transplantbillsfan

Yes, because completion % is something that I thought was good...

No better options? It was pretty obvious that Whaley wanted to move onto a new QB. He also has a history of being very willing to wheel and deal for players whether it's veterans (Kiko for McCoy) or in the draft (trading up for Sammy), so although what you say here is a way for you to diminish the choice of Taylor, it might actually be correct in the sense that McDermott looked at all of his options available in FA (Glennon, McCown, Hoyer, Cutler, Kaep, etc.), through trade (Romo, possibly others that end up being more of a stretch), or through draft in the 1st round (Khizer, Trubisky, Watson) and viewed Taylor more as a slightly unripened apple (I'm assuming he's the "on the verge of mushy" in your analogy) about to ripen in comparison to all those other options. Getting Taylor to restructure and take less money was a fantastic move for the team. He stated on clean-out day that he would consider restructuring his contract, so it would have been foolish for Buffalo not to do it. But there have been no words that prove all the conspiracy theories that are rolling around about Taylor and why we kept him and why he restructured. Considering he only really played 7 full seasons and for more than half of them (2002, 2004, 2006, 2010) he was good, saying "he sucked often" just sounds dumb.

Are you talking about Vick? You understand that Vick was a massive part of that rushing attack, right? And Vick's teams are actually a pretty good lesson in team building because when you look at just the Falcons when he was there, the 2 years the Defense was an above average defense were the 2 years they made the playoffs. The years their Defense was below average or absolutely at the bottom of the league, as it was in 2003, no playoffs. Football is a team sport. QBs are almost inevitably going to be magnified in one way or another according to team success. Team wins = elevated perception of QB, even if ever-so-slightly Team losses = diminished perception of QB, even if ever-so-slightly Well you can speculate, that's fine and fun... Did McDermott ever say if Taylor didn't take the pay cut, he would cut him loose?

According to Taylor, he passively and briefly examined options with other teams but really likes Buffalo and wanted to stay and to win in Buffalo and understands the Cap restrictions on the team this offseason along with the number of UFAs at key positions the team would be losing and saw a way to help his team win, which would also help him win. Actually he mentioned helping the team financially more than once, if I recall correctly. Paraphrasing of course, but that's pretty much what Taylor said...

Well, if actions speak louder than words, then a brand new Head Coach who pretty clearly was given the opportunity to "trim the fat" on the roster (as he was actually, according to himself, given significant roster control) and the chance (dare I say the encouragement from Whaley) to go get "his guy" at the most important position on the field, and he chose Taylor. For a coach who wants to win now, you're right, that action speaks volumes...

If you say so, hot stuff

Vick was absolutely more dynamic when he ran. But Taylor, though clearly not quite there, is probably pretty clearly 2nd amongst all the QBs we've seen over the years in terms of running alone. Taylor is at least as good in terms of being a pocket passer, though. Vick's arm was stronger, obviously. But as a pure passer of the football, Taylor likely edges him out. It's still early, though. But saying it's not sustainable might be your belief, but it's not historically accurate if Vick sustained it, which he did... and probably would have for longer. You say what they're talking about doing is because he's just not a good passer, but don't even consider that what they're talking about doing might simply be because he's such a dynamic athlete. In fact, McDermott's praise for Taylor goes pretty far, indeed. "turn the tape on and the product on the field was outstanding." "It's a great asset for us to have a guy of Tyrod's skill-set under center for us." Sure looks like a coach who sees a QB who can operate a system he really wants to run rather than a coach who has to change his offensive system/philosophy because the QB can't do what he wants.

While Tebow was the ultimate flash in the pan, Vick played in a good handful of playoff games and even won a couple with the Falcons. Again, Vick was Vick's own undoing. It's not like he played for a season or two. Teams had plenty of time to try to figure him out. He had enough sustained success to prove that his playing style could be successful in the NFL and seriously competitive in the post-season. And here I thought Football was a team sport and Wins and Losses were a team stat, not a QB stat... silly me...

Yes, but it's not like there's an exact formula to it and it's not like those are the only 2 things to consider. But yes, I 100% would take 32 TDs and 11 INTs over 16 TDs and 4 INTs. But really we should be talking total TDs and total turnovers considering much of Taylor's production (whether you like it or not... and many don't) is on the ground. Actually, it worked with Vick. His personal life and injuries ultimately derailed his career.

Well, everyone desperate for a new system and "opening it up" for Taylor and hoping to see the O just "let him rip," it just sounds like McDermott isn't going to do that: http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/news/nfl-owners-meeting-cardinals-tyrod-taylor-dontari-poe-roberto-aguayo/nle6x6l595sr1usd1f8ewqd5d "He impressed me from Day 1," McDermott said. "After I got the job, he called me on the phone and met me at the facility on my first day. And then I had a front-row seat to watch Tyrod in the rehab process and observe his work ethic. "You get around him, turn the tape on and the product on the field was outstanding." Taylor’s passing attempts and yardage the past two seasons were well below average for an NFL starter. Taylor will never be Drew Brees in that regard, but McDermott believes he can grow with the West Coast-style offense being installed by new coordinator Rick Dennison that places emphasis on quarterback mobility. "It really fits Tyrod getting him on the perimeter with the run game and ball-faking and bootlegs and so forth," McDermott said. "I believe in that system. I’ve gone against it and know how hard to defend in run and pass game. It's a great asset for us to have a guy of Tyrod’s skill-set under center for us."

Well, it's pretty clear that Trolling is acceptably abundant on this board, so if you can't beat 'em...

First of all, talking interceptions without also talking TDs and attempts just doesn't work. So, a QB who throws 600 passes and 40 TDs and throws 7 INTs is pretty obviously far superior to a QB like TT throwing just over 400 passes and 17 TDs and 6 INTs. Saying "Matt Ryan threw more interceptions than Taylor" as though that somehow shoots down the argument that Interceptions matter a lot is naïve. Sure, more passes are (likely) going to lead to more Interceptions, but it doesn't have to. And you don't want it to. It's TD:INT ratio that matters, not just some raw number of interceptions. You go back and the top 5 QBs in the NFL in that TD:INT ratio are consistently on playoff teams. Why? More TDs and less INTs help your team. Some of you guys are saying you want more interceptions when the reality is you just want a completely different style of play from Taylor. Fine, that's a different discussion, though, but I'll say that we've had that style of play recently from Fitzpatrick and I bet many of you were the same folks clamoring to get rid of him.

But it's still about throwing significantly more TDs than INTs

You're saying that there's a certain amount of bad that automatically comes with good. And you're saying that number is a number greater than what TT does. What are those magical numbers? But I love you, anyway.

Because you're presenting it as though the interceptions are the cause of 3 wins and a guaranteed playoff spot. The interceptions wouldn't be the cause of that.

Can you explain how it's more likely to lead to more victories than less interceptions? Awww shux puddin... you just can't resist me

Pretty much this And this. Still amazed some people are equating more interceptions with good QB play. I'm sure that's not actually what they believe. They're just leaving a big, empty vacuum of a hole in their argument and assuming everyone else will automatically fill it in for them.

You are an absolute joy.

Yes. Very good. Glad you saw that. Except my Straw Man was in jest, intentional, purposeful, and obvious.

Live in your odd world where TD:INT ratio doesn't matter. That's fine. Just mull over top 5 vs. bottom 5 of TD:INT ratio for 2016 on QBs who threw at least 200 passes. 2016 top 5: 1) Brady 2) Prescott 3) Rodgers 4) Ryan 5) Carr 2016 bottom 5 of guys were Barkley, Fitzpatrick, Goff, Keenum, Osweiler. But we should probably bring Fitzpatrick back because he throws lots of Interceptions. And according to you, Interceptions are good.

Still don't get it. I guess you don't, either. I'm glad you can laugh. Even if it's in some twisted, bent, and broken version of the reality of this argument.

Okay, forgive me if I'm mixed up on the definition of what a troll is, but when you say that "some are here to amuse themselves," and they're doing it in the manner that some on here are clearly doing it, is that not exactly what a troll is? And of course I'm an idiot... at least, that's what my wife tells me all the time.

I don't know what you're "ouch"ing. Interceptions (or I should say, the lack of interceptions... really turnovers in general) is an incredibly important part of playing QB. So is completion %. So is TDs, passing or rushing. So is yards, passing or rushing. So is YPA, or YPC. So is 3rd down % on passing plays. So is... You get my point. There are tons of facets of a QB's game that matter and not a single poster ever said that one was the only one that mattered, and that's the way some of you are talking. And it's very troll-like. And it's very sad. I don't know why you quoted those posts and said this is going to be fun. I don't know what you think that actually says. You don't actually believe those posts by me are saying that INTs are the only QB stat that matter, do you? I hope not. If you do, seek help. Immediately.

This message board definitely has BBMB qualities as it sucks out the trolls who, like parasites, latch on to fragments of a post and neglect the entirety of what's said. Whatever. What a bore....

Dude, you're either being intentionally obtuse because you're having fun (I think that's called Trolling) or you're just actually dense. Which is it? You listed a bunch of QBs who threw more INTs than Taylor as though someone on here is arguing that if a QB doesn't throw a lot of Interceptions, he's automatically good. No one is saying that. No one. You've set up the best example of a Straw Man fallacy here. No one is saying what you're arguing against.