QB comparative data for Tyrod from Cian Fahey to discuss

[Shaw66]

 

Shaw, Fahey explains everything in good detail, but he categorizes accuracy % along with failed receptions and created receptions.

 

So, essentially, passes by Taylor that fall in the "failed receptions" category qualify positively towards accuracy % while "created receptions" qualify negatively towards accuracy %.

 

In other words, accuracy % is very simply how accurate the pass is. An accurate pass by a QB that results in an incompletion because a defender makes an exceptional play on the ball would qualify positively towards accuracy %.

 

Taylor is the 3rd best in the NFL in interceptable pass %, according to Fahey.

 

He also breaks avoidable sacks into 3 categories : missed read, ran into sack, and process in the pocket

 

He breaks unavoidable sacks into 4 categories: beaten blocker, blown assignment, coverage, botched snap

 

According to Fahey, 4 of Taylor's 7 avoidable sacks were "missed reads" and 3 were "ran into sack."

Still not sure about accuracy. As I said, the concern about accuracy is that he doesn't get yards after catch because of how he throws. I wonder if he evaluated that. In any case, it sounds like he's pretty thorough.

 

And the sack analysis is the kind of detail I was talking about. That's pretty good.

 

Thanks.

[mannc]

Still not sure about accuracy. As I said, the concern about accuracy is that he doesn't get yards after catch because of how he throws. I wonder if he evaluated that. In any case, it sounds like he's pretty thorough.

 

And the sack analysis is the kind of detail I was talking about. That's pretty good.

 

Thanks.

But YAC by itself is meaningless. As long as Tyrod's adjusted average yards per pass attempt is high (which it is), who cares if those yards came through the air or on yards after catch? And if he's inaccurate, as many here claim, that too should result in a lower adjusted yards per attempt. And yet the adjusted YPA is high...so I'm not sure what the big concern is about YAC. As suggested elsewhere in this thread, the low YAC could be attributed to many different factors.

[Shaw66]

 

 

I agree. I wish more than just Fahey did this. I think this is why PFF can be so invaluable.

I never look at PFF, so it isn't fair for me to criticize, but I will anyway.

 

Every once in a while someone at BBMB would post something like "PFF says that John Miller was the second most effective guard in the league in 2016." (That's an example; I'm not suggesting anyone said that.)

 

I'm sorry, but I can't buy stuff like that. The players and the coaches know who the best players are, and if John Miller actually was the second best guard in the league, the players and coaches would be telling the media and we'd know about it.

 

So those kinds of ratings just make me believe that the quality of the film work behind those comments is lacking.

 

That's what's intriguing about Fahey. He seems to work really hard at his analysis, and his data seems to be meaningful.

[BigBuff423]

It's obvious you disagree, but maybe you're wrong. That's what he's saying--it's not likely something you'll even be able to acknowledge.

Actually I can acknowledge that I'm possibly wrong, im willing to accept that if there is ever something that convinces me I truly am - but right now it is just a matter of opinion. However, I am farrrrrrr from perfect nor do I believe I have all knowledge, so yeah - I could be way off. That's a real possibility.

 

Just curious, what are your thoughts on climate change: happening or a liberal con?

Yes, it's real as far as I'm concerned. The difference between climate change and the notion of momentum in a sports game is so vast - that discussion would need to occur in person at a bar with copious amounts of beer.

[34-78-83]

 

lol forget it, they'll never understand. these are the same people who would always argueto kick the FG because "you gotta take the points," or to punt on the opponent's 38 on 4th and 4.

Yeah I guess we're just too dumb to understand your basic math guidelines to all things football. I'll forget that fluid dynamics section from physics based calc in college and try to grasp those tricky statistics concepts. Meanwhile, while I certainly can agree that momentum cannot carry over to a new season, it certainly exists inside of football games. It can make average players play out of their shoes for periods of time, and in both directions.

[Shaw66]

But YAC by itself is meaningless. As long as Tyrod's adjusted average yards per pass attempt is high (which it is), who cares if those yards came through the air or on yards after catch? And if he's inaccurate, as many here claim, that too should result in a lower adjusted yards per attempt. And yet the adjusted YPA is high...so I'm not sure what the big concern is about YAC. As suggested elsewhere in this thread, the low YAC could be attributed to many different factors.

 

I agree with you completely. Isolated stats just don't matter if overall performance is good.

 

After the 2015 season people pointed to this Stat or that stat to try to prove Tyrod had a bad season. It wasn't a bad season when your passer rating was 99.

 

We all see isolated things that we think a player could do better. But just because he might be able to do something better doesn't mean he's a bad player

[Rochesterfan]

I never look at PFF, so it isn't fair for me to criticize, but I will anyway.

 

Every once in a while someone at BBMB would post something like "PFF says that John Miller was the second most effective guard in the league in 2016." (That's an example; I'm not suggesting anyone said that.)

 

I'm sorry, but I can't buy stuff like that. The players and the coaches know who the best players are, and if John Miller actually was the second best guard in the league, the players and coaches would be telling the media and we'd know about it.

 

So those kinds of ratings just make me believe that the quality of the film work behind those comments is lacking.

 

That's what's intriguing about Fahey. He seems to work really hard at his analysis, and his data seems to be meaningful.

 

 

To me it is the same light - PFF does a great job at looking at film and trying to create a scorecard from that data they glean. The issue is it is very difficult to know if what conclusions they draw actually mean anything.

 

Your example of John Miller (whether exact or not) is correct - they would look at plays and decide if it is successful and give a grade, but never really know if that was the correct block or not.

 

Fahey catalogs throws and decides things like accuracy and interceptable percentage and does a nice job of putting the numbers together, but what does it really mean. Is anyone surprised that TT was the 3rd best in percentage of passes that were not interceptable - I actually would of thought it was even better. TT is very careful with the ball and although he has few turnovers - he also takes very few chances with throws and therefore his numbers should be good.

 

The same issue occurs with Accuracy % - it is not incorrect (it is somewhat subjective, but not incorrect) when you look at the values, but what is missed is what throws and where those throws are - so I would not complain that TT is inaccurate in the throws he makes, but I do get disgusted with the continual choice of throws. It also impacts things like YAC because of where and who he throws the ball to. Typically PFF does not try to quantitate this because they do not know the play call - so you have to watch the plays and then listen to what people in the know - like the former coach, both former OC's, and the former GM say and that was they were looking for more from the passing game and were looking specifically for more throws in the middle of the field and more anticipatory throws - those things kept coming up in interviews.

 

The comments from the coach, OC, and GM tell me that although the passing game was simplistic and they left throws in that they knew TT was comfortable with - they also had other options that he did not take advantage enough and that is where I think the analysis falls flat. They can tell me he completes a lot of throws and does not throw balls that can be picked off, but they can not tell me (nor should they) if there were other or better options and how that compares to other QBs. Therefore we are stuck with subjective data that does not provide through information and everyone's use eye test.

[Shaw66]

To me it is the same light - PFF does a great job at looking at film and trying to create a scorecard from that data they glean. The issue is it is very difficult to know if what conclusions they draw actually mean anything.

 

Your example of John Miller (whether exact or not) is correct - they would look at plays and decide if it is successful and give a grade, but never really know if that was the correct block or not.

 

Fahey catalogs throws and decides things like accuracy and interceptable percentage and does a nice job of putting the numbers together, but what does it really mean. Is anyone surprised that TT was the 3rd best in percentage of passes that were not interceptable - I actually would of thought it was even better. TT is very careful with the ball and although he has few turnovers - he also takes very few chances with throws and therefore his numbers should be good.

 

The same issue occurs with Accuracy % - it is not incorrect (it is somewhat subjective, but not incorrect) when you look at the values, but what is missed is what throws and where those throws are - so I would not complain that TT is inaccurate in the throws he makes, but I do get disgusted with the continual choice of throws. It also impacts things like YAC because of where and who he throws the ball to. Typically PFF does not try to quantitate this because they do not know the play call - so you have to watch the plays and then listen to what people in the know - like the former coach, both former OC's, and the former GM say and that was they were looking for more from the passing game and were looking specifically for more throws in the middle of the field and more anticipatory throws - those things kept coming up in interviews.

 

The comments from the coach, OC, and GM tell me that although the passing game was simplistic and they left throws in that they knew TT was comfortable with - they also had other options that he did not take advantage enough and that is where I think the analysis falls flat. They can tell me he completes a lot of throws and does not throw balls that can be picked off, but they can not tell me (nor should they) if there were other or better options and how that compares to other QBs. Therefore we are stuck with subjective data that does not provide through information and everyone's use eye test.

good discussion. In other words there's a lot that we don't know and what we don't know keeps some of this data from being reliable.

 

I go back to correlation. Does this data correlate with good quarterbacking? If it doesnt, then the data may be useful to coaches but not so much in evaluating the value of a qb.

[Figster]

good discussion. In other words there's a lot that we don't know and what we don't know keeps some of this data from being reliable.

 

I go back to correlation. Does this data correlate with good quarterbacking? If it doesnt, then the data may be useful to coaches but not so much in evaluating the value of a qb.

Some data can be misleading , especially when totals come into play. Buffalo having the lowest YAC total in the league for example is a product of the lowest overall pass attempts in the league. Even averages can be misleading because 2 or 3 more big YAC plays is all it takes to put the Bills in closer proximity to league average. So naturally throwing the ball more would in all likelihood put the Bills higher up in most statistical categories IMO.

[Bill_with_it]

This argument is for another thread, but still I want to make the point.

 

TAYLOR DID NOT TAKE A CONTRACT CUT.

 

Taylor gave up about $10 million of guaranteed money so that he could become a free agent in two years instead of five years.

 

I know a professional agent. He has represented some of the biggest names in sports. I mean BIGGEST. I asked him which was a better deal for Tyrod, the one Tyrod had or the one he took in March. He said the one he got in March, no question, no question at all. He said he would have urged Tyrod to take the deal the Bills offered. Free agency in two years is worth MUCH more than the $10 million he gave up.

 

This idea that Tyrod gave in to the Bills because he had no options is just wrong. The Bills came to him with their hats in their hands looking for help. Tyrod gave them something they wanted in exchange for something he wanted - free agency.

 

If Tyrod plays the full season in 2017 and the Bills make the playoffs, Tyrod will get a new contract next year much better than the one he gave up last month. If that happens, everyone will look back and blame Whaley for renegotiating.

Nice info Shaw. I would think that what you said is true barring an epic collapse or injury regarding Taylor and his value.

[Figster]

 

 

To me it is the same light - PFF does a great job at looking at film and trying to create a scorecard from that data they glean. The issue is it is very difficult to know if what conclusions they draw actually mean anything.

 

Your example of John Miller (whether exact or not) is correct - they would look at plays and decide if it is successful and give a grade, but never really know if that was the correct block or not.

 

Fahey catalogs throws and decides things like accuracy and interceptable percentage and does a nice job of putting the numbers together, but what does it really mean. Is anyone surprised that TT was the 3rd best in percentage of passes that were not interceptable - I actually would of thought it was even better. TT is very careful with the ball and although he has few turnovers - he also takes very few chances with throws and therefore his numbers should be good.

 

The same issue occurs with Accuracy % - it is not incorrect (it is somewhat subjective, but not incorrect) when you look at the values, but what is missed is what throws and where those throws are - so I would not complain that TT is inaccurate in the throws he makes, but I do get disgusted with the continual choice of throws. It also impacts things like YAC because of where and who he throws the ball to. Typically PFF does not try to quantitate this because they do not know the play call - so you have to watch the plays and then listen to what people in the know - like the former coach, both former OC's, and the former GM say and that was they were looking for more from the passing game and were looking specifically for more throws in the middle of the field and more anticipatory throws - those things kept coming up in interviews.

 

The comments from the coach, OC, and GM tell me that although the passing game was simplistic and they left throws in that they knew TT was comfortable with - they also had other options that he did not take advantage enough and that is where I think the analysis falls flat. They can tell me he completes a lot of throws and does not throw balls that can be picked off, but they can not tell me (nor should they) if there were other or better options and how that compares to other QBs. Therefore we are stuck with subjective data that does not provide through information and everyone's use eye test.

You guys are making it very interesting, thanks

[GoBills808]

 

Fine by me. Seems like a really narrow-minded way to go through life, though.

Quite the contrary. Case in point, I can have a disagreement without passive-aggressively calling someone narrow minded.

[transplantbillsfan]

 

 

To me it is the same light - PFF does a great job at looking at film and trying to create a scorecard from that data they glean. The issue is it is very difficult to know if what conclusions they draw actually mean anything.

 

Your example of John Miller (whether exact or not) is correct - they would look at plays and decide if it is successful and give a grade, but never really know if that was the correct block or not.

 

Fahey catalogs throws and decides things like accuracy and interceptable percentage and does a nice job of putting the numbers together, but what does it really mean. Is anyone surprised that TT was the 3rd best in percentage of passes that were not interceptable - I actually would of thought it was even better. TT is very careful with the ball and although he has few turnovers - he also takes very few chances with throws and therefore his numbers should be good.

 

The same issue occurs with Accuracy % - it is not incorrect (it is somewhat subjective, but not incorrect) when you look at the values, but what is missed is what throws and where those throws are - so I would not complain that TT is inaccurate in the throws he makes, but I do get disgusted with the continual choice of throws. It also impacts things like YAC because of where and who he throws the ball to. Typically PFF does not try to quantitate this because they do not know the play call - so you have to watch the plays and then listen to what people in the know - like the former coach, both former OC's, and the former GM say and that was they were looking for more from the passing game and were looking specifically for more throws in the middle of the field and more anticipatory throws - those things kept coming up in interviews.

 

The comments from the coach, OC, and GM tell me that although the passing game was simplistic and they left throws in that they knew TT was comfortable with - they also had other options that he did not take advantage enough and that is where I think the analysis falls flat. They can tell me he completes a lot of throws and does not throw balls that can be picked off, but they can not tell me (nor should they) if there were other or better options and how that compares to other QBs. Therefore we are stuck with subjective data that does not provide through information and everyone's use eye test.

Wow... you really go to some extreme efforts to completely dismiss Fahey's findings.

Quite the contrary. Case in point, I can have a disagreement without passive-aggressively calling someone narrow minded.

Passive aggressive? I thought I was pretty direct, actually.

[Rochesterfan]

Wow... you really go to some extreme efforts to completely dismiss Fahey's findings.

 

Passive aggressive? I thought I was pretty direct, actually.

I am not dismissing his findings - I think based upon what anyone outside an organization finds - he presents comparative numbers and data.

 

The question is what do they mean - he admits he is subjective on decisions and he really has to be. He puts together a series of numbers to make rankings, but the rankings are still not definitive because the game of football is more complex than baseball or basketball. Baseball you can look at an individual pitchers numbers and get a relative feeling of how he is doing - things like K/innings pitched give a pretty balanced picture of the QB.

 

His numbers tell you that TT is accurate and safe in the throws he chooses to make and that is correct. They also tell you that he is less accurate closer to the LOS and that he threw few screens and slants as those are quick short throws and he drops way off on those throws under 10 yards or at and behind the LOS.

 

What the percentage numbers do not tell is was he good or not. They suggest he is accurate and safe, but the coaches suggest he did not do enough in the passing game. The state that there were plays to be made in the passing game - suggesting that although Fahey states he completed a high percentage of passes that maybe he was not reading the play correctly or he did not follow the progression and made a safe throw.

 

The numbers also suggest he is not a great fit for a roll out, short, quick passing game as his accuracy drops closer to the LOS, but I think that is just once again a product of numbers and throws chosen. We will just have to see if he is successful or not going forward.

[Bills Pimpin']

Thank you for putting this out there OP, and I appreciate another person / professional is does their best to comb through stats and digest them to some degree for us casual readers or observers. However, while the stats are basic math regarding percentages - and I trust the man to have a calculator to do the percentage for him and that he's not "lying" - I disagree with the other statement or conclusion of this information that leads to believing Tyrod is a "good" QB.

 

To me, finding a good QB is much like what the Supreme Court referred to pornography, "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it"....a really good to great QB is similar. I don't necessarily that works counter toward a poor QB, for that I think only time and experience truly show, unless they were really bad in college, which makes me think they didn't even get a look to come to the NFL. Bottom line for me: Tyrod doesn't pass the eye test. I don't watch the All-22 and from what people say, Tyrod does a fine job, but I watch the games and I watch many, many other NFL and college games, and Tyrod routinely throws the ball high, low, wide or behind a receiver. He misses open receivers in the middle of the field and he gets antsy feet in the pocket. To me, he is not Russ Wilson 2.0, he is just an incredible athlete with a penchant for the deep ball.

 

IMHO, a true NFL QB stands in the pocket, takes the hits and delivers, commands the Offense with precision and accuracy, and has the ability to take what the Defense gives him bit by bit and chew up the yardage as well as making good audible calls at the line, not just making plays after the snap with his running or elusive ability, which to Tyrod's credit he does as well as anyone in the league. Tyrod was probably the best option for this year, but he is NOT a good NFL QB, he's just better than what we've had for so very long. Sometimes, desperation makes it hard to tell the difference.

You are speaking of an NFL QB from 20 years ago. QB's don't "stand in the pocket and take hits" in 2017. They would get killed.

Edited May 3, 2017 by Bills Pimpin'

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

But YAC by itself is meaningless. As long as Tyrod's adjusted average yards per pass attempt is high (which it is), who cares if those yards came through the air or on yards after catch? And if he's inaccurate, as many here claim, that too should result in a lower adjusted yards per attempt. And yet the adjusted YPA is high...so I'm not sure what the big concern is about YAC. As suggested elsewhere in this thread, the low YAC could be attributed to many different factors.

Meaningless. Isn't that a bit of a stretch?

 

It it's meaningless why do they cover the statistics?

https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/yards-after-the-catch/2016/

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18459959/why-nfl-passing-numbers-exploding

SEE - Theory: Receivers are getting more yards after catch (YAC)

So YAC is a big part of the picture, but its overall effect is muted.

 

Here is a dated article

http://www.espn.com/nfl/trainingcamp10/insider/news/story?id=5468854

 

which sends us to this link

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2010/introducing-yac

As I have seen it, maybe my recollection is off, but it seems that often TT waits for his receiver to stop and turn before he delivers the ball.

 

That type of play will not yield the YAC like hitting a guy in stride will.

[Shaw66]

Meaningless. Isn't that a bit of a stretch?

 

It it's meaningless why do they cover the statistics?

https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/yards-after-the-catch/2016/

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18459959/why-nfl-passing-numbers-exploding

SEE - Theory: Receivers are getting more yards after catch (YAC)

So YAC is a big part of the picture, but its overall effect is muted.

 

Here is a dated article

http://www.espn.com/nfl/trainingcamp10/insider/news/story?id=5468854

 

which sends us to this link

 

http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2010/introducing-yac

As I have seen it, maybe my recollection is off, but it seems that often TT waits for his receiver to stop and turn before he delivers the ball.

 

That type of play will not yield the YAC like hitting a guy in stride will.

Why do they cover the statistics? Because they have to write articles every day and they run out of things to write about.

 

There are LOTS of statistics. It's possible to count things in a lot of different ways. The question is whether the statistics are meaningful in any way that is important.

 

The question here, for example, is whether YAC is a meaningful stat in evaluating a quarterback. It's an equally meaningful question in evaluating a receiver. For example, Ezekiel Elliott averaged more yards after catch than maybe any other receiver in the league. Does that make him a great receiver, or does that mean only that he played on a good team? Or does that mean he's good at breaking tackles? Among non-running backs, Martellus Bennett was second best. Does that mean he was the second best receiver in the league?

 

A guy's yards after catch may be high because he breaks tackles. It may be high because he's so fast he outruns people (like Goodwin - catch a ball behind a defender and sprint 50 yards to the end zone). It may be high because of the style of offense (Bennett). It may be high because the QB is good at throwing guys open. So it may be nice to know that a guy has great YAC, but what really matters is WHY he has his YAC. There may be ways to improve his YAC. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that a receiver is good because he has high YAC or bad because he doesn't.

 

Similarly QBs. YAC doesn't answer questions; it's the beginning of questions. If Taylor's YAC is low, the question is WHY? Is it something about Taylor or is it something else? And more importantly, does it matter? From looking at a few stats, it appears to me that Taylor's 2015 YAC was low compared to the rest of the league? Do I care? No. Why? Because his passer rating, which DOES correlate to good passing, was high. His air yards were high and his after catch yards were low, and it averaged out just fine.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

 

There are LOTS of statistics. It's possible to count things in a lot of different ways. The question is whether the statistics are meaningful in any way that is important.

 

Shaw,

If YAC means the QB hits his guy in stride beyond the LOS then yes, IMO it is meaningful.

 

If YAC means the QB hits his guy behind the LOS and then runs 5 or 6 yards for a 2 or 3 yard net gain then no, it is not as meaningful.

 

To reiterate from observations Taylor's YAC may be low because he waits for the guy to stop and turn before he delivers the ball.

 

Praising TT for having Great Stats is all well and fine. Just don't hide some situational stats there he doesn't shine and say it doesn't matter.

 

This is season 3 in Buffalo 6 going on 7 season in the league. This is his year to step it up or step away.

Who doesn't want to see our QB throwing guys open?

[GoBills808]

Wow... you really go to some extreme efforts to completely dismiss Fahey's findings.

 

Passive aggressive? I thought I was pretty direct, actually.

You're calling me narrow minded because I'm ignoring a particular football analyst?

 

Really?

[Figster]

Wow... you really go to some extreme efforts to completely dismiss Fahey's findings.

 

Passive aggressive? I thought I was pretty direct, actually.

To get the most out of raw data its important to understand how misleading some of it can be in my humble opinion transplantbillsfan.

 

Rochester brought up an important point I think in evaluating QB's and I believe it goes hand in hand with how well a signal caller is seeing the football field. Scoring how well a QB can determine the most lucrative place to go with the football would show you what QB is playing at the highest level IMO. Eye test tells me Matt Ryan is probably near or on the top of the list (2016) when it comes to attacking the football field with big play capabilities IMO. (Julio Jones might have something to do with it.)

 

Myself personally, I've grown to trust Rochesterfans opinions/post because of how much thought and research goes into them.

 

I'm not saying he's always correct...

Edited May 3, 2017 by Figster