transplantbillsfan

It's an "if..." I think Taylor winning the starting job is inevitable, so it's just if he can improve upon his 2016 campaign and look more like or better than 2015. Possible. Not a long shot and not highly likely, but possible. Not a 5% chance and not a 95% chance. As always, reality lies in the middle.

That's cool... where'd you get that?

How do you know what bothers me? Here's a better question... I'm assuming it bothers you when posters like me who you've pre-labeled as an undying Tyrod homer argue with any logic, reasoning, or stats like those posted in the articles against your principle that Tyrod will ABSOLUTELY NOT be the answer: Why do you bother posting responses to someone who will undoubtedly not change your mind and will instead just bother you with all these articles, logic, reasoning and stats you disagree with?

You're the one in the shadows... Shady as can be just making things up... Awesome!!! I'd be super excited!!! But that's not happening

According to Fahey: FAILED RECEPTION- 4th most by % More stats here if anyone's interested: http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/193755-qb-comparative-data-for-tyrod-from-cian-fahey-to-discuss/

No... they've said "here's a contract we'd like to give you because we think we can win with you as our QB but want to make sure before investing long term." If TT wins the job and he plays well and the team is successful, we aren't drafting a QB in the 1st. Exactly... You keep posting this crap over and over and over and over again... link? And how about more than just one play So it upsets you when people use "excuses" of things that actually happened with Taylor to "defend" him but you're perfectly fine fabricating stats for Aaron Rodgers to defend him? Okay then...

It takes hours to click on a link to read a pretty simple premise... ? I'm sorry, but if you're going to bother with what you've posted over the last few posts in terms of inflammatory posts questioning my credibility and spiking the football, so to speak, then... YES!!! ​FIGURE OUT THE ARGUMENT!!!

Did the Packers trail in the 4th quarter to the Texans? Why is this so friggin difficult...?

Wow... just wow. First game I looked up was Texans in 2016. I see you're just fabricating stats to make a nonexistent point. What'd you say about credibility?

First of all, it's Scott Kacsmar's and Footballoutsiders credibility. I provided the link. Second, READ WHAT IT SAYS!!! How many of those games won were games where the Packers were down by more than 1 in the 4th? At the point the Packers played those teams did they have winning records? This wasn't my study, it was a pretty highly respectable stats guy. I think it's sad that we're on a message board and so many people have reading comprehension issues. Whatever... not even bothering with you here since you don't read...

I posted this link earlier... check it out http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/green-bay-packers-aaron-rodgers-clutch-nfc-championship-stat-012217 No, it's not. Packers didn't trail in the 4th quarter against the Cowboys... I assume that's the game you're referring to? Read what's said before you respond with snarky comments like that.

If it's misinterpretation Crusher, then you do a poor job communicating what you actually want to say. For example, in post 355 when responding to the discussion about Taylor's contract you say "The difference is that Shaw's guy was apparently absolutely certain that this was the deal he wanted." And then in post 382 just a page later Shaw accused you of misquoting him, and you say "I said you almost make it seem as if he got the deal he wanted. No misquoting here." I don't misrepresent you. And frankly, what you're doing with the mental aspect thing is a bit of a copout. Wow... just pathetic... I think I could use a collection of your posts to teach Ad hominem pretty solidly.

Why are you putting words in my mouth? You like to assume things when they are never said. I brought that up to make a point, not as a statement of who I'd rather have. Figured you'd understand that. And it's not my statistical analysis, it's Scott Kacsmar's over at Footballoutsiders.

Yes, volume... and it seems like Taylor wasn't the only one (or even the main one... ?) complaining about volume. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/22/lesean-mccoy-bills-offense-simplified-under-anthony-lynn/ McCoy said the team would go into games with 80-90 potential plays when Roman was the coordinator and that number has been pared down to 30-40 plays under Lynn.

No, I want Joe Montana handling the ball, but he's long retired... Fun fact... did you know that Aaron Rodgers is 0-35 in his career in precisely your scenario? Diown by more than 1 point in the 4th quarter to a winning team, Aaron Rodgers hasn't won a single game in his career.

How do you know Kaepernick isn't a genius? So you're saying Tyrod is dumber than Kaep? You're really making blanket insulting statements with little or no proof because of this seemingly very personal vendetta.

Crusher said exactly that, actually...

https://www.google.com/amp/profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2016/09/22/lesean-mccoy-bills-offense-simplified-under-anthony-lynn/amp/https://www.google.com/amp/billswire.usatoday.com/2016/09/22/buffalo-bills-anthony-lynn-tyrod-taylor/amp/ I think you're seriously misrepresenting what actually happened. This was less about Taylor not having the mental capacity to grasp an NFL offense than about Roman putting too many plays in every week and issues with communication. If you read those, the Bills were going into the first couple games with 60-80 plays in the game plan. Lynn cut that to 40-50 and streamlined communication with a wristband for Taylor. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.nfl.com/news/story/09000d5d8192b29f/article/producing-a-game-plan-takes-into-account-months-of-work%3FnetworkId%3D4595%26site%3D.news%26zone%3Dstory%26zoneUrl%3Durl%253Dstory%26zoneKeys%3Ds1%253Dstory%26env%3D%26pageKeyValues%3Dteam%253Dmin%253Bconf%253Dnfc%253Bdvsn%253Dncn%253Bplyr%253Dbrett_favre%253Bplyr%253Dwilliam_harvin%26sr%3Damp You'll see here that 40-50 plays is about the typical playbook of NFL teams on a weekly basis. Actually 35-40 is more the number so it's above average. This wasn't really about dumbing things down for Taylor, it was about simplifying game plans for an entire offense and improving communication.

fair enough.

I've seen you say this a number of times now and I really wonder how true it is. I actually think those plays are exactly the types of plays Taylor thrives off of. My issue has been that those aren't very often the plays the Bills offense would run. Here's an article over at cover1 on this: http://www.cover1.net/2017/03/tyrod-taylors-2016-passing-campaign-misinterpreted-misused/ There are stats posted in the article for how successful Taylor was in certain types of plays. And it indicates the WCO might be just what the doctor ordered for Taylor.

RF, yes, the truth lies somewhere in the middle. At absolutely no point does Fahey himself rank QBs himself. There are more numbers in here. I'm not going to do a disservice to Fahey, who (despite Crusher's pathetic sentiments otherwise) puts a lot of work into charting all of these QBs and is widely respected, by posting every single number he came up with. I agree, some of Taylor's general success can be attributed to lower volume. Discussing how much of an impact volume had is reasonable. And even with that discussion, I think the answer lies somewhere in the middle: It is NOT that Taylor's numbers will ALWAYS be exactly the same in terms of completion %, YPA, TD/INT %, etc if Taylor were passing the ball 500 times in a season. however It is NOT that Taylor's numbers will AUTOMATICALLY drop precipitously in all those same categories if he were passing it 500 times in a season. You're right, it's in the middle. You've always just assumed I'm not in the middle because of my posts. But I'm much closer to the middle than you think. Mental aspects, huh? What makes you say that?

I think all of these are the right conversations to have. I think all your points are valid. I'm not going to quibble with definitions (I disagree with your final statements about "journeyman QB" and "Bridge QB," for example), but I want to clear up something you misrepresented from me at the beginning. Fahey himself that QB is the single biggest driver of success or failure on the football field. But he's saying the significance people give is much too high to even a player at the most important position on the field when there are 10 other guys on the field playing offense at the same time, 11 other guys playing defense when the offense is off the field, and 11 guys playing special teams on the plays that those plays happen. The number 1 golfer in the world right now is Dustin Johnson. Would the smart money be on Dustin Johnson or the field if you're betting on whatever his next tournament is? Johnson might have a greater chance of winning putting him up against any other single individual golfer, but not when you put everyone else together. It's similar with QB. People want to attribute ridiculously high %s (40%-50%) to a QB for wins and losses, so that means you're leaving 50%-60% to spread around to 32 other players and the Head Coach, not to mention whatever other factors there are. His simple point is that while QB is the most important individual on the field, he always gets way too much credit for the good and way too much blame for the bad. What ridiculous hyperbole... if you think what RF just said about Fahey means he has zero credibility, I think you misunderstood what that post said. Read it again. Whatever Crusher, I hoped you would try to be more even keeled over on a new message board to recreate yourself. Guess not...

No, it was fact vs opinion, that's all.

Good stuff! Thanks!

I agree. Thought it was pretty obvious when the Bills got Dennison as the OC that the intention was to keep Taylor and hit the ground running. Of course that's not a fact, I'm just using logic to create a reasonable opinion