Tyrod is a franchise QB

[vincec]

7 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

God. Someone called me obtuse earlier. Good word for you here.

 

 

If Taylor has just one comeback victory in the 4th quarter the rest of this year, he's better statistically than Aaron Rodgers at 4th quarter comebacks.

 

Granted, it'd be a marginal difference... just like it is now

This stat is obviously flawed. If you really want to compare the two QBs then you need to look at the number of games that each trailed or has been tied in the fourth quarter not how many starts they have each had, if this information is even available. As has been pointed out GB is trailing much less often than the Bill late in games so the opportunities to lead a comeback per start will be less.

Edited November 12, 2017 by vincec

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

11 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

19-141 career starts is 13.5%.

 

Guess what 5-37 career starts is?

 

 

lets see where taylor stands if he ever gets to 141 starts as a starting franchise QB?   I could be more impressed but I'm thinking that unless somehow taylor becomes that guy in the next 8 games he may not have that chance, at least in a bills uni. also, I probably should of just left taylor out of my post altogether as I was basically responding to your reply to OldTimeAFLGuy below.

 

 

18 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

over his career, he's not good leading his team to a W when behind in the 4th Quarter.

 

 

I wouldn't really call 12 4th qtr comebacks and 19 game winning drives as "not good". when/if taylor leads the team to a winning season/playoffs/conference championship games/superbowl trophy/superbowl mvp then maybe he can be mentioned in the same league as Aaron Rodgers?

 

Edited November 12, 2017 by DaBillsFanSince1973

[Bangarang]

This thread is going to be really fun at around 4. 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

2 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

This thread is going to be really fun at around 4. 

I foresee a new thread 

[BringBackOrton]

8 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

God. Someone called me obtuse earlier. Good word for you here.

 

 

If Taylor has just one comeback victory in the 4th quarter the rest of this year, he's better statistically than Aaron Rodgers at 4th quarter comebacks.

 

Granted, it'd be a marginal difference... just like it is now

If I was a bus, we could all go for a ride.

[Scott7975]

3 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I foresee a new thread 

Tyrod after today will definitely need a new thread.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

4 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

This thread is going to be really fun at around 4. 

 

it will depend on the end result. it could continue on with the "is he a franchise guy" if he helps lead the team to victory or it could get ugly if he does not meet expectations and they lose.

 

one thing I will add. I may not be 100% confident in taylor but you wont see me post he sucks, cut him for peterman or any of the other ridiculous negative posts on his game. he is the starter and as the starter I support him just as I have the past QBs who unfortunately did not meet expectations but I supported them none the less because they were part of the team I support. until better comes along he is the guy under center and I can only hope he meets and even exceeds expectations because if he is, they're likely winning games.

 

so rather than knock him, I'm pulling for him to do well.

 

GO BILLS!!!

[Bangarang]

3 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

 

it will depend on the end result. it could continue on with the "is he a franchise guy" if he helps lead the team to victory or it could get ugly if he does not meet expectations and they lose.

 

One side of the Tyrod argument is going to have more ammunition after today’s game and that’s why this thread will be fun. The entire argument can start all over again.

[Iron Maiden]

On 11/9/2017 at 4:43 PM, THEHARDTRUTH said:

Tyrod is a top five qb in this league. Maybe top three. Has zero talent around him. Give him an oline and two quality wrs and hed easily throw for 40 tds and 5000 yards per year.

 

Said no one ever.....there's not a single sane football fan that truly believes that......top 5 ??.....maybe top 3??.....just stop......

[Maine-iac]

37 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

This thread is going to be really fun at around 4. 

What everyone does time and time again is attribute wins and loses directly to Tyrod.  We will most likely win or lose based on how well the defense plays.  Typically Tyrod plays well enough to win almost every week.  He doesn't play well enough to carry the team on his back with no defense and wide recievers dropping balls but he also doesn't lose winnable games by throwing picks and completely missing recievers all game like Stanton on Thursday night.  So if the defense plays well and we don't have a ton of penalties and turnovers I'd give us an 80 percent chance of winning.  Defense gets annahilated and we get a ton of drive killing penalties on offense I give us a 10 percent chance of winning.  It's never really on Tyrod one way or the other.  He's really just consistently good.  Not great.  Not bad.  He needs a decent team effort.  That is it.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Maine-iac

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

11 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

One side of the Tyrod argument is going to have more ammunition after today’s game and that’s why this thread will be fun. The entire argument can start all over again.

 

can I ask what you foresee as more ammunition?

 

also, I don't put wins/losses solely on the back of the QB. pretty obvious all phases have to be clicking but it is pretty evident that the play of the QB and how he controls and leads the offense plays a pretty critical part when winning or losing games.

 

anyone who feels that it falls more on the defense or special teams is really reaching. 

[Maine-iac]

6 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

 

also, I don't put wins/losses solely on the back of the QB. pretty obvious all phases have to be clicking but it is pretty evident that the play of the QB and how he controls and leads the offense plays a pretty critical part when winning or losing games.

 

anyone who feels that it falls more on the defense or special teams is really reaching. 

If this was true  everyone would like Tyrod.  Clearly many people want Tyrod to win no matter what the rest of the team does.  Defense wins championships, end of story.  Clearly offense helps but there is overwhelming evidence that teams that keep the other teams from scoring statistically win more championships.  It's not really surprising and certainly not reaching.

Edited November 12, 2017 by Maine-iac

[Bangarang]

29 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

 

can I ask what you foresee as more ammunition?

 

also, I don't put wins/losses solely on the back of the QB. pretty obvious all phases have to be clicking but it is pretty evident that the play of the QB and how he controls and leads the offense plays a pretty critical part when winning or losing games.

 

anyone who feels that it falls more on the defense or special teams is really reaching. 

 

More ammunition being him playing well or poorly. Winning or losing will probably add more fuel to that fire as well.

[26CornerBlitz]

 

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

37 minutes ago, Maine-iac said:

If this was true  everyone would like Tyrod.  Clearly many people want Tyrod to in no matter what the rest of the team does.  Defense wins championships, end of story.  Clearly offense helps but there is overwhelming evidence that teams that keep the other teams from scoring statistically win more championships.  It's not really surprising and certainly not reaching.

 

 

out of the what, 50+ superbowls played, I would be curious to see if every sb winning team won solely because of their defense?

 

there has to be some kind of stat for that given there is a stat for everything, even how many times a player farts during a game, no?

 

as for your "Defense wins championships, end of story." it's really not the end of the story. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/06/does-defense-really-win-championships

 

On this last point, casual fans might have suspected as much. Why? Because defense wins championships. Coaches of all levels and sports have said so for years. This isn’t even a locker room cliché. It’s hardened into one of the organizing principles of team sports.

 

Except that it ain’t necessarily so. What we found: when it comes to winning championships – or winning in general, for that matter – defense and offense carry uncannily similar weight. Among the 49 NFL Super Bowls, the better defensive team, measured by points allowed that season, has won 30 times. The better offensive team has won 25 times. It’s a slight edge to defense, but it’s a pretty close call, and not different from random chance. The Super Bowl champ has been a top-five defensive team during the regular season on 31 occasions. How many times was the Super Bowl champ ranked among the top five in offense? 27. Damn near even.

 

But we’re talking about only 49 games, so let’s broaden the sample size. There have been 462 NFL playoff games held over the last 49 seasons. The better defensive teams have won 58 percent of the time. The better offensive teams have won 62 percent of the time. Slight edge to the offense, but, again, pretty even. (Sometimes the winning team is better both offensively and defensively, which explains why the total exceeds 100 percent.)

Collectively, teams with a top-five defense have won 180 playoff games. Teams with a top-five offense have won 184 games. Accounting for almost 10,000 regular season games, the better defensive team has won 66.5 percent of the time compared to 67.4 percent of the time for the better offensive team. Again, a negligible difference.

 

according to their findings, having a stellar defense does not end the story. you really need both, imo.

 

 

Edited November 12, 2017 by DaBillsFanSince1973

[JaCrispy]

4 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

I've said before, but people denying Tyrod's improvements are grasping at straws...I wasn't a big fan before the season but I've seen enough to be ok with him as our QB moving forward

Edited November 12, 2017 by JaCrispy

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

5 minutes ago, Bangarang said:

 

More ammunition being him playing well or poorly. Winning or losing will probably add more fuel to that fire as well.

 

more weapons certainly should help his game. we shall see?

[Maine-iac]

Just now, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

 

 

out of the what, 50+ superbowls played, I would be curious to see if every sb winning team won solely because of their defense?

 

there has to be some kind of stat for that given there is a stat for everything, even how many times a player farts during a game, no?

 

as for your "Defense wins championships, end of story." it's really not the end of the story. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/06/does-defense-really-win-championships

 

On this last point, casual fans might have suspected as much. Why? Because defense wins championships. Coaches of all levels and sports have said so for years. This isn’t even a locker room cliché. It’s hardened into one of the organizing principles of team sports.

 

Except that it ain’t necessarily so. What we found: when it comes to winning championships – or winning in general, for that matter – defense and offense carry uncannily similar weight. Among the 49 NFL Super Bowls, the better defensive team, measured by points allowed that season, has won 30 times. The better offensive team has won 25 times. It’s a slight edge to defense, but it’s a pretty close call, and not different from random chance. The Super Bowl champ has been a top-five defensive team during the regular season on 31 occasions. How many times was the Super Bowl champ ranked among the top five in offense? 27. Damn near even.

 

But we’re talking about only 49 games, so let’s broaden the sample size. There have been 462 NFL playoff games held over the last 49 seasons. The better defensive teams have won 58 percent of the time. The better offensive teams have won 62 percent of the time. Slight edge to the offense, but, again, pretty even. (Sometimes the winning team is better both offensively and defensively, which explains why the total exceeds 100 percent.)

Collectively, teams with a top-five defense have won 180 playoff games. Teams with a top-five offense have won 184 games. Accounting for almost 10,000 regular season games, the better defensive team has won 66.5 percent of the time compared to 67.4 percent of the time for the better offensive team. Again, a negligible difference.

 

according to their findings, having a stellar defense does not end the story.

 

31 to 27 equals not reaching.  I never said you do not need or want an offense but the idea that offense overcomes defense is absurd and those numbers only prove that.  I've looked it up before, SB not playoffs, and Ben, Brady, Flacco all had spectacular defenses or when they won superbowls and when they didn't they came up short.

 

[JaCrispy]

4 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

 

 

out of the what, 50+ superbowls played, I would be curious to see if every sb winning team won solely because of their defense?

 

there has to be some kind of stat for that given there is a stat for everything, even how many times a player farts during a game, no?

 

as for your "Defense wins championships, end of story." it's really not the end of the story. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2016/feb/06/does-defense-really-win-championships

 

On this last point, casual fans might have suspected as much. Why? Because defense wins championships. Coaches of all levels and sports have said so for years. This isn’t even a locker room cliché. It’s hardened into one of the organizing principles of team sports.

 

Except that it ain’t necessarily so. What we found: when it comes to winning championships – or winning in general, for that matter – defense and offense carry uncannily similar weight. Among the 49 NFL Super Bowls, the better defensive team, measured by points allowed that season, has won 30 times. The better offensive team has won 25 times. It’s a slight edge to defense, but it’s a pretty close call, and not different from random chance. The Super Bowl champ has been a top-five defensive team during the regular season on 31 occasions. How many times was the Super Bowl champ ranked among the top five in offense? 27. Damn near even.

 

But we’re talking about only 49 games, so let’s broaden the sample size. There have been 462 NFL playoff games held over the last 49 seasons. The better defensive teams have won 58 percent of the time. The better offensive teams have won 62 percent of the time. Slight edge to the offense, but, again, pretty even. (Sometimes the winning team is better both offensively and defensively, which explains why the total exceeds 100 percent.)

Collectively, teams with a top-five defense have won 180 playoff games. Teams with a top-five offense have won 184 games. Accounting for almost 10,000 regular season games, the better defensive team has won 66.5 percent of the time compared to 67.4 percent of the time for the better offensive team. Again, a negligible difference.

 

according to their findings, having a stellar defense does not end the story.

 

 

Nice post '73

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

1 minute ago, Maine-iac said:

 

 

you said defense wins championships, end of story. I just pointed out it wasn't the end of the story, even considering the margins.