Shaw66
-
Posts
9,103 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Shaw66
-
-
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.
-
I believe the point of the article was to say that stars can be developed, not signed as splash signings to bolsters ticket sales.
I really don't buy the splash signing notion. I think Mario Williams was one of those. Not Watkins, not McCoy. Both of those moves were driven by the desire to improve the offense, not ticket sales, dramatically. Football people made those deals, not marketing people. McCoy particularly - Eagles called, Doug and Rex jumped and made a deal in a half hour. That had nothing to do with marketing.
-
This is why I'm still a big fan of yards per game. Not as the be-all, end-all stat. But as an important component of any evaluation.
It's one thing to produce efficient looking numbers when you're throwing 15 times per game.
It's another thing to drop back on the majority of plays and challenge the D to stop you from getting the ball downfield and they can't.
I want to see Tyrod become the kind of QB who can do the latter.
I agree that the Bills need more yards per game passing, but it's hard to fault the QB when the game plan is to throw fewer than 25 times per game.
Some people will argue (they always do) that he isn't asked to throw more because the more he throws, the worse he gets. However, the data doesn't support that, either. Some of his best games (and some of his worst) were when he threw over 30.
-
This is what happens on boards. You post something and some people interpret it one way or another.
TT is a decent QB and a good stopgap.
My argument IS that all this talk of how good his stats are does not equate to Wins.
If you choose to not accept my argument then there is no heed to continue this discussion.
I agree with you, at least for now. If the Bills had a true franchise QB and they weren't winning, I wouldn't be looking to unload him. But that's not where the Bills are. There are real questions about whether the Bills can win with Taylor.
But you don't help your credibility by supporting your argument with stats that aren't true. If you think Taylor isn't a winner, that's a legitimate opinion and there's some evidence to support it. But when you say his 4th quarter passer rating was 65 when it was 90, I have to wonder if your opinion is based on anything real.
It was 86 in 4th qtr last year. Ok I guess but needs to be better.
Some others completely random
Prescott 106.4
Stafford 86.1
Ryan 97
Bortles 82.9
Osweilier 83.5
Rodgers 114.4
Dalton 78.7
Luck 107.5
Tannehill 92.3
Siemian 101.9
Right. That's exactly what I said. His 4th quarter passer rating isn't bad; it's right around his passer rating for the season - a little below in each of the last two seasons. The problem is that the really good QBs, the guys many people think are special, have BETTER passer ratings in the fourth quarter than they average for the season.
-
Can't wait until the next Chris Kelsay is the Bills' best player.
i'm not exactly endorsing this comment, but it's worth talking about. A no-star system works if you have Bill Belichick and Tom Brady. But look at most other teams; they have stars. Look Seattle, Atlanta, Green Bay.
A lot of what seems to have been going on with the Bills is to model the organization after the Pats. That's all well and good if you have a Belichick, but McDermott hasn't coached one game yet, so I wonder whether it makes sense to go aggressively in that direction.
Atlanta has two players this year with cap hits over $10 million. Pats and Bills have three. Steelers, Packers, Seahawks all have five or six.
It's too early to tell where this team is headed so far as stars are concerned. But if they're going in the direction the Pats are going, McDermott and his new GM better be really good at figuring out who the athletes are that fit the system. And the system better be awfully good, because a mediocre system with mediocre talent ain't cuttin it in this league.
-
No.I believe the "argument " here is that stats don't necessarily equal Wins.
As to the stats I got them from sites that I thought I posted links to.
The argument is that people post information that is wrong and then base their argument on it. You said you believe you'd seen it posted (no link) in several places that Tyrod's 4th quarter passer rating is 65. It isn't. It's more like 90, which isn't bad.
-
So I kind of left this out of the conversation because I know there are a handful of posters who are just going to yuck this up, but one of the other significant things Fahey discusses is what Taylor does for the running game. One of his bullet points in the shorthand skill set is how Taylor "diversifies the run game with designed run plays and options."
A short excerpt:
The defenders fear Taylor holding the ball so the backside defenders can't crack down to close off the space the running back gets. The Bills had the top-ranked running game by a large margin last year according to FootballOutsiders' DVOA rankings, which measure success rate on a play-by-play basis and adjust for the quality of the opposition. Taylor was as much a part of that success as McCoy or the offensive line. He diversifies the running game in such a way that a more typical NFL quarterback wouldn't.
But this is the kind of stuff that I'm really skeptical about. Other than the citation to Football Outsiders, these statements are completely conclusory, with NO EVIDENCE to support them other than, maybe, Fahey's observations after film review. The guy has ZERO football experience, and yet we're supposed to believe his conclusions about Taylor's impact on the running game. He may be right, but I'm not going to believe it just because he said it.
-
I vote no because there's only a 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 chance that a first-round QB will make it as a credible starter in the NFL, let alone become a true franchise QB. As much as I loved his performance in two national championships, Watson hasn't shown me enough to make me believe his odds are better than that.
Taylor, on the other hand, already has shown he can be a credible starter in the NFL. His chances of continuing to be at least a decent QB are much better than the chances Watson will be. He also could get better.
So I think for the short-term, Taylor is the better option. Since the Bills only have him for the short term, and since the Bills are now well positioned to go after a guy in 2018 whose prospects are as good or better than Watson's, trading Taylor for Watson doesn't make sense.
-
"Whaley was all about scouting players; McDermott is about building a team. Scouts don’t always know how to build teams. They know only how to pick players. And a scout focused primarily on scouting players can succeed only in a fantasy draft."
Not to sound like BADOL - but this is what I have been saying about Whaley for YEARS...
I'll say, without any sarcasm intended, good for you. It's an old fashioned notion that the GM picks the players and the coach assembles the team. The best teams do it more cooperatively now, and there's plenty of evidence/rumor that Whaley didn't agree with the head coaches.
-
We are in agreement at the start and the end.
Do passer ratings matter, sure, but more so IMO in the 4th QTR. I believe I read (numerous places) that TT's 4th QRT ratings (65.8) are much poorer than the other portions of his game.
I've also see it where it claims he has the best rating of 117.
The other issue that people seem to care about is Taylor has 1 fourth-quarter comeback in 7 games down by 7 (=/-1pt) Two if you count being tied at the start of the 4th. The one time was against the Titans (that happened to be a bad team).
In general conversation -
Not sure if rumblings is a good place to cite...
With the game on the line, Taylor has a horrid quarterback rating of 0.0 (that isn’t a typo). He’s completed only 3 of 10 throws for 26 yards along with an interception.
The other argument I've seen posted - missing his best guys.
Look elsewhere around the NFL. Phillip Rivers has been missing his two top receivers and is still in the top 5 in passing yardage. Aaron Rodgers and Cam Newton were without their top weapons last season and still managed to be top-20 quarterbacks.
Shady -
Taylor's 4th quarter passer rating in 2016 was 86. In 2015 it was 101.
In 2015 with the scored tied his passer rating was 88. When losing his passer rating was 95. In 2016 it was 92 and 92.
I think you need better data.
It's funny; I'm constantly defending Taylor here, and I'm not at all convinced he's the guy. But there are so many misstatements and misrepresentations about his performance, it's crazy.
The problem with Taylor's late-game, close-game performance is not that it's bad. The problem is that it isn't as good as the best QBs. His late-game, close-game numbers are like his numbers at other times. The best QBs get BETTER in those situations.
-
Just discovered this duplicate thread, and this is one that seems to have legs, so I'll repost what I just said in the other thread.
I love hearing from the people who have been there. Now, I'm not sure how he knows the things he says and he knows, and in fact I suspect he can't prove much of what he says actually happened. I think he's speculating. But he's speculating from a perspective the rest of us don't have. He's been there and seen these dynamics up front and personal. So he's inclined to know even though he wasn't in the rooms at OBD.
Very interesting commentary, and believable. Thanks for posting.
-
I love hearing from the people who have been there. Now, I'm not sure how he knows the things he says and he knows, and in fact I suspect he can't prove much of what he says actually happened. I think he's speculating. But he's speculating from a perspective the rest of us don't have. He's been there and seen these dynamics up front and personal. So he's inclined to know even though he wasn't in the rooms at OBD.
Very interesting commentary, and believable. Thanks for posting.
-
Shaw,
If YAC means the QB hits his guy in stride beyond the LOS then yes, IMO it is meaningful.
If YAC means the QB hits his guy behind the LOS and then runs 5 or 6 yards for a 2 or 3 yard net gain then no, it is not as meaningful.
To reiterate from observations Taylor's YAC may be low because he waits for the guy to stop and turn before he delivers the ball.
Praising TT for having Great Stats is all well and fine. Just don't hide some situational stats there he doesn't shine and say it doesn't matter.
This is season 3 in Buffalo 6 going on 7 season in the league. This is his year to step it up or step away.
Who doesn't want to see our QB throwing guys open?
What I'm saying is that stat may be helpful to coaches who discover an aspect of his game that requires improvement. It isn't particularly helpful in deciding whether he's a good quarterback, because EVERY quarterback has some details in his game that are worse than some other details.
That's why I keep saying that all this data that Fahey has collected doesn't amount to a whole lot in a debate about Tyrod's value as a long-term solution. His passer rating matters. If his passer rating is in the top 10, I don't care if he's last in the league in YAC. I mean, I care in the sense that I'd always like my QB to get better, but I don't care if I'm in a discussion about whether to keep Taylor. If Taylor's passer rating is in the top 10, I'm keeping him, whatever his YAC is. And if his passer rating is in the bottom third, I'm NOT keeping him, no matter how GOOD his YAC is.
Detailed data like this doesn't determine the value of a QB.
-
Probably the guy who made all the draft picks and signed the 2 DBs we've picked up post draft. I'll give you one guess.
This is 100% McD's show.
If this is true it's exactly why you need a GM. McD is supposed to be figuring out how to get the guys he already has to win games. He shouldn't be wasting his time managing contract details.
Actually, I'm guessing that Overdorf is acting as GM.
-
Meaningless. Isn't that a bit of a stretch?
It it's meaningless why do they cover the statistics?
https://www.sportingcharts.com/nfl/stats/yards-after-the-catch/2016/
http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/18459959/why-nfl-passing-numbers-exploding
SEE - Theory: Receivers are getting more yards after catch (YAC)
So YAC is a big part of the picture, but its overall effect is muted.
Here is a dated article
http://www.espn.com/nfl/trainingcamp10/insider/news/story?id=5468854
which sends us to this link
http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2010/introducing-yac
As I have seen it, maybe my recollection is off, but it seems that often TT waits for his receiver to stop and turn before he delivers the ball.
That type of play will not yield the YAC like hitting a guy in stride will.
Why do they cover the statistics? Because they have to write articles every day and they run out of things to write about.
There are LOTS of statistics. It's possible to count things in a lot of different ways. The question is whether the statistics are meaningful in any way that is important.
The question here, for example, is whether YAC is a meaningful stat in evaluating a quarterback. It's an equally meaningful question in evaluating a receiver. For example, Ezekiel Elliott averaged more yards after catch than maybe any other receiver in the league. Does that make him a great receiver, or does that mean only that he played on a good team? Or does that mean he's good at breaking tackles? Among non-running backs, Martellus Bennett was second best. Does that mean he was the second best receiver in the league?
A guy's yards after catch may be high because he breaks tackles. It may be high because he's so fast he outruns people (like Goodwin - catch a ball behind a defender and sprint 50 yards to the end zone). It may be high because of the style of offense (Bennett). It may be high because the QB is good at throwing guys open. So it may be nice to know that a guy has great YAC, but what really matters is WHY he has his YAC. There may be ways to improve his YAC. But it doesn't make a lot of sense to say that a receiver is good because he has high YAC or bad because he doesn't.
Similarly QBs. YAC doesn't answer questions; it's the beginning of questions. If Taylor's YAC is low, the question is WHY? Is it something about Taylor or is it something else? And more importantly, does it matter? From looking at a few stats, it appears to me that Taylor's 2015 YAC was low compared to the rest of the league? Do I care? No. Why? Because his passer rating, which DOES correlate to good passing, was high. His air yards were high and his after catch yards were low, and it averaged out just fine.
-
good discussion. In other words there's a lot that we don't know and what we don't know keeps some of this data from being reliable.To me it is the same light - PFF does a great job at looking at film and trying to create a scorecard from that data they glean. The issue is it is very difficult to know if what conclusions they draw actually mean anything.
Your example of John Miller (whether exact or not) is correct - they would look at plays and decide if it is successful and give a grade, but never really know if that was the correct block or not.
Fahey catalogs throws and decides things like accuracy and interceptable percentage and does a nice job of putting the numbers together, but what does it really mean. Is anyone surprised that TT was the 3rd best in percentage of passes that were not interceptable - I actually would of thought it was even better. TT is very careful with the ball and although he has few turnovers - he also takes very few chances with throws and therefore his numbers should be good.
The same issue occurs with Accuracy % - it is not incorrect (it is somewhat subjective, but not incorrect) when you look at the values, but what is missed is what throws and where those throws are - so I would not complain that TT is inaccurate in the throws he makes, but I do get disgusted with the continual choice of throws. It also impacts things like YAC because of where and who he throws the ball to. Typically PFF does not try to quantitate this because they do not know the play call - so you have to watch the plays and then listen to what people in the know - like the former coach, both former OC's, and the former GM say and that was they were looking for more from the passing game and were looking specifically for more throws in the middle of the field and more anticipatory throws - those things kept coming up in interviews.
The comments from the coach, OC, and GM tell me that although the passing game was simplistic and they left throws in that they knew TT was comfortable with - they also had other options that he did not take advantage enough and that is where I think the analysis falls flat. They can tell me he completes a lot of throws and does not throw balls that can be picked off, but they can not tell me (nor should they) if there were other or better options and how that compares to other QBs. Therefore we are stuck with subjective data that does not provide through information and everyone's use eye test.
I go back to correlation. Does this data correlate with good quarterbacking? If it doesnt, then the data may be useful to coaches but not so much in evaluating the value of a qb.
-
If there's no GM and no scouts who is actually signing these players?
-
I agree with you completely. Isolated stats just don't matter if overall performance is good.But YAC by itself is meaningless. As long as Tyrod's adjusted average yards per pass attempt is high (which it is), who cares if those yards came through the air or on yards after catch? And if he's inaccurate, as many here claim, that too should result in a lower adjusted yards per attempt. And yet the adjusted YPA is high...so I'm not sure what the big concern is about YAC. As suggested elsewhere in this thread, the low YAC could be attributed to many different factors.
After the 2015 season people pointed to this Stat or that stat to try to prove Tyrod had a bad season. It wasn't a bad season when your passer rating was 99.
We all see isolated things that we think a player could do better. But just because he might be able to do something better doesn't mean he's a bad player
-
I agree. I wish more than just Fahey did this. I think this is why PFF can be so invaluable.
I never look at PFF, so it isn't fair for me to criticize, but I will anyway.
Every once in a while someone at BBMB would post something like "PFF says that John Miller was the second most effective guard in the league in 2016." (That's an example; I'm not suggesting anyone said that.)
I'm sorry, but I can't buy stuff like that. The players and the coaches know who the best players are, and if John Miller actually was the second best guard in the league, the players and coaches would be telling the media and we'd know about it.
So those kinds of ratings just make me believe that the quality of the film work behind those comments is lacking.
That's what's intriguing about Fahey. He seems to work really hard at his analysis, and his data seems to be meaningful.
-
Shaw, Fahey explains everything in good detail, but he categorizes accuracy % along with failed receptions and created receptions.
So, essentially, passes by Taylor that fall in the "failed receptions" category qualify positively towards accuracy % while "created receptions" qualify negatively towards accuracy %.
In other words, accuracy % is very simply how accurate the pass is. An accurate pass by a QB that results in an incompletion because a defender makes an exceptional play on the ball would qualify positively towards accuracy %.
Taylor is the 3rd best in the NFL in interceptable pass %, according to Fahey.
He also breaks avoidable sacks into 3 categories : missed read, ran into sack, and process in the pocket
He breaks unavoidable sacks into 4 categories: beaten blocker, blown assignment, coverage, botched snap
According to Fahey, 4 of Taylor's 7 avoidable sacks were "missed reads" and 3 were "ran into sack."
Still not sure about accuracy. As I said, the concern about accuracy is that he doesn't get yards after catch because of how he throws. I wonder if he evaluated that. In any case, it sounds like he's pretty thorough.
And the sack analysis is the kind of detail I was talking about. That's pretty good.
Thanks.
-
And I agree with the point that emotionally, Sammy may check out with this news. "I'm outta here and I'll show them." He may have a lousy 2017, get a nice deal somewhere, and then become the All-Pro he's capable of.
Gotta keep your stars, and you don't see the good teams franchising their stars - they sign them.
-
Maybe they franchise him, but that costs $15 million and the Bills have no flexibility to spread that money.
We'll see how it works out.
QB comparative data for Tyrod from Cian Fahey to discuss
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
$30 million. But let's not let the facts get in the way.