Sports analyst Michael Salfino on Tyrod Taylor/Bills offense

[YoloinOhio]

I’m trying so hard to get a feel for the offense will be this year but there so many changes it feels impossible. Of course, we don’t know who the QB will be, first and foremost. But even when we know that, only one has played for the Bills and none have played with this OL or this OC/scheme. I actually think though that it could be more productive given the analysis of the last 3 years, which showed 3 different OCs, changes on the OL, and a turnstile of WRs, varying in talent. The two constants were TT and Lesean. Lesean is consistently top performer when healthy, regardless of those variables. So the change in QB is super intriguing for what the analysts will spit out. Peterman’s no good horrible terrible bad day in LA notwithstanding. 

[Royale with Cheese]

18 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

I had not realized that either. Always knew YPP was important but moreso for the QB’s individual analysis, never saw it from a Win %

 

Chunk plays wins games.

[Fan in Chicago]

29 minutes ago, section122 said:

Interesting analysis but I hate simplifying things like this.  

 

It boils down to this for me.  Tyrod is the ultimate game manager.  He needs weapons around him and the Bills didn't provide him that.  He is too expensive at 16 million to be the mentor qb for the Bills so he is no longer here.  The Bills didn't set him up for success and he wasn't successful.  It takes a truly special qb to excel with no weapons and Tyrod ain't that.  I know everyone likes to use Brady as an example but he is an anomaly (even he has Gronk).  Rodgers had Jordy and Cobb, Ryan has Julio and Sanu, Philly has Alshon, Ertz and others, etc...  Tyrod never took that step forward but I also think the Bills never went all in on giving him a chance.  

 

I am interested to see what he does with the weapons in Cleveland this year.

 

Maybe this one take is simplistic but it is the body of criticisms that amount to a single fact - that TT is just not a very good QB. His skill set is very limited and his defense always sounds very very Spiller-esque in nature. Needs a very narrow set of circumstances and supporting cast to be effective. With that limited a window to be effective, his job as a starting QB is never going to be secure. Spiller too bounced around a bit till it was conclusively proven that he just wasnt a good starting RB. My hot take is that the same thing will happen with TT in Cleveland. Hard working, good guy, team mate, nice deep ball - but ultimately not a good QB with his major claim to fame being the limited turnovers. Not going to win a lot of games if thats all he has going for him.

 

 

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, Woodman19 said:

Oh look, another thread on a player no longer on the team.

 

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

Only threads about current Bills are allowed?

 

1 hour ago, Woodman19 said:

No but having a 3 or less maximum should probably be enforced.

 

I actually made a suggestion regarding this:

 

[transplantbillsfan]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

This thread is fascinating  from an analytics perspective. I know what I see as a casual fan but some of the numbers on sack % and 3 and outs are startling. Click on 1st tweet to read whole thread. 

 

 

 

There's a certain irony to a guy who basically says "I'm going to prove why all the guys who love Tyrod Taylor because of stats and analytics are wrong. Here are my stats and analytics to prove they're wrong." 

 

Especially when the system he's created is so flawed.

 

He puts a sack and an INT on virtually equal footing, which is preposterous. Field position is hugely important. So while sacks and INTs may be close to the same in terms of ending drives. One INT will cripple the TEAM significantly more than one sack. One thing about Taylor was that he was one of the best QBs in the NFL in 3rd and long (8+ yards) situations on pass plays in his 3 years in Buffalo, so it seems the 1st or 2nd down sack wasn't actually the "drive-killer" this guy describes them as.

 

Also I guarantee his Yards Per Pass Play is inaccurate because it factors in sack yards lost, but not scramble yards gained. If he factored in those scramble yards gained (he was right around 8 yards per scramble over his 3 years in Buffalo) then his whole perspective on this Yards Per Pass Play, which is a central component of his argument, would naturally shift.

 

This is terrible cherry picking and over compensation on this guy's part.

 

 

And not that I remotely wanted this thread bumped in any way, but shouldn't this be merged here?

 

[Royale with Cheese]

3 minutes ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

There's a certain irony to a guy who basically says "I'm going to prove why all the guys who love Tyrod Taylor because of stats and analytics are wrong. Here are my stats and analytics to prove they're wrong." 

 

Especially when the system he's created is so flawed.

 

He puts a sack and an INT on virtually equal footing, which is preposterous. Field position is hugely important. So while sacks and INTs may be close to the same in terms of ending drives. One INT will cripple the TEAM significantly more than one sack. One thing about Taylor was that he was one of the best QBs in the NFL in 3rd and long (8+ yards) situations on pass plays in his 3 years in Buffalo, so it seems the 1st or 2nd down sack wasn't actually the "drive-killer" this guy describes them as.

 

Also I guarantee his Yards Per Pass Play is inaccurate because it factors in sack yards lost, but not scramble yards gained. If he factored in those scramble yards gained (he was right around 8 yards per scramble over his 3 years in Buffalo) then his whole perspective on this Yards Per Pass Play, which is a central component of his argument, would naturally shift.

 

This is terrible cherry picking and over compensation on this guy's part.

 

 

And not that I remotely wanted this thread bumped in any way, but shouldn't this be merged here?

 

 

I think this stat shows that moving the ball through the air is critical for consistent success.  When Michael Vick came out I believe my freshmen year in college, I remember the talk was that Vick was going to change the game.  The NFL will move on from traditional pocket passers and go with more athletic QB's who can run.  Almost 20 years later, this is still a pocket passing league.  As Beane has stated, ability to make plays from the pocket is critical.  

[TheBeane]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

I get that people want to move on from Tyrod. But the reality is that he was the starting QB for the Bills for the last 3 years. And looking at the offense’s performance throughout that time, and 3 different OCs, it’s worth reading through if you want to understand that performance and the context around it. There are a number of components presented but Tyrod’s analysis is very interesting. 

 

Its not an “argument” thing. This is an analytical discussion... I’ve not seen these particulars discussed as they relate to our offense. As it is there is no point in arguing with people who don’t have open minds. People with a closed minded mentality will never look at all variables being presented, only the ones that benefit their own opinion. 

 

 

 

 

 

I agree that this is very valid thread.  Especially with multiple reports coming out all week about how lucky the Browns are to be getting TT and that he might be the Browns best QB in a decade.

 

Reality will set in when game 1 comes around and he holds the ball for 4 seconds, takes a sack and doesn't throw it to an open receiver.

[Fan in Chicago]

56 minutes ago, TheBeane said:

 

I agree that this is very valid thread.  Especially with multiple reports coming out all week about how lucky the Browns are to be getting TT and that he might be the Browns best QB in a decade.

 

Reality will set in when game 1 comes around and he holds the ball for 4 seconds, takes a sack and doesn't throw it to an open receiver.

You of course realize that your paragraphs can both be true, right?

[The Red King]

People are getting tired of the TT debate, especially since we're long past the point where anyone is going to convince anyone else.  So, when another TT thread pops up, some people are quick to groan and complain.  With that being said, I happen to think this is a very good post, bringing a lot to the table that hasn't been seen to date.  So, while my first impression was "Another TT post?  Ugh.", I'm actually glad the OP posted this.

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

I think this stat shows that moving the ball through the air is critical for consistent success.  When Michael Vick came out I believe my freshmen year in college, I remember the talk was that Vick was going to change the game.  The NFL will move on from traditional pocket passers and go with more athletic QB's who can run.  Almost 20 years later, this is still a pocket passing league.  As Beane has stated, ability to make plays from the pocket is critical.  

@transplantbillsfan

 

I've got the numbers with positive rushes factored in as well as sack yards lost and pass yards, FWIW.

2015: 12th of 37 at 6.52 yards per touch

2016: 25th of 33 at 5.95 yards per touch

2017: 27th of 37 at 5.40 yards per touch

Cumulative: 25th of 39 at 5.95 yards per touch

 

The folks who excel in this particular stat are still the guys who get it done in the pocket. Top 5 cumulative since 2015 are Matt Ryan, Big Ben, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, and Kirk Cousins. and the Yards per Touch stat is a significant factor in my QB rating system.

[Estro]

The 3 & out % is a very important stat that goes mainly ignored in the media.  I called into Schopp and the Bulldog about a yr. ago when Schopp was going on and on about how nice Tyrod was and how he deserved better than the Bills.....to point out the Bills offense was near the bottom of 3 & out % every season under Tyrod.  His inability to make the "easy" plays and keep his offense on the field was apparent to any objective Bills fan.....and I think his paltry 3 and out % perfectly captures the frustration so many fans had with Tyrod's ability to lead an offense.

[Cash]

2 hours ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

This really stood out to me.

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, I am the egg man said:

 

That's either gonna be a pretty big tombstone, or some really small letters to chisel.

 

Plus, he undermines himself somewhat in the middle there.  Like, if one team has 7.21 yards per play and the other has 7.20, the chances of 7.21 winning are probably something like 50.00001% before other factors are taken into account.  Obviously when there's a significant disparity, you'd expect it to really have an impact on the winner, and that's reflected in the 74% overall stat.  But at what level does it become significant, and how significant does it get as the disparity grows?  And how does that line up with other factors?  Say a QB starts playing more conservatively to cut down on turnovers, and it hurts his YPA.  What's the tradeoff?  Is it better to lower your TO rate by 5%, or increase your YPA by 10%?  

 

I'm not saying he's wrong (he might be right!), but it's frustrating that he's doing such a shallow/surface-level analysis while trying to sound deep.

 

1 hour ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

There's a certain irony to a guy who basically says "I'm going to prove why all the guys who love Tyrod Taylor because of stats and analytics are wrong. Here are my stats and analytics to prove they're wrong." 

 

Especially when the system he's created is so flawed.

 

He puts a sack and an INT on virtually equal footing, which is preposterous. Field position is hugely important. So while sacks and INTs may be close to the same in terms of ending drives. One INT will cripple the TEAM significantly more than one sack. One thing about Taylor was that he was one of the best QBs in the NFL in 3rd and long (8+ yards) situations on pass plays in his 3 years in Buffalo, so it seems the 1st or 2nd down sack wasn't actually the "drive-killer" this guy describes them as.

 

Also I guarantee his Yards Per Pass Play is inaccurate because it factors in sack yards lost, but not scramble yards gained. If he factored in those scramble yards gained (he was right around 8 yards per scramble over his 3 years in Buffalo) then his whole perspective on this Yards Per Pass Play, which is a central component of his argument, would naturally shift.

 

This is terrible cherry picking and over compensation on this guy's part.

 

 

Yeah, I agree with all of this.  He acknowledges that a sack produces a stalled drive 84% of the time vs. 100% of the time for an INT, but continues to equate them in his kiddie-pool analysis.  (And then when the bottom QBs on the combined sack+INT list are mostly bad, he concludes that it's a valid metric to use for all QBs, which isn't how that works.)  First, you need to look at the overall chances of a stalled drive at any given point.  If it's 80%, sacks don't look so bad all of a sudden.  It's probably much lower than 80%, but I don't know what it is, because this guy's analysis is really weak.  Once you have that, then you look at what % of the time sacks produce turnovers.  Then, you look at how much yardage sacks lose on average, and combine that with average punting distance to get an idea of the yardage advantage for sacks vs. INTs when you're out of FG range.  Then, you look at sack yardage lost and FG conversion rates at various distances, and that gets you an idea of additional points lost by INTs vs. sacks when you're in FG range.  Weigh all those factors together appropriately, and you can come up with a rough average of how costly a sack is compared to an INT - I'm guessing somewhere between 50% and 75%.  Then you weight sack % accordingly when adding it to INT %, and then you have a useful metric.

 

That's a lot of work!  I'm not doing it, and neither is Salfino.  But he could at least try a rough guesstimate - start with stalled drive %, factor in punt yards - sack yards lost, and ignore fumbles and FGs.

 

7 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

@transplantbillsfan

 

I've got the numbers with positive rushes factored in as well as sack yards lost and pass yards, FWIW.

2015: 12th of 37 at 6.52 yards per touch

2016: 25th of 33 at 5.95 yards per touch

2017: 27th of 37 at 5.40 yards per touch

Cumulative: 25th of 39 at 5.95 yards per touch

 

The folks who excel in this particular stat are still the guys who get it done in the pocket. Top 5 cumulative since 2015 are Matt Ryan, Big Ben, Drew Brees, Tom Brady, and Kirk Cousins. and the Yards per Touch stat is a significant factor in my QB rating system.

 

Good stuff - thanks!  Again, it's not so much that I think he's wrong as that I think his methodology is weak, but he seems to think it's definitive.  It's also hard to tell exactly what his point is.  Tyrod is mediocre?  Tyrod is terrible?  Tyrod isn't the great QB that numbers guys think he is?  I agree with one of those, disagree with another, and think the third is a pointless strawman.

[YoloinOhio]

6 minutes ago, Cash said:

 

 

Plus, he undermines himself somewhat in the middle there.  Like, if one team has 7.21 yards per play and the other has 7.20, the chances of 7.21 winning are probably something like 50.00001% before other factors are taken into account.  Obviously when there's a significant disparity, you'd expect it to really have an impact on the winner, and that's reflected in the 74% overall stat.  But at what level does it become significant, and how significant does it get as the disparity grows?  And how does that line up with other factors?  Say a QB starts playing more conservatively to cut down on turnovers, and it hurts his YPA.  What's the tradeoff?  Is it better to lower your TO rate by 5%, or increase your YPA by 10%?  

 

I'm not saying he's wrong (he might be right!), but it's frustrating that he's doing such a shallow/surface-level analysis while trying to sound deep.

 

 

Yeah, I agree with all of this.  He acknowledges that a sack produces a stalled drive 84% of the time vs. 100% of the time for an INT, but continues to equate them in his kiddie-pool analysis.  (And then when the bottom QBs on the combined sack+INT list are mostly bad, he concludes that it's a valid metric to use for all QBs, which isn't how that works.)  First, you need to look at the overall chances of a stalled drive at any given point.  If it's 80%, sacks don't look so bad all of a sudden.  It's probably much lower than 80%, but I don't know what it is, because this guy's analysis is really weak.  Once you have that, then you look at what % of the time sacks produce turnovers.  Then, you look at how much yardage sacks lose on average, and combine that with average punting distance to get an idea of the yardage advantage for sacks vs. INTs when you're out of FG range.  Then, you look at sack yardage lost and FG conversion rates at various distances, and that gets you an idea of additional points lost by INTs vs. sacks when you're in FG range.  Weigh all those factors together appropriately, and you can come up with a rough average of how costly a sack is compared to an INT - I'm guessing somewhere between 50% and 75%.  Then you weight sack % accordingly when adding it to INT %, and then you have a useful metric.

 

That's a lot of work!  I'm not doing it, and neither is Salfino.  But he could at least try a rough guesstimate - start with stalled drive %, factor in punt yards - sack yards lost, and ignore fumbles and FGs.

 

 

Good stuff - thanks!  Again, it's not so much that I think he's wrong as that I think his methodology is weak, but he seems to think it's definitive.  It's also hard to tell exactly what his point is.  Tyrod is mediocre?  Tyrod is terrible?  Tyrod isn't the great QB that numbers guys think he is?  I agree with one of those, disagree with another, and think the third is a pointless strawman.

I don’t think he believes it’s definitive, as in nothing else could be introduced. But he thinks it’s valid enough methodology to provide illustrative data.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2018 by YoloinOhio

[Fadingpain]

He uses numbers to point out what us Tyrod detractors have been saying for a long time: Tyrod is right on the cusp of being a backup QB in the NFL.

 

You can almost come up with a QB for every team in the league better than Tyrod, but not quite.  He's right on the cusp.

 

 

[MTBill]

I don't have time to read this right now - but as far as relevance....  Does this in any way discuss the O-Line play?  50% of the "regular OL" from 2017 is now gone(10% for swapping Ducasse to LG), but if we're talking about sacks etc. then it still has relevance as it relates to the Line play since the majority of the line is still probably in place (unless they replace Mills too which they probably should do).

 

I suspect the line will be Dawkins-Ducasse-Groy-Miller-Mills (or the FA tackle whose name escapes me at the moment).  Needless to say this is very different from Dawkins-Incognito-Wood-Ducasse-Mills.  When you factor in a new OC and a new QB (without many other wholesale offensive changes other than maybe at WR) - I think the sack story for 2018 may be vastly different - but could have echoes from 2017 based on the line play.

 

My point is - the story isn't 100% Taylor unless we attribute Superman status to him and say the offense was solely dependent on his success/failure.

 

[Malazan]

15 minutes ago, MTBill said:

I don't have time to read this right now - but as far as relevance....  Does this in any way discuss the O-Line play?  50% of the "regular OL" from 2017 is now gone(10% for swapping Ducasse to LG), but if we're talking about sacks etc. then it still has relevance as it relates to the Line play since the majority of the line is still probably in place (unless they replace Mills too which they probably should do).

 

I suspect the line will be Dawkins-Ducasse-Groy-Miller-Mills (or the FA tackle whose name escapes me at the moment).  Needless to say this is very different from Dawkins-Incognito-Wood-Ducasse-Mills.  When you factor in a new OC and a new QB (without many other wholesale offensive changes other than maybe at WR) - I think the sack story for 2018 may be vastly different - but could have echoes from 2017 based on the line play.

 

My point is - the story isn't 100% Taylor unless we attribute Superman status to him and say the offense was solely dependent on his success/failure.

 

 

It could be better. Taylor had one of the longest average times of holding onto the ball.

[YoloinOhio]

16 minutes ago, MTBill said:

I don't have time to read this right now - but as far as relevance....  Does this in any way discuss the O-Line play?  50% of the "regular OL" from 2017 is now gone(10% for swapping Ducasse to LG), but if we're talking about sacks etc. then it still has relevance as it relates to the Line play since the majority of the line is still probably in place (unless they replace Mills too which they probably should do).

 

I suspect the line will be Dawkins-Ducasse-Groy-Miller-Mills (or the FA tackle whose name escapes me at the moment).  Needless to say this is very different from Dawkins-Incognito-Wood-Ducasse-Mills.  When you factor in a new OC and a new QB (without many other wholesale offensive changes other than maybe at WR) - I think the sack story for 2018 may be vastly different - but could have echoes from 2017 based on the line play.

 

My point is - the story isn't 100% Taylor unless we attribute Superman status to him and say the offense was solely dependent on his success/failure.

 

It does discuss OL play and at the risk of simplifying it too much, he said Taylor holds the ball too long and most sacks are the fault of the qb. I’ll try to find the context.

 

 

 

 

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

5 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

This thread is fascinating  from an analytics perspective. I know what I see as a casual fan but some of the numbers on sack % and 3 and outs are startling. Click on 1st tweet to read whole thread. 

 

 

But but it just can’t be !!!!!!

 

transplant posted his stats for 3 seasons and said he was good! 

[grb]

1 hour ago, Fadingpain said:

He uses numbers to point out what us Tyrod detractors have been saying for a long time: Tyrod is right on the cusp of being a backup QB in the NFL.

 

You can almost come up with a QB for every team in the league better than Tyrod, but not quite.  He's right on the cusp.

 

 

 

And yet all you had to do was put Watkins and Woods on the same field with him, and he did this : 63.6% comp. 8.25 ypa. 27 td passes. 6 ints ( 15 games total)

But what am I saying ?!?  He was probably sacked during those fifteen games - while he was throwing over eight yards an attempt, with a 27-6 td/int ratio......

And to think, over half of the quarterbacks in the league throw to receivers as good if not better than W&W - probably way more than half.

Hell, Woods got only the third most targets on the Rams; Watkins even less.

You can almost say the QB for every team in the league had a better set of weapons these past two years than Tyrod, but not quite. Very close, tho.

 

I'm guessing a lot of people's quotes are right on the cusp of getting bumped, once games are played this fall..........

 

[BringBackOrton]

8 minutes ago, grb said:

 

And yet all you had to do was put Watkins and Woods on the same field with him, and he did this : 63.6% comp. 8.25 ypa. 27 td passes. 6 ints ( 15 games total)

But what am I saying ?!?  He was probably sacked during those fifteen games - while he was throwing over eight yards an attempt, with a 27-6 td/int ratio......

And to think, over half of the quarterbacks in the league throw to receivers as good if not better than W&W - probably way more than half.

Hell, Woods got only the third most targets on the Rams; Watkins even less.

You can almost say the QB for every team in the league had a better set of weapons these past two years than Tyrod, but not quite. Very close, tho.

 

I'm guessing a lot of people's quotes are right on the cusp of getting bumped, once games are played this fall..........

 

Yeah, just like the quotes about how Woods and Watkins suck and TT needs REAL WR's to play well.  Back in 2016.

4 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

There's a certain irony to a guy who basically says "I'm going to prove why all the guys who love Tyrod Taylor because of stats and analytics are wrong. Here are my stats and analytics to prove they're wrong." 

 

Especially when the system he's created is so flawed.

 

He puts a sack and an INT on virtually equal footing, which is preposterous. Field position is hugely important. So while sacks and INTs may be close to the same in terms of ending drives. One INT will cripple the TEAM significantly more than one sack. One thing about Taylor was that he was one of the best QBs in the NFL in 3rd and long (8+ yards) situations on pass plays in his 3 years in Buffalo, so it seems the 1st or 2nd down sack wasn't actually the "drive-killer" this guy describes them as.

 

Also I guarantee his Yards Per Pass Play is inaccurate because it factors in sack yards lost, but not scramble yards gained. If he factored in those scramble yards gained (he was right around 8 yards per scramble over his 3 years in Buffalo) then his whole perspective on this Yards Per Pass Play, which is a central component of his argument, would naturally shift.

 

This is terrible cherry picking and over compensation on this guy's part.

 

 

And not that I remotely wanted this thread bumped in any way, but shouldn't this be merged here?

 

INT's have differences in field position too my dude.  A strip sack is worse than a 60 yard bomb that's intercepted.

 

"Everyone cherry picks but me."