grb

All this Peterman Love is all well & good. But when people start dreaming of NP "spraying" all over the field, things are spiraling out of control. Get a hold of yourself man! (figuratively - not literally)

A few posts back, Bangarang asked why I posted comparisons of numbers from Taylor and other quarterbacks like Ryan or Rodgers. Well, most obviously I was responding to specific points other people had made, but there's another answer too : Since Taylor isn't a "real quarterback", I thought it would be interesting to compare him to "real quarterbacks" - to see how he stacks-up. Pretty well, actually - which is kind of amazing. You'd think someone who isn't a "real quarterback" wouldn't match up so well against other quarterbacks who are ..... "real"

Hilarious. (1) A poster brings up Rodgers' first two seasons as a good comparison with Taylor. This person is very much anti-Taylor. (2) So take a look at the two sets of numbers : How different are they? (3) Someone then clutches his pearls and falls back on the fainting couch. How dare you compare Rodgers with Taylor ?!? I didn't bring it up folks; I just went with the numbers provided. Just like I wasn't the one claiming Matt Ryan was infinitely superior, even just out of college. I only looked at the claim.

Alas, the Bills have been trying to get into the Hyperbowl almost two decades now....

So you want to see averaged Taylor and Ryan numbers? More work for me, but OK : Completion Percent : 59.7 MR 62.7 TT Yard per attempt 7.20 MR 7.45 TT QB Rating 84.3 MR 94.5 TT TD Percent 4.3 MR 4.6 TT Interception Percent 2.8 MR 1.5 TT

Well, I don't really have an opinion whether Taylors numbers are closer to Rodgers' or Cassel's Instead I have something much, much better : An analysis averaging the two season numbers : Average Completion Percentage : 64.2 AR 62.7 TT 59.2 MC Yards per Attempt : 7.85 AR 7.45 TT 6.55 MC Quarterback Rating 98.5 AR 94.5 TT 79.7 MC I scooted over to nfl.com and averaged the touchdown and interception percentage numbers : Interceptions 1.9 AR 1.5 TT 2.7 MC Touchdowns 5.4 AR 4.6 TT 3.7 MC To your eye Taylor's numbers are closer to Cassel ?!? Have you considered glasses?

What holds Taylor back is consistency. If he was really cursed with one-tenth the crippling flaws his detractors whinge about, he never would have been capable of the success he's already had. What he needs is to be able to play to a level four quarters, sixteen games, year after year. Now, that's a tall order and he may never pull it off. A lot of quarterbacks never clear that final hurdle. There's no guarantee the Bills' shinny-new first-round QB from the upcoming draft will clear that hurdle. But that's the final test. That's what will set Taylor's ceiling, endless blather about "throwing with anticipation" notwithstanding..... Is there some kind of record for longest thread we can shoot for?

We might as well continue the Matt Ryan comparison : In his first and second years starting Ryan added 104 yds rushing for a 1.9 ypr (1st), and 49 yds rushing for a 1.6 ypr. (2nd) His first and second years starting Taylor added 568 yds rushing for a 5.5 ypr (1st), and 580 yds rushing for a 6.1 ypr (2nd) But of course since Taylor's passing numbers were just a little better than Matt Ryan's, obviously those extra rushing yards were only to "offset" Tyrod Taylor's "weaknesses" in passing, right?

Well, we could look at Matt Ryan's second year starting as an example : 451-263, 58.3%, 2,916 yds, 6.5 ypa, 22 touchdowns & 14 interceptions, a QB rating of 80.9 Taylor's : 436-269, 61.7%, 3,023 yds, 6.9 ypa, 17 touchdowns & 06 interceptions, a QB rating of 89.7 Heck, maybe Matt has learned a thing or two........... Hell, while we're at it, let's look at Matt Ryan's first year starting : 434-265, 61.1%, 3440 yds, 7.9 ypa, 16 touchdowns & 11 interceptions, a QB rating of 87.7 Taylor's : 380-242, 63.7%, 3,035 yds, 8.0 ypa, 20 touchdowns & 6 interceptions, a QB rating of 99.4 Crusher surely is right. It looks like Ryan was pretty good from the get-go......

I don't know if this thread is gonna make it to 100 pages if things get that mellow......

When the argument is as insipid as yours, you need to be pretty elastic defending it, huh Thurm? Let's see : (1) Brady didn't outperform Bledsoe in camp, but only shined when he got his chance after Bledsoe's injury (2) Taylor (presumably) didn't outperform Flacco in camp, and Flacco never got injured. Ergo, Taylor can't play QB. Quit while you're behind, willya?

Thank you. I should have included the $120M deal in the list, but was flustered over the sheer inanity of this whole debate ........

Are we still at this wacko argument ?!? It would make equal sense to spend scores of posts debating whether a Sagittarius can ever become a franchise quarterback. Who knows? Maybe Steve Young IS a Sagittarius. That way you could kill two birds with one stone. With a couple of seasons starting in the can, is it really profitable to devote dozens and dozens and dozens of posts on the theoretical mathematical a priori possibility of his skill level? Granted, it's your dime, but still it seems pretty weird...... Also : Yeah, it's strange that Taylor didn't start but one game in his first four years ... behind Joe Flacco in his prime - particularly given Joe never missed a game to injury during all of TT's years there, was the face of the team, a Super Bowl hero, the idol of Baltimore, a franchise quarterback ........ Hard to figure that out, huh?

I think there's a big chance he will - provided he plays well this season. Reasons? First, he'll be relatively cheap as quarterbacks go, particularly given the payout the Bills have to make to void his '18 contract. Second, Beane and McDermott will have a bright shinny new first round quarterback and might be skittish about starting him too quickly. Remember the Pottery Barn Rule? You break it, you own it. Well, they will definitely own this new QB and their careers may hinge on not breaking him. Now, perhaps they'll be satisfied with Peterman by that point - or look for a cheaper interim solution on the open market. But Bills coaches last an average plus-minus two years; Bills GMs do little better. These guys are not going to want to see their second season blow up, particularly given winning was obviously not Priority Number One this season. Dumping the team's best receiver & corner in a firesale was sold as leading to a god-like quarterback. If things go Jared Goff-ish, it could get ugly. Tyrod might look pretty good for '18. Imagine all the heads that would explode then !!

There are two ways of looking at it : If you trade value for value - Watkins out and a new prime target in - then you have the same result for a lot less money. But nothing in the draft is ever certain, so will you get value for value? (of course Watkins was never certain either, so there is that). I'd like to see them spend some of those picks on the offensive line.......

Yep. The draft picks are supposed to translate into some kind of Super Deal package, which gets one of the elite prospects. But the teams picking highest in the draft will surely be quarterback-starved and probably won't trade down. Depending on how the 2017 season goes the Bills might have one of the next tier of quarterbacks fall to them naturally. The good news? Then they can use all those draft picks to get a new Number One receiver and cornerback.

OK : Taylor takes the Bills to the AFC Championship Game and plays well, but you still draft a quarterback unless you know Peterman is going to win the Superbowl ?!? So Taylor may be able to play well in the conference title game, but it's innately impossible he could play well next game after that. That strikes me a bit strange, but I concede it's the way people discuss quarterbacks.

Yes it's comical. As are all the categorical statements Taylor can't improve. As are the people here gushing about Peterman taking over the team. It's all just Quarterback Craziness. Personally, I think Peterman has a very good shot at becoming a viable starter and would enjoy seeing that happen - if for no other reason than see the football industry's quasi-scientific system of metrics, measurables, and scouting system clichés fall on it's face again. He's an easy guy to root for, just like Taylor. But no one knows if Peterman is going to beat the odds right now and it's silly to claim otherwise, one way or another. He played up & down in one preseason game against threes & fours. He's had a couple of good practices in a generally bad camp. Don't write him off or make him the next Tom Brady - at least not until he marries a supermodel........

Well, there's always a first time for everything, so I guess it's possible.......

My take is the exact opposite. Watkins & Darby dumped in a firesale only makes sense with a quarterback as the objective. Excepting the press conference (with it's abundance of squirming & spin) the trade has only been explained with a quarterback as the end - whether by fan, commentator or reporter. There is no alternate theory to justify the cost. Beane & McDermott had a smidge of flexibility before the trade; now they have none. Try imagining these two things : What kind of season would Taylor have to have before they wouldn't draft his replacement? Perhaps a deep playoff run might do it, but the Bills remain a run-first team so Taylor won't have volume numbers. Without large numbers he'll just be a game manager no matter how well he plays. Imagine the explosion if Beane doesn't use a first round pick on a QB. I'm not even sure the fan base will be satisfied without some kind of elaborate package deal. Of course the two or three QBs worth moving-up for will probably go to quarterback-desperate teams picking first. If the Bills find themselves again around Pick Ten the best of the remaining options might fall to them naturally. So regardless of Taylor's season, they draft his replacement. However they might still keep him around his final contract year as a dead-man-walking. He'll be relatively cheap as QBs go, particularly given the payout required to void his contract. If he performs well in 2017 (and Peterman isn't thought ready) they may want Taylor for the option of keeping his rookie replacement on the bench, avoiding the pressure of playing him immediately.

Huh? You're the one who said this : "Because the last time I looked, at least in Buffalo, we had Sammy Watkins and a horrific passing attack" So I provided numbers which showed exactly what happened when Watkins & Woods played. It was low volume to be sure - as the Bills were still heavily run-first - but hardly a "horrific passing attack". If you can't remember what you've said from 4:06 to 4:45, I'm not sure there's any point in arguing with you. Amnesia is such a convenient defense.

First : If you think you know a more likely draft day scenario, please go ahead. It's not a question of "refuting" anything. Also, if you didn't like wasting time you wouldn't be here, would you? Second : This is Taylor's numbers with legit No. 1 and 2 recievers ( The 15 games where both Watkins and Woods played ) : 63.6% comp. 8.25 YPA. 27 TD passes. 6 INTs Guess what? They're much better than when he was playing with journeymen. Your theory that good or bad receivers have no effect on good or bad quarterbacks was obviously absurd, but it's good to see it so clearly proved. You could also do a little research on how more-or-fewer offensive weapons affected Andy Dalton, Matt Ryan, or Kirk Cousins. On the other hand, you could stick with the Tom Brady Doesn't Need Receivers shtick. Whatever you come up with, I'm sure I won't be able to "refute" it.........

OK - Two Points, First, about the draft choices : I'm assuming the Bills are going to be competitive this year and have a better record than 2016. A lot of people are more pessimistic and see only 4-6 wins. Regardless which proves true, what will those picks buy? My guess is the top draft slots go to quarterback hungry teams not interested in trading down. Now this is projected to be an exceptionally deep QB draft, but only 2-3 are the prime choices. I doubt the Bills get a shot at them. Therefore, they'll pick from group 3-6, and if the 2017 season pessimists are right the Bills may barely have to move up (if at all). If they pick at Number 10 again (for instance) there's bound to be good QB choices available there. The good news is then have extra picks to fill holes in the team - which will be needed, because they now have to replace a journeyman cornerback and wide receiver. (So much for that second & third) The bad news is picking after the ultra prime QB choices are gone increases the chance the choice is a coin flip. Second, about Receivers : Yeah, people say Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers don't need receiver talent. Even if that was true, your mythical god-like quarterback will probably need at least half a season to reach Brady Level, ya think? So maybe he could use some actual talent at the position after all. When people get to fantasizing about their dreamboat quarterback they tend to say the damndest things, but look : Better wide receivers are better, leading to a better passing attack. QED

Touché ! But we're bouncing between extremes. Yes, an elite receiver doesn't carry a team. But a lot of people here seem to think the exact opposite - that all receivers are interchangeable regardless of skill level. Speaking of extremes : My opinion of Matthews above wasn't entirely fair - he isn't that bad, just a drop in talent from Watkins.....

Matthews : A borderline starter, already on the way to the bench when his team unloaded him on the Bills. Notorious for drops Jones : A rookie Boldin : A treasure, but 37 years old and at the end of his career Holmes : A backup notorious for drops. With Watkins instead of Matthews, this would be a pretty impressive group, a mix of premier talent, young promise and seasoned experience. With Matthews instead of Watkins, this is three slot receivers & a back-up. Three Twos and a backup. No known deep threat. No clear Number One.