Thurman#1

Coin tosses aren't a good example for how useful analytics can be. Coin tosses produce one outcome - say tails - 50% of the time. But if advanced analytics can find you examples of situations where teams react to certain situations in certain ways 80% of the time in games, you can exploit that, and doing so will help you an awful lot. Coin tosses are based purely on chance. The stuff that is analyzed by analytics is based on human decision-making, human variance of abilities and the way two hugely complex systems (teams) produce results when pitted against each other. Moneyball in baseball is an example of a situation when looking carefully at analytics in ways better than the other teams do can indeed affect outcomes.

So someone interviewed someone who had an opinion. And you disagree with that opinion. No, they don't have to rule out three years but it's a reasonable enough guess that if you looked at the next three years the Bills might be one of the several teams who will have a tough time. There'll be teams that suck for those three years. Myself, I'm hopeful that by 2018 and 2019 the team could be looking up. But we just don't know yet how good McDermott is or isn't as a head coach or how good our new GM will be for that matter. Neither your opinion nor the ESPN guy's is that out of line.

His salary led the Skins to the 3rd best offense in yards and 12th best in points, and the 28th best defense in yards and the 19th best in points. Clearly the QB's fault.

t Are they a small handful of plays for every QB? Yeah. Deep passes are a small handful of passes. But they're extremely important. I get why you're trying to ignore that, after all it hurts your argument. Nonetheless, it has the logical problem for your contention that it's, you know, true. Deep passes are where most chunk plays come from, and effective deep passing games make short and intermediate pass games more effective, as small as their actual numbers are. But again, you keep arguing about the middle of the field ... but again, the only numbers we know from the middle third of the field show the exact opposite of what you're saying, that Brady and Rivers did just the opposite of ignoring the deep middle. That they in fact threw about a third of their deep passes to the deep middle. Unlike Tyrod who didn't. Making Brady and Rivers hard to predict and defense and Tyrod easier. I see, so you're saying that the only facts we have on the middle third of the field, the Brady, Rivers and Tyrod Taylor 2015 stats, are anomalous. Fine. Start counting and prove it. But we both know you're not going to do that. The only facts we have on the exact area in question show a problem for Tyrod. You can't just assume those facts are anomalous for no better reason than that you don't like what they show. The only way to prove your contention here is to start counting individual plays. Neither of us are willing to spend the time to do that. So we're left with only the facts that we have. Which support my argument and completely undermine yours. As we both know, I've already googled your charts. And for the thousandth time, the charts you're talking about are the wrong charts. The word around the league on Tyrod is that he can't and doesn't throw to the middle of the field. The reason people think that is because when you watch the games you see he doesn't throw to the middle third. Even the coaches last offseason talked about wanting to get Tyrod throwing to the middle of the field. This isn't made up. This is a thing. There are no charts for that because it takes a ton of effort to look at it. Infinitely easier to look at visual markers on the field, hashes and numbers. That's why people divide the field up that way, not because it makes sense but because it's easy to count. But looking at those charts ignores Tyrod's issues. Looking at those charts to try to understand Tyrod's problems is like the old joke about the cop who sees a drunk at night crawling around looking at the ground under a streetlight. The cop says "What are you doing?" and the drunk says, "I'm looking for my keys." The cop says, "Oh, you dropped them here?" and the drunk says "No, I dropped them a couple of blocks over." The cop says, "Why are you looking here then? Why don't you look where you dropped them?" And the drunk says, "The light's better here." You keep trying to find Tyrod's problem under the streetlight (your charts) because the light's better. But the problem's over where the light is worse. You'll never see the problem, and not because there isn't one but because you refuse to look in the right place. Tyrod's problem is with the ... middle ... third ... of the field. None of your charts address that area. In fact, they cover up the stats for those areas with completions from Tyrod's strength, the outside thirds. Yup, keep looking under that streetlight. Don't be surprised if you don't find anything, though. And I don't know what YPA charts you're referring to, but Tyrod's YPA last year was 6.9. Which is simply bad. 25th in the league. Don't know how you figure bad YPA like that proves he's throwing well deep to any area whatsoever.

Bold predictions are bold because they're likely to be wrong. I'm interested in trying to be right. I don't generally have bold predictions. Instead, I expect what's likely. But have fun, folks. It's an interesting idea. I'll come back and read, but I don't expect to have anything to contribute.

I do tend to ignore the stuff you bring up on this particular issue. I read it every time but you consistently don't directly address my specific objections. So yeah, I often don't bother to answer. Because you tend to be repeating the same things you've already said, and ignoring the problem rather than dealing with it. As you did here. I pointed out that the ESPN stats were combining areas of the field where Tyrod throws well with areas where he throws little, and thus masking his weaknesses. In response you compare other QBs stats to Tyrod's artificially elevated stats whose weaknesses at diagnosing his problems I just pointed out. So yeah, I do tend to ignore that, and other cases where points are missed. But you say here that you want to "save posters here some of your misinformation," so I'll do the same for yours. I explained that those stats miss the point, examine the wrong areas of the field and bury the information about the area he has trouble with in data from areas he's good in. And you use the exact same stats and compare them to other QBs ... thereby missing the exact same point yet again.. You argue that since guys don't go deep middle that often it's not important, again missing the point which is that the reason they didn't go deep middle all that often is that they didn't go deep all that often. QBs don't throw half of their balls deep. Nonetheless those deep balls are some of the most important they throw as they have much higher chances for being chunk plays and they force the defense to respect the deep ball which then opens up the shorter areas for more efficiency. Why are those 5% - or whatever - of passes important? That's why. They're an extremely important part of the plans for the passing game and if they're not functioning well in one area or being predictable as to where they will go, it's important. You ask if I charted all those other QBs in that area. Did you? If you didn't, your argument has the same weakness you're accusing mine of having. But in fact as you're aware from our arguments on the old site, I don't need to do that, because a guy did it for us, He produced the dot charts for Brady and Rivers. And so I did at that time indeed go through those dot charts and count out the results and to the surprise of nobody they showed that both Rivers and Brady, unlike Tyrod, distributed their deep and intermediate balls pretty close to evenly across the field. They threw close to a third of their passes to the left third, close to a third of their passes to the center third and close to a third of their passes to the right third. Which made them far more difficult to predict and therefore depend than Tyrod who threw about 40% of his passes to the left third, 40% of his passes to the right third and slightly below 20% of his passes to the middle third. Making him predictable and handicapping the receivers. I so wish those posts and 2015 dot charts were still available. They're not, but a ton of people saw the argument and none at the time disputed those charts. Those two distributed balls evenly across the field and weren't less successful in any area either. Whereas Tyrod distributed the ball unevenly and did poorly when he did throw it there. This was in 2015, and I can't claim to know what happened in 2016. But in 2015 the results were an estremely telling contrast. And again, in 2015 nearly half of Tyrod's INTs came from that extremely small number of passes he threw to the deep and intermediate middle third. So in 2015 he threw little and poorly to the deep and intermediate middle third. Which makes the defense's job easier and may well have been part of the adjustments that defenses made this last year that reduced his efficiency. You do touch on the key point in your post here, which is this ... "So what?" Jeez. So a lot. Guys who struggle to use a large area of the field - in this case the deep and intermediate middle third - make things a ton easier on the defense. The safeties can take a step or two away from the area that he doesn't use towards the area he uses well. The CBs can give less respect to the WRs moves towards the center of the field which reduces WR efficiency in the areas Tyrod is better at. Defenses with a lot of time to look at tape tend to find ways to take away strengths and attack weaknesses. Not exploiting a huge area of the field allows defenses not to defend those areas. It makes the job of the offensive passing game harder. That's so what.

To repeat what I just said, yeah, me too, slightly. But Tyrod's a 7th year guy and Siemian a 3rd year guy. Plenty of guys with two years of NFL experience make huge leaps upwards. Whereas pretty much the only 7th year guy is Gannon, though hundreds have been in position to do so. Siemian, without a doubt. No. The answer to your first question about how many QBs rode the bench for four years yadda yadda yadda is ... plenty. Probably somewhere close to 50. But you're also missing the point of your own question. How many guys rode the bench for four years ...? Exactly. The good QBs, the ones who have a good chance to become franchise QBs, don't do that. They beat out the guy ahead of them in the first three or four years. And if they don't for some reason, like Aaron Rodgers, then the three or four years on the bench has put them in position to succeed and they quickly show they belong. What doesn't happen is they sit on the bench for a long time, have a good year and then regress. There are virtually no cases of this happening and it resulting in a franchise QB ... because that's not how guys like that behave.

Yeah, Tyrod was a better runner but beyond that their success was fairly close. In Tyrod's last year and Teddy's last uninjured year, Teddy had a significantly better YPA and nearly an equal passer rating. Not a bad comparison for Bridgewater when you realize you're comparing a sixth-year guy last year with a second-year guy last time he played (Bridgewater's 2015). In any case, I hope Bridgewater recovers and regains his levels of physical ability. He was an exciting young player, looked like a guy who had a chance to become a good one.

Used to listen to them on long drives on the Mass Pike. They were entertaining. Russo's voice and attitude just cracked me up.

Yup, I'd take Siemian over Tyrod. Not if they were both third year guys. But Tyrod is going into his seventh. And seventh year guys who aren't franchise guys make the big leap up to the franchise level almost never.

Interesting.

Agreed. And if fans were willing to stay away, they'd have done it long ago. There's hunger for football. It's why we're all on these boards. We need it. The players could win a strike easily. Depends on the situation, how long they stay out, how united they are .... Just because the owners won the last one doesn't mean they win them all. History shows they don't. No way the players would get everything they want, but they could get a good deal for their side. Yeah, because there are so few unmotivated players now in the NFL with partially guaranteed contracts. And the NBA hasn't exactly been destroyed even though they have plenty of unmotivated guys and guaranteed contracts. Most players are motivated beyond belief. Some aren't. I don't think it's a money issue in most cases, just a personality issue. I doubt we'd see much more laziness with guaranteed contracts. Some, of course, but I doubt it would take a huge leap up. Not that I think we'll see fully guaranteed contracts in football in the near future. But eventually? Maybe. Yeah, guarantees at least in case of injury make some real sense. The whole thing's a Gordian knot. It'll be interesting in three years when the new contract has to be negotiated. Aggravating, though.

Andrew Luck stayed in school another year. It could very easily happen.

Thanks. And that's the concern. Can't reply to BuffAlone's reply as he formatted it strangely, but he's saying that Ragland's pro day was faster. Yeah, so is nearly everyone's. The playing field at pro days isn't all that level. He may be right that Ragland turns out to be a good one. Dunno. But his speed is a concern and I'm not buying that he's got the same speed as a lot of successful LBs these days. I don't think he does. He'll have to make up for his speed with terrific instincts and smarts. Maybe he can. Maybe he'll be on the field a lot. Hope so, but I'm sure not counting on it.

In itself, that isn't generally a good thing. New players take time to become accustomed to the new team new players and new scheme and the rooks wear out a bit early. New schemes often take a while to internalize so that the players play fast. I'm not sure yet that we'll have significantly improved coaching. But assuming we do, it's indeed likely to make a difference, but that difference will likely come in the second and third year. Sometimes there are big leaps up with new coaches implementing new schemes on teams that were around 7-9 the year before. Just not often.

4.72 40 time. Is that really "on a part with many other good lbers" these days? Can you name, say, 12? Agreed he's a tackling machine. The question is likely sideline to sideline speed and pass coverage. I don't know how he'll turn out. It'll be interesting to see. To get back to the 40 time, here are the LBs at the combine who got a time as slow as Ragland or slower: 2017: Keith Kelsey, Kevin Davis, Ellis Brooks, Ryan Anderson, Hardy Nickerson, Ben Gedeon, Connor Harris, Devonte Fields 2016: Cory Littleton, Joe Schobert, Terrance Smith, Beniquez Brown, Steve Longa, Jordan Jenkins, Eric Striker, Kris Frost, Nick Vigil, Ragland himself, Nick Kwiatkoski, Jared Norris, CJ Johnson, Tyler Matakevich, Steven Daniels, Kentrell Brothers, Scooby Wright, Josh Forrest, Gionni Paul 2015: Curtis Grant, Cameron Nwosu, Ramik Wilson, Damien Wilson DJ Lynch, Qushaun Lee, Lamar Dawson, Michael Taylor, Hayes Pullard, Denzel Perryman, AJ Johnson, Max Morgan, Quayshawn Nealy, Karl Mickelsen, Chase Williams, Jeff Luc, David Mayo, John Timu, Amarlo Herrera, Steve Edmond, Jabral Johnson, AJ Tarpley, Cole Farrand, Trey DePriest, Terrance Plummer, Paul Dawson, Taiwan Jones, Henry Coley, Marcus Rush, Dyshawn Davis, Norkeithus, LeBrandon Richardson, Alani Fua, James Vaughters, Xzavier Dickson, Hau'oli Kikaha, Yannik Cudjoe-Virgil, Cameroy Lynch, Braylon Mitchell, Efrem Oliphant, Thurston, Armbrister, Houston Bates, Kyle Emanuel, Stephon Sanders, Michael Odiari, Matt Robinson, Nick Richardson, Geneo Grissom, CJ Olaniyan, Tank Jakes, Kyle Woestmann, Max Valles, Lorenzo Mauldin, David Helton, Chi Chi Ariguzo, Martrell Spaight, Brennen Beyer, Markus Golden, JR Taval, Aaron Davis, Tony Washington 2014: Christian Kirksey, Jonathan Newsome, Anthony Hitchens, Carl Bradford, Jordan Zumwalt, Kasim Edebali, Tyler Starr, Jonathan Brown, Christian Jones, Max Bullough, James Morris, Chris Borland, Preston Brown, Jeremiah George Honestly, I didn't recognize many names there except for a few Bills, but I don't watch too many non-Bills games. Are there a lot of good players there? His speed is a legitimate concern. Again, I don't know how this will turn out, but it's something that will need to be watched. How many snaps will he get? How effective will he be in coverage? I'd be a bit depressed if Ragland was our B Spikes of 2014 In 2014, Spikes played in 46.4% of our defensive snaps. IMHO that would not be good if that's how much Ragland sees the field. And since 2014, two-down LBs snaps have further dropped.

Super Bowl XX with Tony Eason against the Bears.

Did he do something that was against the law? Yeah. So it wasn't overreacting by the cops. It was doing their jobs.

Agreed that the dot plots show that he went to the outside thirds of the field more. But as I extensively documented on the old site, in 2015 his success in the deep and intermediate middle thirds was awful, including a much larger than expected number of his INTs considering he threw very few passes there. I didn't go through every pass this last year in 2016 so I can't say, and would be willing to believe he improved. But as I've pointed out again and again, the PFF stats and the ESPN stats both miss the point. Tyrod throws well not just outside the hashes but also for another two to three yards inside them. And he also goes there a lot. Both PFF and ESPN consider those passes to an area he went to often and well to be "the middle." Which it isn't. Tyrod throws often and well to the outside third of the field and not often and at least in 2015 not so well to the middle third of the field. Of course, dividing the passes that way is a ridiculous amount of work, as I discovered. So after I did it play by play in 2015 I I haven't found anyone else who has done it. So yeah, his stats "to the middle" look good because the area of the outside that he throws to often and well is being considered "the middle" by these folks, so they throw all his good stats in with the far fewer balls he threw to the middle third and the stats from those just-inside-the-hashes passes overwhelm the stats for the balls actually thrown to the area Tyrod has trouble with. Again, Tyrod has trouble with one area, the deep and intermediate middle third. Throw in stats from other areas he's better at, like the area just inside the hashes or the area in the middle but short, in the first ten yards, and yeah, those areas he's strong in cover up the tendencies in the areas he's weak in.

Right, so if you assume that an OC is dumb enough to totally avoid tailoring his offense in any way to his QB ... which would be probably the first time in history that had ever been completely avoided ... then you can indeed baselessly guess that it wasn't tailored for the personnel on the team, including the quarterback. But in fact, that would be wrong. Before 2016, after a year working with Tyrod and the Bills personnel, Roman said that they were "... just opening up, expanding our offense a little bit." Didn't work out. And then when they fired him what did Anthony Lynn say in his opening press conference were going to be the changes he was going to make? Simplifying the offense and specifically, simplifying the reads. Whoops!! Q: "How do you help Tyrod Taylor attack the middle of the field more?" A: " Well, you know, just simplifying pass reads. Coach Lee does a helluva job working with his mechanics as far as throwing the football. He's a smaller guy so sometimes we might have to move the pocket for him and if they want to giv us those throws outside the hash, we'll take 'em. If they want to give 'em down the field, we'll take 'em. I'm not going to focus on just trying to get the football in one area of the field but that does open things up outside if we can get that done, don't get me wrong. " So the idea that they didn't adjust tailor things to Tyrod just simply flies in the face of the facts. Just because the particular article you're quoting doesn't point out the facts that are inconvenient for your argument doesn't mean they weren't happening.

Yeah, I think it's fair to call him better than average if you factor in his run game. But if you look at only his passing game, which simply is the most important thing for a QB, he's slightly below average this last year after people figured out how to defend him. So yeah, always look to upgrade ... until you get a QB who is somewhere in the top ten or twelve in the passing game. At that point you finally can take new QB out of the number one on your priority list. If Tyrod somehow becomes that guy ... terrific. But the number of QBs who have become real franchise QBs after seven years in the league is pretty much Rich Gannon and nobody else. The odds against it are very high. Not impossible, though.

Again, more "If things go really really well, then they'll have gone really really well, so ... championship!!!!!" Keeping their offense on the sidelines and surrendering less big plays on defense would indeed have us more competitive in every game. It's just unlikely that such major improvements will occur so quickly in the new regime's term. If you're talking about the long term, I'm really hopeful that you're right. If you're talking about the short-term, his vision is likely to be "in progress" this year. When schemes switch it generally takes time for major improvements to show. And part of the time it takes is to weed out the guys who don't fit the new vision and system and to bring in guys who do.

Yeah, but the thing is that 40 yards more passing per game is huge. It's the difference between being 24th in the league last year (the Eagles at 224.1 YPG and 5th in the league last year (ahead of the Colts and Steelers tied for 5th with 262.6 YPG. To put that in perspective, instead of looking at passing yards, let's look at points scored. That's like saying "All we have to do is score six more points per game (the difference between 24th in the league and 5th in the league) and we'd be pretty good. Yeah of course you would. But scoring six more points per game is very hard. Same as passing for 40 more yards per game. "All we have to do ... " misrepresents the difficulty here. More like "Here's the major mountain we would have to climb to ..." That's being preeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeetty optimistic about Shaq. If we put him as a guy who might make the Pro Bowl, we'd have to say that it's also true of about half of the guys at the position.

Bless you for your optimism. But this is the same stuff we hear every year. And virtually all of it could be said for every other bad to mediocre team in the league if you just change the names. What it amounts to is essentially "if things go really really well, then things would go really really well, and therefore I think there's a good chance that things will go really really well." Again, bless you, but the odds are very high against it. This year, anyway. Turnarounds when they happen generally - not every single time, but generally - take time.

Top five? Very unlikely. Not impossible. McDermott defenses in the past have taken two to three years to get really good. When you switch schemes that's what you should generally expect.