transplantbillsfan
-
Posts
10,436 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by transplantbillsfan
-
-
I can't wait for you to topple jfh as top Tyrod apologist. It's gonna be tasty.
Til Sept bro.
I wish I knew what jfh was...
-
And he sat on the bench most of his rookie year. And injuries derailed a couple other seasons. And he was a clear backup due to age and injuries for several seasons at the end of his career.Vick played 13 seasons btw. I wish you would stop fabricating numbers.
Sad play
And if you count those partial seasons as well, he didn't always suck as you're implying.
Or do you just have a short memory? Or can't use Google?
How many were remotely close to full seasons?
-
Neither. Give me Antoine Winfield. He is one player that the Bills should have kept.
This... by far...
As to the question, Clements x 1000. Clements was much better as a Bill. He wasn't as successful when he left, but he was better than Gilmore as a Buffalo Bill.
-
Well, you knew the answer to yours.
Don't worry muffin... I get it
-
Oh the irony...That wasn't an answer. Can't say I'm surprised.
Yes, apparently you're allowed respond to a question with another question, but I'm not...
Too funny...
-
Do you think if TT thought the Bills would pick up the option and pay him what he was owed, he takes a $10M pay cut?
Do you think the Bills would have been wise to give any indication whatsoever that they were planning on picking up the option if there were a chance they could get him cheaper?
-
Okay Vick was awesome. I am dumb. 50% completion rate was the bees knees.
63-54 career record
14-14 Taylor is gonna have to step his game up to reach those wonderful numbers
Yes, because completion % is something that I thought was good...
-
when you have a basket of 3 apples, one rotten, one unripe unripe and one just on the verge of getting mushy and there are no better options available which do you choose?
Its elementary.
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.
No and Vick sucked often minus 2-3 good seasons.
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.
-
Pretty silly to think a good qb wouldn't be able to win games with the top rushing attack setting him up on easy street.
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
And yet, the restructure sounds like a coach who needs to save $10M or he's gonna cut him loose.
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?
-
John, what is your explanation for TT taking a paycut?
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...
-
Transplant doesn't know what coach speak is, apparently.
Actions speak louder than words, however, so yes...that restructure says a whole lot more than a coach endorsing the guy who will be their QB this upcoming season.
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...
-
And yet, the restructure sounds like a coach who needs to save $10M or he's gonna cut him loose.
If you say so, hot stuff
-
Vick is a better player and was more dynamic when he ran.
Tyrod can be successful to a degree, but what they are talking about doing with him is because he's just not a good passer.
It may work ok for a time, but I don't believe it's sustainable.
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.
-
Ah yes, those two Super Bowl champion QB's Tebow and Vick..
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.
What many don't like is he's 1-6 vs .500 teams. Thank god for Brissett or it would've been 0-7.
And here I thought Football was a team sport and Wins and Losses were a team stat, not a QB stat... silly me...
-
Of course it is, and Taylors TD to INT ratio is very good.
Let me put it to you this way, If Taylor throws say 16 TD's and 4 INT's one season, a more experienced Taylor the next season scores 32 TD's and 11 INT's
Wouldn't you agree that despite the increase in INT's the 2nd season that the increase in points scored more then makes up for it?
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.
The same things were said fir Vick and Tebow. Just let them move around, run, and occasionally pass the football.
It's a gimmick offense designed to cover up a limited passer, and it's proven to not work.
Actually, it worked with Vick. His personal life and injuries ultimately derailed his career.
-
A more complex passing offense allows you to make more plays and put pressure on the defense into making tough decisions when it comes to coverage. Yes...it will sometimes lead you to more riskier throws that may be INT'S, but it also should allow you to get the ball into playmakers hands more, and you should be much better getting pass production...especially late in games where we seem to struggle mightily passing.
That's where I stand on that. It's a fine line to walk between taking chances and running a more elaborate passing attack, but I think we have been too simple and have hurt ourselves late in games due to this approach.
Is that approach due to Taylor and his limitations. From what I have seen and heard...I believe so.
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:
"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."
-
:wallbash:This feigned ignorance = Trolling
Well, it's pretty clear that Trolling is acceptably abundant on this board, so if you can't beat 'em...
-
through more passing attempts/TD's as a result and the better feel a QB gets of WR tendencies in certain situations.
Nobody wants an INT , but when one gets thrown in certain situations the QB gains more knowledge about his WR and himself, and the same goes for a TD in my humble opinion. Some WR are going to track down the ball, others not so much.
You can't learn from mistakes unless you try.
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.
-
5 more INT's a season to achieve a more agressive passing attack and better production while it may seem like allot of turnovers, spread out over 16 games its not as bad as playing so conservative its costing you wins.
Do you remember the gun slinging days of J K? Throwing two INT's early, then come roaring back with 3TD's?
Well if you do this is the point people are trying to make.
But it's still about throwing significantly more TDs than INTs
-
It has to do more with the quality of the attempts.
Drew Brees throws more picks than TT but he also throws passes regularly that TT is afraid to make. You take the good with the bad. The downside is a couple more picks. The upside is a QB that throws guys open, fits the ball in tight windows, and keeps drives alive.
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.
-
5 more INT's would equal an average of 1 INT per game. If that leads to a total of 3 more wins and a guaranteed playoff spot.
What is so hard to understand?
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.
-
I never said it was an ideal situation, just that I would be more accepting of it if it lead to more victories.
Can you explain how it's more likely to lead to more victories than less interceptions?
Or it's been explained at least twice.
Awww shux puddin... you just can't resist me
-
If that's the point people are trying to make, it's not a very good one. In what scenario do 5 more interceptions a season equal 3 more wins? It doesn't make any sense. Just upping our pass attempts isn't going to lead to more wins if that's what you mean.
https://www.teamrankings.com/nfl/stat/pass-attempts-per-game
4 teams in the top 10 and 4 teams in the bottom 10 made the playoffs. There is no correlation between more pass attempts and more wins, but there is a correlation between less turnovers and more wins. If the choice is between less pass attempts and less interceptions, or more pass attempts and more interceptions, there is no reason to choose the second option.
Pretty much this
The only way that adding 5 more interceptions would lead to 3 more wins is if that qb threw for at least 10 more touchdown passes. And it would probably require more than 10 to offset the damage done by the 5 interceptions and still lead to 3 more victories.
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 have a synonym problem, I've noticed.
You are an absolute joy.
Tyrod Taylor's Highlights
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by transplantbillsfan
You're jfh!!! Wow... these damn kids with their twitter talk acronyms! I guess it's sad that I'm a millennial (I think) and I never have a clue what these acronyms are. Took me forever to figure out what SMH is. Still don't have a clue what FWIW is and I seem to see it here a lot.