The Tyrod Taylor Question

[Augie]

Tyrod Taylor, discuss.....

Who?

[Buffalo Boy]

See now this is another thing to worry about and that is a entirely new staff again if this one fails trying to embrace the last staffs failed starter as the proven starter. It's why many of us wanted this new staff to move away from Tyrod year 1 and have a fresh start but instead they stayed with him to open up this type of criticism. Many feel if they can't match what Rex did with Tyrod why did they even bother changing staffs.

History likes to repeat itself in Buffalo, sure looks alot like the Chan era all over again. We can go to the playoffs with Fitz, guess what no you cant.Sadly we have to watch the same thing all over again with McD and Tyrod, another lost season for fans. Fingers crossed a franchise worthy QB is drafted In round 1 next season for a future to dream about and a Bills team I can be proud of otherwise we have to wait on the next staff to start all over again, maybe 2021 we will see a team pushing for a wild card if a new staff is what is needed after they finally go all in on a early drafted QB.

Which is why I'd like them to keep TT on a short leash.

If we are 2-6 at the halfway point and he is the same QB he has been for the past two years, put in Peterman.

This would show bold decisive leadership.

However, I'm not counting on it

[Thurman#1]

The Bills are 15-14 when TT starts. Not terrible.He was the least of this team's problems. He is what we have.Healthy roster, better defense and coaching, we'll see what he does. But those are excuses to posters like MB. MB is on my ignore list. You should do the same. I won't deal with agendas anymore.

 

 

14-14, according to ProFootballReference.

 

But again, win-loss is simply NOT a QB stat. It's a team stat. The official name of that stat is "TEAM Record in Games Started by This Quarterback (Regular Season)".

 

And he wasn't the least of this team's problems. That was the run game. He was basically an average problem, ranking with most of the team except for the run game. The whole team was pretty much a problem outside of that terrific run game.

[Thurman#1]

Holy crap!

 

Did you seriously just cherry pick like that? You could do that for any quarterback in the league. Not just unscrambles. You could pick a part completions they make and find completions they should've made for better yardage or touchdowns or first downs.

 

There are obviously some times or Taylor scrambled when he could've made the throw. But he gained 8 yards per scramble. He got a number of first downs on those scrambles. A good number of them on third down. He scored 4 touchdowns on scrambles. This whole game you're trying to play or yards on the ground or less meaningful than yards in the air even for a quarterback is just ridiculous.

 

 

 

Cherry-picking is a problem, is it? Well, then it's a problem you suffer deeply from in this very line of logic. In referring to Tyrod's yards per scramble, how many of his sacks are you including? Or are you cherrypicking only the scrambles where he made it past the line? Hmm?

 

Oooopsie.

 

You're a superhero of cherrypicking, dude.

 

As for my cherrypicking, you betcha, I cherrypicked an example of a play which shows the fault in your logic.

 

You assume that missing opportunities in the pass game is made up for by having an 8 yard per scramble average (again, an average reached by cherrypicking). It's not, and that play is an example of why. That play lost the game for the Bills and yet looked to an extremely poorly thought-through stat like yards per scramble like a good play.

[transplantbillsfan]

 

 

 

Cherry-picking is a problem, is it? Well, then it's a problem you suffer deeply from in this very line of logic. In referring to Tyrod's yards per scramble, how many of his sacks are you including? Or are you cherrypicking only the scrambles where he made it past the line? Hmm?

 

Oooopsie.

 

You're a superhero of cherrypicking, dude.

 

As for my cherrypicking, you betcha, I cherrypicked an example of a play which shows the fault in your logic.

 

You assume that missing opportunities in the pass game is made up for by having an 8 yard per scramble average (again, an average reached by cherrypicking). It's not, and that play is an example of why. That play lost the game for the Bills and yet looked to an extremely poorly thought-through stat like yards per scramble like a good play.

I'll give you this, at least you actually discuss the topic rather than piss and moan about the fact that people are talking about Taylor.

 

That said, I didn't cherry pick because I brought up the sacks. I brought up the fact that he lost 192 yards on sacks.

 

I brought up the fact that I believe there should be a stat called YPD or yards per dropback. Taylor's YPD in 2016 would have been 6.1 versus 6.9 in 2015. Definitely a drop. He was definitely less effective in 2016.

 

But Taylor's lost sack yards were the 18th most in the NFL, not the most as his number of sacks were.

 

Go through other QBs who don't run much and just convert even all of their rushing yardage to the YPD format and see what you come up with.

 

Sam Bradford passed for 7.0 YPA, but he was sacked for 276 yards and rushed or scrambled for only 53.

 

At best, his YPD in 2016 was exactly 6.0, and that's only if all his runs came on designed pass plays.

 

Carson Palmer averaged 7.1 YPA but his YPD was also just 6.1.

 

 

I know that you think I was cherry picking the way that you clearly did, but again, I've brought up the sacks as both lost plays and yards.

 

You consider nothing but your own narrowly (yet bizarrely complex in its arbitrarily defined manner) defined position

Edited August 3, 2017 by transplantbillsfan

[Thurman#1]

A few things, Tyrod Taylor and Ryan Fitzpatrick have the exact same TD percentage in their careers (4.3%). Add in the rushing TDs and it swings to Tyrod. That's fake news. As for the INTs you are correct. Tyrod is at 1.6% and Fitz is at 3.4%. I always like Fitz but those are the facts.

 

In terms of Jimmy G, he will likely have a shot at a starting job in year 5. That's the exact same situation (as you indicated). If you think that day 1 of the 2018 season he will be close to a finished product I think that you're crazy. Guys all develop on the field. You develop some on the sidelines and more on the field. You're so hung up on the year vs. the game experience. You keep talking about how unlikely it is for a guy at this point to improve but there aren't many examples of a similar career arch. Name 20 guys that didn't get a starting job until year 5? I gave you 2, maybe Gannon is 3 but there aren't a bunch of guys like that. Most guys either started earlier or flamed out earlier.

 

 

 

Yes, but you CAN'T just add in the running TDs. Not unless you're also going to add in the negatives that should come with them. Wanna add the TDs in? Fine, you need to add the 13 fumbles too.

 

There are reasons why passing stats and running stats are kept separate. They aren't equal and putting them together leads to awkward results.

 

 

 

 

And again, there are a ton of guys with a similar career arc, I already listed 13 or 14 in an earlier post in this thread. Here:

 

 

 

 

There have been probably dozens and dozens of guys who didn't play much for three or four years at the beginning of their careers and then got a chance. Cassel. Schaub. Derek Anderson. Shaun Hill. Seneca Wallace. Damon Huard. Rex Grossman. David Garrard. Jay Fiedler. Hell, our own Kelly Holcomb. Jim Miller. Steve Beuerlein. That's, what, a dozen guys who had only a few little bit of work for three or four years or even more and eventually got their chance to be the starter. None were good enough and none developed and became franchise guys. Jake Delhomme was on the bench for two years before he started. But he quickly became a borderline franchise guy. He was what he was from pretty early on, a gutsy guy who was never going to be a top ten or twelve guy but was Carolina's franchise guy for years. The really good ones - Romo, for example, who sat the bench for two and a half years but looked good very quickly once he got out there - had become ready so that they were able to seize their chance like Rodgers. Of the ones who couldn't, none have even then later turned around and become franchise guys after not proving themselves as such for six years.

 

Basically, Gannon is it. There's an argument to be made for Plunkett, though I disagree. And that's it. Maybe you can find another one somewhere, but I can't and I've asked others before and nobody else could either. It's simply extremely rare.

 

1) Cassel: 3 years on the bench. Got his chance to start for three years and didn't play like a franchise guy. Never improved to become one.

 

2) Schaub: 3 years on the bench. Got his chance to start for, what, six years, and didn't play like a franchise guy, He wasn't. Briefly looked close. But he wasn't. Never improved to become one.

 

3) Shaun Hill 3 years on the bench, though he got in around 12 games due to injury during those years. Picked to start in years four and five and didn't play like a franchise guy. Wasn't. Never improved to become one.

 

4) Seneca Wallace: 5 years on the bench with occaisional spot duty. In 2008, is an injury replacement for Hasselbeck and plays well enough that when Hasselbeck gets healthy, Wallace still starts for the last few games. Plays well but didn't play like a franchise guy. Never improved to become one.

 

5) Huard: 5 years on the bench, with 6 starts due to injuries to Marino during those five years. Started the season as starter the next couple of years but didn't play like a franchise guy. Never improved to become one.

 

6) Grossman: 3 years on the bench. Two years as starter, but halfway through the second it was very obvious he wasn't playing like a franchise guy and he was benched. Hung around the league for 10 years. Never improved to become a franchise guy.

 

7) Garrard: 4 years on the bench though he started five games because of injury in his fourth year. Halfway through his 5th year, was named the starter. Outplayed Leftwich in training camp and was named starter again. Had a very fine year that made him look like a maybe but not a sure thing. That had been his sixth year, so he looked like a guy who might become another Gannon. Then didn't play like a franchise QB while starting three more seasons. Never improved to become one.

 

8) Fiedler: 3 years in the league on and off with different teams. Started for three or four years and didn't play like a franchise QB. Hung around the league for nine years. Never improved to become a franchise guy.

 

9) Holcomb: Practice squad in Indy for a year, then another year on the roster, then let go. Out of football the next year. Back in as a backup in Cleveland for three years. Competitive with Couch and became the starter in his fifth year in the league but didn't play like a franchise guy. Never improved.

 

*** Is this beginning to sound like a broken record? It has happened a lot. Some guys were out quickly and others hung around for a while. But the ones who hadn't proved themselves as franchise guys in six years ... never did. ***

 

10) Jim Miller: 5 years on the bench. Won the starting job in Chicago in his sixth year and had a PED suspension sideline him. Was starting by the end of his sixth year for a brief playoff run. Didn't play like a franchise QB but played well enough to get him the starter job the next two years. Never improved enough to become a franchise guy.

11) Beuerlein: This one's arguable, as he was started for a few games here and there early. In his first five years he started nineteen games. Got traded to his third team, Phoenix, who started him in his sixth season for nearly the whole year, though he was benched two games for Chris Chandler. As that suggests, he didn't play like a franchise player. Hung around the league for 14 years. Never improved enough to become a franchise guy.

 

12) Danny White: Drafted in 1974 as a punter, so played in the WFL instead, sharing the QB position with John Huarte. Signed with the Cowboys in '76. Four years on the bench. Took over as starter in his fifth year. A good year but in his sixth year he became a franchise guy (12th in yards, 8th in TDs, 6th in passer rating, 5th in YPA) And that's what he was, a franchise quarterback. Proved it in six years despite four years on the bench.

 

13) Romo: 3 years on the bench. Fourth year was OK but in his fifth year he played like a franchise QB. And that's what he was. Proved it before his sixth year despite three years on the bench.

 

14) Aaron Rodgers: Three years on the bench but still proved himself a franchise QB well within six years.

 

15) Tyrod: 4 years on the bench. Started two years. Hasn't proved himself a franchise QB within six years.

 

 

And I just did NOT have to go back very far to find this list, and I didn't even comb through very carefully. Just looked at lists of QBs from 2009 and 2003 and picked the ones who I remembered had sat before having their chance. Found this group in less than ten minutes.

 

So it simply isn't true that this is a rare career arc. Just the opposite, it's common, and Garoppolo appears to be only the latest to follow this very well-travelled path.

 

Again, one guy in NFL history has proved himself a franchise QB after not doing so in his first six years. And dozens and dozens have followed this path if the large number I pointed out from only recent years is any indication ... and it is. And what has happened is simple. Out of this large group of guys who sat for a long time early, with the one exception of Gannon, they either proved themselves franchise guys within six years or they never ever proved themselves as franchise guys despite having had good chances to do so.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

I'll give you this, at least you actually discuss the topic rather than piss and moan about the fact that people are talking about Taylor.

 

That said, I didn't cherry pick because I brought up the sacks. I brought up the fact that he lost 192 yards on sacks.

 

I brought up the fact that I believe there should be a stat called YPD or yards per dropback. Taylor's YPD in 2016 would have been 6.1 versus 6.9 in 2015. Definitely a drop. He was definitely less effective in 2016.

 

But Taylor's lost sack yards were the 18th most in the NFL, not the most as his number of sacks were.

 

Go through other QBs who don't run much and just convert even all of their rushing yardage to the YPD format and see what you come up with.

 

Sam Bradford passed for 7.0 YPA, but he was sacked for 276 yards and rushed or scrambled for only 53.

 

At best, his YPD in 2016 was exactly 6.0, and that's only if all his runs came on designed pass plays.

 

Carson Palmer averaged 7.1 YPA but his YPD was also just 6.1.

 

 

I know that you think I was cherry picking the way that you clearly did, but again, I've brought up the sacks as both lost plays and yards.

 

You consider nothing but your own narrowly (yet bizarrely complex in its arbitrarily defined manner) defined position

 

 

 

You may well believe that there should be a stat called yards per dropback. Because if there were, it would reflect well on Tyrod. That's clearly the main attribute you look for in terms of whether a stat should exist. Thing is, there isn't. And for good reason. It's never been considered useful or as providing a good look. Not to mention being a horrible kludge of a name. What's a dropback? Is it what QBs do on passing plays? But don't they drop back in play action? And reverses? And handoffs, really? It's just a stupid name. QBs drop back on every play except the ones where they're in shotgun. And a horrible kludge of a stat too.

 

And you say you're considering sacks ... and yet you're still using the 8.0 figure instead of the 6.1. Wonder why that is? Oh, yeah, because it makes Tyrod look better. Yet again cherrypicking, this time for the stat that makes him look better.

 

When it's third and 14, teams don't run much. For obvious reasons. But hey, Tyrod can average 6.1 yards per dropback on average if he scrambles. And that's one of the higher averages in the league so since it makes Tyrod look good, everything's OK.

 

There's a reason people look at pass and run stats separately. They go together awkwardly and for a QB passing ability is wildly more important. And that play is a perfect example of why.

 

1:15 left in the game, down by six, first down at the Seattle 23. Robert Woods is stunningly wide open in the deep middle third of the field - Tyrod's kryptonite, the deep and intermediate middle third - uncovered in the end zone for a 23 yard TD and Tyrod simply doesn't see him.

 

Eight yard run. Looking at your stat, that looks great. But it cost us the game.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

 

So you really aren't interested in the 21 other starters? So Sammy Watkins, Micah Hyde, Marcel Dareus, Tre White etc....none of those guys are interesting in talking about?

 

 

But it's not an obsession. It's just that he's only interested enough to talk about the one thing. See the difference?

 

He's only interested in talking about QBs, see? Not Peterman, of course. Tyrod. Not Yates. Tyrod. See? Quarterbacks.

Edited August 3, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

 

Yes, but you CAN'T just add in the running TDs. Not unless you're also going to add in the negatives that should come with them. Wanna add the TDs in? Fine, you need to add the 13 fumbles too.

 

There are reasons why passing stats and running stats are kept separate. They aren't equal and putting them together leads to awkward results.

 

 

 

 

And again, there are a ton of guys with a similar career arc, I already listed 13 or 14 in an earlier post in this thread. Here:

 

 

 

 

1) Cassel: 3 years on the bench. Got his chance to start for three years and didn't play like a franchise guy. Never improved to become one.

 

2) Schaub: 3 years on the bench. Got his chance to start for, what, six years, and didn't play like a franchise guy, He wasn't. Briefly looked close. But he wasn't. Never improved to become one.

 

3) Shaun Hill 3 years on the bench, though he got in around 12 games due to injury during those years. Picked to start in years four and five and didn't play like a franchise guy. Wasn't. Never improved to become one.

 

4) Seneca Wallace: 5 years on the bench with occaisional spot duty. In 2008, is an injury replacement for Hasselbeck and plays well enough that when Hasselbeck gets healthy, Wallace still starts for the last few games. Plays well but didn't play like a franchise guy. Never improved to become one.

 

5) Huard: 5 years on the bench, with 6 starts due to injuries to Marino during those five years. Started the season as starter the next couple of years but didn't play like a franchise guy. Never improved to become one.

 

6) Grossman: 3 years on the bench. Two years as starter, but halfway through the second it was very obvious he wasn't playing like a franchise guy and he was benched. Hung around the league for 10 years. Never improved to become a franchise guy.

 

7) Garrard: 4 years on the bench though he started five games because of injury in his fourth year. Halfway through his 5th year, was named the starter. Outplayed Leftwich in training camp and was named starter again. Had a very fine year that made him look like a maybe but not a sure thing. That had been his sixth year, so he looked like a guy who might become another Gannon. Then didn't play like a franchise QB while starting three more seasons. Never improved to become one.

 

8) Fiedler: 3 years in the league on and off with different teams. Started for three or four years and didn't play like a franchise QB. Hung around the league for nine years. Never improved to become a franchise guy.

 

9) Holcomb: Practice squad in Indy for a year, then another year on the roster, then let go. Out of football the next year. Back in as a backup in Cleveland for three years. Competitive with Couch and became the starter in his fifth year in the league but didn't play like a franchise guy. Never improved.

 

*** Is this beginning to sound like a broken record? It has happened a lot. Some guys were out quickly and others hung around for a while. But the ones who hadn't proved themselves as franchise guys in six years ... never did. ***

 

10) Jim Miller: 5 years on the bench. Won the starting job in Chicago in his sixth year and had a PED suspension sideline him. Was starting by the end of his sixth year for a brief playoff run. Didn't play like a franchise QB but played well enough to get him the starter job the next two years. Never improved enough to become a franchise guy.

11) Beuerlein: This one's arguable, as he was started for a few games here and there early. In his first five years he started nineteen games. Got traded to his third team, Phoenix, who started him in his sixth season for nearly the whole year, though he was benched two games for Chris Chandler. As that suggests, he didn't play like a franchise player. Hung around the league for 14 years. Never improved enough to become a franchise guy.

 

12) Danny White: Drafted in 1974 as a punter, so played in the WFL instead, sharing the QB position with John Huarte. Signed with the Cowboys in '76. Four years on the bench. Took over as starter in his fifth year. A good year but in his sixth year he became a franchise guy (12th in yards, 8th in TDs, 6th in passer rating, 5th in YPA) And that's what he was, a franchise quarterback. Proved it in six years despite four years on the bench.

 

13) Romo: 3 years on the bench. Fourth year was OK but in his fifth year he played like a franchise QB. And that's what he was. Proved it before his sixth year despite three years on the bench.

 

14) Aaron Rodgers: Three years on the bench but still proved himself a franchise QB well within six years.

 

15) Tyrod: 4 years on the bench. Started two years. Hasn't proved himself a franchise QB within six years.

 

 

And I just did NOT have to go back very far to find this list, and I didn't even comb through very carefully. Just looked at lists of QBs from 2009 and 2003 and picked the ones who I remembered had sat before having their chance. Found this group in less than ten minutes.

 

So it simply isn't true that this is a rare career arc. Just the opposite, it's common, and Garoppolo appears to be only the latest to follow this very well-travelled path.

 

Again, one guy in NFL history has proved himself a franchise QB after not doing so in his first six years. And dozens and dozens have followed this path if the large number I pointed out from only recent years is any indication ... and it is. And what has happened is simple. Out of this large group of guys who sat for a long time early, with the one exception of Gannon, they either proved themselves franchise guys within six years or they never ever proved themselves as franchise guys despite having had good chances to do so.

9 of those 16 guys (including Gannon) played in the Pro Bowl. So you went back to Danny White to find a total of 16 guys and 9 had some degree of success. Of that list though Romo, Rodgers, White, Schaub, Beurlein, and Gannon were franchise QBs. Taylor has a chance to be. Fiedler, Garrard and Cassel had moments of solid play.

 

Maybe it's semantics. There aren't a lot of guys that have developed into great QBs later in their careers. There aren't a lot of guys that haven't gotten the opportunity until late in their careers. The guys that became starters later on have largely been successful (at least to some degree).

[Crusher]

 

 

 

You may well believe that there should be a stat called yards per dropback. Because if there were, it would reflect well on Tyrod. That's clearly the main attribute you look for in terms of whether a stat should exist. Thing is, there isn't. And for good reason. It's never been considered useful or as providing a good look. Not to mention being a horrible kludge of a name. What's a dropback? Is it what QBs do on passing plays? But don't they drop back in play action? And reverses? And handoffs, really? It's just a stupid name. QBs drop back on every play except the ones where they're in shotgun. And a horrible kludge of a stat too.

 

And you say you're considering sacks ... and yet you're still using the 8.0 figure instead of the 6.1. Wonder why that is? Oh, yeah, because it makes Tyrod look better. Yet again cherrypicking, this time for the stat that makes him look better.

 

When it's third and 14, teams don't run much. For obvious reasons. But hey, Tyrod can average 6.1 yards per dropback on average if he scrambles. And that's one of the higher averages in the league so since it makes Tyrod look good, everything's OK.

 

There's a reason people look at pass and run stats separately. They go together awkwardly and for a QB passing ability is wildly more important. And that play is a perfect example of why.

 

1:15 left in the game, down by six, first down at the Seattle 23. Robert Woods is stunningly wide open in the deep middle third of the field - Tyrod's kryptonite, the deep and intermediate middle third - uncovered in the end zone for a 23 yard TD and Tyrod simply doesn't see him.

 

Eight yard run. Looking at your stat, that looks great. But it cost us the game.

Ding, ding, ding!

 

Bullseye.

9 of those 16 guys (including Gannon) played in the Pro Bowl. So you went back to Danny White to find a total of 16 guys and 9 had some degree of success. Of that list though Romo, Rodgers, White, Schaub, Beurlein, and Gannon were franchise QBs. Taylor has a chance to be. Fiedler, Garrard and Cassel had moments of solid play.

 

Maybe it's semantics. There aren't a lot of guys that have developed into great QBs later in their careers. There aren't a lot of guys that haven't gotten the opportunity until late in their careers. The guys that became starters later on have largely been successful (at least to some degree).

And none of those guys had the same limitations as Tyrod when throwing the football.

 

I do not believe Tyrod has the chance to become anything more than somewhere between the 2015/2016 Taylor, and that's not good enough.

[grb]

 

 

14-14, according to ProFootballReference.

 

 

Really? You actually wanna go there? Knocking off a Taylor win over that one play starting the Colts game where he lined up as a receiver?

Don't you find it embarrassing to call that game a "Matt Cassel" win?

[BringBackOrton]

 

 

 

You may well believe that there should be a stat called yards per dropback. Because if there were, it would reflect well on Tyrod. That's clearly the main attribute you look for in terms of whether a stat should exist. Thing is, there isn't. And for good reason. It's never been considered useful or as providing a good look. Not to mention being a horrible kludge of a name. What's a dropback? Is it what QBs do on passing plays? But don't they drop back in play action? And reverses? And handoffs, really? It's just a stupid name. QBs drop back on every play except the ones where they're in shotgun. And a horrible kludge of a stat too.

 

And you say you're considering sacks ... and yet you're still using the 8.0 figure instead of the 6.1. Wonder why that is? Oh, yeah, because it makes Tyrod look better. Yet again cherrypicking, this time for the stat that makes him look better.

 

When it's third and 14, teams don't run much. For obvious reasons. But hey, Tyrod can average 6.1 yards per dropback on average if he scrambles. And that's one of the higher averages in the league so since it makes Tyrod look good, everything's OK.

 

There's a reason people look at pass and run stats separately. They go together awkwardly and for a QB passing ability is wildly more important. And that play is a perfect example of why.

 

1:15 left in the game, down by six, first down at the Seattle 23. Robert Woods is stunningly wide open in the deep middle third of the field - Tyrod's kryptonite, the deep and intermediate middle third - uncovered in the end zone for a 23 yard TD and Tyrod simply doesn't see him.

 

Eight yard run. Looking at your stat, that looks great. But it cost us the game.

Fatality!

[Kirby Jackson]

Ding, ding, ding!

 

Bullseye.

 

And none of those guys had the same limitations as Tyrod when throwing the football.

 

I do not believe Tyrod has the chance to become anything more than somewhere between the 2015/2016 Taylor, and that's not good enough.

I don't disagree that he likely looks like the same player. A lot of those guys had limitations though. The list included Fiedler, Grossman, and Cassel amongst others. They virtually all had limitations which is why, in some cases, it took so long to get an opportunity.

[BuffaloHokie13]

14-14, according to ProFootballReference.

 

But again, win-loss is simply NOT a QB stat. It's a team stat. The official name of that stat is "TEAM Record in Games Started by This Quarterback (Regular Season)".

 

And he wasn't the least of this team's problems. That was the run game. He was basically an average problem, ranking with most of the team except for the run game. The whole team was pretty much a problem outside of that terrific run game.

 

Really? You actually wanna go there? Knocking off a Taylor win over that one play starting the Colts game where he lined up as a receiver?

Don't you find it embarrassing to call that game a "Matt Cassel" win?

 

Here's the Box Score of the game in question, FWIW. http://www.espn.com/...ameId=400791541

[Greywolf]

I think the OC needs to redesign the offense to clear routes over the middle and then Taylor has to commit to getting the ball in there throughout the game. I'm not sure the offense we've had the past couple seasons gave the QB a fair chance to exploit the middle routes like other teams do. This year will tell.

[Royale with Cheese]

 

Why does it honestly matter so much to you and others, apparently?

 

Do you actually want me to justify this?

 

I'm going to explain this one more time, QB is the position I enjoy talking about the most. I hope you read it, consider it, and stop hassling me about the fact that generally I only post in Taylor threads.

 

Yes, I'm a die-hard Bills fan and have been for approaching 3 decades now. And yes, I love other players on the team. Kyle Williams is one of my other favorite players. He's gone now, but I don't know if you remember when Freddy was on the team that I'd start other threads about him. I got into it a few times with a couple posters who are probably over here now about CJ vs. Freddy.

 

I still love Freddy and even had some fleeting hope he'd sign with the Bills again this offseason and try to battle it out and end his career in Buffalo.

 

I love McCoy and think he's maybe the most talented RB in the NFL right now.

 

The NFL is turning into another sport where players just move from team to team to team. But in general from team to team to team it's the QB who remains with different teams if he's good and so that's generally the position it's probably safest to become familiar with in terms of the player.

 

 

I don't just sit in front of my computer all day reading and responding to a whole bunch of different threads with one-liners because I'm busy either with business or play and don't feel like sitting there doing that. I don't have a smartphone as a daily phone so that's not an option as I'm sure some just check in at random points. Once the preseason starts I'll probably post more about other players, but I haven't seen anything from them.

 

When I get on this message board, I don't get on here planning to sit here forever. So I check to see if there are any startlingly fresh or new topics. When I don't, I come into the select few topics I've chosen to engage in, which are generally about Taylor because, again, that's the position I'm most interested in talking about because it's the most important position in all of sports. And I begin reading from where I last posted to the end of the thread. That's the reason I know some of my posts can come in an annoying "machine-gun" style because I sit here, read a post a few posts after my last post, respond to it, and then continue from that same post and do the same thing.

 

I understand that might be annoying, but sorry, I'm going to read the thread sequentially and respond to posts I feel warrant a response. I try holding my tongue now especially with certain posters, but I'll probably still post 3-5 posts in a row.

 

 

That is at least in part my reasoning for posting the way I do.

 

As I just said above, I'm not going to spread my discussion (and time) to other topics I'm not as interested in talking about just in order to change some general perception of me.

 

It really doesn't matter, I just like to talk about your Tyrod obsession because it's a bit odd IMO.

The bolded and underlined sentence basically is stating "I"m not interested in discussing the Buffalo Bills, I'm only interested in discussing Tyrod Taylor".

 

 

But it's not an obsession. It's just that he's only interested enough to talk about the one thing. See the difference?

 

He's only interested in talking about QBs, see? Not Peterman, of course. Tyrod. Not Yates. Tyrod. See? Quarterbacks.

 

Do you remember years ago a poster named SaviorEdwards?

SaviorEdwards would only talk about Trent Edwards....just like Trans does with Tyrod.

SaviorEdwards would comment on every post he could that was a negative about Edwards....just like Trans does with Tyrod.

SaviorEdwards jumped off the Edwards bandwagon at one point....just like Trans did with Tyrod.

SaviorEdwards jumped back on Edwards bandwagon once he had a decent game (literally one game). Just like Trans last year with Tyrod.

 

We have a new SaviorEdwards.....

 

 

 

You may well believe that there should be a stat called yards per dropback. Because if there were, it would reflect well on Tyrod. That's clearly the main attribute you look for in terms of whether a stat should exist. Thing is, there isn't. And for good reason. It's never been considered useful or as providing a good look. Not to mention being a horrible kludge of a name. What's a dropback? Is it what QBs do on passing plays? But don't they drop back in play action? And reverses? And handoffs, really? It's just a stupid name. QBs drop back on every play except the ones where they're in shotgun. And a horrible kludge of a stat too.

 

And you say you're considering sacks ... and yet you're still using the 8.0 figure instead of the 6.1. Wonder why that is? Oh, yeah, because it makes Tyrod look better. Yet again cherrypicking, this time for the stat that makes him look better.

 

When it's third and 14, teams don't run much. For obvious reasons. But hey, Tyrod can average 6.1 yards per dropback on average if he scrambles. And that's one of the higher averages in the league so since it makes Tyrod look good, everything's OK.

 

There's a reason people look at pass and run stats separately. They go together awkwardly and for a QB passing ability is wildly more important. And that play is a perfect example of why.

 

1:15 left in the game, down by six, first down at the Seattle 23. Robert Woods is stunningly wide open in the deep middle third of the field - Tyrod's kryptonite, the deep and intermediate middle third - uncovered in the end zone for a 23 yard TD and Tyrod simply doesn't see him.

 

Eight yard run. Looking at your stat, that looks great. But it cost us the game.

 

This is called a homerun post.

I'll give you this, at least you actually discuss the topic rather than piss and moan about the fact that people are talking about Taylor.

 

That said, I didn't cherry pick because I brought up the sacks. I brought up the fact that he lost 192 yards on sacks.

 

I brought up the fact that I believe there should be a stat called YPD or yards per dropback. Taylor's YPD in 2016 would have been 6.1 versus 6.9 in 2015. Definitely a drop. He was definitely less effective in 2016.

 

But Taylor's lost sack yards were the 18th most in the NFL, not the most as his number of sacks were.

 

Go through other QBs who don't run much and just convert even all of their rushing yardage to the YPD format and see what you come up with.

 

Sam Bradford passed for 7.0 YPA, but he was sacked for 276 yards and rushed or scrambled for only 53.

 

At best, his YPD in 2016 was exactly 6.0, and that's only if all his runs came on designed pass plays.

 

Carson Palmer averaged 7.1 YPA but his YPD was also just 6.1.

 

 

I know that you think I was cherry picking the way that you clearly did, but again, I've brought up the sacks as both lost plays and yards.

 

You consider nothing but your own narrowly (yet bizarrely complex in its arbitrarily defined manner) defined position

 

So not only do you cherry pick legitimate stats, you're cherry picking made up stats. That's brilliant.

Personally when a poster only posts about one topic repeatedly and from a very firm stance one way or the other it makes me believe that it is about pushing an agenda.

 

I will be honest my view of you is the poster who will appear at the point anyone says anything in any thread that even implies criticism of Taylor to try and slap them down. If you engaged more generally on a range of topics across the board I am sure that view would change.

 

It is like if Kirby and I had only ever engaged on the Chris Hogan debate I'd just think of him as the Hogan hater. But I engage almost daily with him on a range of topics across the board agreeing sometimes and disagreeing others resulting in me actually thinking of him as one of our best, most thoughtful posters (and sorry to keep using that as my example Kirby but it is always the one that springs to mind!)

 

Of course what you discuss here is totally up to you... just giving you my view of how I and I am sure others percieve that at times. Not meaning it in an antagonistic way just explaining how it come across I am sure it is not intentional.

 

Another homerun post and exactly correct.

[BuffaloHokie13]

You may well believe that there should be a stat called yards per dropback. Because if there were, it would reflect well on Tyrod. That's clearly the main attribute you look for in terms of whether a stat should exist. Thing is, there isn't. And for good reason. It's never been considered useful or as providing a good look. Not to mention being a horrible kludge of a name. What's a dropback? Is it what QBs do on passing plays? But don't they drop back in play action? And reverses? And handoffs, really? It's just a stupid name. QBs drop back on every play except the ones where they're in shotgun. And a horrible kludge of a stat too.

 

And you say you're considering sacks ... and yet you're still using the 8.0 figure instead of the 6.1. Wonder why that is? Oh, yeah, because it makes Tyrod look better. Yet again cherrypicking, this time for the stat that makes him look better.

 

When it's third and 14, teams don't run much. For obvious reasons. But hey, Tyrod can average 6.1 yards per dropback on average if he scrambles. And that's one of the higher averages in the league so since it makes Tyrod look good, everything's OK.

 

There's a reason people look at pass and run stats separately. They go together awkwardly and for a QB passing ability is wildly more important. And that play is a perfect example of why.

 

1:15 left in the game, down by six, first down at the Seattle 23. Robert Woods is stunningly wide open in the deep middle third of the field - Tyrod's kryptonite, the deep and intermediate middle third - uncovered in the end zone for a 23 yard TD and Tyrod simply doesn't see him.

 

Eight yard run. Looking at your stat, that looks great. But it cost us the game.

No, it really doesn't. I've been using it for a little bit while fiddling with a rating system. I called it yards per touch, not yards per dropback, but whatever. It's (Passing Yards + Rushing Yards - Sack Yards) / (Passing Attempts + Rushing Attempts + Sacks).

 

In 2016, Tyrod's YPT was 5.95, which was good for 25th out of the 33 QBs with at least 200 pass attempts. Top 5, you might ask? Matt Ryan, Tom Brady, Kirk Cousins, Dak Prescott, and Drew Brees.

 

In 2015, Tyrod's YPT was 6.52, good for 12th out of 37 QBs with at least 200 pass attempts. The top 5 were Carson Palmer, Ben Roethlisberger, Andy Dalton, Russell Wilson, and Drew Brees.

[Kirby Jackson]

Personally when a poster only posts about one topic repeatedly and from a very firm stance one way or the other it makes me believe that it is about pushing an agenda.

 

I will be honest my view of you is the poster who will appear at the point anyone says anything in any thread that even implies criticism of Taylor to try and slap them down. If you engaged more generally on a range of topics across the board I am sure that view would change.

 

It is like if Kirby and I had only ever engaged on the Chris Hogan debate I'd just think of him as the Hogan hater. But I engage almost daily with him on a range of topics across the board agreeing sometimes and disagreeing others resulting in me actually thinking of him as one of our best, most thoughtful posters (and sorry to keep using that as my example Kirby but it is always the one that springs to mind!)

 

Of course what you discuss here is totally up to you... just giving you my view of how I and I am sure others percieve that at times. Not meaning it in an antagonistic way just explaining how it come across I am sure it is not intentional.

Love you too GB

[26CornerBlitz]

8-3: Bills QB Tyrod Taylor with Howard and Jeremy live from Bills training camp.mp3 (10:28)

[PromoTheRobot]

Only with Bacardi in it!

No, no. Brugal.