QB comparative data for Tyrod from Cian Fahey to discuss

[Foxx]

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.

 

this is why his logic is routinely off.

 

he doesn't know certain things yet he is comfortable pronouncing this or that as matter of fact.

[Blokestradamus]

You're absolutely right. That data exists, but the only people who have it are the coaches. The Bills coaches know the answer to the questions debated here all the time: Does Taylor miss reads and therefore miss open receivers? Does Taylor release the ball late? Does Taylor hold the ball too long? Does he do any of things more than QBs on other teams do? Do we care?

 

All questions the coaches can answer and we cannot.

 

I've watched every throw Tyrod has made as a Bill live and on All-22 outside of the emotion of the live game. I'd like to think I notice patterns and whatnot, I see repeated plays and have a feel for the progressions of a few concepts. Ultimately, as you said, we'll never quite know because, for even the most educated onlookers, it's best guess stuff.

 

It frustrates me endlessly because I'm a little obsessed with knowledge. I'd really like to be sure that I know what I think I know.

[section122]

One thing I don't get about all the TT bashing, is that those doing the bashing apparently think franchise QBs grow on trees. The 50th best QB in the world is someone like Mark Sanchez. Playing QB is incredibly hard.

 

 

Some excellent perspective. In a league where Ryan Fitzpatrick was signed at the start of last year as the guy the Jets needed people shouldn't dismiss the 20th best QB in the league as easily imo.

 

 

But Yards per Attempt correlates strongly to winning. I've seen statisticsl breakdowns that show the team that won the YPA battle also won the game almost 75% of the time in certain NFL seasons. Usually the best QBs in the NFL are also near the top in YPA.

 

 

There used to be a poster here named Edwards Arm and he always stated the best predicator of success was YPA and the stats generally backed him up. It always stuck in my brain.

 

 

pretty darn accurate summary i'd say. I totally agree with everything here..... I've said it too many times already but I think it needs repeating sometimes around here. if I had come to a group of bills fans and said going into week 17 you'll have the 6th scoring offense and league record low 9 turnovers through 15 games, EVERYONE would take that ALL DAY EVERYDAY.

 

Mine is... If we had a QB we drafted and after 2 years he had gone for 47 tds and 12 ints we would all be very excited for next season to see what he could become.

[Foxx]

Maybe I'll respond to your other comments later. For now, just about the contract.

 

I posted here or in another thread about the contract. I have a friend who used to be a sports agent. He represented some of the very biggest names in sports. Negotiating deals is his business.

 

I asked him about the Tyrod contract scenarios, and he confirmed that an agent absolutely would have told Tyrod to take the deal he has over the one he had. Absolutely. He said if you're in your prime, your freedom, your ability to negotiate another contract is worth a lot. He said it was a no brainer for Taylor to give up $10 million of guaranteed money in exchange for the right to become a free agent again in 2018. Absolutely no question in his mind.

 

Two years in a row, the Bills have come to Taylor asking for contract help. The first time was because he was going to become a free agent after 2016, and the Bills didn't want to be in a bidding war for him. Taylor said okay, but I need real guaranteed money. They negotiated and came up with the deal they came up with. Taylor wanted guaranteed money; the Bills wanted to tie him up but still have an out after 2016.

 

The second time, because Taylor's year wasn't great, the Bills came to him and said "we're not sure, we not another year to see how you develop. Plus, we need some cap help." Taylor said "I'll give you another year to decide if you want me, and I'll give you cap help, but I don't want to be tied up for six years." They negotiated and came up with the new deal.

 

Bottom line is that Taylor was not worried, at all, that the Bills would cut him. He knew he'd get another deal somewhere, and he also knew the Bills weren't likely to find a comparable QB any place else.

ludicrous.

[section122]

ludicrous.

 

Not anymore ludicrous than any other supposition on the matter. It really makes perfect sense and could very well be how it went down.

[Shaw66]

No, it isn't. You may be trying to justify a particular set of circumstances, but realize that your argument revolves around the idea that a short-term deal for less guaranteed money was the better option for a 27 year old running QB.

 

It's totally not a no brainer.

Of course it is. He gave up a $40 million guarantee and got a $30 million guarantee. He gave back $10 million.

 

So play it out. Let's say Taylor never has another season like 2015. If so, the Bills cut him as soon as they can, he gets his $40 million guaranteed and nothing more under his old deal. Under his new deal he gets $30 million. He immediately gets a job somewhere as a backup for $5 million, or as a starter for $10 million. Lots of guys bounce around the league like that. So let's say that he earns $5 million a year for 5 years. That's $25 million. If he kept his old deal, he'd be stuck on the Bills for an extra year as a backup (if he's creating dead cap, the Bills will keep him as a backup instead of cutting him and having to sign another QB). Then he'll have 4 years left at $5 million. So that's $30 million (the $10 guaranteed from the Bills and $20 million over four years. So Taylor gave up something like $5 million to renegotiate, assuming he never establishes himself as a starter.

 

Now assume he DOES establish himself as a starter. If he does, he'll make $5 to $10 million a year more with his new deal.

 

The downside of giving back the $10 million isn't nearly as big as the upside of being a free agent after 2018.

 

Listen to the analysts. They pretty much ALL say that Taylor is a serviceable starter. They pretty much all say he isn't a star. If he's a serviceable starter, he's going to make decent money until he's 35, and he's certainly going to make backup money until then.

 

I've watched every throw Tyrod has made as a Bill live and on All-22 outside of the emotion of the live game. I'd like to think I notice patterns and whatnot, I see repeated plays and have a feel for the progressions of a few concepts. Ultimately, as you said, we'll never quite know because, for even the most educated onlookers, it's best guess stuff.

 

It frustrates me endlessly because I'm a little obsessed with knowledge. I'd really like to be sure that I know what I think I know.

I'm sort of like that. That's why I called my friend the agent. I thought I'd figured out why Tyrod signed his new deal, but I wasn't sure. My friend is an expert. He confirmed it. Being a free agent is incredibly valuable.

 

I really want to know what the coaches think about a lot of these things. The question I really wanted to ask a few years ago was when Tuel threw that interception (was it Tuel?) on the goal line while Stevie was wide open in the end zone. 100-yard pick six turned a win into a loss. I'm sure that happened because Stevie didn't do his job, but no one would ever say it. Coaches aren't going to dump on their players like that.

[GoBills808]

Of course it is. He gave up a $40 million guarantee and got a $30 million guarantee. He gave back $10 million.

 

So play it out. Let's say Taylor never has another season like 2015. If so, the Bills cut him as soon as they can, he gets his $40 million guaranteed and nothing more under his old deal. Under his new deal he gets $30 million. He immediately gets a job somewhere as a backup for $5 million, or as a starter for $10 million. Lots of guys bounce around the league like that. So let's say that he earns $5 million a year for 5 years. That's $25 million. If he kept his old deal, he'd be stuck on the Bills for an extra year as a backup (if he's creating dead cap, the Bills will keep him as a backup instead of cutting him and having to sign another QB). Then he'll have 4 years left at $5 million. So that's $30 million (the $10 guaranteed from the Bills and $20 million over four years. So Taylor gave up something like $5 million to renegotiate, assuming he never establishes himself as a starter.

 

Now assume he DOES establish himself as a starter. If he does, he'll make $5 to $10 million a year more with his new deal.

 

The downside of giving back the $10 million isn't nearly as big as the upside of being a free agent after 2018.

 

Listen to the analysts. They pretty much ALL say that Taylor is a serviceable starter. They pretty much all say he isn't a star. If he's a serviceable starter, he's going to make decent money until he's 35, and he's certainly going to make backup money until then.

I don't dispute your numbers. My issue is with the central thesis of your argument; namely, that a marginal running QB would consider a short-term deal with less guaranteed money a 'no-brainer'. It's the polar opposite of what modern NFL players seek in contract negotiations.

[section122]

I don't dispute your numbers. My issue is with the central thesis of your argument; namely, that a marginal running QB would consider a short-term deal with less guaranteed money a 'no-brainer'. It's the polar opposite of what modern NFL players seek in contract negotiations.

 

Unless of course he believes he is more than a marginal running QB.

 

He took the guaranteed money deal when he had yet to become financially established. He made more last year than he had in his career combined. Once he has that nest egg he gambled on himself. I'm not saying it is the definitive answer but it certainly makes sense if viewed that way. We just saw Alshon Jeffery and Terell Pryor take one year prove it deals to hopefully cash in next year. It has been confirmed Pryor turned down more money to do so. It doesn't always happen but it does happen.

[Foxx]

 

Not anymore ludicrous than any other supposition on the matter. It really makes perfect sense and could very well be how it went down.

the main impetus for a player desiring a long term contract is security in the face of the risk of injury. the only exception to this is a player who is coming off of said injury and wants a prove it type deal to get more the following year.

 

how many healthy running quarterbacks (you know, those at far greater risk of injury) are seeking a short term contract because what they had signed and gave up was because it was essentially slavery?

 

sheer lunacy i say.

[Shaw66]

I don't dispute your numbers. My issue is with the central thesis of your argument; namely, that a marginal running QB would consider a short-term deal with less guaranteed money a 'no-brainer'. It's the polar opposite of what modern NFL players seek in contract negotiations.

No. That's where you're wrong. Players in their prime don't want long-term deals unless they are for the most money they can get.

 

That's why guys like Zach Brown come into Buffalo and ask for one-year deals. The Bills wanted him for a longer-term, but they weren't offering enough money to make it worthwhile. Players AGREE to long-term deals; they don't ask for them. They ASK for guaranteed money.

 

That's what the negotiations are about - long-term vs. guaranteed money. When a player is worth franchise-tag money, he takes a long-term deal; otherwise, he wants short-term.

 

In 2015 Taylor signed a contract that paid him peanuts and allowed him to be a free agent in two years.

 

In 2016 he signed a contract that guaranteed him something close to $50 million and tied him up through 2021.

 

In 2017 he signed a contract that gave back $10 million of the guarantee and allows him to be a free agent after 2018.

 

He got a better deal each year. If he could have gotten the 2017 deal in 2016 he would have taken it in a heartbeat.

 

As you say, he's a running quarterback. He may have a shorter period of peak years. He would have passed his peak as a runner by 2022. He will still be in his prime as a runner in 2018.

 

Unless of course he believes he is more than a marginal running QB.

 

He took the guaranteed money deal when he had yet to become financially established. He made more last year than he had in his career combined. Once he has that nest egg he gambled on himself. I'm not saying it is the definitive answer but it certainly makes sense if viewed that way. We just saw Alshon Jeffery and Terell Pryor take one year prove it deals to hopefully cash in next year. It has been confirmed Pryor turned down more money to do so. It doesn't always happen but it does happen.

When you think about it, it's obvious. If a team isn't offering franchise money, short-term deals are better.

 

Then why did Tyrod sign the 2016 deal? Because the Bills weren't offering a short-term deal, but they WERE offering attractive guaranteed money.

[transplantbillsfan]

I wish there was data for throws that you don't make.

 

I think that's something I'd like to see, too, but I don't know how you really quantify it. And that becomes EXTREMELY subjective at that point.

 

Actually, Fahey begins his chapter on Taylo with this issue in the very first paragraph:

 

“A quarterback could go to the Pro Bowl every year if he made half the throws that Tyrod Taylor leaves out on the field each week.” Those were the words of the MMQB’s Andy Benoit. Benoit has consistently been one of Taylor’s most ardent critics and that was his most damning statement. It’s a fair criticism of Taylor that he will miss open receivers at times. Whether the veracity of what Benoit states is true is more debatable.

 

​

He follows this up with a discussion of the Raiders game, one of the games Taylor is most widely criticized for in terms of not being able to find open WRs. In conclusion of that game, he states:

 

It was tough to find the open receivers that Taylor had supposedly missed. There were plenty of examples of the pocket collapsing before anyone could get open. The Bills didn’t look to work the middle of the field with short and intermediate routes. The Raiders realized this and used aggressive man coverage outside that forced the receivers to win one-on-one on isolation routes. Although Sammy Watkins was on the field, he wasn’t showing off the burst that has made him such a dangerous receiver. Watkins wasn’t getting open and neither were his teammates.

No. That's where you're wrong. Players in their prime don't want long-term deals unless they are for the most money they can get.

 

That's why guys like Zach Brown come into Buffalo and ask for one-year deals. The Bills wanted him for a longer-term, but they weren't offering enough money to make it worthwhile. Players AGREE to long-term deals; they don't ask for them. They ASK for guaranteed money.

 

That's what the negotiations are about - long-term vs. guaranteed money. When a player is worth franchise-tag money, he takes a long-term deal; otherwise, he wants short-term.

 

In 2015 Taylor signed a contract that paid him peanuts and allowed him to be a free agent in two years.

 

In 2016 he signed a contract that guaranteed him something close to $50 million and tied him up through 2021.

 

In 2017 he signed a contract that gave back $10 million of the guarantee and allows him to be a free agent after 2018.

 

He got a better deal each year. If he could have gotten the 2017 deal in 2016 he would have taken it in a heartbeat.

 

As you say, he's a running quarterback. He may have a shorter period of peak years. He would have passed his peak as a runner by 2022. He will still be in his prime as a runner in 2018.

When you think about it, it's obvious. If a team isn't offering franchise money, short-term deals are better.

 

Then why did Tyrod sign the 2016 deal? Because the Bills weren't offering a short-term deal, but they WERE offering attractive guaranteed money.

 

Shaw, you keep saying it's $30 million guaranteed, but (having not looked at the contract in awhile) from what I recall, it's not actually $30 million guaranteed because the Bills have the ability to cut him at the end of this year.

 

Granted, there's a good deal of dead money involved, but Taylor is not guaranteed $30 million.

 

I could be wrong, but if I'm not, this seems a central premise of your argument and I just want to make sure you (and your agent friend) have the facts straight.

Edited May 8, 2017 by transplantbillsfan

[Blokestradamus]

I think that's something I'd like to see, too, but I don't know how you really quantify it. And that becomes EXTREMELY subjective at that point.

 

Actually, Fahey begins his chapter on Taylo with this issue in the very first paragraph:

 

“A quarterback could go to the Pro Bowl every year if he made half the throws that Tyrod Taylor leaves out on the field each week.” Those were the words of the MMQB’s Andy Benoit. Benoit has consistently been one of Taylor’s most ardent critics and that was his most damning statement. It’s a fair criticism of Taylor that he will miss open receivers at times. Whether the veracity of what Benoit states is true is more debatable.

 

​

He follows this up with a discussion of the Raiders game, one of the games Taylor is most widely criticized for in terms of not being able to find open WRs. In conclusion of that game, he states:

 

It was tough to find the open receivers that Taylor had supposedly missed. There were plenty of examples of the pocket collapsing before anyone could get open. The Bills didn’t look to work the middle of the field with short and intermediate routes. The Raiders realized this and used aggressive man coverage outside that forced the receivers to win one-on-one on isolation routes. Although Sammy Watkins was on the field, he wasn’t showing off the burst that has made him such a dangerous receiver. Watkins wasn’t getting open and neither were his teammates.

 

I agree that things of that nature get into the realms of being hyper-subjective. It's almost like beauty being in the eye of the beholder.

 

With things like that, I find it easier just to make up my own mind using best judgement and do my best to explain my conclusions. Better yet, to keep it to myself and not bother to try and change minds

 

With college QB's, I like to chart their accuracy to different levels in much the same way that Cian does. Even with things like an accuracy percentage or what constitutes a drop, they aren't measured with a universal yardstick so results can look skewed between what I do and what someone like PFF note down. Getting into things as complex as progression structure, blocking schemes, coverages and route combinations, you can't find a consensus.

[Figster]

the main impetus for a player desiring a long term contract is security in the face of the risk of injury. the only exception to this is a player who is coming off of said injury and wants a prove it type deal to get more the following year.

 

how many healthy running quarterbacks (you know, those at far greater risk of injury) are seeking a short term contract because what they had signed and gave up was because it was essentially slavery?

 

sheer lunacy i say.

Well lets wait and see how it all pans out.

 

If Taylor ends up performing at a higher level under McDermott then it was a wise decision in my humble opinion Foxx.

[Foxx]

Shaw, you keep saying it's $30 million guaranteed, but (having not looked at the contract in awhile) from what I recall, it's not actually $30 million guaranteed because the Bills have the ability to cut him at the end of this year.

 

Granted, there's a good deal of dead money involved, but Taylor is not guaranteed $30 million.

 

I could be wrong, but if I'm not, this seems a central premise of your argument and I just want to make sure you (and your agent friend) have the facts straight.

thank you, transplant. another item he continually states as matter of fact when it simply isn't.

[Big Gun]

No. That's where you're wrong. Players in their prime don't want long-term deals unless they are for the most money they can get.

 

That's why guys like Zach Brown come into Buffalo and ask for one-year deals. The Bills wanted him for a longer-term, but they weren't offering enough money to make it worthwhile. Players AGREE to long-term deals; they don't ask for them. They ASK for guaranteed money.

 

That's what the negotiations are about - long-term vs. guaranteed money. When a player is worth franchise-tag money, he takes a long-term deal; otherwise, he wants short-term.

 

In 2015 Taylor signed a contract that paid him peanuts and allowed him to be a free agent in two years.

 

In 2016 he signed a contract that guaranteed him something close to $50 million and tied him up through 2021.

 

In 2017 he signed a contract that gave back $10 million of the guarantee and allows him to be a free agent after 2018.

 

He got a better deal each year. If he could have gotten the 2017 deal in 2016 he would have taken it in a heartbeat.

 

Except that reports and all indications were that the Bills were going to not pick up the option on his contract and prepared to move in a different direction. TT would have become a FA where the NFL world would have been his playground and teams would have been fighting for his services (as some have said) thus driving up his contract and him receiving a whole lot more $$$ than the Bills new offer. So why would he turn that opportunity down? Seems like a better situation for him than what you or your agent buddy have said.

[Foxx]

Well lets wait and see how it all pans out.

 

If Taylor ends up performing at a higher level under McDermott then it was a wise decision in my humble opinion Foxx.

Fig, the argument at hand is not whether or not it will prove to be a wise decision. it is why a healthy young quarterback in is prime would seek out a short term contract (essentially a prove it contract).

 

with that being said, i agree it will ultimately prove to be a wise decision for one side of the equation. the question is which side will get that distinction.

Edited May 8, 2017 by Foxx

[Figster]

Except that reports and all indications were that the Bills were going to not pick up the option on his contract and prepared to move in a different direction. TT would have become a FA where the NFL world would have been his playground and teams would have been fighting for his services (as some have said) thus driving up his contract and him receiving a whole lot more $$$ than the Bills new offer. So why would he turn that opportunity down? Seems like a better situation for him than what you or your agent buddy have said.

Its a way of posturing IMO old school,

[Figster]

Fig, the argument at hand is not whether or not it will prove out to be a wise decision or not. it is why a healthy young quarterback in is prime would seek out a short term contract (essentially a prove it contract).

 

with that being said, i agree it will ultimately prove to be a wise decision for one side of the equation. the question is which side will get that distinction.

How can you call something lunacy that you admit may turn out to be a wise decision?

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

I'll say it again all the stats in the world mean nothing if the result is a LOSS

[Domdab99]

I know it's been said before, but I think Taylor gets a mulligan for 2016. He had an awful head coach, a fired OC after two weeks, another one who comes inwho had never been an OC before, and an injury depleted WR corp. that left him with mostly scrubs. I'm sorry, but when Robert Woods (who is a pretty good No. 2) is your No. 1 WR for half the year - and Watkins is playing hurt the other half of the year - it's hard to blame TT for the Bills' 7-9 record.

 

This is the year he will have to put up or shut up. I'm a TT fan, but if he doesn't show marked improvement with a decent OC, at least two healthy starting WRs, McCoy, Clay, and hell, maybe Barnidge in the mix...then, yes, let's move on.

 

I'm hoping he steps up, because he's damn exciting and has the capability of being a very good QB.