UPDATED: 44 Games with Tyrod at QB - % breakdown

[MTBill]

Trying to justify this argument with statistics is pointless.  There is no way to project how player X would have performed in these identical circumstances versus Player Y.

 

All that said.  I like TT a lot, and I think he got a bum deal here as far as having a supporting cast.  We'll move on, and that's fine by me.  You play the cards you're dealt.  Tyrod misses open receivers, so does every QB.  Every QB has receivers who drop balls they should have caught.  Every QB makes mistakes.  The "good/great" ones just seem to do it less - and generally are in a scheme and surrounded by talent suitable to their strengths.

 

At the end of the day - I really don't care who is QB, I just want this team making it to the playoffs and beyond.  If that is TT or if it is someone else does not matter to me.  If the coaching staff is willing to hang their hat on a QB, it's their job, not mine.

[Albwan]

Games with 1 passing TD: 19 - 43.1%

Games with 0 passing TD: 12 - 27.2%

 

 1 out every 4 games, no passing tds?

every other game, one passing td?

playoff games, no tds 100%

+ teams have learned to make him be a qb, then spy, 

hes not getting away with running that much anymore.

I'm not sure how many times i heard 'awful quarterbacking'

from the media, after sundays game...not bad, not mediocre,

but "awful".

[twoandfourteen]

3 hours ago, Albwan said:

Games with 1 passing TD: 19 - 43.1%

Games with 0 passing TD: 12 - 27.2%

 

 1 out every 4 games, no passing tds?

every other game, one passing td?

playoff games, no tds 100%

+ teams have learned to make him be a qb, then spy, 

hes not getting away with running that much anymore.

I'm not sure how many times i heard 'awful quarterbacking'

from the media, after sundays game...not bad, not mediocre,

but "awful".

 

Exactly.

 

It's almost insane how poor the production has been. In only 3 years, Taylor has exactly a full season's worth of games under 180 passing yards. Then, add in 1 or 0 passing TDs in 7 out of every 10 games he plays. Has almost as many games with 0 passing TDs (12) as he has with 2 or more (13). 

 

Kind of mind-boggling, to be honest. 

[twoandfourteen]

6 hours ago, grb said:

 

Three points :

• Some of what you say is true. For instance, it's not directly comparable how I use the 2017 season numbers because all quarterbacks deal with some degree of injury
• But, the numbers w/ Watkins and Woods weren't "relatively decent" - they were damn good. One of the statistics - yards per attempt -  was extremely exceptional.  How are those numbers even possible per your TT-hating theology?
• "Close to optimal" ??? Who are you trying to kid? Watkins and Woods are a good pair of receivers, but there is nothing "optimal" about them per NFL standards. I have no idea where they'd rank league-wide as a pair, but I'm guessing nowhere near the top duos.

Remember : We launched into this particular argument because you claimed Taylor was sooooooo very bad it didn't matter how awful his targets were.

Wrong & Wrong. Maybe your theology is a little simplistic?

 

 

 

Yep : Posted right after the 1000th time someone made the lack-brain claim Taylor can't throw to good receivers. 

Pretty relevant to that bit of nonsense, huh? 

 

Come up with less stupid talking points and you'll bump me off my routine. (I promise)

 

 

[Thurman#1]

16 hours ago, Nihilarian said:

I notice you left off the first part of my post in which I pretty much stated TT has some serious issues.

 

On to your post though. That was four years of playing time usually with the same OC, QB coach. Look at Steve Young and what would have happened had he stayed in Tampa or gone to another poor team. As it was he rode the bench while playing sporadically for 4 years at SF under Walsh and then in his first year of starting went 5-5 in his fifth year and that was throwing to Jerry Rice. 

 

Young was a first-round pick, picked first overall and not a 6th rounder who was known it was going to some take time to develop him. Taylor has had how many OC's/QB coaches in his seven years?  That in itself can make for a broken QB. Tyrod is a proven NFL starter who can win games provided you surround him with the right players so you can't expect him to develop at the same pace as a first round guy.

 

Hey, the guy may never improve over what he has already shown and it will be up to his HC to determine if he wants to keep a QB like Taylor who fits his style of run first offense with a stout defense. I myself still believe he can further develop into a better player with a quality OC tutoring him and I don't think Dennison is that guy. 

 

 

Steve Young is an excellent example ... but for my point, not yours.

 

By his fifth year in the league he wasn't starting in SF due to Montana being there but he was absolutely ripping up the preseason and in his appearances during the year as well.

 

Not his fifth year in SF. His fifth year in the league. His completion percentage leaped up to 69.6%, , his TD:INT ratio went to 8:3 (at a time in the league when only one starter had a 2:1 ratio or better), and had the best YPA in the league. He had fully and completely arrived. If there had been free agency at the time, SF couldn't have kept him. He'd have torn up the league somewhere else.

 

And you can say that in his first year as a starter in SF that he went 5-5, but besides being extremely misleading you'd be wrong. It wasn't Young who went 5-5, it was the Niners who went 5-5 in games Young started. Wins is a team stat.

 

And again, that's wildly misleading. The Niners team wasn't particularly good that year (1991). But Young was terrific. He threw 17 TDs and 8 INTs in 10 starts and 11 games (only four guys had a 2:1 ratio or better, and 17 TDs was very very good back then. It tied Young for 7th in the league in TDs, even though he only appeared in 11 games.). Got an insanely good 9.0 YPA (best in the NFL) and a 101.8 passer rating (best in the league). And had a 64.5% completion percentage (3rd in the league). Saying that he went 5-5 that year is extremely misleading. Young was sensational that year and he had been excellent for two or three years at that point.

 

And that sounds an awful lot like nonsense that Walsh said it was "four years of playing time usually with the same OC, QB coach." Like if the Niners had brought in Dan Marino it would have taken four years for him to get better? Nah. Not buying it. Where is the link to this Walsh quote you're talking about saying that it takes "four years of playing time usually with the same OC, QB coach"?

 

I don't doubt for a minute Tyrod can improve either. Very slightly. But we know who he is. Next year he'll probably find a team that'll let him start because they've got nothing better. Maybe it'll even be a Texas or Denver situation. You watch, he'll be Tyrod, with the same problems - and talents - that he has already shown. We know who he is.

 

 

 

Tyrod's had seven years. Again, of all QBs ever, chosen early or chosen late, with one OC or many ... all QBs ever ... only one guy, Rich Gannon, didn't prove himself a franchise guy in his first seven years and then did so later. 

 

Seven years is plenty of time to show what you've got. It's also plenty of time to develop habits - good and bad - that by that time are almost impossible to break. We know who Tyrod is.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

10 hours ago, grb said:

 

Hilarious : Taylor had Watkins and Woods on the field together just 15 games over two seasons.

Those games he did this :  63.6% comp. 8.25 YPA. 27 TD passes. 6 Ints

 

Fifteen games is, of course, nearly the length of an entire season, so it's a pretty good gauge of how Taylor would perform if receivers do in fact matter.

 

Using this season's final QB stats as a benchmark, some points :

• 63.6% would only rank 13th 
• 8.25 yards per attempt would be 1st in the NFL by 2017 numbers
• 27 touchdown passes would have tied for 8th, with Cousins

 

Please remember, this data is spread out over the entirety of two years, particularly given Watkins missed most of the beginning / all of the middle of last year. You know, people who like to talk about Taylor's "regression" just never seem to notice how closely that "regression" tracks the continual draining of offensive talent over his Bills' career - sometimes by injury, but often by letting players walk or trading them away. By passing rating, Taylor finished the year just below Matt Ryan, and just above Dak Prescott and Derek Carr. I wonder how much we'd see "receivers matter" if Ryan or Carr was throwing to the Bills' targets while Taylor inherited the situation in Atlanta or Oakland. I think you'd find a whole lot of things "matter" if Dak suddenly played behind the Bill's o-line, while Taylor was throwing from Dallas' pocket. Also : Bring in Keenum and we'll see whether it "matters" that his situation is so cushy in Minnesota. 

 

I suspect you'll find out it does.....

 

 

The data isn't actually spread out over the entirety of two years. It's mostly in his first year. To be precise, ten games in his first year, 2015, when teams hadn't figured out well how to play him yet, and only five games in that second year, 2016.

 

And those five games in that second year, 2016, were against middling to poorish pass defenses.

 

The 9th, 15th, 16th, 17th and 29th ranked passing defenses overall by yards, and when ranked by defensive passer rating the 13th, 14th, 17th, 30th and 31st ranked.

Edited January 11, 2018 by Thurman#1

[reddogblitz]

20 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

 

No, dude, it is.

 

Case closed. It is.

 

Wins and losses are a team stat. It makes about as much sense to refer to QB wins and losses as Long snapper wins and losses. 

 

As far as Rob Johnson and Doug Flutie, same deal. Wins and losses are a team stat. Simple.

 

Wanna evaluate the QBs? Look at how the QBs performed. And Flutie and Johnson are indeed prime examples.

 

Take 1999. The Bills went 10-5 when Flutie started. That makes Flutie terrific, right? bull ****! The offense scored 14, 17, 26, 23, 24, 14, 16, 13, 34, 23, 7, 17, 17, 31, and 13. They averaged 20 points a game. We didn't win so much that year because of Flutie. We won because of the defense, which allowed 14.3 points per game that year, 2nd in the league, and 252.8 yards per game, 1st in the league.

 

Or take 2000. The Bills went 4-1 when Flutie started. Let's look at those five games. The Bills lost the first one. Flutie must have been terrible, because he started and they lost, according to you. Well, no, they lost 31-27. Flutie was 28/43, 2 TDs and 0 INTs and 8 yards rushing. But, no, according to this dumb idea of giving every win to one player, it was a bad game for Flutie, because they lost. It's not the defense's fault for allowing 31 points. No, it's Flutie's fault. Flutie's next game he went 18 for 35 with 0 TDs and 0 INTs and 15 yards rushing. Great game, Doug, because they won. Flutie's next start the offense scores 16 points and they win. Flutie completes 48% of his passes and has a passer rating of 71.8. Great game, Doug!! They won!! It wasn't the defense allowing only 13 points!! No, no, it was Flutie.

 

Flutie's fourth start, he goes 16 for 26 for 171 yards, 0 TDs and 1 INT, with a passer rating of 64.7 and racks up 6 yards rushing on 6 attempts. Excellent game, Doug!!! They won. It wasn't the defense holding Chicago to three points!!! No, no, it was Flutie's excellent play, theoretically. 

 

In his final start, Flutie really did have a terrific game, 20 for 25 for 366 yards, 3 TDs and 0 INTs and the offense scores 42 points. He really did have a large share of that win, which by the way was against 6-10 Seattle.

 

Yeah, Flutie and Johnson had mostly the same guys around them on the Buffalo offense. But the teams Flutie started against ended the season with a cumulative winning record of 36-44, a winning percentage of 45%. Whereas the teams Johnson started against had a cumulative winning record of 96-80, a winning percentage of 55%. Put another way, of the five teams Flutie started against, three had losing records and two had winning records, whereas of the eleven teams Johnson started against, eight had winning records and three had losing records. In fact, of the games Johnson started, six of the eleven teams he played had win totals in double figures.

 

More, there were plenty of games where both guys played. Look at game 15 where Johnson started and threw three passes before Flutie finished up throwing 25. Should Johnson really get the blame for that 10 - 13 loss, a loss where Flutie threw more than eight times as many passes as Johnson did? Or look at week 13 where Johnson was bad in a 33 - 6 loss. Johnson went 6 of 18 for 44 yards, 0 TDs and 2 INTs. Horrible. If only Flutie had been able to play ... oh , wait, he did. Flutie went 2 for 9 for 31 yards, 0 TDs and 1 INT. Couldn't be that Buffalo's whole offense was simply outmanned, could it? No, no, Johnson started so he gets total blame for that loss. None of it belongs to Flutie or the rest of the team.

 

The whole idea of giving all the credit for wins and losses to one guy is fundamentally flawed and dumb.

 

Was it Rob Johnson that lost the Music City Miracle game? The idea's ridiculous. But if you look at pure wins and losses, Rob started the game and they lost, so it must've been his fault. Simply doesn't make sense.

 

It is bone-stupid to try to give one person a win-loss record. It's a team stat. Yeah, some QBs have a huge impact on the game, and pretty much every QB has more impact than any other player. But it's a team game. Unless you believe that Trent Dilfer was sensational the year the Ravens won the title with him running up 7-1 record as their starter was because he was performing at Aaron Rodgers-like levels of proficiency, you have to realize the extremely simple fact that it's a team stat.

 

Hell, the official name of that stat is actually "TEAM record in games started by this QB (regular season)" (my capitalization).

 

Thanks for your thoughful response backed up by stats.  Good job.

 

I agree with a lot of what you said.  But the game isn't played on the stat sheet. Some QBs are better at coming through in the clutch than others.  Those guys (like Flutie or Roger Stuabach) win more games because of it.  May not show up on stat sheets 20 years later, but it's a real thing.  Do think it's a real thing?

 

Other guys like Tony Romo can pass for a gazillian yards, but when it gets to the big playoff game, they blow it and lose.

 

Some QBs because of their skills, personality, and leadership can lift the play of the whole team.  I was at a Bills game in 2000 or 2001  and Rob Johnson started the game and offense was pathetic.  Rob got hurt and Flutie came in boom, we started moving the football and scoring points.  The lady in front of me says "they play different when he's in".  True.  You could see it as clear as the nose on your face.

 

Roger Staubach was the same way.  The Cowboys were next years champions for years because they couldn't get over the hump to win it all on multiple tries.  Then they promoted Roger and went to 4 more Super Bowls and won 2.  Craig Morton and Don Meredith were fine QBs but they couldn't get the team there like Roger could.  This is what I'm talking about.  I can't prove it by stats, but I think it's real.  Sure looks real when I see it on the field.  Do you think it's real?

 

In my post I said it is and it isn't.  I don't think saying let's say Blake Bortles was a better QB in 2017 than Kirk Cousins because he won more games.  But some guys can get the team to wins because the whole team believes they can.

 

That's what I meant when I said "it is and it isn't".

 

Go BILLS !!

 

 

[Thurman#1]

50 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Thanks for your thoughful response backed up by stats.  Good job.

 

I agree with a lot of what you said.  But the game isn't played on the stat sheet. Some QBs are better at coming through in the clutch than others.  Those guys (like Flutie or Roger Stuabach) win more games because of it.  May not show up on stat sheets 20 years later, but it's a real thing.  Do think it's a real thing?

 

Other guys like Tony Romo can pass for a gazillian yards, but when it gets to the big playoff game, they blow it and lose.

 

Some QBs because of their skills, personality, and leadership can lift the play of the whole team.  I was at a Bills game in 2000 or 2001  and Rob Johnson started the game and offense was pathetic.  Rob got hurt and Flutie came in boom, we started moving the football and scoring points.  The lady in front of me says "they play different when he's in".  True.  You could see it as clear as the nose on your face.

 

Roger Staubach was the same way.  The Cowboys were next years champions for years because they couldn't get over the hump to win it all on multiple tries.  Then they promoted Roger and went to 4 more Super Bowls and won 2.  Craig Morton and Don Meredith were fine QBs but they couldn't get the team there like Roger could.  This is what I'm talking about.  I can't prove it by stats, but I think it's real.  Sure looks real when I see it on the field.  Do you think it's real?

 

In my post I said it is and it isn't.  I don't think saying let's say Blake Bortles was a better QB in 2017 than Kirk Cousins because he won more games.  But some guys can get the team to wins because the whole team believes they can.

 

That's what I meant when I said "it is and it isn't".

 

Go BILLS !!

 

 

 

 

Agreed that the game isn't played on the stat sheet. It's played on the field.

 

By 22 players. Plus special teams.

 

And sure, there are plenty of guys who inspire the team to play better. Look at Ray Lewis. Doesn't matter. Giving a QB a win-loss record is as dumb as giving Ray Lewis one.

 

As for the team playing different when a new QB comes in, a lot of times that's because the defense has planned for the first guy. Or the second guy's skillset is a better one for attacking that particular defense. But did Flutie make the team better in Week 15 when Johnson started and went 1 for 3 and then Flutie replaced him and the Bills offense scored 10 points and they lost and Johnson got the loss in that stupid stat? Or game 13 in 2000 when Johnson went 6 for 18 for 44 yards. But the team plays better when Flutie came in, so how come when Flutie did in fact come in during that game he went 2 for 9 for 31 yards? The team must have been playing better, right? Sorry, it just doesn't make sense.

 

It's a team game. Teams are what win and lose. I enjoy reading your stuff even 

 

You're a good poster. I enjoy reading your stuff even even when I disagree with you. But on this subject, there's no winning. If you want to talk about this more, feel free, but I'm out of here.  The point is made, and it's correct. It's a team game. Losses and wins are team results, not individual results. It's a stupid stat and a stupid idea. Period.

 

Edited January 11, 2018 by Thurman#1

[reddogblitz]

16 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Agreed that the game isn't played on the stat sheet. It's played on the field.

 

By 22 players. Plus special teams.

 

And sure, there are plenty of guys who inspire the team to play better. Look at Ray Lewis. Doesn't matter. Giving a QB a win-loss record is as dumb as giving Ray Lewis one.

 

As for the team playing different when a new QB comes in, a lot of times that's because the defense has planned for the first guy. Or the second guy's skillset is a better one for attacking that particular defense. But did Flutie make the team better in Week 15 when Johnson started and went 1 for 3 and then Flutie replaced him and the Bills offense scored 10 points and they lost and Johnson got the loss in that stupid stat? Or game 13 in 2000 when Johnson went 6 for 18 for 44 yards. But the team plays better when Flutie came in, so how come when Flutie did in fact come in during that game he went 2 for 9 for 31 yards? The team must have been playing better, right? Sorry, it just doesn't make sense.

 

It's a team game. Teams are what win and lose. I enjoy reading your stuff even 

 

You're a good poster. I enjoy reading your stuff even even when I disagree with you. But on this subject, there's no winning. If you want to talk about this more, feel free, but I'm out of here.  The point is made, and it's correct. It's a team game. Losses and wins are team results, not individual results. It's a stupid stat and a stupid idea. Period.

 

 

I think its a dumb stat too. But some guys cOme through (with the help of this teammates) in the clutch and get wins others don't was really my only point. QB has more effect on the game and influence in the outcome of the game because they touch the ball on every play and throw 99.9% of the passes.

 

I also though think Jon Gruden is right that football is the ultimite team game.

 

Doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

But yeah, the stat is dumb, I agree.

 

Thanks for the compliment 

 

[Nihilarian]

2 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Steve Young is an excellent example ... but for my point, not yours.

 

By his fifth year in the league he wasn't starting in SF due to Montana being there but he was absolutely ripping up the preseason and in his appearances during the year as well.

 

Not his fifth year in SF. His fifth year in the league. His completion percentage leaped up to 69.6%, , his TD:INT ratio went to 8:3 (at a time in the league when only one starter had a 2:1 ratio or better), and had the best YPA in the league. He had fully and completely arrived. If there had been free agency at the time, SF couldn't have kept him. He'd have torn up the league somewhere else.

 

And you can say that in his first year as a starter in SF that he went 5-5, but besides being extremely misleading you'd be wrong. It wasn't Young who went 5-5, it was the Niners who went 5-5 in games Young started. Wins is a team stat.

 

And again, that's wildly misleading. The Niners team wasn't particularly good that year (1991). But Young was terrific. He threw 17 TDs and 8 INTs in 10 starts and 11 games (only four guys had a 2:1 ratio or better, and 17 TDs was very very good back then. It tied Young for 7th in the league in TDs, even though he only appeared in 11 games.). Got an insanely good 9.0 YPA (best in the NFL) and a 101.8 passer rating (best in the league). And had a 64.5% completion percentage (3rd in the league). Saying that he went 5-5 that year is extremely misleading. Young was sensational that year and he had been excellent for two or three years at that point.

 

And that sounds an awful lot like nonsense that Walsh said it was "four years of playing time usually with the same OC, QB coach." Like if the Niners had brought in Dan Marino it would have taken four years for him to get better? Nah. Not buying it. Where is the link to this Walsh quote you're talking about saying that it takes "four years of playing time usually with the same OC, QB coach"?

 

I don't doubt for a minute Tyrod can improve either. Very slightly. But we know who he is. Next year he'll probably find a team that'll let him start because they've got nothing better. Maybe it'll even be a Texas or Denver situation. You watch, he'll be Tyrod, with the same problems - and talents - that he has already shown. We know who he is.

 

 

 

Tyrod's had seven years. Again, of all QBs ever, chosen early or chosen late, with one OC or many ... all QBs ever ... only one guy, Rich Gannon, didn't prove himself a franchise guy in his first seven years and then did so later. 

 

Seven years is plenty of time to show what you've got. It's also plenty of time to develop habits - good and bad - that by that time are almost impossible to break. We know who Tyrod is.

4

Man, the stuff you write is misleading. Like to embellish a bit, huh?

 

In his fifth year in the league Young started in exactly three games in 1989 throwing 8 TDs, 3 INTs. One game Young started was against the 1-15 Dallas Cowboys and the next game was against the 4-12 NY Jets. The last game he started in was against the Buffalo Bills who went 9-7 in 1989. Steve Young went 9 of 19 for 166 yards, 1 TD, 2 INT, one rushing TD while taking 4 sacks in that game against Buffalo. Tyrod like numbers if you ask me!  That 49er defense was killer and got 5 turnovers against Buffalo that day. 

 

5-5 is a team stat huh? QB Steve Bono went 5-1 that season. 

 

 The 49ers weren't particularly good in 1991? They went 10-6 that year and were in their dynasty years since 1981. That year they did miss the playoffs for only the second time since 81. They had won super bowls in 88, 89 under both HC Bill Walsh and George Seifert. They won another SB in 94 with Young at QB. The 49ers and their brilliant WCO offensive scheme even managed to make Jeff Garcia look good for awhile under their third HC in Steve Mariucci.

 

You glossed over my entire point of what would have become of Steve Young had he stayed on bad teams his entire career while not having Jerry Rice to throw to. Young got the benefit of sitting and learning for a few years in an innovative passing scheme under one of the games most brilliant NFL offensive minds ever! A scheme that is still used widely in today's game. 

 

Steve Young was tutored by HC Bill Walsh, Mike Holmgren, Mike Shanahan in an already established legendary offensive scheme. Tyrod Taylor has had 6 different OC's in his 7 seasons along with many changes to schemes by Rick Dennison, Anthony Lynn, Greg Roman, Jim Caldwell, Cam Cameron, Gary Kubiak. That's five different styles of offenses that I see. 

 

From what I said in that earlier post. 

Young was a first-round pick, picked first overall and not a 6th rounder who was known it was going to some take time to develop him. Taylor has had how many OC's/QB coaches in his seven years?  That in itself can make for a broken QB. Tyrod is a proven NFL starter who can win games provided you surround him with the right players so you can't expect him to develop at the same pace as a first round guy.

 

Hey, the guy may never improve over what he has already shown and it will be up to his HC to determine if he wants to keep a QB like Taylor who fits his style of run first offense with a stout defense. I myself still believe he can further develop into a better player with a quality OC tutoring him and I don't think Dennison is that guy. 

It's not up to either of us to determine Tyrod Taylor's fate in Buffalo and if Dennison stays as OC I would be inclined to move on from Taylor to a more defined pocket passer that might better fit his scheme. I don't trust the guy to develop a rookie as we see what he did with Peterman so far. I would attempt to get Mike McCoy as OC and keep Taylor for one more season. Juan Castillo needs to go as run game coordinator/line coach as the run game went backward this season, as did the line. 

[Buddo]

One thing I didn't see from all of the stats (nice job OP), is the number that makes as big a difference as any other.

 

How often did Taylor lead the team on a winning drive when down by just a single score, on the 4th quarter of games.

 

In respect of how many times he achieved this, I'm fairly confident the answer is 2 times, where I'm less certain, is in the amount of opportunities he had to do so, where my gut instinct is saying around 10, but it may be a bit smaller than that, or it might be larger, but I really don't know.

 

Even if it's just 8 opportunities, then that works out as a 1 in 4 chance to win you a game in the 4th quarter, which simply doesn't cut it. Especially when a lot of games are decided by the margin of one score.

[twoandfourteen]

2 hours ago, Buddo said:

One thing I didn't see from all of the stats (nice job OP), is the number that makes as big a difference as any other.

 

How often did Taylor lead the team on a winning drive when down by just a single score, on the 4th quarter of games.

 

In respect of how many times he achieved this, I'm fairly confident the answer is 2 times, where I'm less certain, is in the amount of opportunities he had to do so, where my gut instinct is saying around 10, but it may be a bit smaller than that, or it might be larger, but I really don't know.

 

Even if it's just 8 opportunities, then that works out as a 1 in 4 chance to win you a game in the 4th quarter, which simply doesn't cut it. Especially when a lot of games are decided by the margin of one score.

 

I didn't look that deeply into the scores or individual games since I was simply looking at just basic production -- but I agree with you 100%, aside from maybe 1 or 2 games I really can't recall any late-game clutch heroics or plays he's made to bring a team back. I'll take a look into your question, because I'm wondering the same thing. 

 

There's so much about this QB that doesn't cut it. I'm amazed at the level of ardent, and delusional, supporters he had and still has. 

Edited January 11, 2018 by twoandfourteen

[SouthNYfan]

People keep talking about Tyrod's stats with Watkins and woods both in the game.

Know why they are good?

Because Tyrod won't throw the ball unless somebody is 5+ yards open.

 

QB matters more than wr.

 

Tyrod's biggest shortcoming it's that he is at tentative with the ball.

He won't throw it unless he's positive it won't be picked off.

He won't take chances when they are needed.

 

Giving him great WRs will help against mediocre defenses, not against playoff caliber defenses.

They find ways to stick on the WRs and need an elite level QB to squeeze it into smaller windows.

 

Saying a QB W-L record is only a team stat is absurd.

If your QB isn't moving the ball, then your team will lose.

There's a reason the top QBs have good winning percentages.

Yes, team play matters a lot, but the QB is the lynchpin to that team.

Without a good QB the whole system fails.

[twoandfourteen]

5 hours ago, SouthNYfan said:

People keep talking about Tyrod's stats with Watkins and woods both in the game.

Know why they are good?

Because Tyrod won't throw the ball unless somebody is 5+ yards open.

 

QB matters more than wr.

 

Tyrod's biggest shortcoming it's that he is at tentative with the ball.

He won't throw it unless he's positive it won't be picked off.

He won't take chances when they are needed.

 

Giving him great WRs will help against mediocre defenses, not against playoff caliber defenses.

They find ways to stick on the WRs and need an elite level QB to squeeze it into smaller windows.

 

Saying a QB W-L record is only a team stat is absurd.

If your QB isn't moving the ball, then your team will lose.

There's a reason the top QBs have good winning percentages.

Yes, team play matters a lot, but the QB is the lynchpin to that team.

Without a good QB the whole system fails.

 

This is exactly why I never understood the "Tyrod won't lose you games" argument. 

 

Not moving the ball and not scoring points will absolutely lose you a game. In fact, I would posit that 1 or 2 INTs is far less damaging to your chances of winning than only managing to score 3 points in a game. 

 

In fact, let's take a look.... 

 

NFL  2015-2017

Offense scores 3 points -- 0-23-0  .000

Offense scores less than 10 points -- 9-199-2   .048

Offense scores less than 17 -- 78-441-2   .152    (FYI - The Bills have the best winning percentage in the NFL when scoring 17 or fewer, 6-9/.400) - Full List

 

Offense throws 1 INT -- 232-284-2   .450

Offense throws 2 INTs -- 65-168-0   .279  

Offense throws 3+ INTs -- 7-83-0   .078

 

 

Here's one for the #teamtyrod guys:

Offense scores more than 24 points -- 537-154-2   .776 - Full List

*The Bills are 11th in games scoring 24 or more with 23. However, they are only 13-10 (.560) in those games, which ranks 30th.

 

This suggests a couple of things:

• The defense could have been better over the past 3 years. 
• There are probably quite a few blowouts where the Bills racked up a few scores after the game was out of reach to get to 24. Feel free to check into it if you are so inclined. I'm not.
• The Bills passing offense wasn't equipped to compete with many teams in a shootout. 

Interesting. The Bills scored more than 28 points 14 times, and they were 10-4 in those games. 

 

 

[Buffalo Ballin]

On 1/10/2018 at 10:37 AM, Dr. Fong said:

 

Blake Bortles did.

 

And? We lost. Tyrod is supposed to be better at running the ball than Bortles. Tyrod is next to leave Buffalo. That playoff game was horrible. He's just as bad as EJ Manuel for that particular game when it mattered.

 

Tyrod now tries to throw deep (many times) in that game, but he's crap at that. He's inaccurate and reckless.

[twoandfourteen]

On 1/11/2018 at 5:33 AM, Buddo said:

One thing I didn't see from all of the stats (nice job OP), is the number that makes as big a difference as any other.

 

How often did Taylor lead the team on a winning drive when down by just a single score, on the 4th quarter of games.

 

In respect of how many times he achieved this, I'm fairly confident the answer is 2 times, where I'm less certain, is in the amount of opportunities he had to do so, where my gut instinct is saying around 10, but it may be a bit smaller than that, or it might be larger, but I really don't know.

 

Even if it's just 8 opportunities, then that works out as a 1 in 4 chance to win you a game in the 4th quarter, which simply doesn't cut it. Especially when a lot of games are decided by the margin of one score.

 

Here you go -- 2015-2017, tied or losing after 3 quarters: http://pfref.com/tiny/fW7Y2

 

I won't ruin it for you.

[Buddo]

5 hours ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

Here you go -- 2015-2017, tied or losing after 3 quarters: http://pfref.com/tiny/fW7Y2

 

I won't ruin it for you.

 

It's pretty hard to ruin a set of stats that are already very ugly. But thanks for doing it though.

 

So when losing by just one score in the 4th quarter, Tyrod has got us just one win from 8 games. If losing by 11 points or less, it's 1 from 11, and if we are just losing full stop, going into the 4th quarter, it's 1 from 22.

It has basically been the case that if the Bills are behind going into the 4th quarter, then save yourself some pain and either leave, or switch off. ;(