twoandfourteen

Orton was a better QB than Tyrod Taylor. 12 games (7-5), 64.2 % cmp, 3018 yds, 18 TDs, 10 INTs, 251.5 yds/gm, (3) 300+ games (with 2 more that were close) Tyrod's best season: 15 games (8-6), 63.7% cmp, 3035 yds, 20 TDs, 6 INTs, 216.8 yds/gm, (0) 300+ games (1 that was close)

No he wasn't. Bledsoe was better. Orton was better. Fitz... well, I don't know... that one is debatable. Fitz was capable of actually running a passing offense, but he killed you with turnovers. Tyrod didn't turn the ball over, but he killed you with a non-existent ability to run a passing offense. Six in one hand, half-dozen in the other with those two.

I've always believed that Gronk would have been a washout here in Buffalo -- he would have been a solid player, but nothing close to the phenomenon we've seen in New England with B&B. This has nothing to do with his abilities or skill -- he's one of the greatest, if not the greatest, to play the position. I just don't think the coaching staff or QBs here in Buffalo would have been able to use him appropriately at all. Playing with B&B allowed him to absolutely get every last bit of production out of his talent, and he'll be in Canton one day. I guess the only upside to the Bills taking Gronk is that he wouldn't have been in New England.... but they probably would have just found another way to tear teams apart.

As long as you know you're wrong, then my work here is done.

Wrong again. You said "250 yds per game" as his floor, did you not? Tyrod's "floor" (the minimum you could safely expect on any given gameday) is somewhere 160-180 yds passing, 20-15 yds rushing, and 1 TD total. Most games he'll give you better than that, sometimes he'll be worse or much worse. His "ceiling", or the absolute best you could reasonably expect from him is around 285-295 yds passing, 40-45 yds rushing, and 2-3 TDs. Not exactly earth shattering at his very best. "Average" is not the same as "floor". I agree -- his average is basically who he is. But that's not the same as his floor.

Well said.

He's definitely not "Tannehill" or "Dalton". Those are mid-level legitimate starting QBs, Dalton more than Tannehill. They can actually "win" you a game or two with a big throw. Taylor can't, hasn't or won't. All you have to do is go and look at a certain 4th & 12 play in Baltimore from last season to see the difference. Interesting that you bring up JP.... in his only full season as a starter, his numbers looked awfully familiar: 3051 yards, 19 TDs, 190 yds/gm... of course, there were 14 INTs, too. Taylor's been ~3000 yds/season, ~20 TDs, 201.3 yds/gm..... ~6 INTs/season. Really, the only thing separating Taylor & Losman is 8 INTs, or .5 INTs/gm. Of course, Tyrod is obviously a better QB than JPL... but he's definitely closer to JP Losman than he is to Andy Dalton. (By the way, EJ averaged 197.2 yds/gm as a rookie... just saying.) Which ones?

Less than a week to the draft, bro.

Well, if you're inside the 40 then punting isn't an option -- so for this exercise it's not in FG range.

Come on, you're better than this. Taylor's "winning" record is 22-20... and he was .500 up until last season, where there were multiple games that the team won "despite" his poor play. Also, he has never put the team on his back and "willed" them to victory like an actual starting-calibre QB. He sure has lost them a bunch of games, though. He's exactly what I've been saying he is -- a competent backup. A guy that can give you 2 or 3 wins and hold down the fort if your real starter goes down for 4 or 5 games.

And then you have Tyrod with the other 22% of those games, haha. The point I'm making here is this -- yes, obviously you want to avoid turnovers. But that's only really valuable if you are throwing the ball, gaining 1st downs, and scoring TDs, like Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers. If you are artificially avoiding turnovers by not putting passes in places that result in yards, 1st downs, and TDs -- like Tyrod Taylor -- then that is just as detrimental to your ability to win games as is throwing a bunch of INTs. Taylor actually loses you games, it's just not as obvious.

True -- but we are clearly discussing Tyrod's production as a QB and his contribution to that "7th ranked offense". The reality is that the guy contributed very little as a passer. He's a better-than-average, competent backup QB -- probably in the 35-40 range if you're looking at league QBs as a whole after this upcoming draft. His greatest attribute as a QB was not in what he was able TO do, but in what he DIDN'T do. At least, that's what all you Team Tyrod guys say. Correct -- I have been focused on that end result this whole time. The two occurrences ultimately have the same end result. Now, back to the curious case of Tyrod Taylor... which is generally better? 8 drives that end in 8 punts or 8 drives that end in 2 INTs, 3 punts, 1 FG, 2 TDs?

Of course. I can assume then, that you would agree that a QB throwing an INT on 3rd down at the other team's 37 > than a punt return for a TD, correct?

I suppose you could say that, in essence, yes -- you are giving possession to the other team. But it's not the same because a team has no choice in that situation. The kickoff is in the rules as part of the scoring sequence and to initiate gameplay. There is nothing in the rules about avoiding a throw on 3rd down because there's a DB near the WR and punting instead.

I'm not twisting anything. I'm simplifying things. You keep adding modifiers. I'm saying that when you strip away everything, the end result is the same. Sure, most of the time you put the other team further in their own end, but with offenses and elite QBs moving the ball the way they do now, field position is no where near as significant as you are making it out to be. TT avoiding INTs by not making throws results in the other team getting the ball with worse field position, but also guarantees he won't be scoring points or gaining yards either. You win the field position battle, but you've lost the game.

You've got to be kidding me. You clearly have absolutely no concept or understanding of what "floor" and "average" mean. Taylor has played in 44 games as the starting QB of the Bills. 30 of them have been under 230 yards passing. In fact, over 50% of his games as a starter have been under 200 yards passing. To expect 250 ypg from the guy is pure fantasy with a heavy dollop of delusion. You're far more likely to get 180 or less. A very smart, articulate, and enlightened poster once posted a breakdown of TT's career production. You should go take a look.

What happens when: 1. Your QB throws an INT in the end zone and the DB is tackled immediately. 2. Your team punts the ball through the back of the end zone. I'll help you out... both opposing offenses will start with the ball on their own 20. The point is that at the end of the day -- regardless of the situation -- the end result is the same: they have the ball and you don't.

7th ranked offense = 30th passing/1st rushing

They're going to run the wishbone? There isn't one.

I was absolutely ecstatic when I found out that they TT was gone. I literally could not stomach the thought of watching him take another snap as the Bills QB. I have been one of the most outspoken and vocal TT critics around. However, the guy is a class act and everything you would want from a professional athlete off the field. He would have been perfect as the face of the franchise, however he was a backup-caliber player on the field. Also, no one rocks a suit like he does. Your post is nothing but inflammatory BS. If you are so "sure", then it should be easy for you to post some examples.

You liked 56 yards passing for an entire NFL game? I admit that's unfair -- that game was one of only 2 or 3 that TT had less than 100 yards passing. But in all seriousness, TT's "floor" was roughly 125 yards passing with 0 TDs and 0 INTs. Add in 35 yards rushing and you have 160 yards of offensive production from the QB. Great pro, terrible QB.

Punts are, in fact, turnovers. You are literally giving the ball to the other team.

Unfortunately, actually throwing the football and scoring points would be.

Haha, it was just the first non-football related job that popped into my head. No disrespect! I have a few friends who do it -- it's a tough job, that's for sure. You need to be a driven, resilient cat to do well in that game.

I see it as more of a lateral move, if anything. Kizer put up comparable numbers to Tyrod last year, aside from the INTs, of course. The Browns will just have a lot more 3 and outs and punts. On paper, yes. I agree, it looks great. But after three years of Tyrod, I don't think any offense can be "explosive" with him under center.