transplantbillsfan

Shaw, I'm with you here, but people seem incapable of actually understanding that hypothetical argument and lean toward being derisive when arguments like it are brought up. I've said it before and I'll say it again, if Taylor is able to get back to 2015 form in terms of his production and stay healthy on a consistent basis, he's simply not going anywhere.

Yet you're the one bringing wins into the discussion. Maybe you shouldn't have drawn attention to the Vikings finishing 8-8 and 3rd in their division, then. That sure sounded like you trying to insinuate that Passer Rating doesn't correlate with winning (which I'd generally agree with) and yet you follow that up with what you present as more examples like him, even though not a single QB on your list, including Bradford, ended their seasons losing more than they won as starters. Plus 2 NFC champions. I'm not trying to do anything except piece together what you actually mean.

In fact, there's not a single losing record among any of the QBs you selected. I don't agree with equating QBs and wins anyway, but it's odd and contradictory the way that you do and then there's not a single losing record in any of your examples...

Before Bradford and Taylor in that list, all the QBs you listed made the playoffs. 3 made the NFC championship game. 2 were NFC champions.

Fahey's highly regarded by a lot of NFL experts. And we've covered this... every single NFL expert whiffs badly on occasion.

Well said and quite plausible

Well, Passer Rating is the most objective way there is to measure QB play. It accounts for Completion %, YPA, TDs, and INTs. If you're looking for something completely objective to QB play, go by that. Regarding sacks, many would argue (and not unreasonably) that isn't entirely or even mostly a QB stat.

Then why not just use Passer Rating? It's the ultimate objective measure of a QB.

Hence the "and round and round we go" duh...

"He puts forth good stuff because it's what I completely agree with." That's the standard... and round and round we go...

You're doing a facepalm and posting a link to standard ESPN stats...? Okay dude... if you say so

You should tell me more about what I think... you do such a great job with that

Wow... swing and a miss. Crusher, every single sentence you just wrote is just plain wrong.

So Rodgers must be terrible, dude's 0-35 when trailing teams by more than 1 point with winning records in the 4th quarter.http://www.foxsports.com/nfl/story/green-bay-packers-aaron-rodgers-clutch-nfc-championship-stat-012217 CUT THAT GUY!!!!

Well, according to Fahey, Taylor's ADOT (Average Depth Of Throw) is 9.27 yards, or 7th in the league. Even disregarding that number, though, I don't think folks would say pushing the ball down the field is a problem for Taylor. I do agree. Neither do good QBs.

Yes. That's what he is. He's a QB who was in the NFL learning the game for 4 years before earning a starting job in year 5 when he began seeing any real regular season action. Oh, are you a teacher, too?

It's not that he's only going into his 3rd year. It's that he's going into his 3rd year as a starter. No, you don't look at him in comparison with other 3rd year starters like Mariota and Winston. He clearly has more NFL experience. BUT You also don't look at him in comparison with any 7th year starters drafted in the same draft like Newton. He clearly has less NFL experience. It's aggravating that people don't just talk about that reality.

Read it again. Let's see... Taylor's around 20. I said consistently a QB BETTER THAN TAYLOR would be CONSISTENTLY top 15. 20 does not equal 15, therefore, I did not say Taylor was a franchise QB. Unreal... and yes, I still point to reading comprehension issues.

I don't really know how to respond to this because it really doesn't have anything to do with what I posted...

Posts like this are just stupidly antagonistic and ultimately the reason all these Taylor arguments drag on. If Peterman is better than Taylor, who is good in the sense that, unlike QBs we've had in a very long time, he's an NFL starting QB, at worst. A QB who is "better than Taylor" would be likely at least a top 15 NFL QB since Taylor's, at worst, somewhere around 20. Consistently top 15 QBs are franchise QBs in my book. I don't know what your definition is.

You're right, people interpret things people post one way or another. Well, that's because it's based on what people say and the implications of what they say. Shaw corrected the assumption that Taylor's passer rating was super low in the 4th quarter because it somehow furthered an argument. Doesn't it stand to reason that if the cited passer rating was incorrect, the argument would be at least weaker, too? Also, and again, this has to do with interpreting what people say, but your 2nd to last sentence there sure does look like you're implying something about team wins as stronger indications of good QBs than stats. You're probably going to come back and say that's not what you mean, but it sure looks like that's what you mean. QBs with fewer wins than Taylor in 2016: Rivers Dalton Newton Palmer QBs with the same number of wins as Taylor in 2016: Brees Wentz Taylor's obviously not better than or as good as all those QBs, so this wins with QBs thing really needs to stop or be severely cut back.

Sorry. Teacher by trade. It's part of my daily practice to try to make the world less ignorant, however Herculean that task might be.

No. You're having a momentary reading comprehension problem.

Backup plan to compete with 2 other backup plans.

So you think Buffalo's intentions are for him to be the starter and savior of the franchise? I'm sure Buffalo has intentions for every single draft pick to be an All Pro. That's not what they (or any sane person) is expecting, though.