QB comparative data for Tyrod from Cian Fahey to discuss

[Shaw66]

Not for me, but I don't actually have an ultimate objective measure. Passer rating is a good metric but IMO it's not without flaws, chief among them being putting too high a premium on completions (essentially counts them twice when calculating rating, because YPA and COMP% are both part of the equation) and penalizing INTs too heavily (why should an INT be the net equivalent of -100 yards, while a TD is only the net equivalent of +80 yards according to passer rating?). Both of these are areas wherein a QB such as Taylor, managing a low risk, low volume system, would have his performance weighted higher in passer rating than the modern game would recognize. It's outdated and predicated upon stats from the 60s and 70s, and doesn't take into account the evolution of high-volume passing offenses. It doesn't account for either rushing yards, which would aid Taylor's case, or sacks, which would detract from it. I prefer ANY/A to passer rating but I'll admit that it's personal preference (doesn't take rushing yards into account either, but that's OK with me because I don't see a correlation between QB rushing yards and any measurable statistic related to winning).

 

Look at Bradford's 2016 season with the Vikings. Nobody would say he was 'great', but passer rating puts him as the 6th highest ranked QB in the league. This while throwing for 3800 yards, 20 TDs, and 5 INTs (sound familiar?) with a COMP% of 71+. He was essentially Taylor 2015, and the Vikings went 8-8 and finished 3rd in their division. Passer rating does not accurately reflect, in these particular circumstances which guys like Taylor in 2015 and Bradford last season posted high rankings, the degree to which they actually played 'good' quarterback and helped their team succeed. There's a guy like this every season, who plays in a conservative offense and posts a high passer rating but doesn't move the needle as far as modern quarterbacking in concerned: it was Bradford, then Taylor before him, Wilson in 2014, either Foles or Kaepernick in 2013 take your pick, RG3 in 2012, Alex Smith in 2011...all guys that posted top 10 QB ratings without being great NFL quarterbacks that particular season.

Interesting to hear from someone who actually knows how the passer rating is calculated. I never studied it.

 

But I'd say your complaints are just quibbles. Assuming it's true that the formula treats an interception as -100 yards, when you think about it, that's probably about right. On average, an interception costs your team, I would guess, about 25 yards, because the average yardage NFL teams get per possession. Plus the interception costs you about 30 yards in lost field position, if you look at drive starts for the opponent after punts instead of after INTs. So that's 50 yards or more your team lost. And it's worse than that, because some interceptions cost you a TD or field goal, so you have to account for lost points AND the loss of field position, because your opponent's drive start after a kickoff is usually worst than after an INT. So maybe 100 is too much, but it's in the ballpark.

 

As you say, the passer rating isn't perfect. But it's pretty good. And pointing to Stafford's year only proves the point that the passer rating isn't perfect in identifying good quarterbacking. The important point is that the passer rating correlates very well with good quarterbacking. Just about all the best QBs have high passer ratings, and just about every QB with a high passer rating is one of the best QBs. And that makes the passer rating a useful and reasonably reliable way to evaluate QBs.

 

Want the evidence? The top 10 career passer ratings are owned by guys who are named Rodgers, Wilson, Romo, Brady, Young, Manning, Brees, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Warner.

 

Top 25 single season passer ratings? These are the only guys in the top 25 who aren't Hall of Famers already or on their way: Foles, Culpepper, Milt Plum, Josh McCown, Four out of 25.

 

Good QBs have good passer ratings.

[transplantbillsfan]

 

I'm not talking about the QBR, just simple stats: like sacks.

 

Most sacked QB in the league because he can't make decisions and waits: holds the ball too long.

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/player/_/stat/passing/sort/sacks

Well, Passer Rating is the most objective way there is to measure QB play. It accounts for Completion %, YPA, TDs, and INTs.

 

If you're looking for something completely objective to QB play, go by that.

 

Regarding sacks, many would argue (and not unreasonably) that isn't entirely or even mostly a QB stat.

[Shaw66]

I think this is the most legitimate criticism of Tyrod that I've read here. He often holds the ball too long, and he also tends to bail out of a clean pocket. I think those things can improve with more nfl game experience.

But even these stats are skewed. Taylor holds the ball longer than any other QB in the league BECAUSE HE'S THE BEST SCRAMBLER. Brady essentially never scrambles; he's been taught to give up on plays and move on to the next play. That behavior brings his average down; Taylor scrambling takes his average WAY up, because he plays where it takes him 10 seconds before he throws. That's not a negative, that's a positive.

 

On top of that, because he's such a good scrambler, he expects to escape, so he takes off and gets sacked more often than other QBs who see the rush, know they can't escape and throw it away. That's why Taylor, Russell Wilson and Cam Newton are regularly in the top 10 in sacks.

[transplantbillsfan]

Here are a few thoughts regarding Taylors contract having skimmed through this thread:

Taylor did not just accept the Bills 2 year deal because he had no other options. If there were no other options for him in the league the Bills would have been stupid to pay him 30 million over 2 seasons (that is still a lot of $ to pay a QB that no other team wants as their starter). It is likely that Taylor looked at other options and decided that Buffalo was the best fit for him and that he could bet on himself again. Every player is different when it comes to contracts. Some are willing to take risks and others are not. Taylor showed that he was willing to bet on himself when he decided to sign with the Bills instead of Denver in 2015. He turned down more $ to sign with the Bills because this was a place he thought he could start right away and prove that he was a good QB. I believe Taylor would have been fine finishing out 2016 and becoming a free agent but the Bills wanted to protect themselves and offered a sizeable contract to Taylor, one that was hard to pass up. But even that contact gave the Bills an out after the 2016 season. Most players dont sign such deals but Taylor gave the Bills a chance to see him for another year before deciding long-term. Again, he believed in himself and was willing to bet on himself that he would play well in 2016 to warrant the Bills picking up the option or being paid well by another team if the Bills declined the option. Taylor showed in 2 instances that he believed in his play and the financials would work out as a result of his on the field production.

 

This brings us to the 2017 deal. McDermott comes in and needs time to review Taylor. As it appears, Whaley was ready to move on from Taylor. But McDermott analyzes Taylors game and determines Taylor is his best option. MC has been around good qbs with McNabb and Newton so he knows what a franchise qb looks like. MC is also smart and knows leverage. He could pick up the option but why not see if a better deal can be negotiated. MC looks around the NFL at other options. This gives the Bills some leverage as they are not completely beholden to Taylor. Taylor in turn looks at the situation. In Buffalo, he gets an OC that he has a very good relationship with in Dennison. He is comfortable with the OC and the offense having been in it for a year in Baltimore. Taylor likes Dennisons offense and believes he can excel in the system. There are some solid pieces on offense (veteran o-line, McCoy, Clay and Watkins if healthy). Taylor looks at the situation and says why not bet on himself again. Take a renegotiated deal that still pays him 30 million over 2 years. He is the unquestioned starter in Buffalo and will be in an offense that he is familiar with and can hit the ground running. He does not think glass half full. Taylor is not thinking about what happens if I get hurt or if I struggle. Taylor looks at it like the Bills are the best situation for him to succeed. And if he has success as a QB, the $ will always follow (whether that is here or somewhere else). So he signs the renegotiated deal rather than go to another team. The negatives with other teams would be (1) potentially rebuilding, (2) lack as many offensive weapons, (3) have a lesser O-line, (4) lack of familiarity with coaching staff and players, (5) an offensive system he may not feel is a good fit etc. Looking at the many negatives of other teams could easily lead Taylor back to wanting to stay in Buffalo and take a little less money now but with the chance to make more down the road.

 

This brings me to my last point about the contract. Every player is different as some players will try to negotiate every last penny from an organization while others will take less money to stay or get into a situation they feel comfortable. The examples are endless as we see Brady taking much less $ to stay in a situation he feels comfortable and allow his team to maintain an add more talent. Winning is more important than fighting for extra $. Other QBs like Flacco or even Brees chase the $ often to the detriment of their teams ability to add pieces around them. This happens at every position, not just qbs as each player is wired differently. I believe Taylor falls closer to the Brady mentality rather than Flacco. Taylor knows he spent 4 years of his career as a backup and he believes in himself. Time is short and he wants to prove that he is a good QB in the NFL. Taking another qb spot in which he would have to wait (Denver) or taking a less than ideal situation (Jets rebuilding) is not as appealing to him. Taylor has had opportunities to chase the $ and has declined. If Taylor had that so of mentality he likely would have forced the Bills hand and went into free agency trying to maximize his salary (even if it was for another 1 or 2 million a year).

Well said and quite plausible

[GoBills808]

Interesting to hear from someone who actually knows how the passer rating is calculated. I never studied it.

 

But I'd say your complaints are just quibbles. Assuming it's true that the formula treats an interception as -100 yards, when you think about it, that's probably about right. On average, an interception costs your team, I would guess, about 25 yards, because the average yardage NFL teams get per possession. Plus the interception costs you about 30 yards in lost field position, if you look at drive starts for the opponent after punts instead of after INTs. So that's 50 yards or more your team lost. And it's worse than that, because some interceptions cost you a TD or field goal, so you have to account for lost points AND the loss of field position, because your opponent's drive start after a kickoff is usually worst than after an INT. So maybe 100 is too much, but it's in the ballpark.

 

As you say, the passer rating isn't perfect. But it's pretty good. And pointing to Stafford's year only proves the point that the passer rating isn't perfect in identifying good quarterbacking. The important point is that the passer rating correlates very well with good quarterbacking. Just about all the best QBs have high passer ratings, and just about every QB with a high passer rating is one of the best QBs. And that makes the passer rating a useful and reasonably reliable way to evaluate QBs.

 

Want the evidence? The top 10 career passer ratings are owned by guys who are named Rodgers, Wilson, Romo, Brady, Young, Manning, Brees, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Warner.

 

Top 25 single season passer ratings? These are the only guys in the top 25 who aren't Hall of Famers already or on their way: Foles, Culpepper, Milt Plum, Josh McCown, Four out of 25.

 

Good QBs have good passer ratings.

You've never taken the time to look into how passer rating is calculated, but you're comfortable saying 'good QBs have good passer ratings' without understanding the context necessary to make a determination as to whether said QB's rating is an accurate reflection of how 'good' he is (or isn't)?

 

Example:

 

QB1 throws 40 passes for 40 completions, 200 yards, and a TD. Gets a passer rating of 95.83.

 

QB2 throws 40 passes for 20 completions, 350 yards, 3TDs and 1 INT for a passer rating of 94.79.

 

I'd say QB2's performance was vastly superior and that's without delving into the offensive system variability (although a 100% comp speaks to a QB friendly ie low-risk scheme) or game outcome. What I believe passer rating does (partly, which is my main issue) is calculate the degree to which a QB's performance correlates to good QB play as viewed from the 1960s and 70s when a passer rating of 67 was considered average.

 

Single season passer ratings, as stated earlier, are for the birds. Career passer rating MIGHT be a decent factor to consider when evaluating QBs, but pointing to a single game or season's rating does absolutely nothing in terms of determining the relative worth of a particular quarterback.

[transplantbillsfan]

It figures that the OP would endorse this guy.

 

Anyone who supports this silly Tyrod is good agenda is good in his book.

Fahey's highly regarded by a lot of NFL experts. And we've covered this... every single NFL expert whiffs badly on occasion.

[34-78-83]

But even these stats are skewed. Taylor holds the ball longer than any other QB in the league BECAUSE HE'S THE BEST SCRAMBLER. Brady essentially never scrambles; he's been taught to give up on plays and move on to the next play. That behavior brings his average down; Taylor scrambling takes his average WAY up, because he plays where it takes him 10 seconds before he throws. That's not a negative, that's a positive.

 

On top of that, because he's such a good scrambler, he expects to escape, so he takes off and gets sacked more often than other QBs who see the rush, know they can't escape and throw it away. That's why Taylor, Russell Wilson and Cam Newton are regularly in the top 10 in sacks.

pretty straight forward, yep.

[Shaw66]

You've never taken the time to look into how passer rating is calculated, but you're comfortable saying 'good QBs have good passer ratings' without understanding the context necessary to make a determination as to whether said QB's rating is an accurate reflection of how 'good' he is (or isn't)?

 

Example:

 

QB1 throws 40 passes for 40 completions, 200 yards, and a TD. Gets a passer rating of 95.83.

 

QB2 throws 40 passes for 20 completions, 350 yards, 3TDs and 1 INT for a passer rating of 94.79.

 

I'd say QB2's performance was vastly superior and that's without delving into the offensive system variability (although a 100% comp speaks to a QB friendly ie low-risk scheme) or game outcome. What I believe passer rating does (partly, which is my main issue) is calculate the degree to which a QB's performance correlates to good QB play as viewed from the 1960s and 70s when a passer rating of 67 was considered average.

 

Single season passer ratings, as stated earlier, are for the birds. Career passer rating MIGHT be a decent factor to consider when evaluating QBs, but pointing to a single game or season's rating does absolutely nothing in terms of determining the relative worth of a particular quarterback.

Forget your hypotheticals. It's very simple, and I've said it dozens of times, most frequently about three times in this thread:

 

Stats are useful if there is a high correlation between the stat and observed performance. In the case of the passer rating, there IS a high correlation. I just gave you the numbers. All ten of the quarterbacks with the highest career passer rating are or were very good to excellent QBs. Ten out of ten. That's the best correlation possible.

 

21 of the 25 best single season passer ratings of all time were by current or future HOF QBs. That's excellent correlation.

 

Look at the to 10 passers, by passer rating, in each of the last 10 season. Every season there are one or two or three average QBs on the list, but the majority, often the great majority, are the best QBs in the league. And the average QBs make the list one season, but no the next. They have a career year and they make the list. But some names make the top 10 almost every year, and those names are Brady, Rodgers, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Manning, etc.

 

Single game passer ratings aren't too valuable, because that's an average with a small sample size. A one-game or one-week batting average isn't all that meaningful, either. But just as a baseball player's batting average over a full season is a pretty good representation of the kind of season he had, a QB's passer rating over a full season is a pretty good indicator.

 

And to to bring it back to Taylor, over two seasons his passer rating was about 94. If he had enough attempts to qualify (looks like you need 1000) for the list, he'd be in the top 10. To repeat myself, the top 10 is Rodgers, Wilson, Romo, Brady, Young, Manning, Brees, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Warner.

 

So I don't care if you can construct two 40-attempt games where the passer rating results are scewy. It's very difficult to construct two REALISTIC 400-attempt seasons where that's the case.

[transplantbillsfan]

Not for me, but I don't actually have an ultimate objective measure. Passer rating is a good metric but IMO it's not without flaws, chief among them being putting too high a premium on completions (essentially counts them twice when calculating rating, because YPA and COMP% are both part of the equation) and penalizing INTs too heavily (why should an INT be the net equivalent of -100 yards, while a TD is only the net equivalent of +80 yards according to passer rating?). Both of these are areas wherein a QB such as Taylor, managing a low risk, low volume system, would have his performance weighted higher in passer rating than the modern game would recognize. It's outdated and predicated upon stats from the 60s and 70s, and doesn't take into account the evolution of high-volume passing offenses. It doesn't account for either rushing yards, which would aid Taylor's case, or sacks, which would detract from it. I prefer ANY/A to passer rating but I'll admit that it's personal preference (doesn't take rushing yards into account either, but that's OK with me because I don't see a correlation between QB rushing yards and any measurable statistic related to winning).

 

Look at Bradford's 2016 season with the Vikings. Nobody would say he was 'great', but passer rating puts him as the 6th highest ranked QB in the league. This while throwing for 3800 yards, 20 TDs, and 5 INTs (sound familiar?) with a COMP% of 71+. He was essentially Taylor 2015, and the Vikings went 8-8 and finished 3rd in their division. Passer rating does not accurately reflect, in these particular circumstances which guys like Taylor in 2015 and Bradford last season posted high rankings, the degree to which they actually played 'good' quarterback and helped their team succeed. There's a guy like this every season, who plays in a conservative offense and posts a high passer rating but doesn't move the needle as far as modern quarterbacking in concerned: it was Bradford, then Taylor before him, Wilson in 2014, either Foles or Kaepernick in 2013 take your pick, RG3 in 2012, Alex Smith in 2011...all guys that posted top 10 QB ratings without being great NFL quarterbacks that particular season.

Before Bradford and Taylor in that list, all the QBs you listed made the playoffs. 3 made the NFC championship game. 2 were NFC champions.

[GoBills808]

Forget your hypotheticals. It's very simple, and I've said it dozens of times, most frequently about three times in this thread:

 

Stats are useful if there is a high correlation between the stat and observed performance. In the case of the passer rating, there IS a high correlation. I just gave you the numbers. All ten of the quarterbacks with the highest career passer rating are or were very good to excellent QBs. Ten out of ten. That's the best correlation possible.

 

21 of the 25 best single season passer ratings of all time were by current or future HOF QBs. That's excellent correlation.

 

Look at the to 10 passers, by passer rating, in each of the last 10 season. Every season there are one or two or three average QBs on the list, but the majority, often the great majority, are the best QBs in the league. And the average QBs make the list one season, but no the next. They have a career year and they make the list. But some names make the top 10 almost every year, and those names are Brady, Rodgers, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Manning, etc.

 

Single game passer ratings aren't too valuable, because that's an average with a small sample size. A one-game or one-week batting average isn't all that meaningful, either. But just as a baseball player's batting average over a full season is a pretty good representation of the kind of season he had, a QB's passer rating over a full season is a pretty good indicator.

 

And to to bring it back to Taylor, over two seasons his passer rating was about 94. If he had enough attempts to qualify (looks like you need 1000) for the list, he'd be in the top 10. To repeat myself, the top 10 is Rodgers, Wilson, Romo, Brady, Young, Manning, Brees, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Warner.

 

So I don't care if you can construct two 40-attempt games where the passer rating results are scewy. It's very difficult to construct two REALISTIC 400-attempt seasons where that's the case.

So you're ignoring an example of how passer rating is flawed. Fine.

 

I've just illustrated how single season passer ratings aren't representative of QB quality, as there's a mediocre one every year. Taylor was that mediocre QB with a good passer rating in 2015, he slid to 18th this past season which is frankly a bit higher than I have him personally (owing to our QB rating-friendly system)...the fact that you're trying to conflate his last two years' passer rating (with his extremely low # of attempts, which should be weighted against him) with guys who have 10+ seasons worth of accumulated data is tenuous at best.

 

And I'm sorry...10 out of 10 and 21 out of 25 is not 'excellent correlation'. It's simply correlation. And that's not causation. And a statistician would say that a 16% margin of error is enough to throw your findings into an entirely different light. And this is why I rarely take the time to debate these kinds of things anymore...people like yourself who admittedly don't know enough about what they're talking about, yet are comfortable making pronouncements like you're trying to do here.

[Domdab99]

It's amazing what wins would do for his rep. The Bills win three more games last year - Jets, Dolphins, Raiders, and whoever - and the Bills are 10-6 and in the playoffs. And let's be honest - the Bills didn't lose those games because of TT. Give Taylor the same stats and the whole board would be saying he's a franchise QB.

[John from Riverside]

It's amazing what wins would do for his rep. The Bills win three more games last year - Jets, Dolphins, Raiders, and whoever - and the Bills are 10-6 and in the playoffs. And let's be honest - the Bills didn't lose those games because of TT. Give Taylor the same stats and the whole board would be saying he's a franchise QB.

We need to keep teams from owning us us with the run.....it is my hope that guys like Ragland will step in and toughen us up in this area.

[transplantbillsfan]

Not for me, but I don't actually have an ultimate objective measure. Passer rating is a good metric but IMO it's not without flaws, chief among them being putting too high a premium on completions (essentially counts them twice when calculating rating, because YPA and COMP% are both part of the equation) and penalizing INTs too heavily (why should an INT be the net equivalent of -100 yards, while a TD is only the net equivalent of +80 yards according to passer rating?). Both of these are areas wherein a QB such as Taylor, managing a low risk, low volume system, would have his performance weighted higher in passer rating than the modern game would recognize. It's outdated and predicated upon stats from the 60s and 70s, and doesn't take into account the evolution of high-volume passing offenses. It doesn't account for either rushing yards, which would aid Taylor's case, or sacks, which would detract from it. I prefer ANY/A to passer rating but I'll admit that it's personal preference (doesn't take rushing yards into account either, but that's OK with me because I don't see a correlation between QB rushing yards and any measurable statistic related to winning).

 

Look at Bradford's 2016 season with the Vikings. Nobody would say he was 'great', but passer rating puts him as the 6th highest ranked QB in the league. This while throwing for 3800 yards, 20 TDs, and 5 INTs (sound familiar?) with a COMP% of 71+. He was essentially Taylor 2015, and the Vikings went 8-8 and finished 3rd in their division. Passer rating does not accurately reflect, in these particular circumstances which guys like Taylor in 2015 and Bradford last season posted high rankings, the degree to which they actually played 'good' quarterback and helped their team succeed. There's a guy like this every season, who plays in a conservative offense and posts a high passer rating but doesn't move the needle as far as modern quarterbacking in concerned: it was Bradford, then Taylor before him, Wilson in 2014, either Foles or Kaepernick in 2013 take your pick, RG3 in 2012, Alex Smith in 2011...all guys that posted top 10 QB ratings without being great NFL quarterbacks that particular season.

In fact, there's not a single losing record among any of the QBs you selected.

 

I don't agree with equating QBs and wins anyway, but it's odd and contradictory the way that you do and then there's not a single losing record in any of your examples...

[Shaw66]

So you're ignoring an example of how passer rating is flawed. Fine.

 

I've just illustrated how single season passer ratings aren't representative of QB quality, as there's a mediocre one every year. Taylor was that mediocre QB with a good passer rating in 2015, he slid to 18th this past season which is frankly a bit higher than I have him personally (owing to our QB rating-friendly system)...the fact that you're trying to conflate his last two years' passer rating (with his extremely low # of attempts, which should be weighted against him) with guys who have 10+ seasons worth of accumulated data is tenuous at best.

 

And I'm sorry...10 out of 10 and 21 out of 25 is not 'excellent correlation'. It's simply correlation. And that's not causation. And a statistician would say that a 16% margin of error is enough to throw your findings into an entirely different light. And this is why I rarely take the time to debate these kinds of things anymore...people like yourself who admittedly don't know enough about what they're talking about, yet are comfortable making pronouncements like you're trying to do here.

That just isn't right. The correlation IS excellent. Not for games, but for seasons and certainly for careers. 8 or 9 out of 10, season after season, is excellent. (And, by the way, if you look at the lists you'll see that usually numbers 11, 12, and 13 are guys who are IN the top 10 most seasons.

 

You're right, correlation isn't causation. But you can't find any stat that correlates nearly as well on QB performance, so, just like batting averages, when you see a guy with a good passer rating over 4-5-6 seasons, he's almost certainly a good QB. In other words, you can have a good passer rating for a game and not be a good QB, but you can't have a good passer rating for multiple seasons without being a good QB.

 

The whole point of the discussion here is whether these mini-stats that Fahey has created really mean anything in terms of a QB's quality. The answer is no. Passer rating is the stat most likely to indicate whether a QB is good or not.

[GoBills808]

In fact, there's not a single losing record among any of the QBs you selected.

 

I don't agree with equating QBs and wins anyway, but it's odd and contradictory the way that you do and then there's not a single losing record in any of your examples...

Please don't obfuscate like this, it's totally unhelpful. I've made no argument that equates QB performance or rating with team wins.

[GoBills808]

That just isn't right. The correlation IS excellent. Not for games, but for seasons and certainly for careers. 8 or 9 out of 10, season after season, is excellent. (And, by the way, if you look at the lists you'll see that usually numbers 11, 12, and 13 are guys who are IN the top 10 most seasons.

 

You're right, correlation isn't causation. But you can't find any stat that correlates nearly as well on QB performance, so, just like batting averages, when you see a guy with a good passer rating over 4-5-6 seasons, he's almost certainly a good QB. In other words, you can have a good passer rating for a game and not be a good QB, but you can't have a good passer rating for multiple seasons without being a good QB.

 

The whole point of the discussion here is whether these mini-stats that Fahey has created really mean anything in terms of a QB's quality. The answer is no. Passer rating is the stat most likely to indicate whether a QB is good or not.

RE: the bolded-in this instance, your number for Taylor's 'multiple seasons' is two, which in comparison to the other leading passer rating QBs is 10+. That's inconsequential enough to be called useless for comparison's sake, and disingenuous in that this season (a full 50% of his total years you're using) his rating was below average. The sample size is too small to draw the kind of conclusions you've done here, and that's without accounting for the two arguments I've put forth that have yet to be addressed: 1) that passer rating itself puts too much emphasis on completions which benefits 'safe' passing schemes and benefits marginal QBs who play in such offenses and 2) there exist better QB 'quality' statistics (admittedly, this is my personal opinion) that rank Taylor far lower than where you've placed him.

 

I guess a better conversation would rank the relative merits of the myriad stats that attempt to quantify QB performance. We all have our own favorite it seems, but at least I'm trying to explain my rationale...simply saying 'passer rating is the stat most likely to indicate whether a QB is good or not' doesn't satisfy me.

[Shaw66]

RE: the bolded-in this instance, your number for Taylor's 'multiple seasons' is two, which in comparison to the other leading passer rating QBs is 10+. That's inconsequential enough to be called useless for comparison's sake, and disingenuous in that this season (a full 50% of his total years you're using) his rating was below average. The sample size is too small to draw the kind of conclusions you've done here, and that's without accounting for the two arguments I've put forth that have yet to be addressed: 1) that passer rating itself puts too much emphasis on completions which benefits 'safe' passing schemes and benefits marginal QBs who play in such offenses and 2) there exist better QB 'quality' statistics (admittedly, this is my personal opinion) that rank Taylor far lower than where you've placed him.

 

I guess a better conversation would rank the relative merits of the myriad stats that attempt to quantify QB performance. We all have our own favorite it seems, but at least I'm trying to explain my rationale...simply saying 'passer rating is the stat most likely to indicate whether a QB is good or not' doesn't satisfy me.

You need to go back read my posts. You're responding to things I've never said.

 

I didn't say two seasons was enough. I did say it's interesting that if he had enough attempts his two seasons would put him in the top ten career passer rating list. But I've never said two seasons is enough. I think above I said 3-4-5 seasons is what you need.

 

You say I've drawn conclusions, and I haven't.

 

I'm not sure you've said what you think the better quality statistic is.

[HappyDays]

RE: the bolded-in this instance, your number for Taylor's 'multiple seasons' is two, which in comparison to the other leading passer rating QBs is 10+. That's inconsequential enough to be called useless for comparison's sake, and disingenuous in that this season (a full 50% of his total years you're using) his rating was below average. The sample size is too small to draw the kind of conclusions you've done here, and that's without accounting for the two arguments I've put forth that have yet to be addressed: 1) that passer rating itself puts too much emphasis on completions which benefits 'safe' passing schemes and benefits marginal QBs who play in such offenses and 2) there exist better QB 'quality' statistics (admittedly, this is my personal opinion) that rank Taylor far lower than where you've placed him.

 

I guess a better conversation would rank the relative merits of the myriad stats that attempt to quantify QB performance. We all have our own favorite it seems, but at least I'm trying to explain my rationale...simply saying 'passer rating is the stat most likely to indicate whether a QB is good or not' doesn't satisfy me.

All Shaw's saying is it's too early to dismiss Tyrod, not that he's a top 10 all time passer. Except for the top 5 or so QBs, most guys see their passer ratings rise and fall with each passing season. It's rarely a linear line straight up. The top guys are so good because they ALWAYS have passer ratings at the top. It's hard to imagine a scenario where someone has 8 or so seasons of great passer ratings without also being a great passer. If Tyrod continues his passer rating trend for a long time he will be considered a good QB. He had a down year last year, true, but it's not indicative of any pattern yet. You seem to think it's crazy that he could ever have a playoff run like Eli Manning or Joe Flacco or a sudden career resurgence like Carson Palmer or Matt Ryan. You just never know what each season will look like for guys at that level. It's not common for long-term starters to have their best season in their 2nd year. All I've said all along is to give Tyrod another year and see which way he falls. Edited May 7, 2017 by HappyDays

[Shaw66]

All Shaw's saying is it's too early to dismiss Tyrod, not that he's a top 10 all time passer. Except for the top 5 or so QBs, most guys see their passer ratings rise and fall with each passing season. It's rarely a linear line straight up. The top guys are so good because they ALWAYS have passer ratings at the top. It's hard to imagine a scenario where someone has 8 or so seasons of great passer ratings without also being a great passer. If Tyrod continues his passer rating trend for a long time he will be considered a good QB. He had a down year last year, true, but it's not indicative of any pattern yet. You seem to think it's crazy that he could ever have a playoff run like Eli Manning or Joe Flacco or a sudden career resurgence like Carson Palmer or Matt Ryan. You just never know what each season will look like for guys at that level. It's not common for long-term starters to have their best season in their 2nd year. All I've said all along is to give Tyrod another year and see which way he falls.

Yup.

 

It isn't decision time now. After the 2017 season is decision time for Tyrod, because that's when the Bills will have to decide if they're using their first-round picks to go after a QB.

 

And what I'll say what I've been saying since 2015: If Tyrod plays the essentially the whole season and has a passer rating in the 93-94-95 range or better, he's your guy. Think about it. If he has a passer rating of 95 in 2017, his career passer rating will be in the top 10, ALL-TIME. Even if someone wants to adjust the calculation of the passer rating to give more or less weight to certain numbers, a guy in the top ten all-time on the old system will be in the top 20 under the new system. Are you really going to cut a guy who's in his prime and is a top-20 passer? It's ludicrous.

[transplantbillsfan]

Please don't obfuscate like this, it's totally unhelpful. I've made no argument that equates QB performance or rating with team wins.

Yet you're the one bringing wins into the discussion.

 

Maybe you shouldn't have drawn attention to the Vikings finishing 8-8 and 3rd in their division, then.

 

That sure sounded like you trying to insinuate that Passer Rating doesn't correlate with winning (which I'd generally agree with) and yet you follow that up with what you present as more examples like him, even though not a single QB on your list, including Bradford, ended their seasons losing more than they won as starters. Plus 2 NFC champions.

 

 

I'm not trying to do anything except piece together what you actually mean.

Edited May 8, 2017 by transplantbillsfan