Shaw66

You're right on the money. I loved the guy. I even believed when Gailey said he could be a top flite starter. But If you have a weaker arm, you have to be better in all the other parts of the game. He had a weak arm and was a poor decision maker. That's a bad combination. And that's why his passer rating is in the low 80s. And he earned it, too. There was one game when I think he started and really messed up his ankle or knee. He came out, barely able to walk. Backup came in and got dinged. Fitz came back and gutted it out. He just made up his mind that someone had to play, so he did it. Tough, tough dude. Never afraid to take hits.

You're right about what choking is, and I think I agree that Fitz didn't choke. He just didn't deliver in the clutch. You're wrong about his arm. It's a bad play when a player in any sport tries to make a play he can't make. If his arm isn't strong enough to make a throw, he shouldn't be making the throw. When Roethlisberger sees a throw he can't make, he doesn't throw it. That's good QB play. When it's fourth down, or when there's no time left on the clock, I don't care if the QB throws an INT. But if you would have had another play but for the interception, it's a BAD play to throw an interception just because you aren't afraid to fail. If Fitzy couldn't make the throw, it's was a bad play to throw it. Similarly, I don't care if Ben was on good teams and Fitzy was on bad teams. The games on the line in the fourth quarter, and every throw you make in the 4th quarter. The fact that throughout his career Fitz threw almost half his INTs in the fourth quarter means that when the game is on the line, he's giving the ball away and good QBs aren't. So I agree he didn't choke in the true sense of the word. What Fitz isn't is clutch. He isn't clutch. He doesn't deliver when the game is on the line.

I agree that the fans around here underrate the talent on the Bills. As for McDermott, i truly believe nothing matters accept wins. I agree McDermott is doing the kind of things that I've seen successful coaches do before, but unsuccessful coaches also have done those things and not won. Organization and attitude are among the things successful coaches need, but that isn't all. They need leadership, for example. We see McDermott attempting to to lead, but the only measure of leadership is whether the troops follow. We don't know that yet, can't know it. Tactical excellence is necessary. Xs and Os. We have no idea how good McDermott, Dennison and other are at offensive play design. We don't even have a good idea about his defensive excellence, although we know he's coached a defense that had some good years. We don't know about his game planning. We don't know about his game management. Those are probably just some of the things we don't know about him yet. I don't even know what the others are. I'm excited for the new season to get underway, and I WANT McDermott to be the great young coach he could be, but we simply won't know what we're getting until we've seen a half dozen regular season games, maybe more. Frankly, he might need the entire first season to figure out what he's doing.

He's a choker. Or, if you don't like the word, let's just say he doesn't deliver in the clutch. If Fitz had physical problems, his performance would be the same at different times during the game. But that isn't true in his case. When the game is on the line, he plays worse than the rest of the game. Over his career, Fitz threw 29% of his passes in the fourth quarter or in overtime. He threw 30% of his TDs in the fourth quarter or overtime - that's what you'd expect. But Fitzy threw - get this - 45% of his INTs in the fourth quarter or overtime. That means he's making bad decisions with the football. If he had physical problems, his INTs would be or less the same as his attempts and TDs. Compare him to a successful gunslinger - Roethlisberger. Like Fitzy, Ben takes risks. Difference is, Ben knows which risks to take. Over his career, Ben threw 25% of his passes in the fourth quarter and overtime, 27% of his TDs (a lot like Fitzy) but only 31% of his INTs. Late in the game, if you're losing, you're going to take some risks that result in more INTs. That's why Ben's INT rate is higher than his attempt rate. But the point is, Ben's INT rate is in the ballpark with his attempt rate. Fitz's isn't. Fitz takes bad bets with the ball in the fourth quarter - he always has. Call that choking, call it bad decision making. Call it whatever you want. The data coincides with what we all think we've seen from him for years - Fitz takes his team out of games with ill-advised late-game throws. I give Fitz credit - he plays with no fear. He isn't afraid to make mistakes. But when it's your last possession, down 5 pionts, it's third and 8 and you throw an INT, that's a really, really bad play. Fitz specializes in it. When he came to Buffalo, he said that his junior year in college he was planning on getting a job on Wall Street. Then he started getting interest from the pros, and he unexpectedly ended up with a football career. Someone asked him then what he'd do when he retired. He said probably go home to Arizona and drink beer. If he's made $54 million, he's probably paid $15 million in taxes, so he's around $40 million net. Probably spent a half million a year for the past 12 years. So he's saved maybe $30 million. Obviously, I don't talk to Fitz so I don't know what he's thinking, but I doubt he'll go to Wall Street. He's set for life (he can take $750,000 a year for life from his investments, and you can live a pretty good life on that). Why would he move his family to New York and plug himself into that rat race, just so he can earn another $1 million a year? He'll do something more than sit around and drink beer, but I'm betting it big-time investment banking is no longer in his future.

okay. Go Bills!

So if your agree that Taylor is certainly better, what is the point of comparing receivers? Why did you raise that? I'm not arguing with you, I just don't understand. Why does it matter what kind of receivers they were throwing to if you, too, agree that Taylor is better? The only think I can think of is that you mean that Taylor, adjusted for receivers, is only a little bit better. But even that doesn't make sense, because throwing to Brandon Marshall and Eric Decker, Fitzpatrick STILL couldn't put up a better season than Taylor's worst. I like it. I want Taylor throwing with all his supporters, so everyone on the other team can get a first-hand look at how he throws over the middle and anticipates.

I think it's interesting that almost any way that reasonable people look at the data, there's always the same conclusion: there are about 10 very good qbs in the league. What you want is for your team to have one of the 10. If your QB is in the second ten, you probably go with him, try to build a really good defense, and keep your eyes open for an opportunity to upgrade your qb. If your QB isn't in the top 20, you're actively looking to replace him. I thought the 260, 1.875 was a pretty good test, and what did you find? Nine guys. Our question is whether in a more balanced offense Taylor can join that group. Interestingly, if you gross up Taylor to 1100 pass attempts over two seasons, which is the minimum for the 9, more or less, than Taylor is at 250 yards and 1.56. So, just like we always come back to about 10 top QBs, we also always come back to Taylor looking like he's close to that group but not in it.

Crusher - Do you have any data to back this up? I'm more interested in Taylor data than Fitz data - I'm pretty confident I know that Fitz failed late in games, but I'm not so sure you're correct about Taylor - either about failing or about the reason you think he failed. Fitz's career passer rating is 80. He was high 80s low 90s only two seasons in his career; most seasons his passer rating was in the low 80s or below. So that means isn't a very effective QB, period. When you look at his splits, you can see he was particularly bad at the end of the game. Career 4th quarter rating - 71, below his career average generally - in other words, he's better in earlier quarters. Tied, or trailing with less than 2 or 4 minutes to play, his passer rating is regularly around 50. 85 in games that are tied, 73 when his team is trailing. So, compared to his own averages, he's played really poorly in the last few minutes of games when his team needed scores. Taylor is different. He has a career passer rating of 92, which is a really solid number. When you look at his splits, you see that he performs about as well in end-of-game situations as at other times of the game. Fourth quarter rating is 88, a little below his average, but not bad. Tied with less than 4 minutes to go his rating is 149. Trailing, less than 2 or 4 minutes to go, he's around 85. 89 when tied, 90 when trailing. Not great, and maybe not good enough, but unquestionably better than Fitz. Not even the same league. So unless you have other data, I don't see that there's much comparison between the two. The question, as I intimated, is whether what Taylor has done is good enough. So look at Matt Ryan, someone who probably isn't a hall of famer but definitely is a franchise qb. Passer rating over 93. Career splits: 4th quarter, 85. When tied or losing with less than 4 and 2 minutes to go, passer rating in the 40s and 60s! Tied generally 95, trailing generally 90. So compared to Matt Ryan, Tyrod looks like he's right there. How about Aaron Rodgers? Career rating 104. Fourth quarter 102. Tied or trailing with 4 or 2 minutes left, 115, 94, 65, 76. 107 tied generally, 99 trailing. So Rodgers performs at the end of games about as he does at other times. What does it all mean? It means, I think, that we'd certainly want Taylor to be better at the end of games, but he (and at least two inarguably good quarterbacks) perform about as well at the end of games as they do the other 55 minutes. That, in turn, means that Taylor's problem (if he has a problem) is that he isn't good enough generally, not that he isn't good enough at the end of the game. The problem (which you are sure he has and I am not so sure) is that Taylor can't perform at relatively high levels (passer rating in mid-90s) if he's called on to throw 35 times a game regularly. I think you and I agree that the Bills need a QB who can perform at a high level throwing 35 times a game instead of 25. I really hope we see Taylor in that kind of offense this season, because that will tell us how good Taylor really is. Stop. What are you saying? That Taylor is better or isn't? Are you saying Taylor throwing to those receivers would have gotten the same results, then why do you think Taylor is better. The simple fact is that Taylor is unquestionably better than Fitzpatrick. Unquestionably. Taylor's WORST season was better than Fitzy's second BEST season. And Taylor can run. There's no comparison, regardless of receivers. And, by the way, look at Taylor's receivers last season. Were they actually better than the four you named? Hard to say.

i agree - that's what you'd like to see from your QB. I'm anxious to see the offense this year. I want to know if 200 yards a game is all Taylor got because (a) that was the style of offense Rex wanted to play or (b) the offense was limited because the coaches didn't believe Taylor could maintain his efficiency if he was asked to get those extra 50 passing yards per game. I want to see the passing game opened up so we can see what Taylor's upside as a passer actually is. Personally, I think Taylor can do it. I wasn't a fan when he was signed, because I thought he was a running quarterback. He's clearly more than that. He has a good arm, he can make all the throws. The question, as we all know, is whether he make those throws in a complicated offense that asks him to throw 35 or 40 times a game. I want to see him try, so we can learn the answer to that question.

Of course. But if you can't have a guy like Gillislee, a mediocre runner has an edge if he has a different style, because the defense is set up to stop McCoys style.

Not that's worth a long debate, but Orton was not better than Taylor. No way. Statistically as passers they were about the same. Taylor added 500 yards rushing and 4 touchdowns. The problem is that a lot of people don't agree with you. We haven't seen him play in an offense that asked him to pass like the best QBs do. Let's see what 2017 brings.

I think Crusher is impossible to argue with, and I think he's way off base on a lot that he says. But I think you misrepresent his position on Taylor. I suspect he's said on multiple occasions that he'd be delighted if Taylor became a true franchise quarterback. But what he's also said is that he doesn't believe it's possible, and if it isn't possible, he wants Taylor to be gone sooner rather than later. He's afraid that if Taylor keeps having his average season - 200 yards per game and low 90s passer rating, management may decide to keep working with him. That, in Crusher's view, would be a bad thing, because the longer the Bills work with him, the more time they're wasting. I think that's different from rooting against Taylor, or at least I can understand and not be upset with the logic.

I agree, but I hope we're both wrong. Much better for the Bills if Williams emerges.

I expected it. The guy is, by all reports, a very good running back. People see the balling ball look and think he's a short-yardage guy. He isn't. He is a running back. He would be a great change of pace back; good speed but different style of runner, forcing the defense to prepare for two different running backs. I loved Gillislee, but he ran like McCoy and didn't force defenses to adjust. The problem is whether he can hold up for 17 weeks as the back who spells McCoy for a series a two a couple of times a game. Plus, if McCoy goes down, Tolbert is not the guy to carry the ball 15 times a game for more than a game or two. So there definitely has to be a another quality running back on the roster.

I think he does, but that of course is one of the important questions for Taylor and about 20 other starting quarterbacks in the league. QBs like Flacco, Eli, Carson Wentz, Carson Palmer, Andy Dalton, Marcus Mariota, etc.

He brought a smile to the face of all who knew him. He brought more joy to Bills fans than Jeremy Maclin would have. He will be missed.

Since this thread is about Fahey and his stats, I'm going to say again that I take all this stuff with a grain of salt. Fahey is too young and uncredentialed for me to take him seriously. I mean, why in the world should I trust a stat he created that predicts what Taylor's yards per attempt would be if adjusted for wide receiver mistakes? That's a highly subjective and speculative stat, and I'm not inclined to put much stock in it until Fahey is a recognized expert. Fahey is a guy creating content for sale. He's built himself a little niche by taking deep dives into stats, and he produces interesting stuff, interesting in that people like to read it and it helps Football Outsiders and others fill their pages with content. It doesn't mean it's right or insightful or anything. Look up Bill James. He self-published his football stats for years, in virtual anonymity. He was nearly 40 before Billy Bean and Theo Epstein actually started using that data, that is, it took 15 years before people began to see that James's work had validity. And I have no doubt that James was just one of dozens of people out there concocting theories about and manipulating data to try to give greater insight into the game. I don't see any coaches or GMs quoting Fahey data to justify decisions about their QBs. If they aren't quoting him and using his stats, that means they don't think those stats are meaningful or helpful in the pursuit of quarterbacking excellence. If coaches and GMs don't think what Fahey is doing is useful, why should I? Wrong turn. This thread is much less interesting, but it's all we're left with for a few weeks. (Unless, in a cost cutting move, the Packers release Aaron Rodgers. THAT would make the Maclin thread look like a coffee break.) By the way, how do you like your coffee?

This stuff is very interesting and I'm inclined to agree with you. I've never liked Flacco all that much. However, it's a team game, and it's very difficult to give Flacco and Taylor complete credit or blame for a lot of this. It's just too hard to tell. What I can do is imagine Flacco at QB for the Bills instead of Taylor. I can't do the opposite, because I don't have a good sense of what the Ravens' offense is like. Imagining Flacco in the Bills' offense, Taylor is clearly better. Taylor's positive yardage plays with his legs would all be lost with Flacco at QB. And Flacco throwing 28 or 30 times a game just wouldn't be so much more effective than Taylor to overcome the difference Taylor creates running. But even then, it isn't a true comparison. If Flacco had been the Bills' QB for the past two seasons, the Bills would have thrown the ball a lot more. The offense would have been different. So the question isn't which QB is better? The question is which version of the Bills' offense would be better, the version built around Taylor or the version built around Flacco. I think THAT's a close question. Having said all that, your post is an excellent discussion, one of the best I've seen, of how effective Taylor actually has been. I'm perfecting willing to give the Taylor detractors the right to their opinions, and their opinions may actually be correct. What bothers me about the people who don't like Taylor is that they try to explain why the stats that make it clear that Taylor has been an effective QB for the Bills.

My rule is don't give up on high-end talent too early. Ragland is one of those guys who could be a major impact player in the defense for the next five years. No way do I trade him before we even have chance to look at him. Especially in the scenario you're talking about - trading a potential impact player who plays in the center of the field for a receiver that his original team doesn't want and who at best will become a number 2 wideout but more likely will simply be competing to for the 4th or fifth spot in the receiving corps. Makes no sense.

I feel the same about Holmes.

I liked Whaley. But you're right about this. Whaley was pretty good at getting good talent, but he didn't have a winning plan for the long of talent he needed. If he saw an opportunity to get a good player he got.him, regardless of the fit. Of course, he had a coach who also didn't have a plan. What we are seeing now is a coach who has a plan working with a gm who is on board with it. In the case of Maclin, for example, these coaches have seen Holmes and the others and they have an idea about Zay. What they've seen informed their judgment abiut how badly or not they needed a talent like Maclin.

I agree. Actually, Whaley did that generally too, but this front office seems.more disciplined. They know whom that want and they know how much they're willing to pay. That's how the Pats operate and it makes sense. One thing I like about it is that it pyts the responsibility to win on the HC. It says to the HC that he will have good talent at a fair price and the rest is up to him. And I think McD welcomes that challenge.

I like that idea.

So the two relevant questions about Maclin are 1. IS he wearing jeans today? and 2. Where is he eating tonight?

I guess that surprises me. I expected more sartorial diversity from you.