Jump to content


Photo

Foles will be a FA after Chiefs unlikely to pick up option


  • Please log in to reply
159 replies to this topic

#141 GunnerBill

GunnerBill

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 9,478 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:01 PM

The Raiders took Cook in the second rnd and they had plenty of reasons to be hopeful with Carr for Christssake.   If you think Whaley has tried his best to find a QB, you are clearly content with mediocrity for eternity.
 
Imagine if we went into the 2017 training camp with Chase Daniels, Cardale, and Aaron Murray at QB.  That's what we did in 2015.  How is that even remotely acceptable?


The Raiders took Cook in the 4th not the 2nd.

#142 Dorkington

Dorkington

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,818 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:06 PM

No, they played excellent against the Pats too.  Twice.

 

The Pats had Brady, Gronk and Edelman all healthy in the postseason, and they got beat worse than when they played the Brocketship in the regular season with those guys missing.  That Broncos team stopped playing offense in the third quarter of the AFCCG and still won that game.  Ridiculous to say they got "lucky."

 

The Pats would have been "unlikely" to have beaten the Broncos if Peyton was in 2014 or 2013 form too.  They got the opportunity to face an anemic offense and lost straight up.

 

The Pats struggled at the end of 2015, but got healthy for the postseason.  Gronk put up 250+ yards and 3 TD's in the postseason.  Edelman had 10 catches for 100 yards versus KC the week before. 

 

The argument that the Pats lost in the playoffs because of lack of health is ludicrous.


Too early to tell? Yes. Do I like his odds of being the 10 year starter in Oakland?  Yes.  If his last 3 years were on the Bills, would I be calling for Whaley's head?  Absolutely not.

 

The stupid question you keep posing is not valid.  It's never been "Whaley needs to find a HoF QB or he sucks and should be fired."  It's been that Whaley routinely passes on upper QB prospects when we don't have a clear cut guy on the roster.  It's not that he hasn't found a guy in 3 years.  It's that he does not try enough.

 

Do you not yet understand that Whaley has only drafted 1 QB in the first 3 rounds in 4 seasons?  Like come on dude.  Are we that stable at QB?  The Raiders took Cook in the second round and they had plenty of reasons to be hopeful with Carr for Christssake.   If you think Whaley has tried his best to find a QB, you are clearly content with mediocrity for eternity.

 

Imagine if we went into the 2017 offseason with Chase Daniels, Cardale, and Aaron Murray at QB.  That's what we did in 2015.  How is that even remotely acceptable?

 

We've had quite a few QBs come through, though most of them via free agency/trade. I'm not sure if taking shots at QBs in the draft is a luxury we had when we had holes to fill elsewhere and the immediate goal was a playoff appearance. I suppose that's an argument to be had 'Would you rather get a play off appearance or two sooner, or would you rather focus on being a consistent participant at an unknown future date?'
 

So far we've approached the QB situation with getting a vet that's available to us, and having one or two young guys in development

 

2013: Kolb (vet)/EJ (developmental)/Tuel (developmental)

2014: Orton (vet)/EJ (developmental)

2015: Cassel (vet)/Tyrod (developmental)/EJ (developmental)

2016: Tyrod (vet)/EJ (vet)/Cardale (developmental)

I do agree, that in either 2014 or 2015 we should have taken another shot at someone, but IMO probably not early in the draft. Also, I'm not sure who was available to us after Kolb got injured, but ideally another vet should have been brought in. Also the lack of QB coach in 2013 was stupid. 

I don't know what the answers are, I have certain beliefs, but again, I'm kind of an idiot. This is why I pose questions, even if they are 'stupid'. I have no idea if taking a QB early in every draft would net us a long term guy, or if it'd just screw with development and near term success. I'm open to ideas, because clearly what we've been doing for 17 years has not been working. 



#143 FireChan

FireChan

    All Pro

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,964 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:15 PM

The Raiders took Cook in the 4th not the 2nd.

You're right.

 

Whoops.


 

We've had quite a few QBs come through, though most of them via free agency/trade. I'm not sure if taking shots at QBs in the draft is a luxury we had when we had holes to fill elsewhere and the immediate goal was a playoff appearance. I suppose that's an argument to be had 'Would you rather get a play off appearance or two sooner, or would you rather focus on being a consistent participant at an unknown future date?'
 

So far we've approached the QB situation with getting a vet that's available to us, and having one or two young guys in development

 

2013: Kolb (vet)/EJ (developmental)/Tuel (developmental)

2014: Orton (vet)/EJ (developmental)

2015: Cassel (vet)/Tyrod (developmental)/EJ (developmental)

2016: Tyrod (vet)/EJ (vet)/Cardale (developmental)

I do agree, that in either 2014 or 2015 we should have taken another shot at someone, but IMO probably not early in the draft. Also, I'm not sure who was available to us after Kolb got injured, but ideally another vet should have been brought in. Also the lack of QB coach in 2013 was stupid. 

I don't know what the answers are, I have certain beliefs, but again, I'm kind of an idiot. This is why I pose questions, even if they are 'stupid'. I have no idea if taking a QB early in every draft would net us a long term guy, or if it'd just screw with development and near term success. I'm open to ideas, because clearly what we've been doing for 17 years has not been working. 

Most QB's who are available through FA or trade are because they aren't that good. There are notable exceptions, but most of them are available because they've proven to not be good enough.

 

Not all developmental QB's are the same. A 26 year old 5 year vet is barely a "developmental" QB.  Jeff Tuel didn't have the same odds of succeeding as Cardale.  This franchise obviously is gun shy of devoting any kind of significant resource to the QB position.  What have we spent, in terms of draft picks/assets and money on QB's since 2013?  A 1st, a 4th, a 5th and a 7th and about 10 vet minimum contracts.  That's ridiculous.  It's ridiculous to pretend bringing in Matt Cassel/Kevin Kolb/Jordan Palmer/Jeff Tuel/TT/Thad Lewis is anything but basement bargain shopping. 

 

If you don't want to take a guy every year, fine.  I disagree, but if you aren't using your first round or second round pick on a QB every 3 years when you don't have "the guy,"  I have to honestly wonder if you deserve a job in the modern NFL.



#144 #BADOL

#BADOL

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,122 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:15 PM

No, they played excellent against the Pats too.  Twice.

 

The Pats had Brady, Gronk and Edelman all healthy in the postseason, and they got beat worse than when they played the Brocketship in the regular season with those guys missing.  That Broncos team stopped playing offense in the third quarter of the AFCCG and still won that game.  Ridiculous to say they got "lucky."

 

The Pats would have been "unlikely" to have beaten the Broncos if Peyton was in 2014 or 2013 form too.  They got the opportunity to face an anemic offense and lost straight up.

 

The Pats struggled at the end of 2015, but got healthy for the postseason.  Gronk put up 250+ yards and 3 TD's in the postseason.  Edelman had 10 catches for 100 yards versus KC the week before. 

 

The argument that the Pats lost in the playoffs because of lack of health is ludicrous.


Too early to tell? Yes. Do I like his odds of being the 10 year starter in Oakland?  Yes.  If his last 3 years were on the Bills, would I be calling for Whaley's head?  Absolutely not.

 

The stupid question you keep posing is not valid.  It's never been "Whaley needs to find a HoF QB or he sucks and should be fired."  It's been that Whaley routinely passes on upper QB prospects when we don't have a clear cut guy on the roster.  It's not that he hasn't found a guy in 3 years.  It's that he does not try enough.

 

Do you not yet understand that Whaley has only drafted 1 QB in the first 3 rounds in 4 seasons?  Like come on dude.  Are we that stable at QB?  The Raiders took Cook in the fourth round and they had plenty of reasons to be hopeful with Carr for Christssake.   If you think Whaley has tried his best to find a QB, you are clearly content with mediocrity for eternity.

 

Imagine if we went into the 2017 training camp with Chase Daniels, Cardale, and Aaron Murray at QB.  That's what we did in 2015.  How is that even remotely acceptable?

 

I'm not going to argue with you........Pats were cruising to homefield advantage before the injuries........less than great teams can win a SB with some luck.

 

This year even the Pats caught a break when Derek Carr got injured........otherwise it might have been an AFC Championship game against a rested Raiders team in Oakland rather than against a worn down Steelers team........same goes for Falcons drawing a tired GB team.



#145 FireChan

FireChan

    All Pro

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,964 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:16 PM

 

I'm not going to argue with you........Pats were cruising to homefield advantage before the injuries........less than great teams can win a SB with some luck.

 

This year even the Pats caught a break when Derek Carr got injured........otherwise it might have been an AFC Championship game against a rested Raiders team in Oakland rather than against a worn down Steelers team........same goes for Falcons drawing a tired GB team.

You know what they say, BADOL.  The better you are, the luckier you get :thumbsup:



#146 #BADOL

#BADOL

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,122 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:28 PM

You know what they say, BADOL.  The better you are, the luckier you get :thumbsup:

 

If it happens on a regular basis?  Yes.

 

In a one game or even partial season scenario?  Not so much........the talent is fairly evenly distributed in the NFL so the scales can tip pretty fast around playoff time.

 

Perception in general can change fast.

 

The Falcons made the SB despite losing 5 games while playing in a bad division and actually came into 2016 on a horrendous losing streak.

 

Give Tyrod some receiving help and watch that top 7 scoring offense move well inside the top 5. :thumbsup:   Then see what McFrazier can do with the defense. :flirt:



#147 Commonsense

Commonsense

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,054 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 03:49 PM

When Watkins has been healthy, he has been outstanding. Nothing in Watkin's college history suggested that he would miss a lot of time due to injury. So, a GM has failed if he drafted a player who has played very very well when healthy, but has been injured?


The failure took place when the day the trade was made. Whaley got loosey goosey with high value picks and traded up for a WR in what looks to be the most talented WR draft class in the history of the sport. The move in itself was fundamentally flawed and Sammy's injuries have only magnified the mistake. Positional players often flame out for one reason or another, it makes zero sense to trade up for one when the price is so steep.

Whaley would be making another mistake by going WR at 10 this year. He made no substantial additions at WR last year when all evidence pointed to a murky recovery period for Watkins. By the start of the 17' season Watkins should be back on track with the foot, if the history of WR's stays true. Find a complementary piece to go opposite Watkins and spend that first rounder elsewhere.

#148 Maury Ballstein

Maury Ballstein

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,451 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 04:28 PM

 
Give Tyrod some receiving help and watch that top 7 scoring offense move well inside the top 5. :thumbsup:   Then see what McFrazier can do with the defense. :flirt:

Nope. Don't need to see Tyrod getting pantsed by real qb's for a 3rd season.

Edited by Ryan L Billz, 20 February 2017 - 04:30 PM.


#149 BUFFALOKIE

BUFFALOKIE

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,799 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 06:33 PM

I vote for Tyrod Taylor.

#150 JohnC

JohnC

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,102 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 07:41 PM



 

If it happens on a regular basis?  Yes.

 

In a one game or even partial season scenario?  Not so much........the talent is fairly evenly distributed in the NFL so the scales can tip pretty fast around playoff time.

 

Perception in general can change fast.

 

The Falcons made the SB despite losing 5 games while playing in a bad division and actually came into 2016 on a horrendous losing streak.

 

Give Tyrod some receiving help and watch that top 7 scoring offense move well inside the top 5. :thumbsup:   Then see what McFrazier can do with the defense.  :flirt:

With respect to the highlighted area even if the receiver corps is improved is he going to be more proficient throwing middle of the field passes? Or even with an upgrade to the recipients of his passes will he be better able to make seam passes or anticipatory throws or be able to go through his progressions? 

 

I'm not arguing that with better receivers he won't be a better qb. Because he will.  What I am questioning is even with receiver upgrades is his passing game still going to be so limited and so basic that it will not give the team a chance to seriously compete. 

 

What is lost in the energetic and extended exchanges here is the position of the organization. Even if it is determined that TT should remain with the team it is being done apparently without much enthusiasm by Whaley. 

 

While the consensus of outsiders is that the Bills should keep TT, even if only as a bridge qb, the organization he has played for and has closely scrutinized his performances doesn't seem to be too impressed with him or even fearful of losing him. That is a clear indication what the thinking is inside of the building at OBD.  



#151 ScottLaw

ScottLaw

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,965 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 07:48 PM

With respect to the highlighted area even if the receiver corps is improved is he going to be more proficient throwing middle of the field passes? Or even with an upgrade to the recipients of his passes will he be better able to make seam passes or anticipatory throws or be able to go through his progressions? 
 
I'm not arguing that with better receivers he won't be a better qb. Because he will.  What I am questioning is even with receiver upgrades is his passing game still going to be so limited and so basic that it will not give the team a chance to seriously compete. 
 
What is lost in the energetic and extended exchanges here is the position of the organization. Even if it is determined that TT should remain with the team it is being done apparently without much enthusiasm by Whaley. 
 
While the consensus of outsiders is that the Bills should keep TT, even if only as a bridge qb, the organization he has played for and has closely scrutinized his performances doesn't seem to be too impressed with him or even fearful of losing him. That is a clear indication what the thinking is inside of the building at OBD.  


In regards to your last paragraph it does seem that way.... that said if they do dump Tyrod and replace him with scrap or a rookie it will backfire, IMO.

#152 JohnC

JohnC

    UDFA

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,102 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 08:22 PM

In regards to your last paragraph it does seem that way.... that said if they do dump Tyrod and replace him with scrap or a rookie it will backfire, IMO.

We all have opinions on this issue. There are reasonable arguments for the various positions. However, as I stated in my last post it just seems to me that the front office doesn't seem to be bothered by the prospects of losing him. 

 

I'm a strong advocate for drafting a qb in the first round or second round. While many believe that this is a weak qb class I don't. While believing that the qb class isn't as bad as many make it out to be I acknowledge that there is no qb in this draft that should be starting right away. 

 

So what qbs are on the market who might the front office be interested in? Cutler? Alex Smith? Foles? I simply don't know. I'm not even sure what direction the organization is going to take from a rebuild or go for it strategy? Once an official determination has been made with respect to TT then we should have a better sense what is going on here. 



#153 3rdand12

3rdand12

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,897 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 08:41 PM

 

If it happens on a regular basis?  Yes.

 

In a one game or even partial season scenario?  Not so much........the talent is fairly evenly distributed in the NFL so the scales can tip pretty fast around playoff time.

 

Perception in general can change fast.

 

The Falcons made the SB despite losing 5 games while playing in a bad division and actually came into 2016 on a horrendous losing streak.

 

Give Tyrod some receiving help and watch that top 7 scoring offense move well inside the top 5. :thumbsup:   Then see what McFrazier can do with the defense. :flirt:

:rolleyes:  :D  :thumbsup:



#154 HoF Watkins

HoF Watkins

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,117 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 08:47 PM

Go get this guy.

 



#155 #BADOL

#BADOL

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,122 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 09:10 PM

With respect to the highlighted area even if the receiver corps is improved is he going to be more proficient throwing middle of the field passes? Or even with an upgrade to the recipients of his passes will he be better able to make seam passes or anticipatory throws or be able to go through his progressions? 

 

I'm not arguing that with better receivers he won't be a better qb. Because he will.  What I am questioning is even with receiver upgrades is his passing game still going to be so limited and so basic that it will not give the team a chance to seriously compete. 

 

What is lost in the energetic and extended exchanges here is the position of the organization. Even if it is determined that TT should remain with the team it is being done apparently without much enthusiasm by Whaley. 

 

While the consensus of outsiders is that the Bills should keep TT, even if only as a bridge qb, the organization he has played for and has closely scrutinized his performances doesn't seem to be too impressed with him or even fearful of losing him. That is a clear indication what the thinking is inside of the building at OBD.  

 

 

The organization has been split on many things........you should know there is rarely a clear indication of some kind of consensus..........Whaley "reportedly" was not sold on McDermott and wanted to interview other candidates but Pegula's shot him down......so what are we to believe?

 

As for whether Tyrod would throw more......or better.....over the middle.........i "guess"?   He threw the ball a lot inside the hashes in the Miami game when he had his full complement of receivers back.

 

But it's not really an inside passing game any longer.......the old WCO pounding slant after slant just outside the reach of lumbering LB's is dead......the big plays are happening outside of the hashes.

 

Teams that can make plays outside the hashes and vertically are rewarded........they are the low risk/high reward throws.................IF you have someone who can make them.

 

Tyrod is quite good in this area.

 

I'm not concerning myself over what people perceive Whaley wants to do or trying to read any tea leaves......my takes are my takes.........this is about what the Bills SHOULD do.  



#156 3rdand12

3rdand12

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,897 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 09:40 PM

 

 

The organization has been split on many things........you should know there is rarely a clear indication of some kind of consensus..........Whaley "reportedly" was not sold on McDermott and wanted to interview other candidates but Pegula's shot him down......so what are we to believe?

 

As for whether Tyrod would throw more......or better.....over the middle.........i "guess"?   He threw the ball a lot inside the hashes in the Miami game when he had his full complement of receivers back.

 

But it's not really an inside passing game any longer.......the old WCO pounding slant after slant just outside the reach of lumbering LB's is dead......the big plays are happening outside of the hashes.

 

Teams that can make plays outside the hashes and vertically are rewarded........they are the low risk/high reward throws.................IF you have someone who can make them.

 

Tyrod is quite good in this area.

 

I'm not concerning myself over what people perceive Whaley wants to do or trying to read any tea leaves......my takes are my takes.........this is about what the Bills SHOULD do.  

tell me more about the Pegulas vs Whales over McD? I missed that.
 You are beginning to softly hit the table for TT.

 I  applaud that think. But it seems that logically we are underdogs in our thoughts. Second year in 5 years with a great clipboard?
Was it Coaching that held him back.

 

Only his hairdresser knows for sure.

 stay tuned next week

same Bat Time 

 Same Bat channel


Edited by 3rdand12, 20 February 2017 - 09:40 PM.


#157 ScottLaw

ScottLaw

    Veteran

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6,965 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 10:42 PM

tell me more about the Pegulas vs Whales over McD? I missed that.
 You are beginning to softly hit the table for TT.
 I  applaud that think. But it seems that logically we are underdogs in our thoughts. Second year in 5 years with a great clipboard?
Was it Coaching that held him back.
 
Only his hairdresser knows for sure.
 stay tuned next week
same Bat Time 
 Same Bat channel

Yes.

More and more fans are banging the drum for another QB..... or pretty much anybody but Tyrod. It's scary when even Brian Hoyer or Foles are thought to be better options then Tyrod.

It baffles me.

Edited by ScottLaw, 20 February 2017 - 10:43 PM.


#158 Maury Ballstein

Maury Ballstein

    All Pro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 13,451 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 10:48 PM

Yes.
More and more fans are banging the drum for another QB..... or pretty much anybody but Tyrod. It's scary when even Brian Hoyer or Foles are thought to be better options then Tyrod.
It baffles me.


Watch the Oakland and Pitt games. The baffling will dissipate.

#159 John from Hemet

John from Hemet

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 27,962 posts

Posted 20 February 2017 - 11:55 PM

Yes.

More and more fans are banging the drum for another QB..... or pretty much anybody but Tyrod. It's scary when even Brian Hoyer or Foles are thought to be better options then Tyrod.

It baffles me.

i would like to get a additional option on the roster....but they should really bring tyrod back and get him more pass catching help.....missing his only number 1 option almost the entire year



#160 3rdand12

3rdand12

    Hall of Famer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,897 posts

Posted 21 February 2017 - 06:48 AM

Watch the Oakland and Pitt games. The baffling will dissipate.

Maybe it is not about Tyrod as much as it is about the options are pretty poor for at this point. really poor actually.

 

Some people want to call up Orton