transplantbillsfan

Yes, volume... and it seems like Taylor wasn't the only one (or even the main one... ?) complaining about volume. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/22/lesean-mccoy-bills-offense-simplified-under-anthony-lynn/ McCoy said the team would go into games with 80-90 potential plays when Roman was the coordinator and that number has been pared down to 30-40 plays under Lynn.

No, I want Joe Montana handling the ball, but he's long retired... Fun fact... did you know that Aaron Rodgers is 0-35 in his career in precisely your scenario? Diown by more than 1 point in the 4th quarter to a winning team, Aaron Rodgers hasn't won a single game in his career.

How do you know Kaepernick isn't a genius? So you're saying Tyrod is dumber than Kaep? You're really making blanket insulting statements with little or no proof because of this seemingly very personal vendetta.

Crusher said exactly that, actually...

https://www.google.com/amp/profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/22/lesean-mccoy-bills-offense-simplified-under-anthony-lynn/amp/https://www.google.com/amp/billswire.usatoday.com/2016/09/22/buffalo-bills-anthony-lynn-tyrod-taylor/amp/ I think you're seriously misrepresenting what actually happened. This was less about Taylor not having the mental capacity to grasp an NFL offense than about Roman putting too many plays in every week and issues with communication. If you read those, the Bills were going into the first couple games with 60-80 plays in the game plan. Lynn cut that to 40-50 and streamlined communication with a wristband for Taylor. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8192b29f/article/producing-a-game-plan-takes-into-account-months-of-work%3FnetworkId%3D4595%26site%3D.news%26zone%3Dstory%26zoneUrl%3Durl%253Dstory%26zoneKeys%3Ds1%253Dstory%26env%3D%26pageKeyValues%3Dteam%253Dmin%253Bconf%253Dnfc%253Bdvsn%253Dncn%253Bplyr%253Dbrett_favre%253Bplyr%253Dwilliam_harvin%26sr%3Damp You'll see here that 40-50 plays is about the typical playbook of NFL teams on a weekly basis. Actually 35-40 is more the number so it's above average. This wasn't really about dumbing things down for Taylor, it was about simplifying game plans for an entire offense and improving communication.

fair enough.

I've seen you say this a number of times now and I really wonder how true it is. I actually think those plays are exactly the types of plays Taylor thrives off of. My issue has been that those aren't very often the plays the Bills offense would run. Here's an article over at cover1 on this: http://www.cover1.net/2017/03/tyrod-taylors-2016-passing-campaign-misinterpreted-misused/ There are stats posted in the article for how successful Taylor was in certain types of plays. And it indicates the WCO might be just what the doctor ordered for Taylor.

RF, yes, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. At absolutely no point does Fahey himself rank QBs himself. There are more numbers in here. I'm not going to do a disservice to Fahey, who (despite Crusher's pathetic sentiments otherwise) puts a lot of work into charting all of these QBs and is widely respected, by posting every single number he came up with. I agree, some of Taylor's general success can be attributed to lower volume. Discussing how much of an impact volume had is reasonable. And even with that discussion, I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle: It is NOT that Taylor's numbers will ALWAYS be exactly the same in terms of completion %, YPA, TD/INT %, etc if Taylor were passing the ball 500 times in a season. however It is NOT that Taylor's numbers will AUTOMATICALLY drop precipitously in all those same categories if he were passing it 500 times in a season. You're right, it's in the middle. You've always just assumed I'm not in the middle because of my posts. But I'm much closer to the middle than you think. Mental aspects, huh? What makes you say that?

I think all of these are the right conversations to have. I think all your points are valid. I'm not going to quibble with definitions (I disagree with your final statements about "journeyman QB" and "Bridge QB," for example), but I want to clear up something you misrepresented from me at the beginning. Fahey himself that QB is the single biggest driver of success or failure on the football field. But he's saying the significance people give is much too high to even a player at the most important position on the field when there are 10 other guys on the field playing offense at the same time, 11 other guys playing defense when the offense is off the field, and 11 guys playing special teams on the plays that those plays happen. The number 1 golfer in the world right now is Dustin Johnson. Would the smart money be on Dustin Johnson or the field if you're betting on whatever his next tournament is? Johnson might have a greater chance of winning putting him up against any other single individual golfer, but not when you put everyone else together. It's similar with QB. People want to attribute ridiculously high %s (40%-50%) to a QB for wins and losses, so that means you're leaving 50%-60% to spread around to 32 other players and the Head Coach, not to mention whatever other factors there are. His simple point is that while QB is the most important individual on the field, he always gets way too much credit for the good and way too much blame for the bad. What ridiculous hyperbole... if you think what RF just said about Fahey means he has zero credibility, I think you misunderstood what that post said. Read it again. Whatever Crusher, I hoped you would try to be more even keeled over on a new message board to recreate yourself. Guess not...

No, it was fact vs opinion, that's all.

Good stuff! Thanks!

I agree. Thought it was pretty obvious when the Bills got Dennison as the OC that the intention was to keep Taylor and hit the ground running. Of course that's not a fact, I'm just using logic to create a reasonable opinion

There ya go. So they're opinions and you used "forgone conclusion" for emphasis, not because you thought it was a fact. I read all your points. I'm fine with you believing it. It's reasonable. But setting the precedent of allowing opinions to pass as facts is a bad one, even in the Age of Alternative Facts. That was a crusade. I sincerely apologize to everyone. Moving on...

Feelings are not facts... It's funny because I've provided direct quotes. You're providing "feelings." Yet, you think those "feelings" are proof it's a forgone conclusion that Taylor was gone if he didn't take a pay cut. Maybe you define forgone conclusion differently than me, because that's a statement reserved for inevitable fact. Because if that's the definition we're going by, you're wrong.

Well considering that article does more of the same in terms of speculation, I'm going to assume that you posting an obvious speculation is admitting that you were incorrect in stating speculation as fact. Good form! Always glad when people are capable of admitting to mistakes. Happens to all of us.

You've got to be joking at this point. With the joke that sports media and journalism has become, if you seriously think that the same journalists and "experts" who were widely reporting that the Bills were inevitably moving on from Taylor when the season ended are credible enough to believe whole-heartedly when they report something like this, then you're being naïve. And the ever-worshipped Adam Shefter is included as one of the guys reporting that Taylor would no longer be the Bills starting QB right after the season ended: http://www.wkbw.com/sports/bills/report-bills-planning-to-move-on-from-tyrod-taylor That "report" came out just 4 days after Taylor's clean out interview where he mentioned he'd be open to the possibility of restructuring: http://www.wkbw.com/sports/bills/bills-qb-tyrod-taylor-on-starting-job-it-was-taken-from-me Sure sounds to me like posturing very early in the process for OBD after they heard Taylor would be open to restructuring. I think it's quite reasonable to believe that OBD immediately salivated over the idea of saving a bunch of money on his contract and then started leaking all these stories and reports to "credible" NFL guys. Even Shefter and Carucci never directly say "a source told me that..." The phrasing is always "all indications are" or something like that. That's a subtle but important difference. Look, I'm not saying it isn't what happened. It might have been what happened. But making a statement like "it was a forgone conclusion" that it would happen based on some vague reports from Carucci that also don't even directly say anything about Taylor actually inevitably being cut if he didn't take a paycut. You keep believing what you want. But it's your opinion. It's not fact or "a forgone conclusion."

Yeah... because if you find it on the Internet, it must have been so. Here's a very simple question: Can you find a direct quote from Whaley/McDermott/Pegula/Dennison or ANYONE who worked for OBD from January to March of 2017 who said that Taylor needed to take a pay cut or he would be cut? If you can't find any direct quote of the sort, IT WAS NOT A FORGONE CONCLUSION... PERIOD!!! That's not me being angry... simply me making what should be the final point on the subject Nope, you're wrong. I'm not saying it's not true. But it absolutely is NOT a forgone conclusion that Taylor was going to be cut. Keep saying it if you want, but saying it doesn't make it so. Google works just fine. You apparently aren't using it correctly. Find a direct quote from someone involved at OBD that Taylor would have been cut if he didn't take a pay cut. I'll wait...

As we perhaps start to get back to the "rat hole" I started us down, one of Fahey's most critical points was how overvalued QBs are when it comes to wins. He actually talks in great depth about it. He still argues that QB is the most important position on the field, but whereas most attribute (I'll use arbitrary numbers now) 40-50% of the credit or blame to team wins and losses on QBs, the number is closer to 10%. And part of his goal was an analysis on the skills QBs demonstrate on the field and how traditional stats don't fully convey what a QB can and does do. And that stats often belie QB play on the field. None of his points were about correlating wins although he does talk about them in the process of his chapters, anecdotally discussing the impact of the stats on each player. It's elaborate and thoughtful. And yes, subjective. But (we assume) equally subjective. That's why I think it's ridiculous to just dismiss him because you don't agree with him as GoBills808 is simply because of his views on Cousins. Well, he's pretty thorough and thoughtful about his discussion of Cousins, and when people dismiss Fahey because of his views on another player like Cousins, I would ask only one question: Did you watch every single snap the QB took that you disagree with Fahey so adamantly on?

I should have phrased what I wrote better. I think there will be a threshold for McDermott on these things. If Taylor plays mediocre again, like in 2016, the 2nd option I presented is more likely than the first. If Taylor is mediocre, it's possible Taylor will still be on the team in 2018, but the team will almost certainly draft his replacement in round 1. Taylor is an All-Pro in 2017 and the team makes the playoffs and wins a couple games and you think for a second McDermott wants to move on from Taylor? Obviously that's the most extreme case, but McDermott is going to jump for joy if Taylor proves that the franchises answer at the most important position is already on the team. And let's remember, out of ALL the OCs in existence, McDermott brought in the last guy Taylor worked with before he came to Buffalo. That says something, too. Fine, you're not 100% wrong. How about 99.999% wrong to leave open that smidgen of whatever... No, it absolutely wasn't.

As should be general practice Not everyone does this... *AHEM* Here's a good example of where you can practice admitting you're wrong. These are your words directly from post #355 "The difference is that Shaw's guy was apparently absolutely certain that this was the deal he wanted."

No, it's not a forgone conclusion that Buffalo was going to let go of Tyrod if he took the deal. That's more speculation. Your speculation. Speculation is fine, but stop trying to pretend it's fact. It wasn't. I've given my reasons a number of times why, but again, the moment Taylor said he'd consider restructuring on clean out day was the moment I'm sure OBD started salivating and putting out a whole bunch of misinformation in order to find a way to get Taylor to take less money. What I just said is not fact... no more than what you said was a forgone conclusion. But what I said is about as reasonable as what you said. And I love the "I can't get behind an ounce of what you're saying" simply because despite also being reasonable, you disagree. There's nothing wrong with disagreeing, but what Shaw said and/or heard from his agent friend is pretty reasonable. People need to stop adamantly presenting opinions as facts. It doesn't make your argument any stronger.

Depends on what you mean by this. It's obvious that McDermott at least has backup plans by acquiring that 2nd 1st round draft pick from KC. Totally agree with you if that's what you mean. But if you think that McDermott is moving away from TT no matter what, I think I could say that you're 100% wrong. We can argue over what level of play Taylor needs to play at in 2017, but if Taylor plays to a certain level, McDermott will be keeping him. That level is almost certainly better than 2016, so Taylor needs to improve his play on last year, but if he does by a lot, Taylor's staying. Pretty clear that McDermott isn't planning on just tanking by bringing in an OC who's worked with the team's starting QB in order to give him some continuity and hopefully hit the ground running. The Bills are in a great position right now. Either Taylor plays really well in 2017 and we use our extra draft pick to retool this team even more to become a quick contender OR Taylor plays poorly, is (probably/possibly) cut, and then the Bills find a way to draft "their guy" in the 1st round in 2018.

Oh, so nothing was actually directly said by Taylor. It's all, "from what I understand," which very easily could have come from his agent, whose agenda is obviously to get Taylor the most money while getting him with the team Taylor wants to be with. Again, I provided you with a direct quote where Taylor said he'd consider restructuring. You're giving hearsay. Foxxy, my mind remembers just find, thank you very much... unfortunately Thurm is twisting things towards his own narrative. And now that Thurm has been proven wrong, we probably won't hear from him again for awhile... Whoops! What? Are you confusing me with someone else?

Here's the interview I referred to. http://www.wkbw.com/sports/bills/bills-qb-tyrod-taylor-on-starting-job-it-was-taken-from-me If the Bills declined the option to bring him back for the 2017 season, would Taylor be open to the idea of restructuring his contract? "It's too early to tell right now. Maybe that's a possibility down the line, but we'll visit when and if that happens." Not saying anything about being unwilling to take less money. Whoops

Link? I'm talking about his interview on clean out day. I'm not talking about something we heard through his agent. Do you have a link to where Taylor ever directly said he wouldn't take less money?