The Tyrod Taylor Question

[JM2009]

Except that the defenses valleys were much lower than Taylor's valleys. When you give up three different 200 yard rushing games, it's virtually inevitable you've lost three games.

 

The defense was abysmal and multiple games in 2016. Taylor was bad against the ravens and the Bengals.

 

Those three games with the 200 yard rusher's are mostly on the defense. Not entirely, but mostly. I think you could throw in there also the first Jets game where the defense allowed Ryan Fitzpatrick to pass for almost 400 yards. And then the defense blows a 15 point lead in the second half of the Raiders game allowing the Raiders offense to score and score and score and score. And while those three and outs that came on consecutive drives in the third quarter of the game didn't help, the defense literally had no excuse for not being rested on the first two Raiders touchdowns of the third-quarter. They had an entire half to rest, and then the Raiders had the ball for less than a minute before the bills offense put us ahead by 15 points.

 

When the defense was good, they were really good. But it's hilarious that people dismiss Taylor's victory against the patriots because of who is starting QB on the other team. I'm sorry, were the patriots missing any of their defense? If that game should be dismissed for anyone in terms of praise, it's for the defense.

 

The defense when it was bad, it was abysmal. Taylor wasn't. Like it or not, QBs who don't turn the ball over really aren't ever abysmal.

Offense against playoff teams average 25 points. The defense against playoff teams gave up an average of 33 points. And the defense did not get enough takeaways in 2016. Oakland had a poor defense but managed 30 takeaways. The Bills defense only 18.

[transplantbillsfan]

How can you be above average, yet not the 15th best QB or higher in the NFL in a league with 32 starters?

 

I'll hang up and listen.

We don't know if Taylor is above average, really good, below average or what, yet.

 

In 2015, at worst, he was above average. I think he was really good. Really good being a top 10 to 12 QB.

 

In 2016, he was average to below average. I'd say he was in the 15 to 20 range, despite the fact that there are some metrics like total QBR and PFF that put him in the top 10. But the problem is that in 2016 there were a ton of variables that came into play and may have seriously affected his play. Robert Woods and Sammy Watkins missed a combined 11 games. Rex was a disaster. There was a change in OC after week two.

 

The list goes on.

 

We need to find out what he is. Personally, I don't think he's any worse than an NFL starting QB, but I don't know if he's the answer for the franchise. This year should answer that question.

[transplantbillsfan]

I define it as a guy who's spent 5 years with the same team and started >12 games a season over those 5 years for them. Pretty rough but I think it holds up ok.

Kind of a reactionary definition, isn't it?

 

So let's go through this logic: you're a bills fan as we all are and all of us are looking for a franchise QB, correct?

 

If that's the case, you would be content (by your definition) with Joe Flacco, Andy Dalton, Ryan Tannehill, or Jay Cutler (if we could coerce him out of retirement) if we could acquire them and hand them the reins to the franchise for the next several years over Taylor without hesitation?

[major]

Let's give tyrod a break and wish him success this year. Id like to start winning again; therefore, I hope he has a great year

[transplantbillsfan]

.

 

At this point in time to me the clear answer is no he is not

At this point in time he's still auditioning. It's that simple. Minds (other than random message board guys mind) have not been made up yet. 2018 will go along way to determine what he is.

 

What we do know is this: he played well enough in 2015 and 2016 to earn another year of audition.

 

Taylor is in the middle of his career. Right now, he just looks like an average QB who will never be elite but will never be horrible either. Maybe 2018 changes the narrative. I'm eager to see it unfold

Edited July 28, 2017 by transplantbillsfan

[transplantbillsfan]

Brady Rogers Big Ben Dak Jameis Brees Rivers are franchise qb's.

Dak and Jameis on that list already?

 

Seriously?

 

 

Seems like a real prisoner of the moment mentality to me. Kinda like back in 2012-2013 when everyone was calling Kaepernick and RG3 and Tannehill franchise and even elite QBs. And that talk was widespread.

 

wait it out. Despite what you may have a label to me, I don't think Taylor is a franchise QB, much less an elite one. But it's still too early to know for sure. He's done some things and has some tools that indicate he could to be, which is a sentiment apparently shared by McDermitt and OBD.

 

I think the most outlandish belief on this message board is that Taylor is no better than a good backup.

[BringBackOrton]

I thought we all agreed TT was an above average bad QB pages ago?

[GoBills808]

Kind of a reactionary definition, isn't it?

 

So let's go through this logic: you're a bills fan as we all are and all of us are looking for a franchise QB, correct?

 

If that's the case, you would be content (by your definition) with Joe Flacco, Andy Dalton, Ryan Tannehill, or Jay Cutler (if we could coerce him out of retirement) if we could acquire them and hand them the reins to the franchise for the next several years over Taylor without hesitation?

Well by my definition, if we got one of those guys he'd have played zero years for the Bills with zero games started and thus wouldn't be our franchise QB.

[Thurman#1]

At this point in time he's still auditioning. It's that simple. Minds (other than random message board guys) mind has not been made up yet. 2018 will go along way to determine what he is.

 

What we do know is this: he played well enough in 2015 and 2016 to earn another year of audition.

 

Taylor is in the middle of his career. Right now, he just looks like an average QB who will never be elite but will never be horrible either. Maybe 2018 changes the narrative. I'm eager to see it unfold

 

 

 

He doesn't look like an average QB who will never be elite. He looks like a terrific runner who is a below-average passer who might someday scale the heights to average at the pass game. That's what he looks like. Agreed he doesn't look like he will be horrible. And it's not impossible he will greatly outperform expectations.

 

But he didn't play well enough in 2015 and 2016 to earn another year of audition, full stop. He played well enough in 2015 and 2016 to earn another year of audition ... based on the fact that we didn't have another feasible option. If we had one, he'd likely be gone.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

 

 

http://www.nfl.com/stats/categorystats?archive=false&conference=null&role=TM&offensiveStatisticCategory=TEAM_PASSING&defensiveStatisticCategory=null&season=2016&seasonType=REG&tabSeq=2&qualified=false&Submit=Go

 

Pretty much

 

The team at 1 was 7-9 and the team at 30 was 7-9.

 

 

And the two teams that made the Super Bowl were #3 and #4.

 

Just saying.

Say what you want,

 

Nobody knows for sure Taylor is not a franchise QB.

 

Just for fun though compare T T's first 2 seasons as a starter to the hall of famer J K

 

 

 

Just for more fun, go through the records and find all the guys who weren't franchise QBs after six years and became a franchise guy later.

 

And if while you're researching you accidentally run a bandsaw over your hand and cut off three fingers, you'll still be able to count the guys you find on that hand, with maybe a finger to spare. It's extremely rare.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Dragonborn10]

And the two teams that made the Super Bowl were #3 and #4.

 

Just saying.

 

 

 

Just for more fun, go through the records and find all the guys who weren't franchise QBs after six years and became a franchise guy later.

 

And if while you're researching you accidentally run a bandsaw over your hand and cut off three fingers, you'll still be able to count the guys you find on that hand, with maybe a finger to spare. It's extremely rare.

Steve Young

Kurt Warner

Aaron Rodgers

 

And your question is unfair. TT has been the franchise QB for two years now.

[transplantbillsfan]

Well by my definition, if we got one of those guys he'd have played zero years for the Bills with zero games started and thus wouldn't be our franchise QB.

Okay... so your definition of franchise QB has nothing to do with level of play, it's purely about tenure...?

 

Rojah:thumbsup:

[reddogblitz]

Steve Young

Kurt Warner

Aaron Rodgers

And your question is unfair. TT has been the franchise QB for two years now.

Danny White

[transplantbillsfan]

 

 

 

He doesn't look like an average QB who will never be elite. He looks like a terrific runner who is a below-average passer who might someday scale the heights to average at the pass game. That's what he looks like. Agreed he doesn't look like he will be horrible. And it's not impossible he will greatly outperform expectations.

 

But he didn't play well enough in 2015 and 2016 to earn another year of audition, full stop. He played well enough in 2015 and 2016 to earn another year of audition ... based on the fact that we didn't have another feasible option. If we had one, he'd likely be gone.

Wow... this might be the biggest pile of crap I have ever read from you. Not even going to try to put some lipstick on this pig?

 

You can't separate his running from the whole QB thing because it's obviously part of it, much like it was/is for Fran Tarkenton, Steve Young, Randall Cunningham, Michael Vick, Cam Newton, Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers, Andrew Luck, Marcus Mariota, etc. The escapability and scrambling and running are all part of the whole QB thing for Taylor. It factors in. You don't separate it as you just did.

 

And, I'm sorry, full stop? What you say here is speculative at best. The fact of the matter is that McDermott not only decided to keep Taylor but also passed up opportunities to address the QB position all the way until the team's 2nd 5th round pick.

 

Say there weren't feasible options if you like, but you're reaching and creating your own narrative because it suits you... or because you lost your keys

 

Go back to dressing the pigs up a little... makes it more presentable

 

 

 

And the two teams that made the Super Bowl were #3 and #4.

 

Just saying.

 

 

 

 

Just for more fun, go through the records and find all the guys who weren't franchise QBs after six years and became a franchise guy later.

 

And if while you're researching you accidentally run a bandsaw over your hand and cut off three fingers, you'll still be able to count the guys you find on that hand, with maybe a finger to spare. It's extremely rare.

Since you brought this up, do you remember that question I asked you recently about quarterbacks that fit certain criteria that Taylor fits? Remember how you said there were about 50 guys? I asked you to come back with a list of 10.

 

I'm still waiting...

 

And don't try to make up some new criteria. Find the post, it was in one of our recent interactions; you likely ignored it because you knew you were actually mistaken but find it impossible to admit fault. Find the criteria that you yourself said about 50 other quarterbacks fall into.

 

Name 10 of them...

Edited July 28, 2017 by transplantbillsfan

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

 

And the two teams that made the Super Bowl were #3 and #4.

 

Just saying.

...and the teams that were 19 & 23 had the other 2 byes. I know what you are trying to do but it doesn't work. It's not ____ stat that is the key to winning. There are a lot of ways to do it. The Saints and Skins were 1-2 and had a combined record of 15-16-1. The Bills and Texans were 29 & 30 and had a combined record of 16-16.

 

I do agree that you need to be elite at something (which is why I think KC is primed for regression). The Bills have (or at least had) an elite running game. I fear that may take a step back. If you are elite though at something you have a chance to be good. The Bills were a top 10 DVOA offense again but fell to 28 on defense. Their special teams had some major issues as well. I expect the defense to get better based on scheme alone. The Ryan brothers system just doesn't work in 2017. If the defense can get to the top 15 and the offense remains near the top 10 the Bills should be good (and by good I mean a chance to be a playoff team).

 

Two underrated things that should improve by default are game management and the kicking game. Hauschka struggled some last year but is still an upgrade. Rex was incompetent when it came to game management. That attention to detail may make the difference in a game or 2 which ultimately makes or breaks you.

[Bangarang]

real clever,

 

Taylors first 2 seasons as NFL starter 37 TD's and 12 INT's

 

Jim Kellys first 2 seasons as NFL starter 36 TD's and 32 INT's

 

Which QB helped the team more ?

 

JK had a championship caliber GM and coaching staff, Taylor had below average GM/ coaching that got sent packing.

Are you really comparing modern day QB numbers to those from 30 years ago?

[Thurman#1]

 

Just for more fun, go through the records and find all the guys who weren't franchise QBs after six years and became a franchise guy later.

 

And if while you're researching you accidentally run a bandsaw over your hand and cut off three fingers, you'll still be able to count the guys you find on that hand, with maybe a finger to spare. It's extremely rare.

 

 

Steve Young

Kurt Warner

Aaron Rodgers

 

And your question is unfair. TT has been the franchise QB for two years now.

 

 

Nope.

 

None of those guys, not a single one, was not a franchise QB by their fifth year.

 

In Steve Young's fifth year he completed 69.6% of his passes, had an unbelievable 10.9 yards per attempt and nearly a 3:1 TD:INT ration at a time in the league when that was top two. Yeah, he wasn't a starter, because he was behind Montana but he was absolutely a terrific QB by that time and everyone knew it.

 

In Kurt Warner's SECOND season in the league he was a first-team All-Pro. Not just a Pro Bowler, a first-team All-Pro.

 

In Aaron Rodgers' fourth year in the league - his first as a starter - he was 4th in yards, 4th in TDs, 11th in YPA, 7th in passer rating. And then he didn't regress, he greatly improved his next year.

 

These guys were all playing at an unquestionable franchise level by their fourth year. None of them even begin to qualify.

 

And my question is extremely fair. The reason Tyrod has only been the franchise QB for two years now is because he was drafted by a team that needed a backup and he never forced them to look at him in a different way.

 

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.

 

 

 

Danny White

 

Again, nope. He sat out for his first four years but after that immediately established himself. In his fifth year, his first as a starter, he was 12th in yards, 5th in TDs. Sixth year, 12th and 8th. He was off to the races very quickly.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

...and the teams that were 19 & 23 had the other 2 byes. I know what you are trying to do but it doesn't work. It's not ____ stat that is the key to winning. There are a lot of ways to do it. The Saints and Skins were 1-2 and had a combined record of 15-16-1. The Bills and Texans were 29 & 30 and had a combined record of 16-16.

 

I do agree that you need to be elite at something (which is why I think KC is primed for regression). The Bills have (or at least had) an elite running game. I fear that may take a step back. If you are elite though at something you have a chance to be good. The Bills were a top 10 DVOA offense again but fell to 28 on defense. Their special teams had some major issues as well. I expect the defense to get better based on scheme alone. The Ryan brothers system just doesn't work in 2017. If the defense can get to the top 15 and the offense remains near the top 10 the Bills should be good (and by good I mean a chance to be a playoff team).

 

Two underrated things that should improve by default are game management and the kicking game. Hauschka struggled some last year but is still an upgrade. Rex was incompetent when it came to game management. That attention to detail may make the difference in a game or 2 which ultimately makes or breaks you.

 

 

 

The four teams in the conference championship games were all in the top seven, Kirby. And you must have noticed that to start making claims about "teams with a bye."

 

This means something.

 

Are there other ways to end up high on that list? Sure, particularly for teams that are playing catchup a lot or just don't have a running game. But you know the old "some are more equal than others," canard. Same for stats. Being a good running team is less equal than the others. Last year those same four teams in the conference championships were 12th, 16th, 19th and 30th at running. All top seven at passing. Not that every year will be like that, of course, but passing is more important than running. And pass defense is more important than run defense.

 

All four are important, but - and I know this seems tired enough to have to collect social security but it's still true - it's a passing league.

 

Agree with you on game management. I'm not as confident about Hauschka as you but i'm hoping. IMHO scheme will be important as the years pass but won't see us making huge improvements the first year as guys get used to it. And I don't think a game or two makes or breaks a 7-9 team, not for being a competitive team anyway. My guess right now is another 7-9 or even 6-10 but with things looking better in 2018. It's early, though.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

 

The four teams in the conference championship games were all in the top seven, Kirby. And you must have noticed that to start making claims about "teams with a bye."

 

This means something.

 

Are there other ways to end up high on that list? Sure, particularly for teams that are playing catchup a lot or just don't have a running game. But you know the old "some are more equal than others," canard. Same for stats. Being a good running team is less equal than the others. Last year those same four teams in the conference championships were 12th, 16th, 19th and 30th at running. All top seven at passing. Not that every year will be like that, of course, but passing is more important than running. And pass defense is more important than run defense.

 

All four are important, but - and I know this seems tired enough to have to collect social security but it's still true - it's a passing league.

 

Agree with you on game management. I'm not as confident about Hauschka as you but i'm hoping. IMHO scheme will be important as the years pass but won't see us making huge improvements the first year as guys get used to it. And I don't think a game or two makes or breaks a 7-9 team, not for being a competitive team anyway. My guess right now is another 7-9 or even 6-10 but with things looking better in 2018. It's early, though.

...and the Broncos won the Super Bowl the previous year with the 2nd lowest passer rating. http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/passing/sort/quarterbackRating/year/2015I'm not buying it and you aren't convincing me otherwise. There is too much information disputing that. You can win in a variety of ways (and being an elite passing team is one of them).

 

I used the byes because that represents the 4 teams that had the best records throughout the regular season. 2 threw the ball well and 2 didn't.

 

To be clear I'm not terribly confident in Hauschka either. He struggled with extra points but was good on Fgs and can kick off. It's similar to how I feel about the coaching. I don't know if they will be good but I'm confident that they will be better.

 

In terms of the game management and record I think that the Bills are going to be around .500 (like always). I hate to keep using that Christmas Eve game but it was a microcosm of the Ryan era. If he didn't totally screw that up the Bills are in the playoffs. They would have beaten a garbage Jets team the next week. That's the difference between 7-9 & 9-7. It's not a drastic difference but it is in terms of record. So if the Bills are around .500 a few good decisions, execution on ST & eliminating undisciplined penalties can take you from 8-8 to 10-6. The Bills will be between 6-10 & 10-6 IMO. It's those little things that will make the difference. They've been bad at them recently so it would take quite a jump to get there.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[Chandler#81]

Brady Rogers Big Ben Dak Jameis Brees Rivers are franchise qb's.

 

1 of 2 things are evident by this ridiculous statement; Kapernik and RG III are franchise QB's -or you don't even follow pro football.