy and thin, and the Bills don't intend him to.
There's this assumption he doesn't sling for 300 yards all over the place with 5 td's a game because he can't. You can't know that. This staff built the team for 27 attempts per game, and more rushes. That was what the Bills intend to do.
At the moment it's working.
I want another Jim Kelly, slinging the rock effectively all over the place. Boom ! Boom ! Boom ! Most do too.
The Bills don't though. They want a mobile, elusive, percentage guy with a deep ball for variety who can run.
Best time to discuss Taylor will be after the last game, imho. I'm not crazy over him, but I can't not like the job he's doing, which he's evidently supposed to be doing, as he's doing it, by choice of the staff.
Lucidvizion (10-19-2016)
What you label an assumption I label an evidence-based conclusion. And yes, there is evidence in support of that conclusion.
1) The Ravens' defensive plan for Taylor was to make him be a QB. Considering that he'd spent years there, I have to think they know a thing or two about his weaknesses. Especially considering how well their defensive game plan worked.
2) When I look over nfl.com's play-by-play, I'm often struck by the number of times that they note inaccurate throws on Taylor's part.
3) As a college QB, Taylor was a much less accomplished passer than Russell Wilson. It's true that Buffalo and Seattle believe in the philosophy of run the ball and win with defense. But Wilson does a much better job as a passer, within that type of offense, than Tyrod Taylor.
4) Taylor hasn't demonstrated the ability to make multiple reads. Nor much success in the intermediate passing game, or in the middle of the field. You can get away with neglecting those things if the majority of your plays are running plays, the majority of your offensive yardage running yardage. But a QB in a pass-oriented offense has to be able to have consistent success in those areas.
The Bills' coaching staff has done a good job of building an offense that maximizes the effects of Taylor's strengths while masking the effects of his weaknesses. Those weaknesses are still there. If a defense succeeds in shutting down Buffalo's running game, we'll be forced to rely on Tyrod's passing for our offensive production. At that point it would become much, much more difficult for the Bills to hide Taylor's deficiencies as a passer.
It's about assembling the most talent under the cap. Boom ! Boom ! Boom ! guys are never on sale. They command a premium, and if your Boom ! Boom ! Boom ! guy isn't quite elite you still have to overpay him. Plus he demands a lot more talent protecting him. Big money Oline. That pretty much forces a 60/40 (or more) slant to the offense in terms of cap spend. And when lots of teams are chasing that it drives up the price for those types of QBs and the Olineman that protect them.
A mobile guy means saving money on the QB and likely the Oline. That lets you spend 60/40 on defense if you choose, or spend that savings on other positions. And those positions may be more likely to go on sale. Especially if fewer teams use your strategy.
It's one of the reasons I like the 3/4, that personnel seems to come a little cheaper.
The problem is that no matter which strategy we've pursued, we've been **** at spending (until recently) and evaluating talent.
Mace (10-19-2016)
Nah, I just don't agree. You're still assuming they're building an offense to minimize Taylor instead of plugging Taylor in to maximize their offense philiosophy.
In the thread where I linked to Taylor's completion chart from last year, it didn't prove Taylor can't throw over the middle, it proved they didn't call plays over the middle. Taylor has been in the NFL since 2011, his college career is about as relevant as Dan Lefevour's.
Taylor doesn't call his own plays, coordinate his own offense, or direct team philosophy.
As I said, I'm not yet sold on Taylor, but people expecting him to be hurling the rock more often are missing the whole offensive philosophy the team has implemented and embraced, and until he throws 35 times a game by plan on a regular basis, there's just no proof he can't, no matter what nfl.com says, and they've said an awful lot of things that proved incorrect just because it's their job to say stuff.
The time to make book on Taylor is still after the last game we play or darn close, and I'm not even all in on him. It's simple obvious.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote