Is anyone here really a Tyrod fan?

[Stank_Nasty]

32 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

That is exactly how they told it on the radio this AM.  Take out the QB name and you couldn't tell which safe check down QB they were referring to.        up until they mentioned MVP talk in September. 

funny.... i got burned by numerous posters in the past saying taylor was basically the alex smith of the last 4 or 5 years before this season. only difference is one has wins and gets a much longer leash becuz he's been gifted elite defenses, run game and talent around him over the last 5 years up until this season.

 

looks like the chiefs had the right idea winning games while they could and drafting the young prospect. maybe just a year late though. its exactly what i wanted buffalo to do this last draft. win as many as they could. make the playoff push and groom a young guy.... not named Peterman.

Edited November 27, 2017 by Stank_Nasty

[Wayne Arnold]

39 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

Well said OP.  It seems to me the OC is much more of an issue than the QB at this point.  And there is a group of the fan base that is just senseless.  Not sure what you get out of hating on your team every single week.

 

Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't both the OC and the QB be needed upgrades?

[SoTier]

3 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Not a bad list.  Now for you, let's also look at the number of first round QBs that never amounted to a hill of beans.  A partial list:

 

David Carr

Jamarcus Russell

Tim Couch

Akili Green

Joey Harrington

Vince Young

Matt Leinert

Rick Mirer

 

 

And I could go on with this list.

 

What is it going to take to get through your thick skull, as with the OP, that there is no perfect correlation between draft round and success.  as I have now said several times, there is a general link between drafting a QB in round 1 and success in the league.  The OP implied that unless you draft a guy in round 1 it doesn't work, and that is nonsense.  Because many guys drafted in round 1 don't pan out, and many drafted below round 1 do.

 

correlation coefficients are ranked from +1 to - 1.  A + one indicates a perfect positive correlation between two variables, and a score of -1 indicates a perfect negative correlation.  I indicated above that it may be more a correlation of 0; that is, there is equal probability of a positive or negative correlation. without doing an exhaustive analysis, I would put the correlation between picking a QB in round 1 with long term success at the position maybe around +3-+4.  Some positive correlation, but certainly not near perfect. 

 

People around here sometimes talk about statistics without actually understanding statistics.

 

 

 

 

I understand statistics fine, but you are trying to change the parameters because your original claim that draft position doesn't make a difference doesn't hold up.  It does.   The closer to the top of the draft a QB is taken the better chance he has of success.  QBs drafted in the top half of the first round have about a 50% success rate, but the QBs taken #1 hit at 80%:  of the 10 QBs taken at #1 between 2000 and 2014, only 2 -- David Carr and Ja'Marcus Russell  -- were outright busts.  Sam Bradford has been a disappointment primarily because he hasn't been able to stay healthy.  All the others became Pro Bowlers, some MVPs, Super Bowl winners, etc.  Of the 14 QBs taken in the bottom half of the first round (17-32), only Chad Pennington, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco, and Teddy Bridgewater have been successful.   That's only about 29% success. 

 

[The Poojer]

I am a huge Tyrod fan!

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

If anyone here can claim to be a fan at any point of anyone of Losman, Edwards, Fitz, EJ,Orton, and if you say you never were then you are clearly lying, then how could you not have some appreciation for Taylor? 

[xRUSHx]

17 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said:

 

Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't both the OC and the QB be needed upgrades?

I agree why can't it be both, the problem I have is how are you going to find another OC that will want to come in to scrap his scheme to a Taylor made scheme and looking at Tyrods history justify the OC being on the hot seat because of it by the end of year 1. Giving Tyrod OC #4 is not going to make this offense better IMO it will just be the same Taylor made limited scheme and the OC fired year 1, wash/repeat.

Edited November 27, 2017 by xRUSHx

[grb]

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Or could it be Dak has a year of film and has been figured out a little more?  is that not a possibility?  

Can we take a look at Cam Newton in 2015.  His leading WR was Ted Ginn after Benjamin went down?  How bad was their offense affected without a true #1 WR?  Lead the league in scoring?  

 

His one game with Benjamin, a true #1, he had 56 yards passing and did not throw to him outside of the first drive.  Deonte Thompson in 4 days can have a big impact but Benjamin can't after 10 days?

 

You don't think the defenses focusing on McCoy has anything to do with it?  Keep Taylor in the pocket and focusing on stopping McCoy is the game plan against us.  

 

 

 

Uh huh. And years '15 & '16 other teams never caught on the Bills were a run-first team? They never realized how uniquely bad Taylor is passing? Only this year did the light bulb over their heads flash-on and suddenly they realized the Bills depend on McCoy. Well, it's a theory I guess.........

 

Also : You want to prove Taylor is sooooo bad, the fact that he's had an abysmal offense to work-with is irrelevant.

But, two problems :

 

(1) However well Cam did or didn't do without this receiver or that, quarterback performance in the NFL regularly rises and falls with the strength of a OBs supporting cast. For every "Cam" (if you can even find more than one), there are countless counter-examples refuting your point. One on ready hand is the current feel-good story of Case Keenum. No doubt he got "a year of film" on the rest of the league - and that's the reason he's been able to up his game so much, right? It's kind of hilarious to see posters here drooling over Keenum coming to the Bills. Switch out Case & Tyrod's situation and I bet Taylor over-performs and Keenum suffers. What do you think?

(2) The fact is Taylor has performed very well with good - not elite - talent. Here are the numbers again : 63.6% comp. 8.25 YPA. 27 TD passes. 6 INTs. Unfortunately, injuries restricted his time playing with both Watkins and Woods to fifteen games over two years.

 

Edited November 27, 2017 by grb

[Sammy Watkins' Rib]

Outside of putting a legitimate ready now franchise QB on this team like a Rodgers, Brees, Brady, I think Taylor is exactly what this team needs right now. The o-line has big time issues. Taylor is able to cover up some of those issues with his maneuverability. Look at Peterman against the Chargers. He was a sitting duck. Couldn't escape. D-line knew exactly where he would be. And that was compounded with poor decisions to either not take a sack or getting rid of the ball a fraction of a second too late.

 

The poor o-line is also evident in the running game. We need at least two hands to count the number of times McCoy was met immediately in the backfield yesterday. A couple of occasions he was even met five yards in the backfield. 

[Teddy KGB]

57 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

Well said OP.  It seems to me the OC is much more of an issue than the QB at this point.  And there is a group of the fan base that is just senseless.  Not sure what you get out of hating on your team every single week.

 

Def the oc's fault.  

 

Disregard the qb's lifetime pattern of struggling as a passer.  

[Stank_Nasty]

2 minutes ago, xRUSHx said:

I agree why can't it be both, the problem I have is how are you going to find another OC that will want to come in to scrap his scheme to a Taylor made scheme and looking at Tyrods history justify the OC being on the hot seat because of it by the end of year 1. Giving Tyrod OC #4 is not going to make this offense better IMO it will just be the same Taylor made limited scheme.

says the guy who basically lives in extremes on this board. lol. i recall you saying the other day that if i didn't agree with the bills starting Peterman then i must be ok with 56 yd passing days.... your posting style is literally one extreme to the next.

 

that being said.... both need upgraded, but i find one to be more at fault than the other.

 

Just now, Air it out Fitzy said:

 

Def the oc's fault.  

 

Disregard the qb's lifetime pattern of struggling as a passer.  

just like you disregard is career winning record with a squad that hasn't had a consistent defense or coaches over his 3 year tenure..... people that pick and choose like this looks so foolish.

[oldmanfan]

12 minutes ago, SoTier said:

 

I understand statistics fine, but you are trying to change the parameters because your original claim that draft position doesn't make a difference doesn't hold up.  It does.   The closer to the top of the draft a QB is taken the better chance he has of success.  QBs drafted in the top half of the first round have about a 50% success rate, but the QBs taken #1 hit at 80%:  of the 10 QBs taken at #1 between 2000 and 2014, only 2 -- David Carr and Ja'Marcus Russell  -- were outright busts.  Sam Bradford has been a disappointment primarily because he hasn't been able to stay healthy.  All the others became Pro Bowlers, some MVPs, Super Bowl winners, etc.  Of the 14 QBs taken in the bottom half of the first round (17-32), only Chad Pennington, Aaron Rodgers, Joe Flacco, and Teddy Bridgewater have been successful.   That's only about 29% success. 

 

Did I not say several times now that there is some correlation to being a first round QB pick and making it in the league?  Did I not just say that it might be around a +3 or so correlation coefficient?  Didn't I just write that?  If you take what I wrote as saying draft position makes no difference then I should have been clearer. 

 

Again, the OP made the claim that the only reason the team should not have tried Peterman last week is because he was only a fifth round pick vs. a first round pick.  And I pointed out a number of QB's that were not first round picks that succeeded, as well as a number of first round picks that did not.  

 

In general first round picks are more talented and do better in the league.  Or they would not have been first round picks.  The OP implied that you have to get a guy in the first round to play him.  That is just absolutely wrong.

 

Statistics are thrown around many times without a true understanding of their use.  I have taken graduate level statistics courses.  Now, it's been a long time since then, and I have to brush up on occasion.  But most folks really don't understand the nuances of statistics.

 

Take your implication that Peterman can never be a successful QB based on one half of football.  That is way too small a sample size to make such a claim.  You are of course entitled to your opinion on that.  Just understand it has no real basis in statistical analysis.

[Royale with Cheese]

Just now, grb said:

 

Uh huh. And years '15 & '16 other teams never caught on the Bills were a run-first team? They never realized how uniquely bad Taylor is passing? Only this year did the light bulb over their heads flash-on and suddenly they realized the Bills are a run-first team. Well, it's a theory I guess.........

 

Also : You want to prove Taylor is sooooo bad, the fact that he's had an abysmal offense to work-with is irrelevant.

But, two problems :

 

(1) However well Cam did or didn't do without this receiver or that, quarterback performance in the NFL regularly rises and falls with the strength of a OBs supporting cast. For every "Cam" (if you can even find more than one), there are countless counter-examples refuting your point. One on ready hand is the current feel-good story of Case Keenum. No doubt he got "a year of film" on the rest of the league - and that's the reason he's been able to up his game so much, right? It's kind of hilarious to see posters here drooling over Keenum coming to the Bills. Switch out Case & Tyrod's situation and I bet Taylor over-performs and Keenum suffers. What do you think?

(2) The fact is Taylor has performed very well with good - not elite - talent. Here are the numbers again : 63.6% comp. 8.25 YPA. 27 TD passes. 6 INTs. Unfortunately, injuries restricted his time playing with both Watkins and Woods to fifteen games over two years.

 

 

We have been bottom of the league in passing for 3 years.  

His raw stats look good because he makes safe throws.  

I never said Taylor was sooooooooooooo bad.  

 

It's not just this year, he's trending down.  

Multiple teams have said what about Taylor?  Make him play QB is how you defend him.  That's just 3 that said it to the media, we know it's obviously the game plan.

Why do you think teams say keep him in the pocket?  Is it maybe, just maybe, they feel he's not strong throwing with in the pocket?

 

At your #2, the fact Taylor has performed very well with good, not elite talent.  If he's cut this year and hits the open market, I'm assuming he will get a very nice contract?  Maybe top 5?  I mean, what team wouldn't want a QB who can perform very well with good talent? 

We've had two different regimes who aren't committing to him long term and both put walk out clauses in the contract.  In fact, he had to take a pay cut just what, 7 months after signing the original extension?  How often does that happen to a QB who just signed a multi year extension?  Does that not speak volumes to you?

[Teddy KGB]

4 minutes ago, Stank_Nasty said:

 

 

just like you disregard is career winning record with a squad that hasn't had a consistent defense or coaches over his 3 year tenure..... people that pick and choose like this looks so foolish.

 

 

Then dont pick a side and you won't look foolish. 

 

The reason he fell in the draft is the same reason he's an average at best passer.  

 

Rico wasn't his coach then.    I'm not gonna make him the next in the long list of scapegoats for Tyrod. 

[Call_Of_Ktulu]

1 minute ago, xRUSHx said:

I agree why can't it be both, the problem I have is how are you going to find another OC that will want to come in to scrap his scheme to a Taylor made scheme and looking at Tyrods history justify the OC being on the hot seat because of it by the end of year 1.

 

They wont be happy until Taylor beats Jay Cutlers record in Chicago of 5 OC's. 

 

The only thing we have going going for us with Tayor is the media outside of Buffalo seems to love the guy. You know they don't watch the games but are just looking at a stat line. 

 

The Better Taylor looks in the next few games the higher his trade value goes up. One can only dream we can package Glenn and Taylor for low 1st rd pick or high 2nd.

[Stank_Nasty]

Just now, Air it out Fitzy said:

 

 

Then dont pick a side and you won't look foolish. 

 

The reason he fell in the draft is the same reason he's an average at best passer.  

 

Rico wasn't his coach then.    I'm not gonna make him the next in the long list of scapegoats for Tyrod. 

another extremist. the minute somebody comes to bat for the guy they are on a side? side of common sense maybe. get real, bruh.

 

I've been on record numerous times saying i wanted a qb at 10 last year and wanted one this year regardless of if taylor plays solid or not.... that doesn't mean i cant talk common sense about a player. i get it. you cant seem to grasp how that works. its fine. just keep spewing the garbage onto the keyboard that you routinely toss up on this board.

[Bangarang]

I’m a fan of the Bills and winning. I also like players that can help us do a lot of winning. Tyrod doesn’t do it for me. Nothing personal.

[Putin]

4 hours ago, bobobonators said:

Im a fan of anyone on the Bills. Its the team i root for. Hes not an A-hole or a bad person so there is absolutely nothing for me to hate about him on a personal level. As for Tyrod the player, im still a fan regardless of his struggles. The offense he’s been on coming into this season set some all-time Bills records on offense. The disdain for Tyrod on these boards is over the top and flat out ridiculous. 

 

Not to mention that nothing was expected of the guy when we got him. Its not like he was a high draft pick who was a complete bust and screwed us. Ive never seen such an underdog story ridiculed and scrutinized so much as Tyrod. Every thread on here. Every day. Non stop. 

Do you agree with Tyrod when said that the reason for being  benched ( San Diego) is because he's black ? 

[Stank_Nasty]

3 minutes ago, Putin said:

Do you agree with Tyrod when said that the reason for being  benched ( San Diego) is because he's black ? 

this literally isn't true at all, btw

[Stank_Nasty]

1 minute ago, Air it out Fitzy said:

 

Youre the one who spoke of taking sides. 

 

Why the breakdown ?   Are you okay ? 

 

Dont mean to send you spiraling with a couple facts.  

no. actually I didn't. I said "people who pick and choose like this".... as in conveniently nit picking certain aspects of a player to form a complete argument about said player is moronic..... guess I coulda been a bit more specific. it had nothing to do with sides. 

[DC Greg]

I am a huge Tyrod fan. Love the guy as a leader for the Bills. He's the best QB on the roster right now and our best shot at winning right now. That said, he unfortunately isn't a long term solution at the position to take this team anywhere meaningful. If they could somehow keep him on for another year or two at a cost that makes sense while trying to draft/develop another QB, that would be great. But I don't think he's worth a big time contract. Will continue to cheer for him every week until such time as he's no longer a Buffalo Bill!