John from Riverside Posted May 11, 2017 Posted May 11, 2017 Has Tyrod ever shown you that he commands the offense? That he gets the offense set up and adjusts according to what he sees at the line? Most QB's that have to worry about getting the play off are doing so because they are making adjustments at the line according to what they are seeing from the defensive alignment. Tyrod isn't doing this. Are you telling me that Roman and his plays were that complex that Tyrod couldn't decipher it and took too long...longer than guys that get the call, examine the defense, adjust the call and then run the play? Lynn simplified reads along with verbiage...I think there's a bit more truth to Tyrod not being that good at processing info on the field and in the huddle than some here are saying. Kaepernick ran Roman's offense very well and he's no genius, so based off all these things, it's fair to say that Tyrod may just struggle with processing info on the field and making reads...a big thing for a QB. All we've heard and seen is a simple passing game, issues making reads and anticipating receivers, not using certain areas of the field, and having to have the offense scaled back with less reads, less verbiage, and less ability to make calls at the line. It's fair to conclude that based off of all that, that we have a QB that while talented...he's lacking in vital area's where it's most important for the leader of an offense. Or maybe someone will come back in this thread and tell me that I'm misinterpreting things, lol. I am glad that you brought that up....YES as a matter of fact I have seen him do that. I remember a specific play where a route runner was getting to his formation spot late and I visably saw TT bark at him.....of course you dont know what was said but the guy got some pep in his step.....I actually made a mental note to myself....Tyrod DOES command this offense.
transplantbillsfan Posted May 11, 2017 Author Posted May 11, 2017 This was great thread and there were lots of interesting comments made. I want to cap off this conversation about analytics and statistics by introducing this question. Let's pretend it's the first game of the 2017 season and we are playing the Pats in Foxboro........ There is 1:35 left in the game. The Pats just scored a TD to go ahead by 4 points. The ball is kicked into the end zone and the Bills start at their own 25......... Now, who do you want handling the ball ? Tyrod Taylor ? No, I want Joe Montana handling the ball, but he's long retired... This was great thread and there were lots of interesting comments made. I want to cap off this conversation about analytics and statistics by introducing this question. Let's pretend it's the first game of the 2017 season and we are playing the Pats in Foxboro........ There is 1:35 left in the game. The Pats just scored a TD to go ahead by 4 points. The ball is kicked into the end zone and the Bills start at their own 25......... Now, who do you want handling the ball ? Tyrod Taylor ? Fun fact... did you know that Aaron Rodgers is 0-35 in his career in precisely your scenario? Diown by more than 1 point in the 4th quarter to a winning team, Aaron Rodgers hasn't won a single game in his career.
transplantbillsfan Posted May 11, 2017 Author Posted May 11, 2017 Trimming the playbook and simplifying the offense are NOT what Lynn said. Those phrases you're quoting were in Robyn Mundy's report about Lynn's appearance on the John Murphy show. Lynn didn't use those phrases; Robyn did. You can hear what Lynn said here: http://www.buffalobills.com/video/audio/Anthony-Lynn-We-have-got-to-stay-on-the-field/72f7ccf3-3494-44f4-b413-57ec43c4d356 Although you can argue about what Lynn meant by what he said, my take is that he said the Bills were going into games with too many plays on the playlist. He said something about Tyrod may not be able to handle the volume, but it seemed to mean again that the volume on the playlist was too great to manage, not the scale of the playbook. He also said something about simplifying reads, but it wasn't clear if he was talking about Taylor or the entire offense. In general, it sounded like he was saying the offense was too complicated, not that Taylor was unable to handle a normal sized offensive playbook. Recall that in 2015 Incognito said it was the most complicated offense he ever had played in. Yes, volume... and it seems like Taylor wasn't the only one (or even the main one... ?) complaining about volume. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/22/lesean-mccoy-bills-offense-simplified-under-anthony-lynn/ McCoy said the team would go into games with 80-90 potential plays when Roman was the coordinator and that number has been pared down to 30-40 plays under Lynn.
Bangarang Posted May 11, 2017 Posted May 11, 2017 This thread has gone in so many different directions. What was the original point again?
GoBills808 Posted May 11, 2017 Posted May 11, 2017 No, I want Joe Montana handling the ball, but he's long retired... Fun fact... did you know that Aaron Rodgers is 0-35 in his career in precisely your scenario? Diown by more than 1 point in the 4th quarter to a winning team, Aaron Rodgers hasn't won a single game in his career. So you'd be ambivalent as to whether you'd want Taylor or Rodgers in that scenario. And that is why your statistical analysis is simply lacking.
mannc Posted May 11, 2017 Posted May 11, 2017 So you'd be ambivalent as to whether you'd want Taylor or Rodgers in that scenario. And that is why your statistical analysis is simply lacking. Point missed...
HappyDays Posted May 11, 2017 Posted May 11, 2017 So you'd be ambivalent as to whether you'd want Taylor or Rodgers in that scenario. And that is why your statistical analysis is simply lacking. It's a dumb question to begin with. Here I'll have a turn. It's a critical 3rd and 10 in a playoff game. The DE gets by practically unblocked and is gunning for your QB. Who would you rather have on the field, Tyrod Taylor or Aaron Rodgers?
Crusher Posted May 11, 2017 Posted May 11, 2017 How do you know Kaepernick isn't a genius? So you're saying Tyrod is dumber than Kaep? You're really making blanket insulting statements with little or no proof because of this seemingly very personal vendetta. What don't you understand when I say the mental side of playing QB in the NFL? You are taking my strictly football opinion on Taylor and viewing it as an insult because anything other than praise or optimism offends you...I get that. Just a few pages back I said I wasn't questioning the man's intelligence. What you are failing to grasp here is that there is a difference between intellect and football smarts...more specifically, QB smarts. It's all just misinterpretation and insults with you, and it's tiresome. Having to routinely go back and clarify things I've already said is getting very old.
transplantbillsfan Posted May 11, 2017 Author Posted May 11, 2017 (edited) So you'd be ambivalent as to whether you'd want Taylor or Rodgers in that scenario. And that is why your statistical analysis is simply lacking. Why are you putting words in my mouth? You like to assume things when they are never said. I brought that up to make a point, not as a statement of who I'd rather have. Figured you'd understand that. And it's not my statistical analysis, it's Scott Kacsmar's over at Footballoutsiders. Edited May 11, 2017 by transplantbillsfan
Crusher Posted May 11, 2017 Posted May 11, 2017 This thread has gone in so many different directions. What was the original point again? It was just another attempt by the OP to justify his view that Taylor is some kind of QB that is better than what most people can clearly see when watching him. And he used a guy who doesn't fully grasp the game and is fairly new to watching it on top of it all. I can't wait for his next puff piece that he digs up from wherever.
GoBills808 Posted May 12, 2017 Posted May 12, 2017 It's a dumb question to begin with. Here I'll have a turn. It's a critical 3rd and 10 in a playoff game. The DE gets by practically unblocked and is gunning for your QB. Who would you rather have on the field, Tyrod Taylor or Aaron Rodgers? Rodgers. There is literally no situation on a football field I'd rather have Tyrod Taylor at QB than Aaron Rodgers.
Scott7975 Posted May 12, 2017 Posted May 12, 2017 Has Tyrod ever shown you that he commands the offense? That he gets the offense set up and adjusts according to what he sees at the line? Most QB's that have to worry about getting the play off are doing so because they are making adjustments at the line according to what they are seeing from the defensive alignment. Tyrod isn't doing this. Are you telling me that Roman and his plays were that complex that Tyrod couldn't decipher it and took too long...longer than guys that get the call, examine the defense, adjust the call and then run the play? Lynn simplified reads along with verbiage...I think there's a bit more truth to Tyrod not being that good at processing info on the field and in the huddle than some here are saying. Kaepernick ran Roman's offense very well and he's no genius, so based off all these things, it's fair to say that Tyrod may just struggle with processing info on the field and making reads...a big thing for a QB. All we've heard and seen is a simple passing game, issues making reads and anticipating receivers, not using certain areas of the field, and having to have the offense scaled back with less reads, less verbiage, and less ability to make calls at the line. It's fair to conclude that based off of all that, that we have a QB that while talented...he's lacking in vital area's where it's most important for the leader of an offense. Or maybe someone will come back in this thread and tell me that I'm misinterpreting things, lol. Yeah they had no problem running it in San Fran. It's something that any fan of the San Francisco 49ers will find vaguely familiar. Before coming in as Rex Ryan's offensive coordinator in Buffalo, New York, Greg Roman ran a similar run-heavy offense in San Francisco under Jim Harbaugh. Whether it was a flawed system, had a lot of kinks that were never worked out, or just had issues with the talent executing, much less the coach, is still be up in the air. There's no need to bring up the infamous time out called during the final minutes of Super Bowl 47, but it's definitely something to keep in mind. The one thing that a lot of fans have shifted blame to is Roman and how complicated, not to mention time consuming, the offense is. In 2013, the San Francisco 49ers were penalized 13 times for delay of game, the most in the league. In 2014, the San Francisco 49ers were penalized eight times for delay of game, sharing the top spot with the St. Louis Rams and Washington. http://www.ninersnation.com/2015/11/15/9736210/was-greg-romans-offense-to-blame-in-san-francisco Hard to fathom before the season that the San Francisco offense would look so inept, especially with the NFL's best collection of offensive linemen, a superhuman tight end, one of the league’s last remaining feature backs and primo auxiliary weapons peppered all around. Minus Michael Crabtree, the 49ers still have all those things on offense, but this bungling unit continues to struggle—far more than it rightfully should be, even when you extend it the leeway of not having its No. 1 wideout. What Bleacher Report’s NFC West lead writer Tyson Langland astutely pointed out is that after 10 games played, the Niners offense is averaging fewer yards per game than Kellen Clemens and the St. Louis Rams. In fact, only Baltimore, Miami and Jacksonville have worse numbers in that category, and they carry a combined record of 10-20 so far in 2013. Besides the supposed lack of talent affecting the offense's ability to stay on the field, the effort and thought process on behalf of Roman has come into question, particularly when it comes to his puzzling third-down play calls. They come all too often. People need to realize this is not a new development either. Situational football has never been his forte. Most notably, perhaps, is when the team finished 1-of-13 on third-down conversions in the NFC title game versus the New York Giants back in the 2011 season, when they had Alex Smith and Michael Crabtree (as opposed to Colin Kaepernick and no Michael Crabtree). But, still, same problem: no No. 2 WR and same play-caller. It has persisted for two-and-half seasons and on into last week versus the Saints, as they started the game with a three-straight of three-and-outs. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1858140-why-greg-romans-play-calling-is-holding-back-the-san-francisco-49ers Here's a couple excerpts from two articles and you can find many more that say the same thing. Read the full articles and maybe you'll actually get some knowledge about how terrible Roman actually is.
transplantbillsfan Posted May 12, 2017 Author Posted May 12, 2017 What don't you understand when I say the mental side of playing QB in the NFL? You are taking my strictly football opinion on Taylor and viewing it as an insult because anything other than praise or optimism offends you...I get that. Just a few pages back I said I wasn't questioning the man's intelligence. What you are failing to grasp here is that there is a difference between intellect and football smarts...more specifically, QB smarts. It's all just misinterpretation and insults with you, and it's tiresome. Having to routinely go back and clarify things I've already said is getting very old. If it's misinterpretation Crusher, then you do a poor job communicating what you actually want to say. For example, in post 355 when responding to the discussion about Taylor's contract you say "The difference is that Shaw's guy was apparently absolutely certain that this was the deal he wanted." And then in post 382 just a page later Shaw accused you of misquoting him, and you say "I said you almost make it seem as if he got the deal he wanted. No misquoting here." I don't misrepresent you. And frankly, what you're doing with the mental aspect thing is a bit of a copout. It was just another attempt by the OP to justify his view that Taylor is some kind of QB that is better than what most people can clearly see when watching him. And he used a guy who doesn't fully grasp the game and is fairly new to watching it on top of it all. I can't wait for his next puff piece that he digs up from wherever. Wow... just pathetic... I think I could use a collection of your posts to teach Ad hominem pretty solidly.
Scott7975 Posted May 12, 2017 Posted May 12, 2017 If it's misinterpretation Crusher, then you do a poor job communicating what you actually want to say. For example, in post 355 when responding to the discussion about Taylor's contract you say "The difference is that Shaw's guy was apparently absolutely certain that this was the deal he wanted." And then in post 382 just a page later Shaw accused you of misquoting him, and you say "I said you almost make it seem as if he got the deal he wanted. No misquoting here." I don't misrepresent you. And frankly, what you're doing with the mental aspect thing is a bit of a copout. Wow... just pathetic... I think I could use a collection of your posts to teach Ad hominem pretty solidly. Don't worry he will be back to cry victim just like he did on BBMB.
Shaw66 Posted May 12, 2017 Posted May 12, 2017 No, I want Joe Montana handling the ball, but he's long retired... Fun fact... did you know that Aaron Rodgers is 0-35 in his career in precisely your scenario? Diown by more than 1 point in the 4th quarter to a winning team, Aaron Rodgers hasn't won a single game in his career. Transplant - That's true? When you say a winning team, you mean a team with a record over .500, he has ZERO comeback wins? o-35?
BringBackOrton Posted May 12, 2017 Posted May 12, 2017 No, I want Joe Montana handling the ball, but he's long retired... Fun fact... did you know that Aaron Rodgers is 0-35 in his career in precisely your scenario? Diown by more than 1 point in the 4th quarter to a winning team, Aaron Rodgers hasn't won a single game in his career. Did you watch the playoffs this year or nah? Fake stats.
section122 Posted May 12, 2017 Posted May 12, 2017 Transplant - That's true? When you say a winning team, you mean a team with a record over .500, he has ZERO comeback wins? o-35? http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/191783-aaron-rodgers-0-35/ I made a thread about it back in January.
transplantbillsfan Posted May 12, 2017 Author Posted May 12, 2017 Transplant - That's true? When you say a winning team, you mean a team with a record over .500, he has ZERO comeback wins? o-35? I posted this link earlier... check it out http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/green-bay-packers-aaron-rodgers-clutch-nfc-championship-stat-012217 Did you watch the playoffs this year or nah? Fake stats. No, it's not. Packers didn't trail in the 4th quarter against the Cowboys... I assume that's the game you're referring to? Read what's said before you respond with snarky comments like that.
SlimShady'sSpaceForce Posted May 12, 2017 Posted May 12, 2017 (edited) transplantbillsfan, on 11 May 2017 - 5:26 PM, said: No, I want Joe Montana handling the ball, but he's long retired... Fun fact... did you know that Aaron Rodgers is 0-35 in his career in precisely your scenario? Diown by more than 1 point in the 4th quarter to a winning team, Aaron Rodgers hasn't won a single game in his career. Transplant - That's true? When you say a winning team, you mean a team with a record over .500, he has ZERO comeback wins? o-35? http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/comebacks_career.htm NFL Fourth Quarter Comebacks Career Leaders (since 1960)Aaron Rodgers 10 2005-2016 View Comebacks 10 Fourth Quarter Comebacks, 17 Game-Winning Drives Teams with Winning records - Houston 2016, Seattle 2015, Dallas 2016, Dallas 2014, Giants 2011 Someones credibility went down the toilet Edited May 12, 2017 by ShadyBillsFan
Recommended Posts