Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

why do folks click on a "TYROD" topic to complain there are already to many "tyrod" topics ??

 

I know this is crazy talk...but just ignore them.

For the same reason why people go to the same restaurant over and over and always complain about the food.

  • Replies 217
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

 

So much easier to pass the ball when you are behind the best pass protecting offensive line in the NFL. Most quarterbacks in the NFL would look very good playing behind that Dallas offensive line. Throw Dak on an average team with an average offensive line and he doesn't look anywhere near as good.

Exactly. It's football 101.

Posted

Tyrod makes nice long throws with ease. Dak doesn't. What does that prove. Dak had all day to throw the entire season. TT was running for his life the whole season. Enormous difference.

agree to disagree, metrics have been posted many times that show he has sufficient time and holds the ball longer than the other qb's.

Ryan Billz allegedly does. ;)

Nope. Fuddruckers and Texas Roadhouse keep me happy ! Lol.

Posted (edited)

I just think it's interesting how you used YPA as a negative with Wentz when the argument for Taylor is that he's working in a limited offense.

 

It means that wentz threw for 3800 yards on 600+ attempts, and Tyrod threw for 3000 on 430 attempts. Thats another 170 passes for 800 yards. He rushed for 150 to Tyrods 580. And had more sack yardage. He also threw 14 picks and fumbled 14 times... All with Pederson and reich on staff...

 

My only statement is that there's a good chance we get worse at QB if we just go with a rookie. And the veterans available to sign, don't inspire a ton of confidence either.

 

As for Wentz as a future - I don't know personally. I see a bit of bortles in him with the timing issues. We'll see if he can turn out to be someone like a flacco, who's a solid gamer.

Edited by dneveu
Posted

It takes a special kind of stupid to want to move on from Taylor considering:

 

- there's no immediate upgrade in FA, let alone one that would come here

- we're not drafting a blue-chipper in round one

- he's on a cheap deal (relatively-speaking for QBs) for the next 3 years

- we don't have someone waiting in the wings to take over

 

Only in Buffalo could you spend two years developing a QB who's never started a game until he got here, then leads the team to a top 10 offense with practice squad nobodies beyond WR1 for most of the season, then want to let him go because you think he's not good enough. I mean, if you were in New England, or Indianapolis, or Green Bay and you were used to HoF quarterbacking, then I could see how maybe that might make some sense, even if it would still be wrong. But Buffalo??

 

Honestly, some of you deserve this dogshizz franchise.

Love this

Posted

agree to disagree, metrics have been posted many times that show he has sufficient time and holds the ball longer than the other qb's.

The holds the ball metric is the biggest piece of crap. Maybe bigger than drops. It counts the ten times a game when he is running around with the ball looking to throw for five-six seconds because the rush was on him immediately and he escaped, versus 29 other starters that just throw it away immediately and get rewarded on the holds the ball metric. :wallbash:

Posted (edited)

The biggest Myth of the supporters. No one to throw too. Lol

Biggest move of critics. Critcize but offer no alernative solution. Tell us what your plan is when they cut taylor. Whose the qb?

Edited by TANK2
Posted

The holds the ball metric is the biggest piece of crap. Maybe bigger than drops. It counts the ten times a game when he is running around with the ball looking to throw for five-six seconds because the rush was on him immediately and he escaped, versus 29 other starters that just throw it away immediately and get rewarded on the holds the ball metric. :wallbash:

I wonder if the median would represent this better than the average, not that anybody has the data to test it...

Posted

 

It means that wentz threw for 3800 yards on 600+ attempts, and Tyrod threw for 3000 on 430 attempts. Thats another 170 passes for 800 yards. He rushed for 150 to Tyrods 580. And had more sack yardage. He also threw 14 picks and fumbled 14 times... All with Pederson and reich on staff...

 

My only statement is that there's a good chance we get worse at QB if we just go with a rookie. And the veterans available to sign, don't inspire a ton of confidence either.

 

As for Wentz as a future - I don't know personally. I see a bit of bortles in him with the timing issues. We'll see if he can turn out to be someone like a flacco, who's a solid gamer.

Who was the true rookie without the #1 running game?

Posted

I wonder if the median would represent this better than the average, not that anybody has the data to test it...

I don't even know if the median would work either. It is just a tough thing to compare. When a rusher runs free and Tyrod makes him miss my intuition says that Drew Bledsoe would have been sacked. You can't make that a fact though because they never have the same play under identical circumstances. I think that you would have to work sack rate into it too and probably look at throwaways. It is an MIT type of exercise to determine who was most effective.

Posted (edited)

agree to disagree, metrics have been posted many times that show he has sufficient time and holds the ball longer than the other qb's.

those metrics ignore the fact the sufficient time is created by tyrod using his legs to extend plays while running for his life.

 

 

in the raiders game alone the pocket collapsed on TT 21 of 40 plays ...while carr enjoyed only 5 of 35 pressures.

Edited by papazoid
Posted (edited)

Who was the true rookie without the #1 running game?

 

Who was the one with the 4th best defensive DVOA? I'm saying for next year - we are worse off with a rookie.

 

If he plays better - they probably make the playoffs.

Edited by dneveu
Posted

It takes a special kind of stupid to want to move on from Taylor considering:

 

- there's no immediate upgrade in FA, let alone one that would come here

- we're not drafting a blue-chipper in round one

- he's on a cheap deal (relatively-speaking for QBs) for the next 3 years

- we don't have someone waiting in the wings to take over

 

Only in Buffalo could you spend two years developing a QB who's never started a game until he got here, then leads the team to a top 10 offense with practice squad nobodies beyond WR1 for most of the season, then want to let him go because you think he's not good enough. I mean, if you were in New England, or Indianapolis, or Green Bay and you were used to HoF quarterbacking, then I could see how maybe that might make some sense, even if it would still be wrong. But Buffalo??

 

Honestly, some of you deserve this dogshizz franchise.

BAH. Post of the year.

Posted

Biggest move of critics. Critcize but offer no alernative solution. Tell us what your plan is when they cut taylor. Whose the qb?

I guess I'd say it doesn't really matter to me who replaced him. I'm don't particularly care about marginal talents and their prospective replacements because they're not going to contribute to a championship, which to me remains the ultimate goal. So if we get slightly better or slightly worse QB play next season without Taylor...ehh, it's sorta all the same to me.

 

I don't believe the Bills are ever winning a Super Bowl with Taylor, so my wish is for us to retain as much talent and develop/draft well so that when we do hit on a QB the pieces are already in place. That's why I'm OK with letting Taylor walk and picking up a cheaper, maybe slightly worse option and using the savings on Gilmore and Woods...playing the long game.

Posted

Biggest move of critics. Critcize but offer no alernative solution. Tell us what your plan is when they cut taylor. Whose the qb?

Said it many times

Posted

I guess I'd say it doesn't really matter to me who replaced him. I'm don't particularly care about marginal talents and their prospective replacements because they're not going to contribute to a championship, which to me remains the ultimate goal. So if we get slightly better or slightly worse QB play next season without Taylor...ehh, it's sorta all the same to me.

I don't believe the Bills are ever winning a Super Bowl with Taylor, so my wish is for us to retain as much talent and develop/draft well so that when we do hit on a QB the pieces are already in place. That's why I'm OK with letting Taylor walk and picking up a cheaper, maybe slightly worse option and using the savings on Gilmore and Woods...playing the long game.

Amen brother

×
×
  • Create New...