Shaw66
-
Posts
8,974 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
Agreed that what the Bills did was smart and hedged their bets. Yeah, they shortened his deal. But they also made it infinitely easier for them to cut him after one year.
With the old deal (assuming they'd taken the option, of course) if they'd cut him after one year, they'd have had to pay a penalty of around $14 - $15 mill in dead money. And the alternative - keeping him on the roster through March 2018 - would have meant guaranteeing him about $24 mill more ($40 mill total guaranteed from the beginning of the contract if he was only on the roster in March 2018 ... minus his 2017 impact).
If they'd kept the old deal and picked up the option, to keep him or let him go would have cost the Bills a ton more than the new deal will. Either way the Bills save a ton and Tyrod makes a lot less.
In the new deal, Tyrod makes $14 mill less money if he's here for one year and $10 mill less money if he's here for two. And his guarantee, a number players fight like rabid dogs to increase, will also be a lot less.
I agree with all of that. But if Taylor has a good year in 2017, they're going to be writing Taylor a big check in 2018 to keep him from becoming a free agent.
I find the whole thing really interesting, because you can see the Bills changing the deal from year to year as they continually reevaluate their cap situation, their view of Taylor, and their need for flexibility. In the case of Watkins, as I said, I think they made a choice of what year they wanted to franchise him if that becomes necessary. In Taylor's case, because they weren't sure about him, they gave up a very favorable long-term deal to get some short-term cap relief and to get the opportunity to cut him at lower cost.
Taylor, on the other hand, gave up his future by signing a long-term deal, but captured guaranteed money. Then he agreed to reduce his guarantee to get back his freedom to negotiate for a better deal.
If Taylor plays well in 2017, it will cost the Bills $20-$30 million more over the next four seasons than if they'd just exercised the option under the old deal. If he plays poorly and the Bills cut him, the Bills will save $10-$20 million of cash and $10 million of cap space. Taylor, of course, isn't concerned about cap space; if he has a lousy 2017 and gets cut, all he'll think about is the $10-$20 million in cash he gave up. But as I've always said, he has a 5-7 year future in the league almost regardless of what happens in 2017, and he'll make $20 million or more over that period.
So I continue to think that the upside of the new deal was more valuable to Taylor than the downside, in terms of cash. As people have said, Taylor is willing to bet on himself. For the Bills, they're willing to live with the possibility that they might have to write a big check to keep Taylor; you deal with those kinds of problems as they come along. The Bills wanted the option to keep him for 2017 and reconsider him in a year. They got what they wanted, and Taylor got what he wanted.
-
This is interesting and actually does lend some credence to Shaw's argument that Taylor is "betting on himself."
But man, look at that list of QBs who are in the top 8...
Whoof...
I don't think either of those is the right list to look at. The right list (I don't know how to generate it by QB alone) is here: https://overthecap.com/contracts
Sort that list by average amount guaranteed per year. That's what really matters - if it isn't guaranteed, it's funny money. If you go down that list you'll see that Tyrod is in fact about the lowest average guaranteed money per year of any QB not on his rookie contract.
However, he is in the same ballpark with Wilson, Newton, Ryan, Roethlisberger and Manning. So although he's at the low end, he's in pretty good company.
Shaw, you're wrong about the effect that money will have on the likelihood of him getting cut.
The way it's structured will make it extremely easy to cut him. Very very easy.
Here are the two choices:
1) Cut him before March of 2018: He'll cost the team $8.6 mill in dead money against the cap
2) Keep him for 2018: He'll cost the team $18 mill against the cap, in salary, a major March roster bonus and the prorated portion of his signing bonus.
Cutting him would save them almost $10 mill on the cap. That's not a penalty for cutting him, it's a windfall.
And let's not pretend guys don't get cut for money-related reasons even when they beat out (or would beat out) the other QBs on the rosters in the NFL. It happens a lot. Not to the franchise guys, but to the guys farther down, who the team thinks won't allow them to be competitive for a title. And that's Tyrod. Osweiler's a good example, the best QB on that roster but not good enough to make that team competitive, so he's gone before they have any idea what they might get in the draft.
We don't know whether or not it's likely. Too much is up in the air in terms of what QBs will be available in the draft when we pick, how much Peterman and Cardale will develop and whether or not Tyrod does as well as they hope in the new system, as well as whether the team and the offense are competitive next year with Tyrod.
Unless things fall well for him, it could easily make great sense to cut him. The money is a reason to cut him, not to keep him. They could easily keep him for two but it would be just as easy to cut him.
Thanks. You're right about the numbers.
That DOES make it a little more likely that he'll be cut. I still think it's quite likely they keep him, for the reason I gave. If they cut him, it's because they have someone who looks like a top notch starter ahead of him. There are only two real candidates for that job: Peterman and a 2018 first round rookie. If you're going to start you 2018 first round rookie, you're almost certainly going to want a veteran backup, which means you're writing a $5 million check to get him. You're not going to go with the rookie and Peterman as a backup. I mean, it's certainly possible, but not likely.
If you're going with Peterman as the starter, unless he started for most of 2017, you don't know what you have with him, either, so again you'll want a veteran backup.
Still, you're right. It's more likely that the Bills will cut him than I said.
-
Very possible Tyrod would have made out on the open market, yet his agent who met it teams at the combine didnt like we heard. The meeting were informal, but still, Tyrod went from not willing to restructure to all of a sudden being willing?
Furthermore, there was rumours we were looking heavily into Hoyer if Tyrod didn't restructure.
Again, a lot of hearsay and speculation, but can't discount the fact this deal is better for Buffalo than fot Taylor.
Buffalo is showing an utter lack of faith, and Tyrod apparently didn't like what he heard the market would be... so taking a deal with little insurance on his end... sure he could be a FA sooner, but injuries among other things can happen.
Dave's right.
I don't know if Tyrod was ever unwilling to restructure, but if he was unwilling to restructure, do you really think he came to the table because the Bills were threatening to sign Brian Hoyer? Are you kidding? Cleveland needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Houston needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Chicago needed a QB and they let Hoyer go. Three teams desperate for QBs, three teams had him on the roster and actually let him START, and all three teams let him walk away. Taylor is clearly and unequivocally better than Hoyer, everyone knows that, and Taylor knows that. Don't suggest that Taylor was quaking in his boots that he get cut to make room for Brian Hoyer.
The Bills were asking to renegotiate, not Taylor. The side that asks to renegotiate wants something, so that's the team that had to give up something to get what they wanted.
I'll say it again. I know a guy who knows 100 times more about this than you or I, and he told unequivocally that Taylor got what he wanted out of this deal. This was a good deal for Taylor, better than the deal he had last year. Unequivocally.
It's very simple. Follow the option. Who had the option to make Taylor a free agent. Taylor had it in 2016. The Bills didn't like that, so they wrote Taylor a contract with a nice guarantee to get the option back. The Bills paid for the option. Then in 2017 they didn't want to decide; they wanted the option to be extended for a year. The Bills paid to extend the option for a year. What did they pay? They gave Taylor the option too. They gave Taylor his freedom.
-
And yet, the alternative to taking the new deal was be cut...
I mean he's clearly betting on him self, because Buffalo can walk away just as easy if not easier with the new deal.
He wasn't going to get cut. There was no way the Bills were cutting him. The Bills had NO quarterback for 2017, and as we've now seen, they didn't want to draft one this year. You think McDermott wanted to coach his rookie year as HC with NO quarterback? No way.
What the Bills did was a much smarter way to hedge their bets on Taylor. They get to see Taylor for a year or two more AND they set themselves up to take a QB next season if they believe they need one.
They did the same thing with Taylor that they did with Watkins - they shortened his deal. And as I think about it, that's why they didn't extend Watkins. If they extended him, Watkins and Taylor would have become free agents the same year, and the Bills could franchise only one of them. The way they did it, they can franchise Watkins next year and, if Taylor really comes of age, they can franchise him the following year.
But in any case, Taylor wasn't afraid of being cut. On his two-year body of work, he would have ended up being the starter somewhere - Chicago, Houston, Denver, the Jets. He would have been the best option, by far, available to several teams. He'd have gotten $20-$30 million guaranteed somewhere, because there would have been a bidding war.
-
Shaw, you keep saying it's $30 million guaranteed, but (having not looked at the contract in awhile) from what I recall, it's not actually $30 million guaranteed because the Bills have the ability to cut him at the end of this year.
Granted, there's a good deal of dead money involved, but Taylor is not guaranteed $30 million.
I could be wrong, but if I'm not, this seems a central premise of your argument and I just want to make sure you (and your agent friend) have the facts straight.
You're correct.
However, with the dead cap money, it's almost a certainty that the Bills will keep Taylor for the next two years. The only way the Bills would cut Taylor before the 2018 season would be if they found a great starter AND a better backup than Taylor this year. There's a good chance that Taylor will be the best player to start in 2018, and it's a virtual certainty that he'll be the best possible backup.
If someone beats out Taylor this year, it means he's better than Taylor, and it also means the Bills must be pretty good. If theyre good, then going into 2018, they'll want a good backup. It'll cost them at least a few million to get a good backup. The better move would be to keep Taylor - he'll have experience in the system, he'll be better than any backup they can get, and he won't cost that much more money for one year.
So I think it's extremely unlikely that Taylor won't be on the team in 2018. Possible, but not likely.
Plus, Taylor doesn't care. If he gets cut early in 2018, it will be because Peterman became a star, and that won't hurt Taylor's marketability. Look at Romo. If Romo were five years younger and not such a health unknown, he wouldn't be viewed as damaged goods. Taylor wouldn't be, either. He wouldn't be viewed as a star like Romo, but he'd be viewed as a good starter who came available.
-
I don't dispute your numbers. My issue is with the central thesis of your argument; namely, that a marginal running QB would consider a short-term deal with less guaranteed money a 'no-brainer'. It's the polar opposite of what modern NFL players seek in contract negotiations.
No. That's where you're wrong. Players in their prime don't want long-term deals unless they are for the most money they can get.
That's why guys like Zach Brown come into Buffalo and ask for one-year deals. The Bills wanted him for a longer-term, but they weren't offering enough money to make it worthwhile. Players AGREE to long-term deals; they don't ask for them. They ASK for guaranteed money.
That's what the negotiations are about - long-term vs. guaranteed money. When a player is worth franchise-tag money, he takes a long-term deal; otherwise, he wants short-term.
In 2015 Taylor signed a contract that paid him peanuts and allowed him to be a free agent in two years.
In 2016 he signed a contract that guaranteed him something close to $50 million and tied him up through 2021.
In 2017 he signed a contract that gave back $10 million of the guarantee and allows him to be a free agent after 2018.
He got a better deal each year. If he could have gotten the 2017 deal in 2016 he would have taken it in a heartbeat.
As you say, he's a running quarterback. He may have a shorter period of peak years. He would have passed his peak as a runner by 2022. He will still be in his prime as a runner in 2018.
Unless of course he believes he is more than a marginal running QB.
He took the guaranteed money deal when he had yet to become financially established. He made more last year than he had in his career combined. Once he has that nest egg he gambled on himself. I'm not saying it is the definitive answer but it certainly makes sense if viewed that way. We just saw Alshon Jeffery and Terell Pryor take one year prove it deals to hopefully cash in next year. It has been confirmed Pryor turned down more money to do so. It doesn't always happen but it does happen.
When you think about it, it's obvious. If a team isn't offering franchise money, short-term deals are better.
Then why did Tyrod sign the 2016 deal? Because the Bills weren't offering a short-term deal, but they WERE offering attractive guaranteed money.
-
No, it isn't. You may be trying to justify a particular set of circumstances, but realize that your argument revolves around the idea that a short-term deal for less guaranteed money was the better option for a 27 year old running QB.
It's totally not a no brainer.
Of course it is. He gave up a $40 million guarantee and got a $30 million guarantee. He gave back $10 million.
So play it out. Let's say Taylor never has another season like 2015. If so, the Bills cut him as soon as they can, he gets his $40 million guaranteed and nothing more under his old deal. Under his new deal he gets $30 million. He immediately gets a job somewhere as a backup for $5 million, or as a starter for $10 million. Lots of guys bounce around the league like that. So let's say that he earns $5 million a year for 5 years. That's $25 million. If he kept his old deal, he'd be stuck on the Bills for an extra year as a backup (if he's creating dead cap, the Bills will keep him as a backup instead of cutting him and having to sign another QB). Then he'll have 4 years left at $5 million. So that's $30 million (the $10 guaranteed from the Bills and $20 million over four years. So Taylor gave up something like $5 million to renegotiate, assuming he never establishes himself as a starter.
Now assume he DOES establish himself as a starter. If he does, he'll make $5 to $10 million a year more with his new deal.
The downside of giving back the $10 million isn't nearly as big as the upside of being a free agent after 2018.
Listen to the analysts. They pretty much ALL say that Taylor is a serviceable starter. They pretty much all say he isn't a star. If he's a serviceable starter, he's going to make decent money until he's 35, and he's certainly going to make backup money until then.
I've watched every throw Tyrod has made as a Bill live and on All-22 outside of the emotion of the live game. I'd like to think I notice patterns and whatnot, I see repeated plays and have a feel for the progressions of a few concepts. Ultimately, as you said, we'll never quite know because, for even the most educated onlookers, it's best guess stuff.
It frustrates me endlessly because I'm a little obsessed with knowledge. I'd really like to be sure that I know what I think I know.
I'm sort of like that. That's why I called my friend the agent. I thought I'd figured out why Tyrod signed his new deal, but I wasn't sure. My friend is an expert. He confirmed it. Being a free agent is incredibly valuable.
I really want to know what the coaches think about a lot of these things. The question I really wanted to ask a few years ago was when Tuel threw that interception (was it Tuel?) on the goal line while Stevie was wide open in the end zone. 100-yard pick six turned a win into a loss. I'm sure that happened because Stevie didn't do his job, but no one would ever say it. Coaches aren't going to dump on their players like that.
-
It's a complete no brainer which is why every superstar in the NFL is on a two or one year deal. Holy smokes people.
When you get BIG money, you take the long-term deal.
You want a good example. Look at Russell Wilson on his rookie deal. That's EXACTLY what every team wants and every play doesn't - an under-priced long-term contract. If you're a player, once you sign the long-term deal, that's it. You're stuck with it. Why'd Taylor sign his? Because he hadn't made any money yet, and $40 or $50 million guaranteed was $40 or $50 million more than he'd ever seen his life. He was willing to give up his freedom to get that relatively big deal.
A year later the Bills came back to him and said to him "we need to change the deal. We need another year to look at you." Taylor said "it'll cost you. If you want another year, I want my freedom back." Eventually the Bills said "we'll give you your freedom back, but we won't guarantee you as much money."
It IS a no brainer.
I wish there was data for throws that you don't make.
You're absolutely right. That data exists, but the only people who have it are the coaches. The Bills coaches know the answer to the questions debated here all the time: Does Taylor miss reads and therefore miss open receivers? Does Taylor release the ball late? Does Taylor hold the ball too long? Does he do any of things more than QBs on other teams do? Do we care?
All questions the coaches can answer and we cannot.
-
Then we franchise tag him, which is only about $2 million more than his option would have been. The difference is that we don't have to decide on the franchise tag until after this season.
Really, that's all?
Now I understand why they did it.
Bills knew they would have to make a decision on Sammy, one way or the other, sooner or later. They decided they could risk the $2 million to be free to cut ties early if they want to.
-
And lastly...I can't agree on the contract comments. I suppose one could look at it the way you have and see it as a win. I think most would see it as a huge gamble and a not very smart decision if both contracts were on the table. Injuries and uncertainty is far to commonplace in the NFL. If you have security and guaranteed money for years to come, you generally take it. A few guys gamble every now and then, but I haven't seen it pay off very much. I can't imagine many agents advise this approach either. Also, for Tyrod to be able to believe he's going to improve and do better on the market when he has only shown to regress, while also having to deal with injuries and a new coaching staff is a real stretch IMO.
Maybe I'll respond to your other comments later. For now, just about the contract.
I posted here or in another thread about the contract. I have a friend who used to be a sports agent. He represented some of the very biggest names in sports. Negotiating deals is his business.
I asked him about the Tyrod contract scenarios, and he confirmed that an agent absolutely would have told Tyrod to take the deal he has over the one he had. Absolutely. He said if you're in your prime, your freedom, your ability to negotiate another contract is worth a lot. He said it was a no brainer for Taylor to give up $10 million of guaranteed money in exchange for the right to become a free agent again in 2018. Absolutely no question in his mind.
Two years in a row, the Bills have come to Taylor asking for contract help. The first time was because he was going to become a free agent after 2016, and the Bills didn't want to be in a bidding war for him. Taylor said okay, but I need real guaranteed money. They negotiated and came up with the deal they came up with. Taylor wanted guaranteed money; the Bills wanted to tie him up but still have an out after 2016.
The second time, because Taylor's year wasn't great, the Bills came to him and said "we're not sure, we not another year to see how you develop. Plus, we need some cap help." Taylor said "I'll give you another year to decide if you want me, and I'll give you cap help, but I don't want to be tied up for six years." They negotiated and came up with the new deal.
Bottom line is that Taylor was not worried, at all, that the Bills would cut him. He knew he'd get another deal somewhere, and he also knew the Bills weren't likely to find a comparable QB any place else.
-
The problem here is that you're misguided about his production.
Even in 2015, his production was not high. It was better, but not to the level you seem to place Taylor at.
You are placing a premium on passer rating, a stat that is easily manipulated by a system that emphasizes low risk, high percentage throws. You were already exposed by GoBills808, who gave you the facts that you then pretty much blew off because you didn't fully understand them in regards to passed rating.
You can say and believe what you'd like. What you see from Taylor on the field isn't anywhere close to what you and a few others seem to believe he's at when talking about where he ranks in certain categories. It also appears that the Bills also do not agree since they took money and his job security away from him. He's going to have to learn to master the basics that he hasn't been able to for now six years going into seven in the pro's to be the guy beyond this season. The likelihood of that happening doesn't seem to be really high if you look at the guys who have suddenly figured it out after being in the league that long.
I'm happy to chat with you about this because you're pretty rational about it.
You're absolutely right about his production. In 2015, he didn't have enough yards, or enough TDs. The question about Taylor is whether he's capable of leading a team in a way, and producing at a level, that can get his team into the playoffs. You answer that question by looking at him and saying "I don't see it," which is one way to look at it. I understand that, but I look at his stats and say "well, if he threw more, he'd have the yards and TDs, and his running accounts for some, but not all, of his low numbers in passing production. His passing and running was good enough to have a top 10 offense in 2016, and it was the defense that kept them out of the playoffs." That argument can go around and around for a long time, as it has here and everyplace Bills fans get together.
However, until Taylor throws 30 passes a game instead of 25, we won't know. What we do know is that if all of his numbers increased proportionally throwing 30 passes a game, we know we had a QB.
I think we just have to wait and see.
As you may know, I think coaching has the most to do with winning, and I think QB play is second. I think nothing else comes close to those two. One reason I want to wait and see on Taylor is that the Bills had a lousy head coach for the past two seasons. He affected the play of a lot of players negatively, except the ILBs and a few others. Pretty much NO ONE on the team produced except the two Browns and Alexander. We're all anxious to see what a new coach will do for production generally, and I'm interested to see what happens to Taylor particularly. McDermott has spent several years watching Cam Newton. McD has ideas, I'm sure, about how to maximize Taylor's skills. And I believe Taylor is more coachable than Newton. Taylor's ego doesn't get in the way.
For me, it's simple: will the 2017 Taylor put up numbers like the 2015 Taylor or the 2016 Taylor? Will he throw more (those 12 and 15 attempt games are not the way to win)? You can say you've watched him and you know he can't do it, but that doesn't cut it with me. If Bill Parcels and Tony Dungy say it, I'll listen.
And, by the way, GoBIlls is just wrong about the passer rating. All of the best QBs have the highest passer ratings, and none of the lousy QBs have consistently high passer ratings. It's been that way for more than 20 years. The consistency of those numbers validates the passer rating as a good measure of good QB play. Like any average, It isn't reliable on a per-game basis, but decades of season stats show that it's reasonably reliable on a per-season basis and it's excellent on a career-basis. The fact that it may overweight some numbers doesn't invalidate it. How do I know? Because if it did, you'd find some bad quarterbacks regularly getting higher passer ratings than their play would seem to justify. There are none of those QBs. What you get is some guys having a season with a great passer rating but not being able to duplicate it. In fact, Taylor may be one of those. McCown had one of those seasons. Foles had one. But NO qb with three seasons of stats has a high passer rating who is not recognized as a very good QB.
Finally, in case you haven't read things I've written on the subject, you're completely wrong when you say the Bills took Taylor's job security away. Completely and totally wrong. When the Bills said to Taylor they wanted another season to watch him before they decided not to cut him in March, TAYLOR said "okay, if you want to do that let me out of my 6-year commitment." Teams WANT long-term deals because they don't want their players becoming free agents. Players WANT short-term deals because the short-term deals let them test the market over and over again. Players agree to long term deals only if the money is really good.
Taylor didn't care about job security. When you're making $100,000 a year working at an insurance company, you worry about job security. But when you made $7 million last year and your team is saying "we will pay you $30 million for the next two years," you don't care about job security. Once you have earned $35 million (which means you will have $10 million or more in the bank), you don't worry about job security. Ten million in the bank means you have $300,000 a year for life, before you earn another nickel At that point you worry about how soon you can negotiate for a new contract.
Taylor's old deal was slavery; with his new deal, Taylor bought his freedom. He gave up $10 million guaranteed (which he almost certainly will earn somewhere in the NFL if he doesn't stay with the Bills) so that he wouldn't be stuck with a $15 million contract for the last three years. Think about it - Taylor didn't have any job security in the back end of his contract. If Taylor turns out to be horrible, he would have been cut by the end of 2018, anyway - no job security. Presumably then he'd be out of the league. So what did he lose? $10 million, which is a lot to you me but not so much if you already have $10 million in the bank.
But if Taylor turns out to be good, under his old contract he's stuck with the Bills for three more years at $15 million a year. Under his new contract, in 2017 or 2018 he's negotiating a contract for five or six years that will pay him $20+ million a year and will guarantee $50 million or more. His downside was $10 million. His upside is $20 or $30 million. It was an easy decision for Taylor.
-
All Shaw's saying is it's too early to dismiss Tyrod, not that he's a top 10 all time passer. Except for the top 5 or so QBs, most guys see their passer ratings rise and fall with each passing season. It's rarely a linear line straight up. The top guys are so good because they ALWAYS have passer ratings at the top. It's hard to imagine a scenario where someone has 8 or so seasons of great passer ratings without also being a great passer. If Tyrod continues his passer rating trend for a long time he will be considered a good QB. He had a down year last year, true, but it's not indicative of any pattern yet. You seem to think it's crazy that he could ever have a playoff run like Eli Manning or Joe Flacco or a sudden career resurgence like Carson Palmer or Matt Ryan. You just never know what each season will look like for guys at that level. It's not common for long-term starters to have their best season in their 2nd year. All I've said all along is to give Tyrod another year and see which way he falls.
Yup.
It isn't decision time now. After the 2017 season is decision time for Tyrod, because that's when the Bills will have to decide if they're using their first-round picks to go after a QB.
And what I'll say what I've been saying since 2015: If Tyrod plays the essentially the whole season and has a passer rating in the 93-94-95 range or better, he's your guy. Think about it. If he has a passer rating of 95 in 2017, his career passer rating will be in the top 10, ALL-TIME. Even if someone wants to adjust the calculation of the passer rating to give more or less weight to certain numbers, a guy in the top ten all-time on the old system will be in the top 20 under the new system. Are you really going to cut a guy who's in his prime and is a top-20 passer? It's ludicrous.
-
RE: the bolded-in this instance, your number for Taylor's 'multiple seasons' is two, which in comparison to the other leading passer rating QBs is 10+. That's inconsequential enough to be called useless for comparison's sake, and disingenuous in that this season (a full 50% of his total years you're using) his rating was below average. The sample size is too small to draw the kind of conclusions you've done here, and that's without accounting for the two arguments I've put forth that have yet to be addressed: 1) that passer rating itself puts too much emphasis on completions which benefits 'safe' passing schemes and benefits marginal QBs who play in such offenses and 2) there exist better QB 'quality' statistics (admittedly, this is my personal opinion) that rank Taylor far lower than where you've placed him.
I guess a better conversation would rank the relative merits of the myriad stats that attempt to quantify QB performance. We all have our own favorite it seems, but at least I'm trying to explain my rationale...simply saying 'passer rating is the stat most likely to indicate whether a QB is good or not' doesn't satisfy me.
You need to go back read my posts. You're responding to things I've never said.
I didn't say two seasons was enough. I did say it's interesting that if he had enough attempts his two seasons would put him in the top ten career passer rating list. But I've never said two seasons is enough. I think above I said 3-4-5 seasons is what you need.
You say I've drawn conclusions, and I haven't.
I'm not sure you've said what you think the better quality statistic is.
-
So you're ignoring an example of how passer rating is flawed. Fine.
I've just illustrated how single season passer ratings aren't representative of QB quality, as there's a mediocre one every year. Taylor was that mediocre QB with a good passer rating in 2015, he slid to 18th this past season which is frankly a bit higher than I have him personally (owing to our QB rating-friendly system)...the fact that you're trying to conflate his last two years' passer rating (with his extremely low # of attempts, which should be weighted against him) with guys who have 10+ seasons worth of accumulated data is tenuous at best.
And I'm sorry...10 out of 10 and 21 out of 25 is not 'excellent correlation'. It's simply correlation. And that's not causation. And a statistician would say that a 16% margin of error is enough to throw your findings into an entirely different light. And this is why I rarely take the time to debate these kinds of things anymore...people like yourself who admittedly don't know enough about what they're talking about, yet are comfortable making pronouncements like you're trying to do here.
That just isn't right. The correlation IS excellent. Not for games, but for seasons and certainly for careers. 8 or 9 out of 10, season after season, is excellent. (And, by the way, if you look at the lists you'll see that usually numbers 11, 12, and 13 are guys who are IN the top 10 most seasons.
You're right, correlation isn't causation. But you can't find any stat that correlates nearly as well on QB performance, so, just like batting averages, when you see a guy with a good passer rating over 4-5-6 seasons, he's almost certainly a good QB. In other words, you can have a good passer rating for a game and not be a good QB, but you can't have a good passer rating for multiple seasons without being a good QB.
The whole point of the discussion here is whether these mini-stats that Fahey has created really mean anything in terms of a QB's quality. The answer is no. Passer rating is the stat most likely to indicate whether a QB is good or not.
-
You've never taken the time to look into how passer rating is calculated, but you're comfortable saying 'good QBs have good passer ratings' without understanding the context necessary to make a determination as to whether said QB's rating is an accurate reflection of how 'good' he is (or isn't)?
Example:
QB1 throws 40 passes for 40 completions, 200 yards, and a TD. Gets a passer rating of 95.83.
QB2 throws 40 passes for 20 completions, 350 yards, 3TDs and 1 INT for a passer rating of 94.79.
I'd say QB2's performance was vastly superior and that's without delving into the offensive system variability (although a 100% comp speaks to a QB friendly ie low-risk scheme) or game outcome. What I believe passer rating does (partly, which is my main issue) is calculate the degree to which a QB's performance correlates to good QB play as viewed from the 1960s and 70s when a passer rating of 67 was considered average.
Single season passer ratings, as stated earlier, are for the birds. Career passer rating MIGHT be a decent factor to consider when evaluating QBs, but pointing to a single game or season's rating does absolutely nothing in terms of determining the relative worth of a particular quarterback.
Forget your hypotheticals. It's very simple, and I've said it dozens of times, most frequently about three times in this thread:
Stats are useful if there is a high correlation between the stat and observed performance. In the case of the passer rating, there IS a high correlation. I just gave you the numbers. All ten of the quarterbacks with the highest career passer rating are or were very good to excellent QBs. Ten out of ten. That's the best correlation possible.
21 of the 25 best single season passer ratings of all time were by current or future HOF QBs. That's excellent correlation.
Look at the to 10 passers, by passer rating, in each of the last 10 season. Every season there are one or two or three average QBs on the list, but the majority, often the great majority, are the best QBs in the league. And the average QBs make the list one season, but no the next. They have a career year and they make the list. But some names make the top 10 almost every year, and those names are Brady, Rodgers, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Manning, etc.
Single game passer ratings aren't too valuable, because that's an average with a small sample size. A one-game or one-week batting average isn't all that meaningful, either. But just as a baseball player's batting average over a full season is a pretty good representation of the kind of season he had, a QB's passer rating over a full season is a pretty good indicator.
And to to bring it back to Taylor, over two seasons his passer rating was about 94. If he had enough attempts to qualify (looks like you need 1000) for the list, he'd be in the top 10. To repeat myself, the top 10 is Rodgers, Wilson, Romo, Brady, Young, Manning, Brees, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Warner.
So I don't care if you can construct two 40-attempt games where the passer rating results are scewy. It's very difficult to construct two REALISTIC 400-attempt seasons where that's the case.
-
I think this is the most legitimate criticism of Tyrod that I've read here. He often holds the ball too long, and he also tends to bail out of a clean pocket. I think those things can improve with more nfl game experience.
But even these stats are skewed. Taylor holds the ball longer than any other QB in the league BECAUSE HE'S THE BEST SCRAMBLER. Brady essentially never scrambles; he's been taught to give up on plays and move on to the next play. That behavior brings his average down; Taylor scrambling takes his average WAY up, because he plays where it takes him 10 seconds before he throws. That's not a negative, that's a positive.
On top of that, because he's such a good scrambler, he expects to escape, so he takes off and gets sacked more often than other QBs who see the rush, know they can't escape and throw it away. That's why Taylor, Russell Wilson and Cam Newton are regularly in the top 10 in sacks.
-
Not for me, but I don't actually have an ultimate objective measure. Passer rating is a good metric but IMO it's not without flaws, chief among them being putting too high a premium on completions (essentially counts them twice when calculating rating, because YPA and COMP% are both part of the equation) and penalizing INTs too heavily (why should an INT be the net equivalent of -100 yards, while a TD is only the net equivalent of +80 yards according to passer rating?). Both of these are areas wherein a QB such as Taylor, managing a low risk, low volume system, would have his performance weighted higher in passer rating than the modern game would recognize. It's outdated and predicated upon stats from the 60s and 70s, and doesn't take into account the evolution of high-volume passing offenses. It doesn't account for either rushing yards, which would aid Taylor's case, or sacks, which would detract from it. I prefer ANY/A to passer rating but I'll admit that it's personal preference (doesn't take rushing yards into account either, but that's OK with me because I don't see a correlation between QB rushing yards and any measurable statistic related to winning).
Look at Bradford's 2016 season with the Vikings. Nobody would say he was 'great', but passer rating puts him as the 6th highest ranked QB in the league. This while throwing for 3800 yards, 20 TDs, and 5 INTs (sound familiar?) with a COMP% of 71+. He was essentially Taylor 2015, and the Vikings went 8-8 and finished 3rd in their division. Passer rating does not accurately reflect, in these particular circumstances which guys like Taylor in 2015 and Bradford last season posted high rankings, the degree to which they actually played 'good' quarterback and helped their team succeed. There's a guy like this every season, who plays in a conservative offense and posts a high passer rating but doesn't move the needle as far as modern quarterbacking in concerned: it was Bradford, then Taylor before him, Wilson in 2014, either Foles or Kaepernick in 2013 take your pick, RG3 in 2012, Alex Smith in 2011...all guys that posted top 10 QB ratings without being great NFL quarterbacks that particular season.
Interesting to hear from someone who actually knows how the passer rating is calculated. I never studied it.
But I'd say your complaints are just quibbles. Assuming it's true that the formula treats an interception as -100 yards, when you think about it, that's probably about right. On average, an interception costs your team, I would guess, about 25 yards, because the average yardage NFL teams get per possession. Plus the interception costs you about 30 yards in lost field position, if you look at drive starts for the opponent after punts instead of after INTs. So that's 50 yards or more your team lost. And it's worse than that, because some interceptions cost you a TD or field goal, so you have to account for lost points AND the loss of field position, because your opponent's drive start after a kickoff is usually worst than after an INT. So maybe 100 is too much, but it's in the ballpark.
As you say, the passer rating isn't perfect. But it's pretty good. And pointing to Stafford's year only proves the point that the passer rating isn't perfect in identifying good quarterbacking. The important point is that the passer rating correlates very well with good quarterbacking. Just about all the best QBs have high passer ratings, and just about every QB with a high passer rating is one of the best QBs. And that makes the passer rating a useful and reasonably reliable way to evaluate QBs.
Want the evidence? The top 10 career passer ratings are owned by guys who are named Rodgers, Wilson, Romo, Brady, Young, Manning, Brees, Rivers, Roethlisberger, Warner.
Top 25 single season passer ratings? These are the only guys in the top 25 who aren't Hall of Famers already or on their way: Foles, Culpepper, Milt Plum, Josh McCown, Four out of 25.
Good QBs have good passer ratings.
-
-
Better check your sources on that before calling me out.
He was due 15.5 option bonus plus 12 million base salary, and 3.25 of his 2018 salary was guaranteed for next season. If on the roster on the third day of the league year for 2018, 9.75 became guaranteed.
15.5+12+3.25+9.75= 40.5 million
i DID check. Spotrac. $30.5 million guaranteed over the next two seasons. $14.5 this season, $16 next season. Don't know where you're getting your numbers.
-
little too inconsistent for me to be able to call him a "good" qb. but I certainly think he has some very good moments. I also find him just down right maddening at points. but as a whole I think he's a solid option. he's not breaking the bills bank nor is he stopping them from still progressing their search for a star prospect.... I think its really just that simple. dunno why people are losing their minds over it.
but you're right. at this point, even if we find our way to the postseason and he has a solid year, there are going to be people in the stands that have their minds made up and wont buy in.
This struck a nerve with me. I struggle with calling him "good," too. Maybe he's good. I'm not sure.
Put his two seasons together and compare him to all the other QBs in the league for the same two years (which would leave Dak Prescott out), Taylor is someplace around 10th in the league. I thin his passer rating is about 12th, and he's the best running QB in the league.
But you're correct - downright maddening. Those who cite his late-game performance are also correct - he just hasn't looked like a keeper in crunch time. He's done it occasionally, but not as often as we'd like or "good" QBs get it done.
I'm more of a Taylor booster than most, because I believe he's still learning. I think he, like every QB, needed to get a couple of years playing under his belt. It's a bit of a setback to be starting over with a new offense, but even so, the couple years' experience, on the field, under fire, should make a difference. One of the reasons I'm optimistic is that he's an extraordinary athlete. He throws the ball beautifully, his throws have a lot of zip even though he doesn't have the size (leverage) of the bigger guys. A second reason I'm optimistic is his work ethic. He REALLY wants it.
On the other hand, if others are right when they say he doesn't anticipate and he throws short balls poorly, he may never be able to correct those things.
But for now, until something better comes along, he's pretty, uh, good.
-
40 million guaranteed in two years.
What do you call that?
$30 million. But let's not let the facts get in the way.
-
even still..... you would think they would have enough brain to realize taylor really isn't breaking our bank and keeping him doesn't mean we cant still look for a star qb.
for the life of me I cant figure out why people think those 2 things have to be mutually exclusive. we can keep him at his reasonable price and still do the things necessary to find a young star prospect..... hence the move to have 2 first rounders in the bank for next year.
it really shouldn't cause such an uproar. I personally think they are in a really cool position. We have a solid option at qb that has shown the ability to win as long as the rest of the team shows up, and we have plenty of ammo going forward to make a move at qb we deem fit. pretty cool scenario if ya ask me.
This is exactly right. Exactly. They have a decent quarterback who makes their team competitive while they look for either (1) Taylor to get better or (2) a better choice.
-
And coaches need to not call reverses to Reggie Bush or punts from the other team's 42 yard line in OT.
I don't remember the game, the situation or the play, exactly, but giving the ball to Reggie on that play was an instant classic on a dumb calls of the season show.
-
Crushed makes a lot of good points but I think its too conclusory.
First it ignores the point BillsFan4 made about a lot depending on the offense the guy is running. In particular, if you look at the data on most teams that run a lot you'll find that they struggle in the fourth quarter.
Second that's particularly true if the QB doesn't have quality receivers on the field.
Third, although people don't like to hear it, QBs need onfield experience. His fourbueats on the bench don't amount to much on the experience category. Taylor is still learning. Will he improve? I don't know. But he needs at least another year. And maybe two, if Watkins leaves after this season. And he's in a new offense.
Lots of variables. Just because she hasn't done everything yet doesn't mean that he won't.
QB comparative data for Tyrod from Cian Fahey to discuss
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
I wouldn't take that bet.
My sense is that McD is a pretty strong minded guy, and I think either you're right or he thinks he can make something of Taylor. I have no idea at all which it might be. Certainly the trade out of #10 to get another first next year is consistent with the idea that he wants to get his own QB. Also Taylor's new contract is consistent with that idea. His view might have been "give me Taylor for 2017; he's better than anyone else I'll have, and that will give me a year to get settled into the job, get my bearings and get ready to make the team the way I really want it. If Taylor has a big year, I'll deal with it. If he doesn't, I'm getting the QB I want in 2018."
On the other hand, his view might be what I've been saying - he's not sure about Taylor and he wants flexibility. That is, he may be perfectly happy to have Taylor as his QB if Taylor produces the way McD wants.
We'll see.
In any case, I'm reasonably happy about where the Bills are right now.