transplantbillsfan
-
Posts
11,076 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by transplantbillsfan
-
-
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
-
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.
This is true.
I'm glad I've been able to sit back and watch these posters continue to conduct themselves in the manner they are.
I'm hoping many here (including the MODS) are taking note and realizing that these posters aren't what they claim to be.
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
How many close games did we lose last year by 6 points or less ? Many here blame the defense or praise TT for keeping us in the game by NOT turning the ball over , what bothers me is that TT was incapable ( beside the Titans game ) of putting together a game winning drive , so forgive me for not buying ( TT is better then we think ) he' is who think he is ( backup QB )
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.No one cares about your petty bbmb beefs. We get it, we got it 5,000 posts ago.
Both of you attack all who don't love Tyrod in a passive aggressive manner.
Just PM each other.
I asked that poster a pretty direct question.
Why you always so mad?
-
I think we've all seen this offense struggle through most games with consecutive 3 and outs, cringing that the defense would be back out in less than two minutes. The stats are scewed with big plays, but it's still bad offensive football that loses games.
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?
-
This is wrong.
Tyrod was below average when not under pressure...he performed much better when facing pressure, which a number of us attribute to his mobility and playmaking ability.
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.
-
When you score 34 points, break a franchise record for yards and leave the field with the lead and a minute to go how can a reasonable person pin that loss on the QB? That's not logical.
I'm not picking on you but the people that think QB is the reason that they were 7-9 are so wrong. The offense played at a playoff level. The defense played at a 3 win level. The HC was awful as well. We need to stop using our emotions and start looking at the facts. The facts don't blame the guy that put up 31 points for the Fitz loss or Moore loss. That's someone with an agenda, not logic.
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.
-
I'll chime in with where I stand. I think Tyrod was the best we could do this year and I hope the passing offense improves. I thought he showed promise in 2015 but slid in 2016. If it doesn't improve I hope the Bills spend those picks wisely next year on a QB and he becomes the answer
And this, I feel, is where the vast majority of us stand
I don't think we need a poll to reveal that
-
Poll Wording makes all the difference
Is TT the "real" problem, or is TT the long term answer.
I am looking for discussions not pissing contests. Sure I may have strayed a few times, but one can only be called a hater or have an agenda so many times before it topples the scales.
TT is the best option we have
I wish we could see more from him and the team
There is nothing wrong with that sentiment. But being called a hater for it is not right.
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.
-
Poll Wording makes all the difference
Is TT the "real" problem, or is TT the long term answer.
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.
-
People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones transplant.
I've an idea for you. Start a new thread / Poll and make it public where people can go on record. This way we shall see "for real" who is in the minority and who isn't.
Maybe some people are sick and tired of posting the same thing day after day after day after day. I know I grow tired of it.
I'm even more tired of being called out as a hater and having an agenda.
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.
Article on why 2017 passing game can make giant leap forward
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted · Edited by transplantbillsfan
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.