transplantbillsfan
-
Posts
11,118 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by transplantbillsfan
-
-
Lol at the excuses and just flat out delusional statements I've been subjected to reading.
Sophomore slump?!?!
Grocery baggers as WR's?
A top ten offense that he was less responsible for than nearly every other QB in the league?
Hyperbole and delusion is what the CoT is selling, and only a fool would buy such propaganda.
Stick to statements closer to reality if you still want to discuss this expired topic some more, even though I suggest other wise.
It's just all around ugly for everyone involved at this point.
Pointless post.
-
So you set forth a pretty specific set of criteria that probably doesn't apply to anyone but Tyrod?
I'd feel better about Tyrod if this was the 1950's era of football but it's not. He's not a rookie or sophomore players. He's a 6 year veteran. You sound ridiculous really.
I'm sorry dude but it's not all that specific.
TONS of NFL QBs were on the bench throughout almost all of their rookie contracts. It's the next 2 criteria that separates Taylor.
I know you aren't seeing it, but you might want to reconsider the notion that Taylor can't improve just because of years of service
-
No, you don't just draft a QB in the first "no matter what."In a stacked QB class? Absolutely. At a minimum I would fully expect a 1st round rookie to be an upgrade to Yates/Peterman. Ideally, he's so good that he takes Tyrod's spot (easier said than done).
This upcoming draft is also ideal because we still have Tyrod on contract through '18. What I don't want to see is us pass on these QBs, Tyrod plays his contract out, and then we are forced to draft a QB who's thrust into action immediately because we have nobody else.
I can't believe anyone actually thinks this is a smart or even reasonable approach
What Tyrod did in his 5th and 6th years after riding the pine for 4 years was the unlikely thing.sophomore slump for a 6th year vet???????
Unlikely.
Given that Taylor's already the exception rather than the rule we can throw any ridiculous rules like "NO WAY HE IMRPOVES IN YEAR 7!!!!" out the window
-
So your answer is no, then. You would no longer feel "bleh."This is such a ridiculous question. Obviously if Tyrod started here as a rookie then you'd feel better about him because he'd still be very young and getting acclimated to the NFL. You could be much more optimistic about his development as a player and passer. The reality is that he's entering his 7th year in the league so it's not as simple as you want to make it seem. It's probably likely that he's reached his ceiling as a player or is pretty close to it
Okay, now I'm going to ask you to do something I asked another poster to do because both of you share the same belief that what we've seen is what we've got simply because of age and number of years on an NFL roster. Throughout history, name me 10 QBs who going into year 7 in the NFL:
-Rode the bench almost exclusively for the entirety of their rookie contract (4 years)
-Given the opportunity to start in year five after earning the starting job
-After earning the starting job, plays years 5 & 6 at "NFL starting QB" level
That was the criteria I originally set forth. And I set it forward because of the arbitrary "sixth year" as some kind of watermark.
My point was simply to establish how unique Taylor's case is. But if you can find me a number of QBs who meet that criteria, maybe you're on the right track, after all.
-
It's simple. There is a distinction between an above average quarterback based on some kind of standardized criteria and a quarterback who is above average based on being ranked above 15 among the 32 quarterbacks.
In other words, there can be 32 above average quarterbacks based on some standardized criteria if they are all assessed above what is considered "average."
I didn't read all the pages. So, someone may have already explained this to you.
This is such an excellent point.
Quarterbacking in the NFL might just be at a really high level right now. And if that's the case, even the 20th best QB in that type of year would still be perceived as a good QB in many other years.
That's what needs to happen regardless. And then the pick needs to live up to the hype and take Tyrod's spot.
Seriously?
Draft a QB in the first no matter what?!?!
Absolutely not!
Actually, it can't really be much worse, certainly not EASILY....
The coaching staff did their best to hide TT last year and almost did so behind the best running game in the league.
Expect more of the same this year....
Wow... this is ridiculous...
It absolutely can easily be much worse.
-
Yes. I saw no improvement from 15-16. A QB who isn't trending up is a bad sign.
That wasn't a "yes" or a "no."
Ever heard of "sophomore slump?"
It happens.
Plus, 2015 will not be an easy year to match in terms of production and efficiency, anyway.
-
There's a reason why we passed the ball less than anyone else. Most of it has to do with having an elite rushing attack. The other part is having a QB who is not all that great at throwing from the pocket.
I know you like to get super defensive when people question Tyrod and his ability so I'm not really interested in this super long and pointless back and forth with you.
You're probably smart enough and watch enough football to know what really good QB play looks like. We don't have that and until we do I want to keep looking for potential upgrades.
I think he's adequate for now but his play does not make me content with the position long term.
First of all, it's not about questioning him as a QB, it's about defining him. I still have questions about him, which is why I'm glad he has another year to try to define himself.
I'm glad you acknowledge our low passing attempts was essentially because of an elite running game.
I agree.
As to the end of your post I just want you to answer a very simple "yes" or "no" to the following question:
If 2015-2016 were Taylor's rookie and sophomore years and he played as he did, would you still feel "bleh" about him?
-
The bills called 35 passing please per game with Tyrod Taylor at the helm and 2016.I don't disagree. It cuts both ways, but it's hard to quantify X positive plays outweighing X negative plays and viceversa.
I was discussing sacks in the context of the Bills "passing less than everybody else." Looking at the sack and scramble numbers, it's arguable we were not #32 in pass plays called.
29.1 attempts per game
42 sacks (192 yards)
47 scrambles (371 yards)
He lost 4.6 yards per play on every sack.
He gained 7.9 yards per playing on every scramble. He also scored four of his six touchdowns on scrambles.
Since last off-season I have been a proponent of a new stat: YPD (Yards Per Dropback)
I haven't done this for any QBs in 2016, but I did look at Newton compared to Wilson compared to Taylor in 2015. And their numbers looked like this:
Tyrod Taylor
6.9 YPD
33.1 DPG
52.1% passing plays for the offense
Cam Newton
6.8 YPD
34.5 DPG
51.8% passing plays for the offense
Russel Wilson
7.1 YPD
36.3 DPG
56.5% passing plays for the offense
Hope that helps to quantify had a bed for you
-
You included sacks in your discussion as a negative without also (and fairly) including the positive alternative, which are the scrambles.Cherry picking? I listed almost every passing stat. We ARE discussing his passing stats.
I agree the scrambles do something to offset his poor passing numbers. But they don't wash out his deficiencies either.
TT is expected to play efficient football. In 2016, he wasn't really. Outside of INT's.
I understand att/game are going to be low in this offense. But instead of seeing 32 in attempts/31st in yards/31st in TD's/26th in efficiency, I want to at least see 32 attempts/26th in yards/20th in TD's/15th in efficiency. That's not unreasonable if he's gonna stick around, IMO.
That's what I'd call cherry picking.
Doesn't matter, neither were good enough.
If we get the Tyrod from 2015 and he passes for 30 times a game rather than 27 and maintains the same efficiency on every play as he did in 2015, it's good enough. At that point, the rest of the team needs to hold up their end of the bargain and the bills are a playoff team for sure.
-
Wait. If you want to include sacks in this discussion, that's fine. Those were passing plays, you're right. Let's include the other passing plays: the scrambles. The plays where the QB is pressured, escapes pressure, and gains positive yardage instead of negative yardage.Sort of but not really. They had 3 less attempts than the Dolphins, but the Phins had 16 less sacks, so it's feasible that we had more passing plays called.
And even if you say no, those 3 extra attempts translated to 30 more completions, 10 more TD's, 2.1 increased in TD%, 95.5 passer rating (compared to the Bills offense 86.7), a .9 yard more Y/A, a full yard more NY/A, and an extra 20 passing YPG.
TT ain't gonna put up Brees numbers. But to be the man, you gotta beat the man. And that man is Ryan Tannehill and Matt Moore.
https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2016/#all_passing
Happydays recently posted a football outsiders study that examined all passing plays. Including sacks and scrambles. On such plays, the bills had of the second highest DVOA in the NFL, behind only Aaron Rodgers and the Green Bay Packers.
I can tell you from having done my own scrupulous research, Taylor gained 8 yards per scramble in 2016. Those are passing plays. I agree. Just like sacks are. The problem is that people want to talk about sacks as the negative without talking about scrambles as the positive. And when Taylor scrambles, he gained more yards per scramble and all but the top five QBs in the NFL in the category of YPA.
What you're doing here is cherry picking.
-
If Tyrod is Tyrod again and we take a QB in the 1st I will have no complaints.
Is "Tyrod" the 2015 or 2016 "Tyrod"?
-
He has a big enough body of work that I can use to form an educated opinion. If his play changes then the opinion will change. Until that happens then he is what he is and the results speak for themselves. Its not what you want to hear so you're trying to dismiss it.
If his play changes in what way?
The bills were at the bottom of the NFL and "passing offense" essentially because they pass the ball less than anyone else. And I know above you guys were pointing to examples like the Falcons and chargers and Steelers having a "balanced" attack, but the bills were absolutely an incredibly dominant as a run offense in 2016. The head coach was a ground and pound head coach. The approach was clearly to stick to the ground.
There is only one football. The team was an incredibly effective running offense last year. That was a reflection of the offensive approach. The 2016 Falcons were a rarity and having an elite passing and rushing offense. I don't know where Teeflebees was getting his numbers above but the Chargers and Steelers certainly weren't really high in the ranks in terms of both passing and rushing offenses. The Chargers were at the bottom of the league is rushing, actually.
There is only one football. There are only so many snaps in a game. What you want is much more passing. Shady is one of the best backs in the NFL. It's kind a hard not to give him the ball, isn't it?
I think Taylor is going to get more passes this year and we are going to see what he does with 30 to 35 passing attempts per game. But it's really just in the offensive approach.
-
Jake Delhomme only played in 2 games his first 4 years.
Danny White didn't play QB in his first 4 seasons in Dallas.
Craig Morton played very little in his first 3 years in Dallas.
Aaron Rodgers only had 35 attempts in his first 3 years.
Warren Moon played 6 years in Canada before he got an NFL start.
Brett Favre didn't play in his rookie year.
You're right that most of the good ones do start right out of the chute. But still, there's a chance.
I think you've missed my point.
-
Did you just reply to your own post from today? (Insert gif of that weird guy blinking)
I bumped it for Thurm so he doesn't lose track of something that seems so easily found
-
Are you really feigning ignorance now? I know that you read the post. But since you need a reminder:
-Rode the bench almost exclusively for the entirety of their rookie contract (4 years)
-Given the opportunity to start in year five after earning the starting job
-After earning the starting job, plays a significant number of games at "NFL starting QB" level
Almost everyone of those guys on your "list" got a significant number of snaps by year five. And very few of them even ever played at "starting QB level" for an extended period of time the way that Taylor did over the span of 29 games.
That was the criteria I originally set forth. And I set it forward because of your arbitrary "hasn't proven self as franchise QB by sixth year" rather than fifth, or fourth, etc. My point was simply to establish how unique Taylor's case is. That was the criteria you responded that there were at least 50 other guys in the NFL who met it.
So I ask again, name 10...
Just so you don't forget, since I know you're in a unique time zone, i'll do you a favor and bump this post so you are sure to see it.
Remember, you said 50, just give me 10 names that fit that criteria should be easy, right?
-
Are you really feigning ignorance now? I know that you read the post. But since you need a reminder:That smell is from the fertilizer I grew my stunningly terrific post on top of.
Not only can I separate running from the whole QB thing, but I do Everyone should.. Running in a QB is fine. It's just not what you want a QB for.
Having a QB who can run really well is like having a car with a terrific air conditioner. It adds value. It makes it a better car. But it doesn't mean all that much, it's just not what you buy the car for. You buy the car for getting you around. If it does that and has a great AC on top of that, terrific. You acquire a QB for passing. If he can do that and he can run also, that's great, You're right, it factors in, as an AC does.
You need a QB who can run a good passing game.
And read this again. I didn't just say, "full stop." I said, "not ... full stop."
I have no earthly idea what you're talking about. I have been mostly avoiding Tyrod threads. Boring. So I have no idea what you said, nor am I interested in looking back when I don't know what I'm looking for.
As a pure guess, were you talking about what I just talked about a couple of posts above? That there have been dozens and dozens of guys who like Tyrod spent three or four years on the bench and then got a chance? And that then outside of Gannon and maybe Plunkett none of them have gotten through six years of their career without becoming a franchise QB and then made it later?
If not, I have no idea what you're talking about. If so, it took me about five to ten minutes to quickly come up with around a dozen guys who had the same situation, three or four years on the bench and a chance. Here's the list, quoted from my post just above.
Ten? That's what, fourteen? There have been tons of guys in Tyrod's position, guys who didn't have experience for three or four years and then got their chance to start. Problem is that nearly all of them aren't good enough. And the ones who are have shown it pretty much immediately.
Again, of all guys who hadn't proven themselves through six years as franchise guys, almost none have later improved enough to become franchise guys. That's the likely result with Tyrod.
It'd be much better for the Bills if he makes that major leap upwards. He's a great guy. I'm rooting for him. History shows that his chances are far from good.
-Rode the bench almost exclusively for the entirety of their rookie contract (4 years)
-Given the opportunity to start in year five after earning the starting job
-After earning the starting job, plays a significant number of games at "NFL starting QB" level
Almost everyone of those guys on your "list" got a significant number of snaps by year five. And very few of them even ever played at "starting QB level" for an extended period of time the way that Taylor did over the span of 29 games.
That was the criteria I originally set forth. And I set it forward because of your arbitrary "hasn't proven self as franchise QB by sixth year" rather than fifth, or fourth, etc. My point was simply to establish how unique Taylor's case is. That was the criteria you responded that there were at least 50 other guys in the NFL who met it.
So I ask again, name 10...
-
Nope.
None of those guys, not a single one, was not a franchise QB by their fifth year.
In Steve Young's fifth year he completed 69.6% of his passes, had an unbelievable 10.9 yards per attempt and nearly a 3:1 TD:INT ration at a time in the league when that was top two. Yeah, he wasn't a starter, because he was behind Montana but he was absolutely a terrific QB by that time and everyone knew it.
In Kurt Warner's SECOND season in the league he was a first-team All-Pro. Not just a Pro Bowler, a first-team All-Pro.
In Aaron Rodgers' fourth year in the league - his first as a starter - he was 4th in yards, 4th in TDs, 11th in YPA, 7th in passer rating. And then he didn't regress, he greatly improved his next year.
These guys were all playing at an unquestionable franchise level by their fourth year. None of them even begin to qualify.
And my question is extremely fair. The reason Tyrod has only been the franchise QB for two years now is because he was drafted by a team that needed a backup and he never forced them to look at him in a different way.
There have been probably dozens and dozens of guys who didn't play much for three or four years at the beginning of their careers and then got a chance. Cassel. Schaub. Derek Anderson. Shaun Hill. Seneca Wallace. Damon Huard. Rex Grossman. David Garrard. Jay Fiedler. Hell, our own Kelly Holcomb. Jim Miller. Steve Beuerlein. That's, what, a dozen guys who had only a few little bit of work for three or four years or even more and eventually got their chance to be the starter. None were good enough and none developed and became franchise guys. Jake Delhomme was on the bench for two years before he started. But he quickly became a borderline franchise guy. He was what he was from pretty early on, a gutsy guy who was never going to be a top ten or twelve guy but was Carolina's franchise guy for years. The really good ones - Romo, for example, who sat the bench for two and a half years but looked good very quickly once he got out there - had become ready so that they were able to seize their chance like Rodgers. Of the ones who couldn't, none have even then later turned around and become franchise guys after not proving themselves as such for six years.
Basically, Gannon is it. There's an argument to be made for Plunkett, though I disagree. And that's it. Maybe you can find another one somewhere, but I can't and I've asked others before and nobody else could either. It's simply extremely rare.
Again, nope. He sat out for his first four years but after that immediately established himself. In his fifth year, his first as a starter, he was 12th in yards, 5th in TDs. Sixth year, 12th and 8th. He was off to the races very quickly.
What a joke! Steve Young started zero games and his fifth year and threw 92 total passes.
That year established him as a franchise QB?!?!
Are you nuts?
You're being stubbornly ridiculous.
-
Wow... this might be the biggest pile of crap I have ever read from you. Not even going to try to put some lipstick on this pig?He doesn't look like an average QB who will never be elite. He looks like a terrific runner who is a below-average passer who might someday scale the heights to average at the pass game. That's what he looks like. Agreed he doesn't look like he will be horrible. And it's not impossible he will greatly outperform expectations.
But he didn't play well enough in 2015 and 2016 to earn another year of audition, full stop. He played well enough in 2015 and 2016 to earn another year of audition ... based on the fact that we didn't have another feasible option. If we had one, he'd likely be gone.
You can't separate his running from the whole QB thing because it's obviously part of it, much like it was/is for Fran Tarkenton, Steve Young, Randall Cunningham, Michael Vick, Cam Newton, Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers, Andrew Luck, Marcus Mariota, etc. The escapability and scrambling and running are all part of the whole QB thing for Taylor. It factors in. You don't separate it as you just did.
And, I'm sorry, full stop? What you say here is speculative at best. The fact of the matter is that McDermott not only decided to keep Taylor but also passed up opportunities to address the QB position all the way until the team's 2nd 5th round pick.
Say there weren't feasible options if you like, but you're reaching and creating your own narrative because it suits you... or because you lost your keys
Go back to dressing the pigs up a little... makes it more presentable
Since you brought this up, do you remember that question I asked you recently about quarterbacks that fit certain criteria that Taylor fits? Remember how you said there were about 50 guys? I asked you to come back with a list of 10.And the two teams that made the Super Bowl were #3 and #4.
Just saying.
Just for more fun, go through the records and find all the guys who weren't franchise QBs after six years and became a franchise guy later.
And if while you're researching you accidentally run a bandsaw over your hand and cut off three fingers, you'll still be able to count the guys you find on that hand, with maybe a finger to spare. It's extremely rare.
I'm still waiting...
And don't try to make up some new criteria. Find the post, it was in one of our recent interactions; you likely ignored it because you knew you were actually mistaken but find it impossible to admit fault. Find the criteria that you yourself said about 50 other quarterbacks fall into.
Name 10 of them...
-
Well by my definition, if we got one of those guys he'd have played zero years for the Bills with zero games started and thus wouldn't be our franchise QB.
Okay... so your definition of franchise QB has nothing to do with level of play, it's purely about tenure...?
Rojah:thumbsup:
-
Brady Rogers Big Ben Dak Jameis Brees Rivers are franchise qb's.
Dak and Jameis on that list already?
Seriously?
Seems like a real prisoner of the moment mentality to me. Kinda like back in 2012-2013 when everyone was calling Kaepernick and RG3 and Tannehill franchise and even elite QBs. And that talk was widespread.
wait it out. Despite what you may have a label to me, I don't think Taylor is a franchise QB, much less an elite one. But it's still too early to know for sure. He's done some things and has some tools that indicate he could to be, which is a sentiment apparently shared by McDermitt and OBD.
I think the most outlandish belief on this message board is that Taylor is no better than a good backup.
-
At this point in time he's still auditioning. It's that simple. Minds (other than random message board guys mind) have not been made up yet. 2018 will go along way to determine what he is..
At this point in time to me the clear answer is no he is not
What we do know is this: he played well enough in 2015 and 2016 to earn another year of audition.
Taylor is in the middle of his career. Right now, he just looks like an average QB who will never be elite but will never be horrible either. Maybe 2018 changes the narrative. I'm eager to see it unfold
-
I define it as a guy who's spent 5 years with the same team and started >12 games a season over those 5 years for them. Pretty rough but I think it holds up ok.
Kind of a reactionary definition, isn't it?
So let's go through this logic: you're a bills fan as we all are and all of us are looking for a franchise QB, correct?
If that's the case, you would be content (by your definition) with Joe Flacco, Andy Dalton, Ryan Tannehill, or Jay Cutler (if we could coerce him out of retirement) if we could acquire them and hand them the reins to the franchise for the next several years over Taylor without hesitation?
-
How can you be above average, yet not the 15th best QB or higher in the NFL in a league with 32 starters?
I'll hang up and listen.
We don't know if Taylor is above average, really good, below average or what, yet.
In 2015, at worst, he was above average. I think he was really good. Really good being a top 10 to 12 QB.
In 2016, he was average to below average. I'd say he was in the 15 to 20 range, despite the fact that there are some metrics like total QBR and PFF that put him in the top 10. But the problem is that in 2016 there were a ton of variables that came into play and may have seriously affected his play. Robert Woods and Sammy Watkins missed a combined 11 games. Rex was a disaster. There was a change in OC after week two.
The list goes on.
We need to find out what he is. Personally, I don't think he's any worse than an NFL starting QB, but I don't know if he's the answer for the franchise. This year should answer that question.
-
The same could be said about the QB and the Seattle or Miami game.
Except that the defenses valleys were much lower than Taylor's valleys. When you give up three different 200 yard rushing games, it's virtually inevitable you've lost three games.
The defense was abysmal and multiple games in 2016. Taylor was bad against the ravens and the Bengals.
Those three games with the 200 yard rusher's are mostly on the defense. Not entirely, but mostly. I think you could throw in there also the first Jets game where the defense allowed Ryan Fitzpatrick to pass for almost 400 yards. And then the defense blows a 15 point lead in the second half of the Raiders game allowing the Raiders offense to score and score and score and score. And while those three and outs that came on consecutive drives in the third quarter of the game didn't help, the defense literally had no excuse for not being rested on the first two Raiders touchdowns of the third-quarter. They had an entire half to rest, and then the Raiders had the ball for less than a minute before the bills offense put us ahead by 15 points.
When the defense was good, they were really good. But it's hilarious that people dismiss Taylor's victory against the patriots because of who is starting QB on the other team. I'm sorry, were the patriots missing any of their defense? If that game should be dismissed for anyone in terms of praise, it's for the defense.
The defense when it was bad, it was abysmal. Taylor wasn't. Like it or not, QBs who don't turn the ball over really aren't ever abysmal.
The Tyrod Taylor Question
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by transplantbillsfan
You essentially guaranteed the Bills would take a QB in the 1st round next year... now you're saying only if the "prospect they have identified" is still there...?
Which is it?
Not a clue how many QBs match the criteria. I can't think of a single one off the top of my head.I'm still waiting for someone to give me names. Thurm said that he could come up with 50 names. I'm still waiting on his list of 10. Do you even have 5?
Maybe I'm getting you mixed up with other posters. It's late. I could be mistaken.Did you not insinuate that I would be very unlikely for Taylor to improve and/or become a franchise QB given that he's going into his seventh here at this point? If you did not, I apologize.
If you did, that was the point of the post. Taylor is already the exception to the rule. Saying he won't do this because no other QBs ever do this is shortsighted considering that Taylor has already done things that QBs never do.
And that's not me saying he will, that's me saying this is still up in the air and anyone defining him one way or the other concretely is misguided.