Best Player Available Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Quite possibly a record for the shortest "treatise" ever. maybe the internet tubes have differing definitions. A mini-treatise.
Heitz Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 I make my prediction for TT in 2016. I predict he will be a worse QB than 2015. Like I needed to read the whole post to know this.
FireChan Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) Your dog does not count as a fan Don't be absurd. I would never call Kelly an actual dog. Russell Wilson needs to be added to the Cam, Tyrod and RG3 list. He single handedly beat us with his legs in Toronto The argument for RW is a good one. It was really hard to keep him out. Looking back, I probably should've included him, but I honestly felt he was such a better passer out of box compared to the rest, it didn't seem fair. Like, "Wilson bucked the trend, but he is/was so much of a better QB than the rest, it doesn't seem likely that TT or any mobile QB follows him." It's like comparing first round QB's to Luck. It's just not the norm, or fair. Mike Vick? Good point. The problem WRT Vick is that he had a fragmented first few years. Only started 2 games as a rook, then had a 15 game season, then the next year he had a 4 game starting season. I was debating whether to include him, but I decided to avoid him (mostly because there wasn't any good way to go about it IMO) If he regresses we are doomed. With a healthy Watkins/Clay/McCoy it's gonna be hard to regress. The image of 2nd pats game Tyrod is burnt into my head though. Never wanna see that again. I disagree. With a stronger defense, we could be okay. Gotta stay healthy on his side, and our defense needs to be more clutch. This. RW led the league in rushing for QB last season and has ranked near the top every season hes been in NFL. Its a no-brainer. Mike Vick? If you want to leave Smith/Rodgers out i can begin to understand that argument. But no way should RW be left off. Again, see above. TT is most like Russell Wilson t o me so I found it's strange you specifically ruled him out of this comparison. Yes RW was a more polished passer In college but TT sat and learned to be a better passer for 4 years in the pros before starting. I predict that TT makes the same jump in production that RW made from year 1 to year 2. On a percentage basis that is. Again, see above. And I hope you are correct. John Locke wrote treatises. I'm pretty sure he didn't start with his conclusion and then adjust the facts to support it. I'm also fairly sure your writing is an essay not a treatise I actually didn't come up with a conclusion until the halfway point. I figured if I didn't use my cursory analysis to make some kind of point, this topic would get approximately zero replies. Treatise was to draw the reader in. Old hockey trick. Not sure this is an essay....more like a manifesto. My magnum opus (of the week). Your conclusions are based on a non-random sample of two? Well, I guess that nails it. No room for debate here. There's plenty of room for debate. I thought it would be fun to talk about. It's not like there's anything else to discuss. So basically, your argument is: 1) ignore Russell Wilson 2) fail to mention RGIII's catastrophic mobility-hindering injuries 3) exclude other running QB who fail to meet some nebulous criteria 4) use Cam Newton's 2 TD and 2% completion decline, in the face of decreased INTs, IMPROVED passer and QBR, and 1 more win, a "huge hit". 5) claim analogous decline in his 2nd playing season for Kaep, despite the fact that he returned to the conference championship that year and overall continued to perform at a high level Shenanigans. RGIII's injury is relevant. Russ Wilson and arguably Aaron Rodgers are relevant. Newton's 2nd season "decline" is only by a limited set of metrics, not looking at his overall QB performance. Ditto Kaep (in his 2nd season of NFL play, 2013) - slight decline by some metrics, but overall a highly effective and dangerous QB Frankly, rather than a reasoned "treatise", this comes across far more like an attempt to say "Tyrod Taylor will Suck Next Year" and then (unsuccessfully) cherry-pick facts to support it. I don't suggest you waste electrons calling me an idiot for that conclusion - do a better and less arbitrary job of justifying yours instead. Like any 2nd year QB, Taylor will lose the element of surprise, not because running QB suffer some specific (and apparently dire) career trajectory, but because there's more film to slice n dice his tendencies. He will have a 2nd year slump, or he will improve, not because of some fate of running QB but based on how effectively he improves his game and how effectively his OC wins the NFL Chess Match of move-countermove-adapt to the countermoves I suspect that for trying to use DC Tom as a kind of "enforcer", his response would be...well, you know. 1) Ignore the non-typical QB who was a much more complete passer even in his rookie campaign, yes. Just like you ignore Luck in a discussion about standard 1st round QB's. 2) I could've gone more in depth with RG3's injuries true, but I wasn't trying to focus on any specific QB, but paint a grander trend-line. 3) I think my criteria was more than fair, but feel free to tell me why it wasn't when discussing the first few years of mobile QB's. 4) It was common knowledge that Cam , beyond the stat sheet, did not show much of an improvement from year 1 to 2, and regressed in certain instances. If you have differing opinion on that, go for it. I mean, the dude still was good. He's supposed to be the higher extreme. 5) In Kaep's second full season as a starter, he showed regression. Significant regression. He's on the RG3 track, IMO. Again, probably should've been a little more clear in that. I assure you, I wasn't trying to say Tyrod sucks. Just the opposite. I was more trying to plead patience, as it's not uncommon for QB's who rely on their physical to show some regression in their second year when they either have to rely on their passing abilities, or more ineffectively rely on their mobile skills. And how they respond to this perceived truth is what kind of QB they become. As to this point, how many "successful" franchise QB's shown regression in their second year? How many of them are mobile? AFAIK, most pocket passing QB's (as opposed to the "mobile" category I have made) instead take leaps forward if they are to be successful. Maybe a better way to phrase it would be that mobile QB's emerge out of the box better than traditional QB's, and when they start to have to rely on their arm, they start to falter, whereas the successful pocket passers improve. Look at Dalton's career trajectory. Or Tanny's. Or Peyton's. Or Luck's (contradicting myself, very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large, I contain multitudes). Edited January 16, 2016 by FireChan
Dorkington Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 So basically, your argument is: 1) ignore Russell Wilson 2) fail to mention RGIII's catastrophic mobility-hindering injuries 3) exclude other running QB who fail to meet some nebulous criteria 4) use Cam Newton's 2 TD and 2% completion decline, in the face of decreased INTs, IMPROVED passer and QBR, and 1 more win, a "huge hit". 5) claim analogous decline in his 2nd playing season for Kaep, despite the fact that he returned to the conference championship that year and overall continued to perform at a high level Shenanigans. RGIII's injury is relevant. Russ Wilson and arguably Aaron Rodgers are relevant. Newton's 2nd season "decline" is only by a limited set of metrics, not looking at his overall QB performance. Ditto Kaep (in his 2nd season of NFL play, 2013) - slight decline by some metrics, but overall a highly effective and dangerous QB Frankly, rather than a reasoned "treatise", this comes across far more like an attempt to say "Tyrod Taylor will Suck Next Year" and then (unsuccessfully) cherry-pick facts to support it. I don't suggest you waste electrons calling me an idiot for that conclusion - do a better and less arbitrary job of justifying yours instead. Like any 2nd year QB, Taylor will lose the element of surprise, not because running QB suffer some specific (and apparently dire) career trajectory, but because there's more film to slice n dice his tendencies. He will have a 2nd year slump, or he will improve, not because of some fate of running QB but based on how effectively he improves his game and how effectively his OC wins the NFL Chess Match of move-countermove-adapt to the countermoves I suspect that for trying to use DC Tom as a kind of "enforcer", his response would be...well, you know. I was about to type out a post, and then saw that you basically covered what I was going to say. I'd also add in that Tyrod has a better head on his shoulders than RG3 does.
John from Riverside Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Don't be absurd. I would never call Kelly an actual dog. The argument for RW is a good one. It was really hard to keep him out. Looking back, I probably should've included him, but I honestly felt he was such a better passer out of box compared to the rest, it didn't seem fair. Like, "Wilson bucked the trend, but he is/was so much of a better QB than the rest, it doesn't seem likely that TT or any mobile QB follows him." It's like comparing first round QB's to Luck. It's just not the norm, or fair. Good point. The problem WRT Vick is that he had a fragmented first few years. Only started 2 games as a rook, then had a 15 game season, then the next year he had a 4 game starting season. I was debating whether to include him, but I decided to avoid him (mostly because there wasn't any good way to go about it IMO) I disagree. With a stronger defense, we could be okay. Gotta stay healthy on his side, and our defense needs to be more clutch. Again, see above. Again, see above. And I hope you are correct. I actually didn't come up with a conclusion until the halfway point. I figured if I didn't use my cursory analysis to make some kind of point, this topic would get approximately zero replies. Treatise was to draw the reader in. Old hockey trick. My magnum opus (of the week). There's plenty of room for debate. I thought it would be fun to talk about. It's not like there's anything else to discuss. 1) Ignore the non-typical QB who was a much more complete passer even in his rookie campaign, yes. Just like you ignore Luck in a discussion about standard 1st round QB's. 2) I could've gone more in depth with RG3's injuries true, but I wasn't trying to focus on any specific QB, but paint a grander trend-line. 3) I think my criteria was more than fair, but feel free to tell me why it wasn't when discussing the first few years of mobile QB's. 4) It was common knowledge that Cam , beyond the stat sheet, did not show much of an improvement from year 1 to 2, and regressed in certain instances. If you have differing opinion on that, go for it. I mean, the dude still was good. He's supposed to be the higher extreme. 5) In Kaep's second full season as a starter, he showed regression. Significant regression. He's on the RG3 track, IMO. Again, probably should've been a little more clear in that. I assure you, I wasn't trying to say Tyrod sucks. Just the opposite. I was more trying to plead patience, as it's not uncommon for QB's who rely on their physical to show some regression in their second year when they either have to rely on their passing abilities, or more ineffectively rely on their mobile skills. And how they respond to this perceived truth is what kind of QB they become. As to this point, how many "successful" franchise QB's shown regression in their second year? How many of them are mobile? AFAIK, most pocket passing QB's (as opposed to the "mobile" category I have made) instead take leaps forward if they are to be successful. Maybe a better way to phrase it would be that mobile QB's emerge out of the box better than traditional QB's, and when they start to have to rely on their arm, they start to falter, whereas the successful pocket passers improve. Look at Dalton's career trajectory. Or Tanny's. Or Peyton's. Or Luck's (contradicting myself, very well, then, I contradict myself; I am large, I contain multitudes). A couple of things - How much will Tyrod being a "seasoned rookie" as I like to call him factor into the scenario you are painting? From all I have heard TT is a gym rat.....a film junkie......he has all of the personal taits that make for a successful QB.....the difference in him and say......Cam Newton who had the reputation of being lazy....of being arrogant...... - Greg Roman returns for another year and it is obvious that while TT had a superb year......they did not take the offense and put it on his shoulders....so going into year two does Roman start giving Tyrod more of the offense? And what does that do in terms of increased production.....or decreased efficience? We largely will not know until they actually put the product on the field. - They know who their starter is going into next season so what does Doug Whaley do to continue to put pieces on offense AROUND Tyrod Taylor? They need to be pieces that play to Tyrod's strengths AND allow him the comfortability to continue his progression in working from the pocket.....mainly --- A quality RT......the RT's we have on this team simply will not due.....they are getting beat off the snap and forcing Tyrod to have to adjust.....GET A RT. --- Receiving targets besides Sammy Watkins that can get open deep and catch a contested ball........how many times did Tyrod throw a ball this year that a physical pass catcher should have caught on a 50 50 ball? Even the best QBs in the league have WR's that help them out by catching contested balls. TT is SUPERB at the deep ball throw......get him pass catchers that can get open and catch it. And last but not least.....the obvious.....the defense.....we need a D that can actually flip field position, create turnovers, and get off the field on 3rd down....give TT MORE opportunities with the ball.
FireChan Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 A couple of things - How much will Tyrod being a "seasoned rookie" as I like to call him factor into the scenario you are painting? From all I have heard TT is a gym rat.....a film junkie......he has all of the personal taits that make for a successful QB.....the difference in him and say......Cam Newton who had the reputation of being lazy....of being arrogant...... - Greg Roman returns for another year and it is obvious that while TT had a superb year......they did not take the offense and put it on his shoulders....so going into year two does Roman start giving Tyrod more of the offense? And what does that do in terms of increased production.....or decreased efficience? We largely will not know until they actually put the product on the field. - They know who their starter is going into next season so what does Doug Whaley do to continue to put pieces on offense AROUND Tyrod Taylor? They need to be pieces that play to Tyrod's strengths AND allow him the comfortability to continue his progression in working from the pocket.....mainly --- A quality RT......the RT's we have on this team simply will not due.....they are getting beat off the snap and forcing Tyrod to have to adjust.....GET A RT. --- Receiving targets besides Sammy Watkins that can get open deep and catch a contested ball........how many times did Tyrod throw a ball this year that a physical pass catcher should have caught on a 50 50 ball? Even the best QBs in the league have WR's that help them out by catching contested balls. TT is SUPERB at the deep ball throw......get him pass catchers that can get open and catch it. And last but not least.....the obvious.....the defense.....we need a D that can actually flip field position, create turnovers, and get off the field on 3rd down....give TT MORE opportunities with the ball. - How much will Tyrod being a "seasoned rookie" as I like to call him factor into the scenario you are painting? Not much because I believe most of the regression occurs based on film and playing time. so going into year two does Roman start giving Tyrod more of the offense? And what does that do in terms of increased production.....or decreased efficience? I can't imagine a scenario where a 2nd year QB doesn't get more of the offense compared to the first year, unless he sucks. Did the Panthers not give Cam more as he went along? They know who their starter is going into next season so what does Doug Whaley do to continue to put pieces on offense AROUND Tyrod Taylor? Probably. But all teams try to do that.
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Tyrod is a smarter more focused version of Mike Vick. Still has a high ceiling and an elevated floor
John from Riverside Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 - How much will Tyrod being a "seasoned rookie" as I like to call him factor into the scenario you are painting? Not much because I believe most of the regression occurs based on film and playing time. so going into year two does Roman start giving Tyrod more of the offense? And what does that do in terms of increased production.....or decreased efficience? I can't imagine a scenario where a 2nd year QB doesn't get more of the offense compared to the first year, unless he sucks. Did the Panthers not give Cam more as he went along? They know who their starter is going into next season so what does Doug Whaley do to continue to put pieces on offense AROUND Tyrod Taylor? Probably. But all teams try to do that. So your conclusion is that playing time and film on Tyrod Taylor is going to allow for teams to catch up to him...... Dont you think this would have happened this year after some games? What is not taken into account is whether Tyrod's game continues to evolve.......in that last jets game we saw some short game from Tyrod. People said he couldnt throw over the middle......yet he did it People said he couldnt throw from the pocket.....yet he did it It all depends on what they want TT to do going into next year......do they want him to throw from the pocket? If so then improve the protection on the right side of the line (for example) and Like I have been saying all along.....if our defense wasnt shitting the bed nearly EVERY game....this years offense would have been enough to reach the playoffs.
FireChan Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 So your conclusion is that playing time and film on Tyrod Taylor is going to allow for teams to catch up to him...... Dont you think this would have happened this year after some games? What is not taken into account is whether Tyrod's game continues to evolve.......in that last jets game we saw some short game from Tyrod. People said he couldnt throw over the middle......yet he did it People said he couldnt throw from the pocket.....yet he did it It all depends on what they want TT to do going into next year......do they want him to throw from the pocket? If so then improve the protection on the right side of the line (for example) and Like I have been saying all along.....if our defense wasnt shitting the bed nearly EVERY game....this years offense would have been enough to reach the playoffs. Dont you think this would have happened this year after some games? A little bit, sure. It's a bit different between only a week to plan and a whole offseason to dissect him. What is not taken into account is whether Tyrod's game continues to evolve Because I don't think he'll truly evolve in game-situations until he's forced to. It all depends on what they want TT to do going into next year......do they want him to throw from the pocket? What? Of course they do. Like I have been saying all along.....if our defense wasnt shitting the bed nearly EVERY game....this years offense would have been enough to reach the playoffs. What does this have to do with Tyrod's ability as a QB? If our defense didn't allow a single point all game, I could be the QB and reach the playoffs. It is no indicator of a QB's performance. It is totally irrelevant.
John from Riverside Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Dont you think this would have happened this year after some games? A little bit, sure. It's a bit different between only a week to plan and a whole offseason to dissect him. What is not taken into account is whether Tyrod's game continues to evolve Because I don't think he'll truly evolve in game-situations until he's forced to. It all depends on what they want TT to do going into next year......do they want him to throw from the pocket? What? Of course they do. Like I have been saying all along.....if our defense wasnt shitting the bed nearly EVERY game....this years offense would have been enough to reach the playoffs. What does this have to do with Tyrod's ability as a QB? If our defense didn't allow a single point all game, I could be the QB and reach the playoffs. It is no indicator of a QB's performance. It is totally irrelevant. Tell that to Drew Brees
John from Riverside Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 What? Your saying that D has nothing to do with the situation If that is the case then why didnt Drew Brees lift his team to the playoffs?
Manther Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Tyrod sucks 😈 Sorry, but I'm just used to starting topics out like you did and people just ignoring it all together because they can't find ways to say it enough. Huh. Not funny and not anything. Did you mean Freddie's ghost sucks?
FireChan Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) Your saying that D has nothing to do with the situation If that is the case then why didnt Drew Brees lift his team to the playoffs? No, I'm not. I'm saying the defense has nothing to do with the QB's performance. We aren't talking wins and losses here, we're talking performance on the field. Throws, TD's, first downs. INT's. You're being intellectually dishonest, and I'm not sure why. Edited January 16, 2016 by FireChan
John from Riverside Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 No, I'm not. I'm saying the defense has nothing to do with the QB's performance. We aren't talking wins and losses here, we're talking performance on the field. Throws, TD's, first downs. INT's. You're being intellectually dishonest, and I'm not sure why. The more chances with the ball in a game by a D that gets off the field on 3rd down, creates turnovers, and flips field position.....the more throws, chances for touchdowns, changes for first downs, and yes.....interceptions. and you choose not to recognize that because it hurts your arguement.
FireChan Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) The more chances with the ball in a game by a D that gets off the field on 3rd down, creates turnovers, and flips field position.....the more throws, chances for touchdowns, changes for first downs, and yes.....interceptions. and you choose not to recognize that because it hurts your arguement. And more chances doesn't mean he'll be better at it. You're conflating opportunity with ability. Edited January 16, 2016 by FireChan
John from Riverside Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 And more chances doesn't mean he'll be better at it. You're conflating opportunity with ability. Well seeing as how this defense went from 5th to the 20's I think that is a fair arguement. Do you not recognize that more opportunities with the ball it makes more sense for more chances for production?
FireChan Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 (edited) Well seeing as how this defense went from 5th to the 20's I think that is a fair arguement. Do you not recognize that more opportunities with the ball it makes more sense for more chances for production? Yes it does. But more chances doesn't mean he's better at it. Your argument is flawed, not fair. You can't just keep repeating something so logically inconsistent until it becomes true. Edited January 16, 2016 by FireChan
John from Riverside Posted January 16, 2016 Posted January 16, 2016 Yes it does. But more chances doesn't mean he's better at it. Your argument is flawed, not fair. You can't just keep repeating something so logically inconsistent until it becomes true. Its really sad Firechan.....you know im right because it basically makes perfect sense.....but you cant let go of it Ok then.....im out
FireChan Posted January 16, 2016 Author Posted January 16, 2016 Its really sad Firechan.....you know im right because it basically makes perfect sense.....but you cant let go of it Ok then.....im out If QB A throws for 50 TD's on 100 passes, and QB B throws for 25 TD's on 50 passes, which one is better?
Recommended Posts