26CornerBlitz Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 "Issue with Tyrod Taylor are the throws he doesn’t attempt. Leaves too many open receivers on the field. No stat can show this." This is absolutely the crux of the Tyrod issue. You simply have to go and watch the tape, because the problem with Tyrod is not the plays he makes.... it is the ones he doesn't. The 2 yard gains on a scramble that should have been a 25 yard pass play to a wide open receiver he has not seen. Tyrod really struggled with this early in the season as shown by the All-22 film. He showed better in some of the games with @ SEA and MIA that immediately come to mind. Overall it's an area of weakness that cannot really be measured.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Tyrod really struggled with this early in the season as shown by the All-22 film. He showed better in some of the games with @ SEA and MIA that immediately come to mind. Overall it's an area of weakness that cannot really be measured. ...and that's why he's an average QB. He makes some plays and leaves some on the field.
GunnerBill Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Tyrod really struggled with this early in the season as shown by the All-22 film. He showed better in some of the games with @ SEA and MIA that immediately come to mind. Overall it's an area of weakness that cannot really be measured. Baltimore and Cincy were his worst games. We had receivers running free down the field both games and he kept missing them and running for little to no gain. No doubt Seattle and Miami II were his best games. I have long since said if we got that Tyrod 16 weeks a year then he would be the guy... no question.
26CornerBlitz Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 ...and that's why he's an average QB. He makes some plays and leaves some on the field. Indeed. We'll see if he can progress beyond what he showed in the last two seasons in the new system. If not, we'll see a 1st round pick spent on a QB in 2018 for sure. Might see that regardless of what he does.
Figster Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 From listening to Beane, this sounds like one of his concerns with Tyrod. @Andy_Benoit Tyrod Taylor’s other issue: he’s not comfortable in the pocket later in the down. His lack of height and subtle movement skills limit vision The new O focuses allot of attention in a 15 yard area sideline to sideline which helps create passing lanes and better field of vision for a shorter QB in my humble opinion. Steve Young and Tyrod Taylor are close in size and skill set. Young was a perfect fit in the WC offense.
aristocrat Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 so what you're saying is qb's struggle at certain points? like russ wilson did against zona and miami last year? it happens
26CornerBlitz Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Baltimore and Cincy were his worst games. We had receivers running free down the field both games and he kept missing them and running for little to no gain. No doubt Seattle and Miami II were his best games. I have long since said if we got that Tyrod 16 weeks a year then he would be the guy... no question. The NYJ game on TNF wasn't exactly stellar either. The failure to sustain offense in that game was largely on Tyrod.
Royale with Cheese Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 The NYJ game on TNF wasn't exactly stellar either. The failure to sustain offense in that game was largely on Tyrod. Our offense that night was a deep ball beautifully placed to Goodwin, broken play where Tyrod found Salas open down the field and a late TD in the 4th in garage time. Outside of that, we didn't move the ball at all.
26CornerBlitz Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Our offense that night was a deep ball beautifully placed to Goodwin, broken play where Tyrod found Salas open down the field and a late TD in the 4th in garage time. Outside of that, we didn't move the ball at all. Exactly what I was getting at.
Big Gun Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 The new O focuses allot of attention in a 15 yard area sideline to sideline which helps create passing lanes and better field of vision for a shorter QB in my humble opinion. Steve Young and Tyrod Taylor are close in size and skill set. Young was a perfect fit in the WC offense. Young trumps Tyrod hands down with what was between his ears.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Indeed. We'll see if he can progress beyond what he showed in the last two seasons in the new system. If not, we'll see a 1st round pick spent on a QB in 2018 for sure. Might see that regardless of what he does. That's where I'm at. There are only 2 options in 2018. Either Tyrod steps up and solidifies the role or the Bills go get their guy in 2018 (even if it takes both 1sts to do it). I don't see any other possibilities.
Bangarang Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 That's where I'm at. There are only 2 options in 2018. Either Tyrod steps up and solidifies the role or the Bills go get their guy in 2018 (even if it takes both 1sts to do it). I don't see any other possibilities. It's going to make a big step up for me to be on board with him being the guy in 2018 and beyond. If we get more of the same then I'm going all in at the draft for a QB.
Figster Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Young trumps Tyrod hands down with what was between his ears. true that, but Taylor commented early on how user friendly the Dennison O was so I've got my fingers crossed.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 It's going to make a big step up for me to be on board with him being the guy in 2018 and beyond. If we get more of the same then I'm going all in at the draft for a QB.I don't disagree. It's not crazy to me though to see it happen. When you look at where he is compared to other new starters he stacks up nicely. A lot of guys have been brought along slowly and basically asked to "not screw up." He's done a good job of that and leading the offense. Now he needs to become a guy that you say "go win the game." He's shown flashes of that specifically in Seattle and against Miami (despite the result). If Tyrod can be a guy to carry the offense consistently remains to be seen. He's a caretaker now. If he's still a caretaker on New Year's Day there will be a QB taken in round 1.
Thurman#1 Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 ...and that's why he's an average QB. He makes some plays and leaves some on the field. He's leaving a higher rate of plays on the field than most do. I'd say that puts him at slightly below average, which is the problem.
Thurman#1 Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 I don't disagree. It's not crazy to me though to see it happen. When you look at where he is compared to other new starters he stacks up nicely. A lot of guys have been brought along slowly and basically asked to "not screw up." He's done a good job of that and leading the offense. Now he needs to become a guy that you say "go win the game." He's shown flashes of that specifically in Seattle and against Miami (despite the result). If Tyrod can be a guy to carry the offense consistently remains to be seen. He's a caretaker now. If he's still a caretaker on New Year's Day there will be a QB taken in round 1. Yeah, I'd agree with a lot of that, but with the proviso that those guys, the new starters, the ones being asked to "not screw up" ... they're not going into their seventh year in the league.
Kirby Jackson Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 He's leaving a higher rate of plays on the field than most do. I'd say that puts him at slightly below average, which is the problem. He makes a lot of plays that others don't too. That's why he's polarizing. Some people look at the bad and say "there's too much of that." Others look at just the good and say "how are you so sure we can replace that." I can't say a guy that has 47 TDs & 12 INTs in 29 starts, with a winning record, is below average. Now if it's a semantically argument is he "top16" than I'd agree that he's below average. He's in the 20 range IMO but with a chance to improve. I'd say guys like Tannehill and Smith are below him and not likely to improve.
Thurman#1 Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 (edited) See, what you can easily find or 50 to 100 guys who sat on the bench for most of the rookie contract like I said and then maybe got some kind of a chance to start after that. What does not happen is that those QBs end up winning starting jobs and then playing at starting QB level once they get their opportunity. Plenty of those guys played at starting QB level. They just didn't play at good starting quarterback level. Same as Tyrod. They played like guys who when you see them enough you want to replace them. Same as Tyrod. Which is why he is likely to be replaced unless he improves a lot. Being one of the top 32 QBs in the world doesn't earn you the right to be a starter for the rest of your career. It's being about top 16 or so. Much at all beyond 16 or so and unless you're a young, developing guy, your team is thinking about drafting a new guy. Further back and teams are looking to replace you. Tyrod is absolutely a top 32 QB. But so is Fitz. Siemian. Hoyer. Unlike most of those fifteen or so guys I named, many of whom are no longer playing, Tyrod could still improve. It's just quite unlikely, as it's never happened outside Gannon and maybe Plunkett that a guy with six years behind him in the league who hadn't yet proved himself as a franchise guy did still later in his career. Why are you including Gannon on this list? He started 14 games in his fourth year. So, basically, you apparently can't think of a single QB who meets the criteria that you actually said 50 or so QBs met. You say the odds are against him. Guess what, he already broke those odds. There isn't a single NFL QB (apparently, i'm relying partly on your own trustworthy mind) has done what Taylor has already done. And so your arbitrary rules don't really seem to apply here since those rules have already been broken. Taylor is already doing what "couldn't be done" so saying the odds are against him to keep it up, seems kind of weird. As you so often do, you're mistaking what you said for what I said. And then asking me to "back up" words that are yours, not mine. Which, clearly I have no interest in doing, nor would anyone, really. For what is now the fourth time, I think, I said what I said above about nobody but Gannon becoming a franchise guy after having finished six years without already having done so. At that point, some people complained that wasn't fair because Tyrod had only started two years and I pointed out that it was plenty fair, and that a ton of guys had been in that situation, not starting for three or four years and then getting a significant chance to start for a year or two. That's the group of guys I was examining. I said there were a lot of them. Having found fifteen of them including Gannon in less than 10 minutes of non-exhaustive researching going back only around 13 years, it appears that there may be quite a bit more than 50. Of those there are a few real successes like Aaron Rodgers, but those successes didn't take till their seventh year. There's basically one exception, one guy who became a franchise guy in his seventh year or later, Gannon. Plunkett is maybe arguable. Maybe. And that's it. Again, you keep talking about them being my rules, but the ones you're looking at are yours. Mine are the ones above. If you'd like to make a different point about different guys, go ahead. But don't pretend you're dealing with something I said. Edited July 31, 2017 by Thurman#1
Kirby Jackson Posted July 31, 2017 Posted July 31, 2017 Yeah, I'd agree with a lot of that, but with the proviso that those guys, the new starters, the ones being asked to "not screw up" ... they're not going into their seventh year in the league. I still don't get that argument though. You can only play when called upon. Kurt Warner bagged groceries. Jake Delhomme kicked around in Europe. Jeff Garcia was in Canada as were Flutie and Moon. Matt Schaub is a similar situation to Tyrod. He was a backup, to a locked in starter, that had to go elsewhere to get his chance. He's almost a year younger than Russell Wilson. He's a month older than Andrew Luck. It's not like the guy is old.
Recommended Posts