The Tyrod Taylor Question

[Bangarang]

One minute to go and Taylor hits Clay for what should have been the winning TD. Place was going crazy. To bad the defense and ST couldn't put the game away. He didn't come up small in his last game.

Is the Miami game going to the equivalent of EJ against the Panthers his rookie year?

[JM2009]

Is the Miami game going to the equivalent of EJ against the Panthers his rookie year?

I didn't bring it up.

[Bangarang]

I didn't bring it up.

You constantly refer to it

[Big Gun]

There's a problem with saying Taylor can't find receivers. The same problem exists if you claim he can't sustain a high level of play, or has massive fundamental flaws in his game. What is it?

 

It's his stats in the 15 games where both Watkins and Woods played : 63.6% comp. 8.25 YPA. 27 TD passes. 6 INTs.

 

You reference this all the time as you seem to think this is your ace in the hole or something.

 

K Ortons stats in the 12 games he played with Watkins and Woods are 64.2% comp. 6.75 YPA 18 TDs 10 int., while not as good yet are not that far off and in only 12 games.

 

Orton also did not have the benefit of a stacked box more often than not.

 

Orton also did not have the benefit of the #1 rushing attack as Fred Jackson was the Bills leading rusher for the year with 525 yds. in 2014.

 

Your fluff stats still doesn't mean Tyrod is a good QB. Orton who sucked, really was kind of similar, stat wise.

[John from Riverside]

One minute to go and Taylor hits Clay for what should have been the winning TD. Place was going crazy. To bad the defense and ST couldn't put the game away. He didn't come up small in his last game.

It is interesting that depending on who you ask Tyrod either did his job or he didnt

[reddogblitz]

One minute to go and Taylor hits Clay for what should have been the winning TD. Place was going crazy. To bad the defense and ST couldn't put the game away. He didn't come up small in his last game.

Yes, but sadly the game is 60 minutes long, not 59.

[HappyDays]

K Ortons stats in the 12 games he played with Watkins and Woods are 64.2% comp. 6.75 YPA 18 TDs 10 int., while not as good yet are not that far off and in only 12 games.

A YPA of 8.25 would put you at 2nd in the league in 2016. A YPA of 6.75 would put you at 25th in the league in 2016.

 

Not that far off though!

 

What does "less games" have to do with it? YPA is comparative no matter how many games you've played. If you want to include the other stats like passer rating that would be cool too.

Edited July 31, 2017 by HappyDays

[reddogblitz]

A YPA of 8.25 would put you at 2nd in the league in 2016. A YPA of 6.75 would put you at 25th in the league in 2016.

Not that far off though!

What does "less games" have to do with it? YPA is comparative no matter how many games you've played. If you want to include the other stats like passer rating that would be cool too.

Kyle could pull games out of the fire late too like the Minnesota and Detroit games.

[BuffaloHokie13]

Kyle could pull games out of the fire late too like the Minnesota and Detroit games.

 

Fun Fact: In every game we won in 2014, the defense held the opponent to less than 24 points.

[transplantbillsfan]

 

 

 

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.

How do you know? Have you finally done the necessary comparative film study to really make this kind of statement? Or are you just making assumptions?

 

What are the rates on normal NFL QB will miss open receivers versus Taylor? How significant is the difference?

 

I suspect all your doing here is making an assumption.

 

 

Someone brought up and the Benoit and his comments on Taylor missing receivers. It's an issue that Benoit has had with Taylor for a long time. It also seems like it's quoted as gospel.

 

Here are some alternative thoughts from a guy who scrupulously went through the film of every single QB in the NFL from 2016:

 

"Benoit has consistently been one of Taylor's most ardent critics and that was his most damning statement. It's a fair criticism that Taylor will miss open receivers at times. whether the veracity of what Benoit states is true is more debatable."

 

and

 

"There are times when one negative can be so bad that it ruins the rest of the positives in a player's skill set. If that was the case with Taylor it would be fair to focus on his missed plays but it's not."

 

and

 

"in 2016 Taylor did a better job getting off his first read and cycling through his progressions to find the open receivers. That didn't mean he didn't miss receivers, but the good severely overshadowed the bad."

 

and

 

"You could ignore all the context. You could just point to missed throws. It'd to be about as rational as throwing out a four course meal because you're a fork is bent."

 

 

That's from Cian Fahey's QB catalogue for which he watches and breaks down every single snap from every single QB in the NFL.

Edited July 31, 2017 by transplantbillsfan

[reddogblitz]

 

Fun Fact: In every game we won in 2014, the defense held the opponent to less than 24 points.

 

Fun Fact: In every game we won in 2016, the defense held the opponent to less than 22 points.

Edited July 31, 2017 by reddogblitz

[HappyDays]

Kyle could pull games out of the fire late too like the Minnesota and Detroit games.

I'll skip over the Minnesota game - and Watkins's great catch - and go right to Detroit because it makes my point for me.

 

With :04 on the clock in Detroit, we were all tied up at 14 points. Dan Carpenter managed to kick a 58 game-winning field goal.

 

Compare to the Miami game last year. All tied up at 31. It's OT and Carpenter has a 48 yarder... which he misses.

 

Let's not forget Orton had a pick-six in that game so it's his fault that it was even a tie game, our defense was playing out of its mind.

 

It's ludicrous to say "well at least Orton pulled out the win." This is what advanced stats and analytics are for. You can frame the game as "Orton pulled out a nail biter at the end" if you only look at the score chart but looking at the stats shows the truth.

 

Tyrod wildly outplayed Orton if you're comparing those two games. Blaming him for the Miami loss is like blaming Brees for the Saints' awful record the past few years.

 

And me personally I want a QB who plays at his best in the 1st quarter, not the 4th. I want to pull away and put the other team in a bad situation where it has to play in our favor. Not get to a below-50% chance at the end of the game because the offense hasn't been good enough the rest of the time. Nailbiters like that are fun to watch but they aren't consistent measures of success. More likely than not a team winning a lot of close games at the end is going to regress the following year. That's about the last thing I care about in my QB. Just get good production throughout the whole game. Most QBs don't fluctuate all that much quarter to quarter when you look at their averages. It's a standard that we've invented for Tyrod.

Edited July 31, 2017 by HappyDays

[transplantbillsfan]

 

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

Do you have early onset Alzheimer's Thurm or are you just being intentionally dense so as not to be wrong about something? It seems one or the other here, because you specifically stated when I presented that criteria to you that you could easily come up with 50 or so guys and clearly now you either don't remember (and you can easily go look through our past conversations to find it set forth to you, don't act like it would be that hard or take that long) or you're trying to twist the narrative to suit your purpose.

 

The QBs you put forward do not match the criteria. Why does the criteria matter? Because none of those QBs sat on the bench for all of the four years. They started in year three, or even four, or two. That means that they had more time to be Evaluated. Bang asked me if I felt the same about Collin Kaepernick as I do Taylor, I assume it's because Kaepernick is going into his seventh year as well, but Kaepernick has 57 career starts under his belt. He's started double the games Taylor has started. We know much more concretely what Kaepernick is then we do Taylor considering over five seasons he had a significant number of starts.

 

Taylor sat on the bench for four years behind the incumbent starter. It's not like there was a kewpie battle to win. He didn't have any opportunity to start until he got out of his rookie contract and went to another team where he earned at the starting job and played at NFL starting QB level. And he's been doing it for two seasons. Watching any QB play at the level she did for two seasons as his first two seasons starting our intriguing at the very least.

 

It's the reason Taylor is still in Buffalo despite there being a new coaching regime, a new GM, a top 10 draft pick to go out and get "your QB" or the opportunity to go get a QB in FA.

 

I'm gonna say this again, just in case you forgot since you seem to forget easily, your arbitrary seventh year thing isn't a thing in this situation because this is an incredibly unique situation.

 

You can't find a single QB who sat on the bench for his first four years and then started in year five, so what sense does it make for you to quote history as though it's definitive in this case? It's not definitive and the odds are really no more against Taylor (generally speaking) than they are against any other 3rd year starting QB who's played really well at times and poorly at other times, but has generally looked like he belongs under center as a starting QB.

 

There are no insurances that Taylor will improve, but saying the odds are so starkly against him because of some arbitrary seventh year rule is simply ludicrous when you consider the rules that have already been broken here.

[BuffaloHokie13]

 

Fun Fact: In every game we won in 2016, the defense held the opponent to less than 22 points.

Yes. My point is that Orton didn't do anything Tyrod doesn't, but Tyrod does provide things Orton doesn't. In 2014 the D allowed 24+ only 3 times, and the team went 9-4 when they held opponents under 24. In 2015 Opponents scored 24+ 6 times, in 2016 it was 8 times. Since 2015 we're 15-3 when our opponents are held under 24.

[transplantbillsfan]

If you think someone could "reasonably put him at 7" (direct quote from you, pay attention), then we'll never agree. That's just far too high. 8 is also too high. And 9. And 10.

 

I appreciate you trying to parse language to play the snark game, even though I knew exactly what you said, and responded correctly.

I really wasn't trying to be snarky. I don't think Taylor was the seventh best QB in 2015. I think he was more like the 12th best QB.

 

I said "a reasonable person." Maybe you're a reasonable person having an unreasonable moment, but saying Taylor was the 20th or 25th or worst QB in 2015 is far from reasonable. And it would be equally unreasonable to say that he was the best QB.

 

What's the magic number for you? When does it start becoming "reasonable?"

 

Do you even understand what I'm saying? I'm guessing that your belief is that only "reasonable people" believe Taylor is exactly as good or bad as you believe he is. If that's what you believe, Let's just and what turned out to be an explanation of something that shouldn't have needed to be explained to you.

Edited July 31, 2017 by transplantbillsfan

[CommonCents]

Do you have early onset Alzheimer's Thurm or are you just being intentionally dense so as not to be wrong about something? It seems one or the other here, because you specifically stated when I presented that criteria to you that you could easily come up with 50 or so guys and clearly now you either don't remember (and you can easily go look through our past conversations to find it set forth to you, don't act like it would be that hard or take that long) or you're trying to twist the narrative to suit your purpose.

 

The QBs you put forward do not match the criteria. Why does the criteria matter? Because none of those QBs sat on the bench for all of the four years. They started in year three, or even four, or two. That means that they had more time to be Evaluated. Bang asked me if I felt the same about Collin Kaepernick as I do Taylor, I assume it's because Kaepernick is going into his seventh year as well, but Kaepernick has 57 career starts under his belt. He's started double the games Taylor has started. We know much more concretely what Kaepernick is then we do Taylor considering over five seasons he had a significant number of starts.

 

Taylor sat on the bench for four years behind the incumbent starter. It's not like there was a kewpie battle to win. He didn't have any opportunity to start until he got out of his rookie contract and went to another team where he earned at the starting job and played at NFL starting QB level. And he's been doing it for two seasons. Watching any QB play at the level she did for two seasons as his first two seasons starting our intriguing at the very least.

 

It's the reason Taylor is still in Buffalo despite there being a new coaching regime, a new GM, a top 10 draft pick to go out and get "your QB" or the opportunity to go get a QB in FA.

 

I'm gonna say this again, just in case you forgot since you seem to forget easily, your arbitrary seventh year thing isn't a thing in this situation because this is an incredibly unique situation.

 

You can't find a single QB who sat on the bench for his first four years and then started in year five, so what sense does it make for you to quote history as though it's definitive in this case? It's not definitive and the odds are really no more against Taylor (generally speaking) than they are against any other 3rd year starting QB who's played really well at times and poorly at other times, but has generally looked like he belongs under center as a starting QB.

 

There are no insurances that Taylor will improve, but saying the odds are so starkly against him because of some arbitrary seventh year rule is simply ludicrous when you consider the rules that have already been broken here.

Id rather have Mike Glennon than TT. Would you like to make a friendly wager on who throws for more yards this season? TT is the "incumbent" starter and has the best WR option of the two, this should be an easy win for you. As long as both of them start week 1 injuries don't matter past that, just the final total of passing yards.

[transplantbillsfan]

Based on my own special blend of metrics I've been working on I've got Tyrod at 13th of 37 qualifying QBs in 2015, 14th of 33 qualifying QBs in 2016, and 15th of 26 qualifying QBs over the two years compiled.

You and I are almost exactly on the same page in terms of Taylor's 2015 season. I put him at 12

Edited July 31, 2017 by transplantbillsfan

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Id rather have Mike Glennon than TT. Would you like to make a friendly wager on who throws for more yards this season? TT is the "incumbent" starter and has the best WR option of the two, this should be an easy win for you. As long as both of them start week 1 injuries don't matter past that, just the final total of passing yards.

 

Glennon might be the first starter benched though.... might not be the smartest bet lol

[grb]

Yes. My point is that Orton didn't do anything Tyrod doesn't, but Tyrod does provide things Orton doesn't. In 2014 the D allowed 24+ only 3 times, and the team went 9-4 when they held opponents under 24. In 2015 Opponents scored 24+ 6 times, in 2016 it was 8 times. Since 2015 we're 15-3 when our opponents are held under 24.

 

Wow. Puts things in perspective, doesn't it?

[transplantbillsfan]

 

 

He really does make a lot of plays that others don't. The large majority of which are run plays.

 

He is indeed polarizing.

 

As for the rest of your claims, Tyrod doesn't have a winning record. The Buffalo Bills do in games when Tyrod starts. The other 50 or so players may have had some little bit of credit coming to them for those wins. Wins is a team stat. And I'm not sure who you're talking about who has 47 TDs, but it can't be Tyrod. He has 37 TDs. In 29 starts, I would indeed call that below average. If you're saying he's about 20th then we're in almost exact agreement, and yeah I call that "slightly below average," my words,and I find it hard to imagine how anyone could have an issue with calling 20th out of 32 slightly below average. We totally disagree about Alex Smith, though, I can see.

 

However, as you point out, I do love the way Tyrod protects the ball. His low INT % is a real plus. The coaches must love that, and I certainly respect it.

 

Your "passing TDs are all that matter" agenda is absolutely an incredibly amazing!

 

Keep it up, at least it's entertaining