transplantbillsfan

It's not so much a simplification as the system itself, which simplifies certain things for the sake of efficiency.

McCoy missed 5 games in the last 2 years and the Bills won 3 of them.

Fair enough. So why bother talking about the upcoming season until it's here? Go enjoy your summer.

Quick decisions and reads are actually the plays I think Taylor would thrive in. The WCO often has it so the QB knows where he's going before the ball is snapped. One thing I've observed (and I thought I remember there being data to support this) is that when Taylor takes snaps from under center and takes 3 or 5 step drops and delivers the ball, he's good; helps him to maintain his mechanics, too. Go back and watch the first few games after Lynn took over and I think you'd see some good examples of those types of throws.

Glad you bring this up. From FO after the 2015 season: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2016/2015-play-action-offense As you'll see if when you read FOA 2016, the Bills were a bit bipolar offensively, with splits that were alternatively excellent and horrendous. Play-action was part of Buffalo's good side, as Tyrod Taylor led the league's best play-action offense last season. You might assume that including scrambles probably helped push Buffalo ahead of Arizona, but the Bills still finished first in the passes-only column with a DVOA basically indistinguishable from their standard play-action DVOA. The next logical step would be for Greg Roman to increase Buffalo's play-action usage in 2016, given Taylor's proficiency on deep passes (81.1% DVOA, fourth among qualifying quarterbacks), and the fact that the Bills only ranked 24th in play-action percentage despite their efficiency. Roman used plenty of play-action during Colin Kaepernick's peak seasons, as San Francisco ranked sixth and fifth in play-action usage during the 2013 and 2014 campaigns, respectively.

I'll respond. Yeah, Roman's system catered to his deep ball throwing and his legs... but those plays were what % of his overall plays? I think this article explains the other routes pretty well, but it's those other routes in the route tree Dennison's system focuses on that Roman's system and play calling didn't focus on that didn't cater as well to Taylor's strengths as this system hopefully will. I think Lynn did better with the play calling in terms of those shorter routes than Roman, which was why for 13 games with Taylor getting plays from Lynn you saw a significantly more efficient team on offense in terms of staying on the field and moving the chains, but even Lynn was restricted by another guy's system. Hopefully the article's analysis comes into fruition

The article doesn't talk about tailoring (heh ) a system to our QB. It says the system our OC runs (which has been extremely successful for years) is tailored to our QB.

http://billswire.usatoday.com/2017/07/07/west-coast-offense-tyrod-taylor-buffalo-bills/ Looks into reasons the Bills passing game and Taylor could be significantly improved in 2017. Talks a little about the changes in personnel, but the interesting stuff is when it dissects the passing concepts we're supposedly going to be executing this year: play-action passes, simple route concepts, the shallow cross, etc. Closes with:

Losing the QB hurts more than any other position unless there's a diamond in the rough at backup, obviously.

Atlanta just lost their OC and Carolina just lost their DC... so maybe they have partial systems in place, but not entire ones. Plus, again, Carolina sucked last year.

Considering the general parity in the NFL, this seems pretty obvious. Every year you have teams that go from being pretty good to mediocrity (Jets, Bengals) or go from mediocrity to being pretty good (Atlanta) or go from sucking to being pretty good (Titans) or go from mediocrity to being great (Oakland) or go from great to sucking (Carolina) or go from sucking to being great (Dallas). And all that was just last year. The most consistent teams in the NFL have probably been the Browns for sucking, the Bills for mediocrity, and the Pats for greatness. It doesn't help that we play in the same division as the Pats. But, in the end, looking at our schedule and circling games like Atlanta and Carolina as losses seems like grasping at straws. I actually think Atlanta's going to feel the loss of Shanahan and take a step back from what they were last year. And Carolina... well, they sucked last year. Circling that as a loss seems like purely a guess.

Rochester has Vietnamese food? I grew up there... gotta be honest, my tastebuds didn't really become very worldly in any way until I moved to Hawai'i. Now, Pho is one of my favorite foods... and I'm not a big soup guy, either. And don't get me started on sushi

Crusher, rather than acting holier than thou, why don't you talk football and respond to my football post responding to a misconception of yours? We're here to talk football. If you enjoy sitting back and watching vitriolic posts unfold, I'm sure there are better message boards to see those train wrecks happen. I bet a political message board would be a great place to get what you seem to want if you need some guidance Game winning drives against the Texans in 2015 and Jags in 2016, so this isn't accurate. And although this will sound pretty much like a broken record, the 2nd Miami game this year demonstrated maybe the best example of TT being able to put together a game winning drive. Argue semantics about it being a loss all you want, but those are just flimsy semantics if what truly concerns you is how capable Taylor is of putting together a drive late in a game in a real pressure situation and coming through with a go-ahead score.

You really should find a way to unwind... you're always so incredibly wound up. I asked that poster a pretty direct question. Why you always so mad?

Hmmm... based on your avatar (and your post) I'm guessing you're a guy from BBMB who used the same one and posted frequently. Am I wrong?

It's not wrong. You just might disagree with their methodology. First of all, it's considering entire offensive DVOA on passing plays, so positive yards, whether via Taylor scrambling or passing, would factor positively towards offensive DVOA. And the opposite would also be true. Knowing that Footballoutsiders overall DVOA of Taylor the Passer is #19, I'd suspect that one of the reasons those "plays with no pressure" are average (16) is partially the same reason the plays with pressure jump to #2: they're factoring scrambles into that equation, whereas with their typical DVOA to end the year when they rank team offense in both the passing and running game, they lump scrambles in with the running DVOA, despite the fact that sacks are still part of the passing DVOA. So really it's not wrong. You just don't agree with it, which is to be expected considering your criticisms of when I broke down his scrambles from his designed runs and considered them part of the overall passing game. Hey, looks like others are catching on.

See, I have an issue with people who say "the only stat that matters is the record" when it comes to a QB discussion as though that sums up the QB argument... or is a big factor in it. The Bills won a game against Cincinnati, but after that game I was discouraged about Taylor as a QB because he was horrible. I felt that way while being happy about the Win, of which Taylor had little to do with. The Bills lost against Seattle and Miami at home, but after both games I was incredibly encouraged about Taylor as a QB because he was excellent. I felt that way while being bitterly disappointed about the Loss, of which Taylor had little to do with. I don't understand the inability to separate an examination of the quality of a QB from Wins and Losses. If that's what we're doing, then Andrew Luck, Joe Flacco, Phillip Rivers, and Drew Brees all deserve immense criticism themselves for Win/Loss record of the Colts, Ravens, and Chargers over the last 2 years and the Saints over the last 3 years.

And this, I feel, is where the vast majority of us stand I don't think we need a poll to reveal that

Well, sounds familiar, and it swings both ways with both sides of the argument When you have idiots saying dumb stuff like you've "got it hard for Taylor," it makes civil discussion virtually impossible. People need to not make everything so personal on a message board.

There have been polls. But if you make that poll with your wording "Is TT the "real" problem, or is TT the long term answer," you leave out all the middle ground where the vast majority I'm talking about sit. I'm speaking for myself, but I believe the vast majority are, at best, "undecided, but somewhat encouraged" as to whether TT is the long term answer, but believe what he's done so far warrants a longer look. If you think this poll should be created and you think wording is key, you should create that poll. But again, we had something like that as a poll over at BBMB, and it truly was a vocal minority who thought TT was "the real" or even "a big" problem.

Your idea for a new thread has been done before. Don't you remember? There was a real minority of people who thought Taylor was a real problem. And I'm sorry, if you guys are so tired of posting and some are going to just get angry and belligerent (and I'm not talking about you), then why are you posting in these topics you're so sick of discussing? It absolutely baffles my mind. And yes, I realize I'm not guilt free. I could always keep my mouth shut and not respond to what are turning into more and more angry and/or belligerent and/or middle school posts, but I haven't been. With that, I'll try harder to not respond to those posts... or at least do so without bringing myself down to their level.

Productive post

There are at least an incredibly vocal minority complaining about the offense. It's possible there aren't a lot of them, but the few there are get very vocal and sometimes belligerent about it.

You can name me. You don't have to say "a certain pro Tyrod poster." I was the one who challenged your assertion because it was wrong. You, Thurman, and RF all seem to be under the impression that every time Taylor's under pressure, he breaks the pocket or scrambles. You call visual proof from easy access of Taylor's TD highlights, which show a QB only leaving the pocket 20% of the time when pressured "inadequate information?" If it is, I don't know what to give you. You certainly aren't going to trust me if I go through every single pass of Taylor and count 'em up. I won't waste my time doing that when there's no chance anything will sway you. If you have game pass, go watch every single passing play from Taylor and count them up for yourself. Even if you're looking at those plays with biased eyes, at least you're putting in some effort Then what are we supposed to do here in the meantime?

Soooo... this article includes scrambles, yes. It includes them for all QBs. You and Thurm have the same conclusions, it seems... that this reveals nothing new because we always knew he was a great runner. Why are you latching onto 25% of the "pressured" plays he's referring to? I say 25% because Taylor scrambled 47 times. But there were 188 "pass plays with pressure" that footballoutsiders article refers to. This isn't all about his legs. He stood in the pocket and delivered plenty of passes with pressure around him or coming straight at him. Just go watch his TD highlights and you can pretty easily figure out which ones are the pressure plays and which ones are the non pressure plays. By my count (and please, check for yourself and let me know if I counted wrong and which plays you included), of the 10 relatively obvious "pressure plays" on his passing TDs (since we know from those other sources he has 10 passing TDs under pressure) Taylor only left the pocket twice. Those were the TD pass to Salas in the Jets game and the TD pass to Hunter in the back of the end zone in the Rams game. That means he stood in the pocket and delivered 80% of his TD passes that were under pressure. And saying at those points he just always is "acting on instinct" ignores plays like the TD pass to Goodwin in the 1st Dolphins game with the defender running free straight at him and plowing him to the ground. Or the Steelers game with the pass to Clay where he pump fakes to try to make just enough room to get the ball to Clay before getting tackled. You're right, it's just another thread with people lumped in their camps, which is simply a shame because it makes civil and rational discussion absolutely impossible. It'd be helpful if everyone at least understood what the articles actually said before scurrying to try to fit that square study into their round narrative