Shaw66

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.

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.

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.

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. 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. 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 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.

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.

This is a serious mistake. First big one of the McDermott era. This essentially means he's gone after next year. If he catches balls for 1200 yards and the Bills go to the playoffs, they'll lose their #1 wide receiver. Why? Because if that happens the Bills will have to break the bank to keep Tyrod and they won't be able to match the offers Sammy will get elsewhere. Never, never, never give up on talent too early. If you haven't special talent that isn't playing up to the level you'd like, keep trying, because you want to still own the player when his play catches up to his talent. Much better to waste a year on talent that doesn't come around than to give up a year too early. Can you say MARSHAWN?

It all makes sense when you think about it. It's all about who has the right to make the player a free agent, when he has the right, and guaranteed money. Tyrod was making peanuts. He'd never made any real money in the NFL. Tyrod had a great 2015. He had the option to become a free agent at the end of 2016. The Bills wanted to be able to to look at him in 2016 without fear of losing him. So the Bills went to him and asked him to give up his option to become a free agent after 2016. Tyrod said he'd give up the option to become a free agent, but only for real guaranteed money, like $50 million. Bills said if they were going to give him big guaranteed money, they wanted him for the long term (in other words, they wanted to take the decision as to when Tyrod was next a free agent away from Tyrod and keep it for themselves). Tyrod said okay to the long-term deal. Why? Because he was getting big guaranteed money. The guarantee is what was different between the 2016 negotiation and the 2017 negotiation. Tyrod went into the 2016 negotiation with pretty much NO guaranteed money. He was at risk. When the Bills put a big guarantee on the table, he took it and gave up his right to become a free agent. . However, when Tyrod came to the table in 2017, things were different; he had the guarantee. He had $40 million plus the money he made in 2016 on the renegotiated contract. That $40 million was in his pocket. The Bills, for the second year in a row, were asking for a favor. Tyrod said I'll give you your favor if you give me my freedom back. The 2017 deal was essentially that Tyrod gave the Bills $10 million back in exchange for getting back the right to become a free agent while he was still in the prime of his career. From Tyrod's perspective, his future was in good shape even with the smaller guarantee; he'd rather bet on himself to be a winner and get a really big payday than worry about failing and getting stuck with a nice, but relatively smaller payday. Did I ask my friend? Yes, sort of. I posed him this question: It's March of 2016. Tyrod had a good year in 2015 and he can become a free agent at the end of 2016. The Bills put two offers on the table. One is for six years, the deal Tyrod took. The other deal is the same for 2016 and then it's $30 million guaranteed for the next two years, then free agency. In other words, the second deal they offer is the same first year plus the contract he renegotiated in 2017. I asked which deal he'd tell his client to take. He said the the deal with free agency after 2018, in a heartbeat. His client still is getting a lot of guaranteed money, as much as he'll need for the rest of his life, AND he's getting the opportunity to negotiate for a new contract in a couple of years. My friend said the opportunity to renegotiate is really valuable, especially in a league where the salary cap keeps going up. So why didn't he take that deal in 2016? BECAUSE IT WASN'T OFFERED. Except for the fact that they were forced to make a decision about Tyrod in 2017, the Bills liked the 2016 deal better than the 2017 deal. The $10 million they got back is nothing compared to what they're going to have to pay Tyrod next year if he has a good year.

It's not the first time you've heard it. I've been saying since the day the terms of Tyrod's new deal came out. After a while I thought I was losing my mind because everyone on these boards was telling me I was wrong. So I finally asked my friend. He said it was a no brainer. Here's why: By ordinary human being standards, Tyrod made a lot of money in 2016. Under his old contract he was guaranteed $40 million more, and under his new deal he was guaranteed $30 million more. So that means either way, he's set for life if he manages his money reasonably well, because after taxes and current living expenses, he's going to have north of $10 million put away. So either way he's okay. Next, he's almost certain to play for the Bills through 2018, because even if some QB, like Peterman, takes his job, the Bills are better off keeping Taylor as the backup than cutting him to save some cap money, because they can't get as good a backup for the money they save. Okay, so where is Taylor at the end of 2018, assuming someone has taken his job? He's a free agent, and he almost certainly gets a new deal somewhere for $10 million, because he was an NFL starter who lost his job to a better player. He wasn't a stiff. He had good numbers, Bills just found someone better. So Taylor isn't really giving up the $10 million guaranteed. Granted, it isn't guaranteed, but absent injury, he's almost certain to earn that extra $10 million, and probably more after that. But what did Taylor get? Taylor got all the upside if he has a good year in 2017. If he's a top 10 passer in 2017 and/or the Bills go the playoffs, the Bills will renegotiate with Taylor after 2017 because they don't want him to become a free agent in 2018. When he renegotiates, Taylor will get $20 million a year (better than the $16 he would have gotten on the deal he gave up), and he'll get another $50 million guaranteed. So the chances are good that Taylor gave up little or no money to do the new deal, and he put himself in position for a much bigger payday than he had under the old deal. As my friend said, it was a no brainer for Taylor.

This argument is for another thread, but still I want to make the point. TAYLOR DID NOT TAKE A CONTRACT CUT. Taylor gave up about $10 million of guaranteed money so that he could become a free agent in two years instead of five years. I know a professional agent. He has represented some of the biggest names in sports. I mean BIGGEST. I asked him which was a better deal for Tyrod, the one Tyrod had or the one he took in March. He said the one he got in March, no question, no question at all. He said he would have urged Tyrod to take the deal the Bills offered. Free agency in two years is worth MUCH more than the $10 million he gave up. This idea that Tyrod gave in to the Bills because he had no options is just wrong. The Bills came to him with their hats in their hands looking for help. Tyrod gave them something they wanted in exchange for something he wanted - free agency. If Tyrod plays the full season in 2017 and the Bills make the playoffs, Tyrod will get a new contract next year much better than the one he gave up last month. If that happens, everyone will look back and blame Whaley for renegotiating.

Hey, transplant, thanks for this. (For people who know me, this has turned into a typical Shaw essay. Ignore it or read it, whatever you like.) I noticed Fahey a few months ago when someone at BBMB linked to one of his pieces. His stuff is interesting. I dumped on him, and continue to be skeptical, because I don't like "advanced" analysis from someone without credentials. I think he's still under 30. He has zero football experience, so far as I can tell. Possibly played in high school. I think it's extraordinarily difficult to become expert in a field without actually doing it, in this case playing it or coaching it. That's the only way you can have intense interaction with the people who actually understand what's going on. Having said that, it IS possible to become expert without playing or coaching. It takes a lot of work, a lot of thinking, a lot of creativity. Bill James did it, for example. But those guys are few and far between. As for Fahey, I think he actually has a chance to make it. It certainly seems that he is immersing himself into the game completely. He seems to have done nothing since he got to college except study pro football, analyze it and write about it. That's the only way to make if from the outside, and he seems to be doing it. Still, hard work alone doesn't do it. He needs to understand statistics and he needs to be a creative analyst. Bottom line, for me, is that I pay more attention to Fahey than to most of the other stuff out there, because I have no confidence in most of the people who put it together. Football Outsiders is my only exception, and I at least think about what Fahey is doing. As for this data, although he has to make subjective judgments to make these determinations (interceptable balls, failed reception, created reception) those at least are categories that I think a non-coach could make reasonable judgments about by watching film. In other words, if he's actually taken the time to catalog every pass by every QB, his data in those categories probably is pretty reliable. (As opposed to, for example, blocking performance by an offensive lineman, whose performance can't be evaluated effectively by a non-coach if you don't know what the lineman was supposed to do on the play). What do all the ACCURACY categories mean? How is he evaluating "accuracy." Many fans complain that Tyrod doesn't throw the ball into tight windows, doesn't lead receivers well, etc. I've never been sure they're right, but there certainly are plenty of replays supporting the claim. I also don't trust fan analysis on a category like that. So how is Fahey measuring accuracy? Is he third best or third worst in interceptable passes? Finally, avoidable sacks isn't a useful number on its own. Taylor has a lot of sacks because he scrambles and he tries to keep pass plays alive. If he stays behind the line of scrimmage and gets sacked instead of giving up on the play and gaining 1 yard, yes it's an avoidable sack, but it might have been the right decision, because keeping the play alive may result, on average, in gains instead of losses. Plus, some of his avoidable sacks are plays where Taylor was trying to escape and got caught when he could have thrown the ball away. I want Taylor to try to escape in those situations, because when he does escape he often runs for a first down or more. In other words, the important stat is net yards in sack situations. That is, look at all the plays where the QB should be sacked and net all the yards lost to sacks, yards gained because the QB escaped and completed a pass and yards gain because the QB ran. If my QB has a high net, I don't care that he took more sacks than some guy who threw the ball away every time. I'd bet that if someone generated THAT stat, Taylor would be way up in the rankings. And, by the way, in doing that ranking, you have to determine avoidability objectively. That is, when the tackler is running at x miles an hour, he's 4 yards from the QB and the QB has Y room to maneuver, how many times does he avoid the sack? I guarantee you Taylor is way up on that list. That is, what's avoidable can't vary because the nature of the QB. In one sense, Eli has more or less no avoidable sacks, because he just isn't able to avoid any. All of this adds to my sense that the coaches have a much better idea of what's going on. You can come up with all these detailed stats, evaluating little aspects of the game, but it's the combination of all of this kind of analysis that leads to the right conclusions about this This micro-examination, interesting as it is, doesn't really do the trick. Although I don't agree with BigBuff's eyeball test analysis, in a sense it's correct. At least the eyeball test is about the big picture, and that's what really matters. The question is whether the QB is getting the job done. The problem with the eyeball test is that it's hard to say what "getting the job done" means. It's easy to say wins, but despite the QB's importance, it's still a team game, and there are a lot of reasons for losing beside the QB's play. So people go back to stats, because stats at least are an objective analysis (until you get done to avoidable sacks and such). So here's my conclusion. Stats are the best thing we have to analyze QBs. They aren't perfect, but it's all we have. The fundamental point about stats is that they are useful when there is a high correlation between the stats and your eyeball. If the players who LOOK like they're the best running backs also have the most yards per carry, then there's high correlation between the stat and observed performance. That in turn means that a running back's rank in yards per carry is a decent way to evaluate how good he is. The problem with the kind of analysis Fahey does is that the categories are so detailed that there is not good correlation in every case. That is, Taylor being ranked third in some category simply is not evidence that he's anything like the third best QB in the league. It just isn't. On rankings of these minute categories, the best QBs are all over the place. There is low correlation, which means that the stat isn't useful for evaluating the quality of the QB. May be useful for other things, but not evaluating overall performance. And that's why always come back to the passer rating. The guys we all believe are the best QBs in the league have the highest passer ratings. High correlation, which means the stat is useful in separating good play from average or bad play. Same with the QBR, which evaluates more than passing. Neither is perfect, neither is complete, but they both give us a reasonably reliable way to compare the play of the various QBs. So, although I know Fahey wasn't trying to rate the QBs generally, just for the record, let's be clear about Tyrod. In 2015, Taylor had the 8th best passer rating in the league, and the 7th best QBR. In 2016 he was 18th in passer rating and 9th in QBR. Those ratings are consistent with what I saw. (A good passer in 2015, not good enough in 2016, but his QBR is good because he's the best running QB in the league). Bottom line for me is that Fahey's number's are interesting, but at the end of the day they don't prove much to me.

you quote one fact from the article and get it wrong. He was 30-34 as GM, which isn't all that bad.

It bugged me that they n didn't draft more linemen. More than a third of your starters are linemen. I think you have to draft for the line every year. You can always find some Rambo to play safety. Actually, one of the two rookie lbs might play back there.

I didn't believe that the Pegulas were pursuing culture change. I thought they just were changing coaches. This move, Whaley and all the scouts, says it is in fact all about culture change. And I also didn't believe they'd turned the keys over to McDermott, but at a minimum he has their ear. It has to be the case that McDermott has said to them that he's seen well-run organizations in Carolina and Philadelphia, the Bills' scouting and player acquisition didn't measure up. I'd guess the Pegulas have come to trust McDermott. It's clear the Pegulas have decided in pro sports, patience is not a virtue until you have the right people.

Am I concerned about McDermott's obsession with character? Well, yes, a little. But I'm guessing he knows what he's doing. As others have said, the game moves too fast and the game is too complicated to spend much time at all dealing with problem guys. They get in the way and become distractions. You need guys who are mature, who know how to behave, and who are all-in with being as good as absolutely possible. They want guys with serious commitment. The real problem is with rookies. The guys you sign in free agency you sign because they've already demonstrated they have the necessary focus. You don't know that with the rookies; you don't know whether the money and bright lights will distract them. Many of the rookies don't have the necessary focus. The team is better off if you don't have many young guys who need to learn some important lessons, like Dareus or Marshawn. You want those guys AFTER they've learned the lessons. So I think McDermott's obsession is focused on the college prospects. In that case, a guy like White or Peterman is a huge plus when you draft him, because he's already shown that his priorities are set. You know that you're going to get 100% of the guy you want, you know he's going to apply himself and learn. When he's looking at a veteran free agent, I suspect McDermott cares less about MBAs and such.

I'll add my thanks, too. This man worked hard and was responsible for a dramatic improvement in the talent on the team. Before Nix and Whaley, the Bills drafted players from small conferences, small schools and schools that didn't have winning programs. Whaley changed all that. He started drafting from schools with winning records in the best conferences; in other words, he began drafting players who were outstanding athletes who knew something about winning. And in free agency he did even better. Under Whaley, the Bills acquired a lot of free agents who were drafted in the first or second round and who had struggled with their original team. Those guys have talent and need time to get their feet on the ground. When Whaley signed them, they often blossomed. So, Mr. Whaley, thanks for all you did, and good luck always.

Days - This draft went about as well as I could have hoped. They did exactly what I wanted them to do: Keep Taylor to see what he does in the new offense and with a couple seasons under his belt. Bring in a seasoned backup. Draft a QB in the late rounds who might be a longshot but who has a chance of working out. Put yourself in position to go after a top-rated QB next year if Taylor doesn't work out and Peterman doesn't look like he has it. This is perfect QB management given the position the Bills were in. Perfect. Plus a quality DB and a guy who looks like he could be a seriously good receiver, plus an offensive lineman who has a good chance of helping. Nicely done.

If they take a QB in the first round next season, he probably sits behind Taylor and plays in his second season. Only way he starts as a rookie is if he's clearly better than Taylor from the get go.

That's the bottom line. Frankly, I think the most important issue the Bills had going into the draft was quarterback. It's always about the quarterback. The Bills have a quarterback they think might be their long-term starter. They're not sure. They want to see him one more year before they write him a big check or let him go. They needed a contingency plan in case they decide next year they don't want Taylor. There were two ways to go on a contingency plan. One was draft a QB this season, in the first or second round. The problem with that was that if Taylor turns out to be the guy, you've wasted the pick. The better way to go was what they did - put yourself in a position go after a QB next year if you decide you need one. The trade down in the first round did that for them very nicely - they still got a nice first-round talent, and they now have two picks next year to package if they have to move up in the draft. And if Taylor has a good season and the Bills decided to ride with him, they have two first-round picks next season to build with. It was the right move.

I don't think it's so clear cut. First, you can't use Dak as an example. There's always an outlier. It doesn't make sense to say the Bills were sitting pretty with four 5th round picks, because they got Kyle Williams in the fifth round. That article from KC is telling. You simply have a much better chance getting a starter by picking in the second round. That's where pretty high-probability talent is. So there's real value in trading up 15 or 20 picks in that range of the draft. When you trade a fifth round pick, you're giving up a guy with maybe a 20% chance of starting. Those odds aren't terribly worse than you have with your undrafted free agents. Plus, if really want another guy from the fifth round, you can pick him up when he gets added to someone else's practice squad. Bottom line: not all picks are the same.