Kirby Jackson Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 My personal view is that this offense will generally be about shorter passes than the Roman offense which took a lot of shots down the field and that is why I don't see the passing yardage going up in direct correlation with the attempts. Equally on INTs I think they will go up because of the situations in which we have to throw if there is a little regression in the run game. I don't necessarily think that my numbers would mean Tyrod has "regressed" I think they would be more a product of a different mindset and design to the offense. Think your extrapolation is a really helpful "checkpoint" in many ways Kirby when we begin to analyse what we see on the field next year. I tend to agree with your thoughts. I'm thinking that a healthy Sammy and Zay instead of Woods will add more big plays (even though Zay isn't a big play guy particularly). I think that the scheme will lend itself to less yards but the players talent will offset some of it (if that makes sense). I wouldn't at all be surprised to see the INTs go up to 12ish. More balls in the middle will men's more deflections, etc... I think that those numbers are a decent baseline. There will be some deviation and the pass attempts is a little bit of a guess. That will be the biggest thing that alters it imo. If they throw 30 times a game on average (as an example) that accounts for an almost 600 yard swing.
Gugny Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Since I respect both of your opinions... What does this mean to you then? Would you advocate a move on from him if he did this? Or do the numbers not matter so much as how he gets them (peaks and valleys vs. consistent performances)? If I may ... he (and any QB one should want leading the offense) should get these kinds of numbers when it matters most. Yes, he needs more consistency. But more importantly, to me, he needs to be clutch. He's been anything but clutch. Pretty stats at the wrong times. For two years straight.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) Since I respect both of your opinions... What does this mean to you then? Would you advocate a move on from him if he did this? Or do the numbers not matter so much as how he gets them (peaks and valleys vs. consistent performances)? I like Tyrod and think that you can win with him. With that being said, it would depend on the draft class. Part of the reason I advocated keeping him is that I didn't like this class. I feel differently about the group in 2018. I would draft a guy in the 1st and try to trade Tyrod if his numbers are the same. Washington is a potential destination, as is Arizona. He will definitely have some value. This assumes the same level of play that we've seen. Edited July 20, 2017 by Kirby Jackson
GunnerBill Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 What does this mean to you then? Would you advocate a move on from him if he did this? Or do the numbers not matter so much as how he gets them (peaks and valleys vs. consistent performances)? I don't know. I think it is about performances as much as numbers but it is also about alternatives. I was reticent this offseason to keep him on the old deal. That is no secret. It wasn't so much about the big 2017 salary as the length of time they were tied to him and the dead money to escape. I also liked this QB class more than most fans and pundits and everyone knows what I'd have done with the 10th pick of the draft. I am hoping that I will like the highly touted 2018 class enough to think that a season such as we are talking about would allow me to draft one in the 1st and keep Tyrod on the final year of his deal as the bridge / backup then release him to go and start as a bridge somewhere else in 2019.
section122 Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 I like Tyrod and think that you can win with him. With that being said, it would depend on the draft class. Part of the reason I advocated keeping him is that I didn't like this class. I feel differently about the group in 2018. I would draft a guy in the 1st and try to trade Tyrod if his numbers are the same. Washington is a potential destination, as is Arizona. He will definitely have some value. This assumes the same level of play that we've seen. I don't know. I think it is about performances as much as numbers but it is also about alternatives. I was reticent this offseason to keep him on the old deal. That is no secret. It wasn't so much about the big 2017 salary as the length of time they were tied to him and the dead money to escape. I also liked this QB class more than most fans and pundits and everyone knows what I'd have done with the 10th pick of the draft. I am hoping that I will like the highly touted 2018 class enough to think that a season such as we are talking about would allow me to draft one in the 1st and keep Tyrod on the final year of his deal as the bridge / backup then release him to go and start as a bridge somewhere else in 2019. Both fair assessments I think the volume stats are going to be important for TT this year. This offense will likely ask much more of him which is why I think we will have our answer after this year. If he can increase the volume while keeping his career averages I think that would bode well for him as a long term option. If asking more of him sinks his production we can easily move on. I like the new deal for TT and the team. I did just think of something. Although the schedule appears hard because everyone is focused on the QBs that the Bills will have to face, the defenses Tyrod will face aren't better than they were last year. Going by DVOA this year the average is 17.75 for ranking as opposed to 16.5 last year. Taking out division opponents it moves to 17.2 for the upcoming year and 15.3 for 2016. I know things aren't the same year to year but the offense could improve simply from the fact that they are facing easier defenses. Add in some (hopeful) growth from TT and we could see a top 10 offense regardless of record this year. I love having that extra first next year as it allows for so much flexibility in the QB decision.
Noogie75 Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Also true. Although he'd probably also blame Tyrod for the second loss to the Jets last year. Even if we would of one that game we would be 8-8 That awkward moment when the guy you lead with hasn't played since 2012 and hasn't been a starter since 2006... I meant Mathew Strafford. Nice work transplant and Scott. You think the coaches are going to cut a guy because of the fans, and not because of what they see? According to what you guys are saying and hearing from the Media. It's like Cardale is just straight sorry. Why haven't they cut him yet then. I think he can beat out the rook and Yates for the 2 spot. But you fans are giving the rook so much credit. For 1 in college he beat Clemson which had many close games besides win the title. Jones comes off the bench and plays three hard games and wins against top ranked opponents. But now the rook is better from what I'm hearing from Taylor fans. So they might.
teef Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Even if we would of one that game we would be 8-8 I meant Mathew Strafford. According to what you guys are saying and hearing from the Media. It's like Cardale is just straight sorry. Why haven't they cut him yet then. I think he can beat out the rook and Yates for the 2 spot. But you fans are giving the rook so much credit. For 1 in college he beat Clemson which had many close games besides win the title. Jones comes off the bench and plays three hard games and wins against top ranked opponents. But now the rook is better from what I'm hearing from Taylor fans. So they might. oh my...
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Even if we would of one that game we would be 8-8 I meant Mathew Strafford. According to what you guys are saying and hearing from the Media. It's like Cardale is just straight sorry. Why haven't they cut him yet then. I think he can beat out the rook and Yates for the 2 spot. But you fans are giving the rook so much credit. For 1 in college he beat Clemson which had many close games besides win the title. Jones comes off the bench and plays three hard games and wins against top ranked opponents. But now the rook is better from what I'm hearing from Taylor fans. So they might. Stafford is 16-16 over the past two seasons....
Bangarang Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) Stafford is 16-16 over the past two seasons.... You mean the Lions are 16-16 over the last 2 seasons? Pretty impressive if Stafford was able to win 16 games playing by himself. Edited July 20, 2017 by Bangarang
Maury Ballstein Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Stafford is 16-16 over the past two seasons.... What would his record be if he had Lesean McCoy and TD mike making his job a walk in the park ?
Noogie75 Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 If I may ... he (and any QB one should want leading the offense) should get these kinds of numbers when it matters most. Yes, he needs more consistency. But more importantly, to me, he needs to be clutch. He's been anything but clutch. Pretty stats at the wrong times. For two years straight.
GunnerBill Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 (edited) What would his record be if he had Lesean McCoy and TD mike making his job a walk in the park ? Detroit have had zilch in the running game and not much infront of him. They have had better weapons on the outside though. I am probably higher on Stafford than most people..... I would LOVE him to be our Quarterback. Edited July 20, 2017 by GunnerBill
Noogie75 Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Bingo, I totally agree 200%. This is exactly what mean when it comes to TT.
Bleeding Bills Blue Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 You mean the Lions are 16-16 over the last 2 seasons? Pretty impressive if Stafford was able to win 16 games playing by himself. That's what I was essentially saying... its a team game. What would his record be if he had Lesean McCoy and TD mike making his job a walk in the park ? I wonder what his stats would look like with our 2016 receiving corps.
Noogie75 Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 If I may ... he (and any QB one should want leading the offense) should get these kinds of numbers when it matters most. Yes, he needs more consistency. But more importantly, to me, he needs to be clutch. He's been anything but clutch. Pretty stats at the wrong times. For two years straight.
teef Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 Bingo, I totally agree 200%. This is exactly what mean when it comes to TT. who you talking to noog?
teef Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 If I may ... he (and any QB one should want leading the offense) should get these kinds of numbers when it matters most. Yes, he needs more consistency. But more importantly, to me, he needs to be clutch. He's been anything but clutch. Pretty stats at the wrong times. For two years straight. honestly...i'm not even trying to be a jerk here...do you want some help with the quote function?
Gugny Posted July 20, 2017 Posted July 20, 2017 If I may ... he (and any QB one should want leading the offense) should get these kinds of numbers when it matters most. Yes, he needs more consistency. But more importantly, to me, he needs to be clutch. He's been anything but clutch. Pretty stats at the wrong times. For two years straight. You really are struggling with the Quote function. Holy crap.
Recommended Posts