Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The issue is not whether he CAN do those things. The issue is that his level of play has been so inconsistent. We've seen scrub QBs have big games on occasion but they always revert back to their norm. Tyrod is similar except his norm is better than those scrubs. He's not a guy that's going to carry an offense or will put up big numbers. He's mostly a function of the things around him. If the running game and defense are doing well then he's usually good. Cherry picking a single instance in your scenario is flawed when it ignores his entire body of work. I play golf, and there are times off the tee where I have great drives down the middle of the fairway and score well on holes but those are few and far between. That's not who I am as a golfer consistently and the Miami and Seattle performances are not who Tyrod is consistently either.....yet

 

I agree that consistency is the issue.

 

But I think it's not so much an issue of consistently seeing games like Seattle or Miami. It's more about eliminating games like the whole Ravens game and very long stretches of the Jets game and the whole Bengals game and most of the Pittsburgh game and the 2nd half of the Raiders game from last year. Or let those pop up once or twice a year rather than 5 or 6 times.

 

 

Expecting consistent greatness seems unreasonable. Just get rid of the bad.

Let's see how meaningful they are Sunday at 5 pm.

 

He made improvements. Was it him or the Jets?

Winks

 

Sure, we'll wait til Sunday.

 

If he sucks, everyone will say it was the Jets.

 

If he plays well, everyone will say "let's wait another week and see if he can keep it up."

 

​And the pendulum swings.

 

 

Personally, I think Carolina's D is one of the best in the league. Sunday's gonna be fun.

  • Replies 944
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted (edited)

 

I agree that consistency is the issue.

 

But I think it's not so much an issue of consistently seeing games like Seattle or Miami. It's more about eliminating games like the whole Ravens game and very long stretches of the Jets game and the whole Bengals game and most of the Pittsburgh game and the 2nd half of the Raiders game from last year. Or let those pop up once or twice a year rather than 5 or 6 times.

 

 

Expecting consistent greatness seems unreasonable. Just get rid of the bad.

 

Ultimately I think Tyrod will always fall somewhere in the middle between who he was against Baltimore and who he was against Seattle or Miami. He's good enough to have really good games but isn't immune to having a stinker either. He's our best option for now but I'd still keep an eye out for possible upgrades. Edited by Bangarang
Posted (edited)

Ultimately I think Tyrod will always fall somewhere in the middle between who he was against Baltimore and who he was against Seattle or Miami. He's good enough to have really good games but isn't immune to having a stinker either. He's our best option for now but I'd still keep an eye out for possible upgrades.

 

If Taylor always falls in the middle. If he's never as bad as he was against Baltimore or Cincy or all those other games I mentioned but he's never as good as he was against Seattle or Miami, then I think it becomes a legitimate question of whether you should replace him.

 

If Taylor always plays at a level (this is a general level of QB play I'm talking about, not stats... we can quip and quibble over what games I choose, if you really want, but that's not the intention) as high as, but no higher than the 2 Miami games in 2015 but no lower than a game like the Jags or Cardinals game last year, I think sacrificing a really high ceiling for a really high floor is something a lot of NFL coaches would take.

Edited by transplantbillsfan
Posted

 

If Taylor always falls in the middle. If he's never as bad as he was against Baltimore or Cincy or all those other games I mentioned but he's never as good as he was against Seattle or Miami, then I think it becomes a legitimate question of whether you should replace him.

 

If Taylor always plays at a level (this is a general level of QB play I'm talking about, not stats... we can quip and quibble over what games I choose, if you really want, but that's not the intention) as high as, but no higher than the 2 Miami games in 2015 but no lower than a game like the Jags or Cardinals game last year, I think sacrificing a really high ceiling for a really high floor is something a lot of NFL coaches would take.

Very true. Probably Reid and Smith are the best example of that right now...Tannehill another, and I'd put Bridgewater in that category if he ever plays again. There's a lot to be said for the stabilizing effect consistent quarterback play has on a franchise, to say nothing of a coach staff's tenure. The issue then becomes: does he have enough (or could he, with a reasonable amount of talent surrounding him) to win a Super Bowl?

 

Because for as much grief as Flacco, Manning, Wilson get (and much of it is legitimately deserved)...they actually won a championship. It's debatable the extent to which they personally contributed, but they were able to do it. IMO the Bills lack the institutional cohesion necessary to get a Super Bowl out of a QB like Taylor, and thus require a high ceiling-type guy who can overcome a franchise's deficiencies and win it all, even if it's just a lightning in a bottle type season.

Posted

Very true. Probably Reid and Smith are the best example of that right now...Tannehill another, and I'd put Bridgewater in that category if he ever plays again. There's a lot to be said for the stabilizing effect consistent quarterback play has on a franchise, to say nothing of a coach staff's tenure. The issue then becomes: does he have enough (or could he, with a reasonable amount of talent surrounding him) to win a Super Bowl?

 

Because for as much grief as Flacco, Manning, Wilson get (and much of it is legitimately deserved)...they actually won a championship. It's debatable the extent to which they personally contributed, but they were able to do it. IMO the Bills lack the institutional cohesion necessary to get a Super Bowl out of a QB like Taylor, and thus require a high ceiling-type guy who can overcome a franchise's deficiencies and win it all, even if it's just a lightning in a bottle type season.

We're at least on the same page with QBs more than I thought.

 

I think your "institutional cohesion" thing can just happen much more quickly than you, I guess. I think new coaches and GMs can very quickly bring that in if they're the right guys. :flirt:

Posted

I think that for the most part McD and Rico had the child leash still on TT last week, knowing the Jets couldn't score, TT was coming off his bumpusofthenogginous, hadn't thrown much to top three hideouts in camp much, etc.

 

This week they will probably give him a little more rope but not really unleash him.

RIP in peace this opinion.

Posted

But this is true for every stat! Passer rating isn't measuring how good the QB is, it's a measure of how good the passing offense is in a particular offensive system with particular players. I've seen that disclaimer before and I don't put any stock in it.

 

DVOA is still the best measurement IMO because it controls for many factors that no other stat does. Down and distance, current score, strength of opponent... There is no other stat like it.

 

So is the stat 9-3 relevant in the "can't wait to unleash Tyrod Taylor" debacle? Must be preseason, huh? :doh:

×
×
  • Create New...