transplantbillsfan
-
Posts
11,035 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by transplantbillsfan
-
-
Didn't know that transplant
I thought maybe you were on vacation.
A forced one, yes.
The mods basically said they were enforcing martial law here to try to get this place completely civil before TC and the season starts.
It's okay, though. I deserved it as much as they did. I may not have started it, but I certainly could have taken the high road and not retaliated, but I didn't.
I hope I've learned my lesson, at least to some degree
-
Your input is greatly appreciated, but the topic of this thread has nothing to do with former Bills QBs; it's about the near future/how the passing game will be this coming season.
Personally, I think that the pretty stats of the past will not be duplicated this year. A baseball team can have a player hit 55 HR in a season; if they were all solo shots with the team either up or down by 5+ runs, it becomes a meaningless - albeit very pretty - statistic.
I want to see more effective 2-minute drills. I want to see a pass play over the middle of the field executed on a crucial 3rd and long. I want to feel confident in the offense when they take the field down by 4 late in the game.
I think the new coaching staff has no choice but to call big boy plays in big boy situations. Those situations will define TT and determine his future, IMO.
Good thing we started seeing those things happen in Taylor's last couple games.
From the Cleveland game:
3-22-BUF 44(3:14) (Shotgun) 5-T.Taylor pass deep middle to 88-M.Goodwin to CLE 33 for 23 yards (58-C.Kirksey). Caught at CLE 36, slanting from left.
From the Miami game:
4-7-MIA 7(1:25) (Shotgun) 5-T.Taylor pass short right to 85-C.Clay for 7 yards, TOUCHDOWN. Caught 2 yds. into end zone. The Replay Official reviewed the pass completion ruling, and the play was Upheld. The ruling on the field was confirmed.
Let's hope it keeps up
There are a lot of BB message board people that can confirm what "team you joined." Are you saying that you DID NOT want EJ to win the job going into 2015? I supported Tyrod in that competition but mostly because I thought Cassel and EJ were terrible (I was right). I would have supported any unknown in that same situation.
Dude, no need to antagonize people. Your premise that all people who supported EJ or were "EJ homers" are now "Tyrod haters" is wrong.
I supported and wanted EJ to win that QB competition in 2015. I was also what some considered an "EJ homer," though I think those terms are ridiculous and thrown around too loosely.
But now, clearly, I'm a Tyrod supporter or a "Tyrod homer" as some would say.
So the premise that all people who supported EJ hate Tyrod is just plain wrong.
I'm in the camp of
Rex less = 2 additional wins - even if TT has the same exact stats as 2016.
Lets go Ginger Hammer (McD)
I know JeffsMagic is in the penalty box. did Crusher join him there?
Crusher and Mary Baulstein or Ryan or whatever postername he was under were in the penalty box with me. If they were in it as long as I was (2 weeks), they should be out by now.
Took me 10 years of posting on a Bills message board, but I finally got my first ban and I still feel a little dirty
-
Whoa whoa whoa... I fully admit to being a former EJ guy who's now a Tyrod guy, and you can ask the former BBMBers because I was still that during that 3 way competition, so I don't buy into whoever had the notion that if you liked EJ, you don't like Tyrod. But you're showing some serious bias here and it's a little revealing.If you disagree, you didn't watch the games. Throughout the "competition," Tyrod was outplayed in literally every aspect. Does that mean EJ was good? No. It means they both sucked, but Rex had his mind made up before the bullschit competition. Like I said, if you disagree, that proves you didn't watch and you're just being a sheep. I'll leave it at that.
So come back with some examples instead of a bunch of punctuation marks. You like to throw the label "troll" around, but the only thing you've contributed is !@#$ing baseless name-calling and punctuation.
Bring more or go home. You're not in Kansas anymore, Toto.
You talk about the preseason games as if that's all the QB competition consisted of, which it didn't. Yes, EJ looked good from our perspective because of all those "wow plays" we all so yearned for in his first couple years. We wanted him to let it loose and he did and it resulted in serious chunk yards and a handful of TDs. We love that as fans, but I doubt those are the plays that win a QB the starting job.
Taylor was good in those games too, but in executing more of the NFL passes that are the bread and butter of an NFL offense. Less gaudy numbers, but I doubt the coaches cared about numbers in the preseason.
And there's your entire neglect of practice, where coaches do most of their evaluation. Lots of accounts about Taylor playing really well and turning heads that summer. As for EJ...
This was the summer of the hospitality tent incident, remember?
Good GodI honestly don't think so. I think EJ is a great kid with a great work ethic (like Tyrod), but he just lacked "it," (like Tyrod). BUT ... he did get a raw deal from day one. There is no doubt about that. I think, had he remained the starter, that the Bills still would have been around .500 for the past two years. They're simply not that far apart, as far as overall effectiveness is concerned. I think Tyrod's got more athletic ability. But I think EJ is smarter. But Fitz proved that being smart is only one piece to the puzzle. There's a reason there aren't that many great QBs in the league at any given time. It's not easy.
-
It's far from a statistical fact that "he stays in the pocket for about 1 second." That might not be malicious on your part. But it's a pretty wildly hyperbolic statement and might be viewed as trolling.How the hell is what I said trolling? I called a career backup, who has been wildly unsuccessful in his two years as a starter, a future backup. I cited how he holds the ball too long. Statistically, that is a fact - he holds it the longest in the league.
So tell me, friend, other than the fact that you clearly disagree (whilst offering no substance), how do you feel I am trolling you?
-
Re: Vick - he took the league by storm and was also twice the athlete anyone who came after him was. But once teams figured out how to stop him and to make him try to be a real QB, career over.
Re: Cam Newton - I will respectfully disagree with your assessment. I think Newton passes the ball just about as well as he runs. I think he's the real deal and will be around for a long time.
Re: Taylor - I will also respectfully disagree with your statement that he's a pocket passer. He's anything but. He stays in the pocket for about 1 second, then bails and holds the ball for another 6 seconds before he either takes a dumb sack, throws a bad pass or runs. I think, after Buffalo, his future will be as a backup, where many teams would love to have him.
Sorry, but go look at Vick's career. His career was over because of age. You act like his best years were his first couple years except they were his first couple years and they weren't. If you're saying that by the time teams saw about 100 games worth of film on tape that was what ended his career because by then he was figured out, that's a stretch. Vick played at a very high level in 2010 with the Eagles. Vick was pretty special. Taylor's not there, but he's definitely closer to the athlete Vick was than pretty much anyone I can think of at QB before or since.
Fine, we can disagree about Cam because we clearly do. If Cam didn't have his dual threat ability, he'd be a below average QB. He's just not consistently accurate enough as a passer. All my opinion, of course.
And I'm sorry, but I just think your assessment of Taylor is extreme hyperbole.
-
I think the problem may be in comprehension.
My point that was that history has clearly shown that - in the NFL - Quarterbacks who run significantly better than they pass never last long and they're never part of winning teams. Never.
I'm not buying that Tyrod !@#$ing Taylor is going to break that cycle based on a bunch of fluff stats that have helped keep the Bills mired in mediocrity.
Those QBs don't last as long, I agree. But they're never part of winning teams? Never?
Mike Vick would disagree. And Vick was definitely more of a runner than Tyrod is. Yet, he made the playoffs a few times over the span of his career, which was a 10+ year career, mind you.
Vick was a lethal weapon. And if anyone watched the NFL Network special on him, you'd know that his coach actually told him when he'd drop back to pass, if he saw a certain coverage, take off and run.
I know there are people who hate to talk about the value of something like that, but that was lethal with Vick. Taylor's not quite the athlete Vick is. But he's probably about as close to the athlete as a runner as anyone in the NFL at QB in a very long time and he's a better passer than Vick is. No, he doesn't have a stronger arm, but Taylor's certainly more of a pocket QB than Vick was.
Cam Newton really falls into this category, too. He's certainly a QB who runs better than he passes and he just made the Super Bowl and was the league MVP a couple years ago.
I don't expect Taylor to play into his 40s, but if he can improve and become a long term answer, if he's playing when he's 35 at a fairly high level (aka: standard NFL starting QB level) I don't think it'd be reasonable to be too upset to have him as the Bills QB.
-
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.
Thurm, we've been through this over at BBMB and you're going to completely ignore this because that's what you do, but in order to save some posters from some of your misinformation, I'm going to respond to this with a bunch of stuff I've brought up to you but you ignore. SInce that was on another message board, we wanna make sure we understand why your premise is incomplete and/or inconclusive, because you must analyze other QBs comparatively rather than just taking Taylor's numbers and arbitrarily saying they aren't good enough based on your own personal opinion rather than what other NFL QBs are doing.
First, stop with this deep middle obsession of yours. It doesn't matter because NFL QBs go there such a small percentage of the time that that area of the field (20+ yards to the middle) might be the most ignored by NFL QBs.
According to just a few of the PFF passing charts I could find, in terms of the deep middle of the field
Cam Newton went there 5.9% of the time
Tom Brady went there 3.8% of the time
Russell Wilson went there 2.5% of the time
Tyrod Taylor went there 4.4% of the time
QBs rarely throw to the deep middle. Period.
ESPN's stats are literally stats to the middle of the field because they're between the hashmarks. And in 2016, Taylor's numbers compared to a bunch of other QBs looked like this:
Rodgers: 9.3% of total attempts, 57.9 % completions, 7.5 YPA, 0 TDs, 2 INTs, 67.1 Passer Rating
Newton: 10.6% of total attempts, 59.3 % completions, 8.6 YPA, 3 TDs, 1 INTs, 98 Passer Rating
Mariota: 10.6% of total attempts, 66.7 % completions, 8.1 YPA, 3 TDs, 1 INTs, 103.6 Passer Rating
Carr: 12% of total attempts, 67.2 % completions, 8.6 YPA, 5 TDs, 3 INTs, 100.3 Passer Rating
Taylor: 7.3% of total attempts, 78.1 % completions, 8.7 YPA, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, 103 Passer Rating
Tannehill: 10.3% of total attempts, 70 % completions, 6.3 YPA, 0 TDs, 1 INTs, 76.3 Passer Rating
Wilson: 8.4% of total attempts, 65.2 % completions, 7.5 YPA, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, 83.9 Passer Rating
Cousins: 11.7% of total attempts, 74.6 % completions, 10.4 YPA, 4 TDs, 4 INTs, 102.8 Passer Rating
Stafford: 10.8% of total attempts, 70.3 % completions, 7.9 YPA, 0 TDs, 0 INTs, 93.8 Passer Rating
Luck: 15.8% of total attempts, 61.6 % completions, 7.4 YPA, 6 TDs, 0 INTs, 107.5 Passer Rating
Winston: 9.7% of total attempts, 72.7 % completions, 8.2 YPA, 2 TDs, 1 INTs, 101.5 Passer Rating
Ryan: 12.5% of total attempts, 71.6 % completions, 10.3 YPA, 7 TDs, 1 INTs, 133.3 Passer Rating
Yeah, those take all passes to the middle, but notice how high his YPA is compared to everyone else... so those aren't just little dumpoffs with a whole bunch of YAC, especially since we know Taylor's WR corps got some of the lowest YAC in the NFL.
So that's just over 6 yards worth of passes horizontally across the field in the middle. A football field is 160 feet or 53.333 yards. Your "middle third" obsession is 17.7 yards. We have data on 6.5 of those yards, so you're arguing that all those leftover numbers for Taylor that fall outside the hashmarks but between the numbers fall in the 3.7 yards immediately inside the numbers but not any closer to the hashmarks. You're saying he ignores and doesn't do well about 7 yards immediately outside the hashmarks on both sides, but does just fine inside those hashmarks, which is the most precise middle of the field you can get pretty much, and the rest of his good throws come in the just under 4 yards right before the numbers on both sides.
You're arguing that his good passing inside the hashmarks, or exactly to the middle of the field, and just inside the numbers for just under 4 yards (about 3.7 yards) end up skewing his numbers that he has for PFF for the "middle of the field" and that he's absolutely horrible and/or ignores those 7 yards just outside the hashmarks and before those 3.7 yards inside the numbers. 2 questions:
Did you chart other QBs to find out how they're doing in those same areas?
I hope so, because otherwise the numbers don't mean much.
AND
Let's say you're right (and we can't really say that until we have some numbers of other QBs for comparison's sake) and Taylor's great inside the hashmarks and just inside the numbers on both sides for about 4 yards but struggles more than other QBs for about the 7 yards inside that.
So what?
-
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.
Steve Young
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.
I really don't know what you think you're responding to that I wrote... seems something's getting lost in translation because you're talking about something totally separate from what I meant in that quote.
-
Oh good god...
Back to your "deep and intermediate middle third" again.
I counter your "as I've extensively documented" with "as you've constantly been proven wrong and blithely ignored your own misconceptions"
But... ya know... we all need our "deep and intermediate middle third" fix.
-
I think TT has done good things. I'm not sold WCO is a perfect fit for him:
TT Fact: Taylor's dot plot and analysis of his throwing success show he's better down the sidelines and outside the hashes
WCO fact: uses lots of horizontal routes and slant/cross concepts with fewer vertical routes
So- how can a QB who has been cited as struggling to throw over the middle have greater success in an offense that emphasizes throwing over the middle? Also if one of his strengths the outside deep ball to vertical routes is limited, how's that help?
Actually, those "dot plots" and analyses of Taylor's throwing success don't show he's better down the sidelines and outside the hashes, they just show that he goes there more.
According to PFF, on passes beyond the LOS to the "middle of the field" up to 20 yards beyond the LOS (I think we can all agree it's probably those throws that are 5-15 yards beyond that are mostly the bread and butter of the WCO) Taylor was 82/112 (73.2%) for 839 yards for 7.5 YPA with 4 passing TDs and 0 INTs for a Passer Rating of 106.2.
And yeah, those are just numbers, but as I said earlier, go back and rewatch some of the passes in the handful of games right after Roman was let go and Lynn took over. You'll notice Lynn concentrated on incorporating more of these types of plays than Roman did. You'll see more of those "shallow cross" passes the article refers to particularly to Powell and Tate.
So it's not that Taylor can't do it, he just wasn't asked to do it much at all under Roman and then a little more under Lynn.
-
I know, right. Not even close to elite.
I guess he has a way different definition of elite.
He also had 506 yards rushing and a couple rushing TDs in those games, along with 1 lost fumble. I'd say 3,868 yards and 28 TDs to only 8 turnovers in what doesn't even equal a full season is production most would get behind.
And to be fair, Kirby said it was "borderline elite." I don't really agree with that if you consider just his passing numbers, but when you consider his production on the ground, which was just under 258 yards per game, there are only 9 NFL QBs averaging more yards passing per game in NFL history.
http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/pass_yds_per_g_career.htm
Taylor is not an elite QB.
Some may claim he's an elite runner, but isn't that what running backs are for?
Sure, except most of Taylor's production on the ground comes on passing plays, very often making a positive play out of what would have otherwise been a sack.
-
I think where we diverge is the difference between "Tyrod is capable of doing something extremely well with varying consistency" and "this is one of Tyrods strengths and something that will help him step up to average/above average starter by changing play calling to showcase it"
I've seen Tyrod make just about every play possible on the field and be electric but I think that some of his weaknesses do not lend themselves to these situations being a spot that are strengths and where he will outperform his peers in the league. To me that's the deep ball and putting pressure in the run game, not a quick passing game designed for short and inside throws.
The previous scheme, with maybe adding a few rollouts and shotgun playaction wrinkles seemed to really play to his strengths. Add some WR talent and maybe amp up a couple route tree options to free up the deep routes but...
I disagree. The previous system catered to his deep ball passing and his legs, both of which he excels at, but my concern was the types of passing routes Roman's system made the focal point (like comeback and sideline routes) that were most of Taylor's passes that set themselves up as plays with little YAC from the get go.
This is where I'll just disagree. But even last season Taylor's deep ball accuracy didn't really go away, it was more the lack of chemistry due to the revolving door at WR. But you could see when Lynn stepped in particularly that the quick timing routes to the middle of the field involving catch and run plays were incorporated more effectively to players like Tate and Powell in particular.
Those are the types of plays I hope to see more of along with the sprinkling in of deep passes with a hopefully healthy WR corps.
Oh yeah, and here's a link for some of that stuff I mentioned earlier.
http://www.cover1.net/2017/03/breaking-tyrod-taylors-contract-restructured/2017-03-08_15-52-12/
Only 20 play action passes under center in
2016, but 70% completions (with 3 throwaways), almost 10 YPA, a couple of sacks, a couple of TDs and no INTs with a QB Rating well over 100 isn't bad for a QB who's turning his back to the defense, is it?
-
Yes more simplification in passing game to help out our blah QB. I cant wait until we get a real QB it has to happen sometime.
It's not so much a simplification as the system itself, which simplifies certain things for the sake of efficiency.
-
I don't think we can win a game without McCoy
McCoy missed 5 games in the last 2 years and the Bills won 3 of them.
-
All i read was "blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah."
I don't care what kinda offense or system we run. Show it on the field and win some fcking games. Sick of reading "Could this be the year" articles every year. Pure garbage.
Fair enough. So why bother talking about the upcoming season until it's here?
Go enjoy your summer.
-
Similarly, I think TT was very weak at getting the ball out in time an offense that seemed to have simple reads. Why is a quick decision focus playing to his strengths? If anything, I feel like we will either need a very simplified version of the scheme or if really throwing him in, it plays to some of his currently perceived weaknesses.
We will see if he steps up, or flames out hugely. Quick reads and throwing in the middle might see some of those ball security numbers that have truly been his strength go the wrong direction. It feels like the ideal would be keeping last year's basics with just a few added wrinkles and talent at WR
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.
-
I'll admit I only skimmed the article quickly (on my phone) but I'm not sure it really defined why most of that was tyrods strengths. It seemed to mostly focus on why they are effective plays in the scheme.
Examples -- yes, playaction is great for putting pressure on a defense. Especially in a strong running offense. Question though- Tyrod struggles to see the field as is, so I question if turning his back to the line and having to turn back and make a quick read from a blind start is "playing to his strength." I'll say I've long thought his pre snap reads were a coaching concern so if he's turning back from the play action truly blind because of that (doesn't know where to anticipate the coverage to be from pre snap reads) it could be a disaster
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 keep echoing because I'm curious the answer from folks -- in the grand scheme, do people really think we weren't playing to TTs strengths, in general?
I'll buy we didn't have a talented receiving core but scheme wise I think we did a lot to simplify and cover him up and use his strengths. I never felt like he was a square peg in a round hole as much as he is just a limited passer that was protected with a strong running game (that he contributed to). There could be some fine tuning but it's not like we forced him into a super complex stand in the pocket and make manning-esque reads to throw over the middle 45 times scheme that plays against his skill set
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
-
So, if things go well, then things will go well.
This is much the same thing we've heard again and again. Every year, in fact. And with the details of the plays taken out it's what every team is hearing ... that we're tailoring our offense/defense to our players strengths and this will allow us to get better. Teams that switch coaches say this. Our schemes are better for our guys, so this will improve us.
Thing is, defenses know those schemes and ways to counteract them. Defenses build around taking away offensive players' strengths and forcing them to rely on their weaknesses.
I could imagine this might work to some degree, especially in the early weeks. I just don't see it resulting in the major improvements this article and many similar ones hope for.
It'd be nice if I was wrong.
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:
Now, Taylor will be playing in a system that is tailored to his strengths and won’t be asked to do too much from a progression standpoint. If Taylor can be more decisive with the ball and limit the number of sacks he takes, the Bills’ offense should make a big leap in 2017.
-
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.Atlanta and Carolina both have systems that have been in place for a while.
Buffalo is playing in Carolina the second week of the season. The Bills will still be in the process of learning their schemes in all facets of the game.
Every prediction is a guess. Some are just more educated than others.
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
Stop with "Schedule is Hard"--Analytics says it BS
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
Passer Rating, huh?
89.6 > 84.9
So does this mean Taylor "could be a good one" even more than Siemian?
Friendly bet Buffalo wins one of them?