A interesting take on Tyrod by Joe Redemann

[WhitewalkerInPhilly]

You know what's funny? People raked the Bills for not drafting a late round QB...you know, a Tyrod Taylor.

Good point. Seriously, for this year, is anyone really going to clamor that Garrett Grayson is going to be immediately better than TT?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Seems like a well thought out analysis, thoughts?

 

https://www.numberfire.com/nfl/news/5433/no-tyrod-taylor-shouldn-t-start-for-the-buffalo-bills

 

 

There are some good points in there. However, overall, it doesn't impress me much. The big picture why in one sentence: he misuses statistics abominably to make his point, and most of his argument boils down to "he wasn't great in college and he's been a backup 4 years and As he Was, So Shall he Always Be". This is a clearly fallacious argument which could be used to prove that Matt Schaub should still be starting and so should John Elway.

 

The bottom line is that athletes change, for better or for worse, and pro sports is a game of "what have you done for me lately?"

 

For those who would like to go under the hood:

 

Argument #1: Poor QB skillset. "His career completion rate was a paltry 57.2% in the not-so-daunting ACC". True, but one needs to look at the numbers that make up the average. In Taylor's case, his completion percentage went up 6%, his passing yardage tripled, and his TD/INT ratio rose from 1.7 to 4.8. So he clearly was changing (improving) and the question is: where did he level out?

 

Argument #2: Draft position. Any player drafted in later rounds has a lower probability to a) stick on an NFL roster b) become an NFL starter. The article linked more clearly defines the 60% probability as being that the guy even gets a year on an NFL roster. So there's a 40% chance that a 6th rounder will get 1 year on an NFL roster. Now what are the odds that a guy (on a contending team that signs and drafts other players) gets 4 years on an NFL roster? I bet they shift, and the fact that a guy survives those odds may say something.

 

The more important point, is: statistics really aren't predictive of an individual's performance. QB drafted in the 1st round have a higher probability of success. But that doesn't mean the guy drafted in the first is a sure-fire winner - only that he has something like a 50% chance of being a long-term NFL starter vs. 20-30% or less in the 2nd through 4th rounds and more like 5% in the 6th or later. Likewise, statistics really don't prove that a guy drafted in the late rounds is a sure-fire loser. Only NFL performance does that.

 

Argument #3: NFL production thus far. Taylor has significant playing time in ONE GAME. One Stinkin' Game, and a quarter or so in another. To put together a table comparing that one game with Cassel's 10 years in the league and Manuel's 14 games is the act of a guy who simply doesn't understand statistics. You can't meaningfully compare sample sizes that different. It's not appropriate.

 

Bottom line: is it likely that Taylor will become the starter of our dreams? No, the probabilities are against it and the Bills know it - that's why Cassel and Manuel are also here. But does anything in that article rule it out? No. No it does not. The only thing that rules it in (or out) is how he plays, and that's TBD.

 

I personally favor exactly what the Bills have done - give EJ a chance, bring in the best vet they could, and bring in their best choice as either a draftee or a 2nd tier FA (guys who have no significant playing time in the NFL but might have promise). We're all crossing our fingers that one of the three pans out, but I think Cassel gives us a "servicable" floor.

Edited June 10, 2015 by Hopeful

[NoSaint]

Argument #1: Poor QB skillset. "His career completion rate was a paltry 57.2% in the not-so-daunting ACC". True, but one needs to look at the numbers that make up the average. In Taylor's case, his completion percentage went up 6%, his passing yardage tripled, and his TD/INT ratio rose from 1.7 to 4.8. So he clearly was changing (improving) and the question is: where did he level out?

 

for accuracies sake, its probably worth mentioning that he did go from a part time rotational player (and injured) that had 100 something throws as a freshman, to a starter with 300+ throws and i believe healthy as a senior. that freshman year benchmark of growth was a pretty tight sample itself.

 

that he never cracked 60% completions, is a very valid question mark on his passing ability. he may emerge from flaccos shadow a completely different player -- but thats hard to bank on. and if any team besides us thought it he surely wouldve been closer to chase daniel offers, i would think.

 

but i do agree with the philosophy - because ultimately, why not take a shot. if theres a lotto ticket on the ground, i may as well check the numbers.

[Kelly the Dog]

Not always. but very often a QBs completion percentage is not a great gauge of accuracy if he, like Taylor in college, was always running around trying to make plays and throw the ball downfield instead of just dumping it off to outlet receivers. 2-3 of those a game make a drastic % difference. Checkdowns are often the wise choice, but also can distort a completion percentage. Short safe passes do that, too.

[NoSaint]

Not always. but very often a QBs completion percentage is not a great gauge of accuracy if he, like Taylor in college, was always running around trying to make plays and throw the ball downfield instead of just dumping it off to outlet receivers. 2-3 of those a game make a drastic % difference. Checkdowns are often the wise choice, but also can distort a completion percentage. Short safe passes do that, too.

Let's also apply common sense though. If he is an athletic freak and proved to be very accurate in college - where were the demands for his service?

[scribo]

Let's also apply common sense though. If he is an athletic freak and proved to be very accurate in college - where were the demands for his service?

Did you see the terrible misfortune he faced with his Pro Day? The receivers he had practiced with and choreographed the entire thing with pulled out the morning of the pro day with no warning because of eligibility concerns. It was reported later, when he fired his agent, that NFL scouts were not informed of situation before the draft.

Also, where was the demand for Russel Wilson's services?

[BuffaloMatt]

 

There are some good points in there. However, overall, it doesn't impress me much. The big picture why in one sentence: he misuses statistics abominably to make his point, and most of his argument boils down to "he wasn't great in college and he's been a backup 4 years and As he Was, So Shall he Always Be". This is a clearly fallacious argument which could be used to prove that Matt Schaub should still be starting and so should John Elway.

 

The bottom line is that athletes change, for better or for worse, and pro sports is a game of "what have you done for me lately?"

 

For those who would like to go under the hood:

 

Argument #1: Poor QB skillset. "His career completion rate was a paltry 57.2% in the not-so-daunting ACC". True, but one needs to look at the numbers that make up the average. In Taylor's case, his completion percentage went up 6%, his passing yardage tripled, and his TD/INT ratio rose from 1.7 to 4.8. So he clearly was changing (improving) and the question is: where did he level out?

 

Argument #2: Draft position. Any player drafted in later rounds has a lower probability to a) stick on an NFL roster b) become an NFL starter. The article linked more clearly defines the 60% probability as being that the guy even gets a year on an NFL roster. So there's a 40% chance that a 6th rounder will get 1 year on an NFL roster. Now what are the odds that a guy (on a contending team that signs and drafts other players) gets 4 years on an NFL roster? I bet they shift, and the fact that a guy survives those odds may say something.

 

The more important point, is: statistics really aren't predictive of an individual's performance. QB drafted in the 1st round have a higher probability of success. But that doesn't mean the guy drafted in the first is a sure-fire winner - only that he has something like a 50% chance of being a long-term NFL starter vs. 20-30% or less in the 2nd through 4th rounds and more like 5% in the 6th or later. Likewise, statistics really don't prove that a guy drafted in the late rounds is a sure-fire loser. Only NFL performance does that.

 

Argument #3: NFL production thus far. Taylor has significant playing time in ONE GAME. One Stinkin' Game, and a quarter or so in another. To put together a table comparing that one game with Cassel's 10 years in the league and Manuel's 14 games is the act of a guy who simply doesn't understand statistics. You can't meaningfully compare sample sizes that different. It's not appropriate.

 

Bottom line: is it likely that Taylor will become the starter of our dreams? No, the probabilities are against it and the Bills know it - that's why Cassel and Manuel are also here. But does anything in that article rule it out? No. No it does not. The only thing that rules it in (or out) is how he plays, and that's TBD.

 

I personally favor exactly what the Bills have done - give EJ a chance, bring in the best vet they could, and bring in their best choice as either a draftee or a 2nd tier FA (guys who have no significant playing time in the NFL but might have promise). We're all crossing our fingers that one of the three pans out, but I think Cassel gives us a "servicable" floor.

Excellent review, thanks.

[NoSaint]

Did you see the terrible misfortune he faced with his Pro Day? The receivers he had practiced with and choreographed the entire thing with pulled out the morning of the pro day with no warning because of eligibility concerns. It was reported later, when he fired his agent, that NFL scouts were not informed of situation before the draft.

 

Also, where was the demand for Russel Wilson's services?

you mean the guy that went 3 rounds earlier? tyrod fell far, and also did not get what would amount to even a lucrative backup contract. my point was if he had great film AND was a freak athlete -- well.... i guess my point is, wheres the demand if he is a more athletic russell wilson with 4 years of college great accuracy in college and all.... surely you get my point that his game must have SOME sort of flaw. it seems anything thats brought up is quickly scrubbed from the resume by some posters if its negative.

[John from Riverside]

 

There are some good points in there. However, overall, it doesn't impress me much. The big picture why in one sentence: he misuses statistics abominably to make his point, and most of his argument boils down to "he wasn't great in college and he's been a backup 4 years and As he Was, So Shall he Always Be". This is a clearly fallacious argument which could be used to prove that Matt Schaub should still be starting and so should John Elway.

 

The bottom line is that athletes change, for better or for worse, and pro sports is a game of "what have you done for me lately?"

 

For those who would like to go under the hood:

 

Argument #1: Poor QB skillset. "His career completion rate was a paltry 57.2% in the not-so-daunting ACC". True, but one needs to look at the numbers that make up the average. In Taylor's case, his completion percentage went up 6%, his passing yardage tripled, and his TD/INT ratio rose from 1.7 to 4.8. So he clearly was changing (improving) and the question is: where did he level out?

 

Argument #2: Draft position. Any player drafted in later rounds has a lower probability to a) stick on an NFL roster b) become an NFL starter. The article linked more clearly defines the 60% probability as being that the guy even gets a year on an NFL roster. So there's a 40% chance that a 6th rounder will get 1 year on an NFL roster. Now what are the odds that a guy (on a contending team that signs and drafts other players) gets 4 years on an NFL roster? I bet they shift, and the fact that a guy survives those odds may say something.

 

The more important point, is: statistics really aren't predictive of an individual's performance. QB drafted in the 1st round have a higher probability of success. But that doesn't mean the guy drafted in the first is a sure-fire winner - only that he has something like a 50% chance of being a long-term NFL starter vs. 20-30% or less in the 2nd through 4th rounds and more like 5% in the 6th or later. Likewise, statistics really don't prove that a guy drafted in the late rounds is a sure-fire loser. Only NFL performance does that.

 

Argument #3: NFL production thus far. Taylor has significant playing time in ONE GAME. One Stinkin' Game, and a quarter or so in another. To put together a table comparing that one game with Cassel's 10 years in the league and Manuel's 14 games is the act of a guy who simply doesn't understand statistics. You can't meaningfully compare sample sizes that different. It's not appropriate.

 

Bottom line: is it likely that Taylor will become the starter of our dreams? No, the probabilities are against it and the Bills know it - that's why Cassel and Manuel are also here. But does anything in that article rule it out? No. No it does not. The only thing that rules it in (or out) is how he plays, and that's TBD.

 

I personally favor exactly what the Bills have done - give EJ a chance, bring in the best vet they could, and bring in their best choice as either a draftee or a 2nd tier FA (guys who have no significant playing time in the NFL but might have promise). We're all crossing our fingers that one of the three pans out, but I think Cassel gives us a "servicable" floor.

This is a really good post

[scribo]

you mean the guy that went 3 rounds earlier? tyrod fell far, and also did not get what would amount to even a lucrative backup contract. my point was if he had great film AND was a freak athlete -- well.... i guess my point is, wheres the demand if he is a more athletic russell wilson with 4 years of college great accuracy in college and all.... surely you get my point that his game must have SOME sort of flaw. it seems anything thats brought up is quickly scrubbed from the resume by some posters if its negative.

I agree there has to be more negative than is apparent to my untrained eyes by watching his VT games now on YouTube, which I've been doing. I see a lot of receivers falling down, a lot throwing on the run, a lot of pass pro breaking down and a lot of called keepers. He seemed to throw mostly in difficutl down and distance situations after the running game failed. His play in some of his more important games remind me of Flutie - just make it happen it somehow. A lot of people, especially NFL scouts, didn't like it, saw it as getting lucky a lot at. There has long been the thought that luck cannot last too long.

[NoSaint]

I agree there has to be more negative than is apparent to my untrained eyes by watching his VT games now on YouTube, which I've been doing. I see a lot of receivers falling down, a lot throwing on the run, a lot of pass pro breaking down and a lot of called keepers. He seemed to throw mostly in difficutl down and distance situations after the running game failed. His play in some of his more important games remind me of Flutie - just make it happen it somehow. A lot of people, especially NFL scouts, didn't like it, saw it as getting lucky a lot at. There has long been the thought that luck cannot last too long.

i guess you can count me among those skeptical about luck and guys like flutie. im not trying to open that can of worms but its not a projection i like to hear with regards to what could go right in his career arc. sure we may catch lightning for a little, but.....

[3rdand12]

on any Sunday?

 

Because "We" know next to nothing about the guy for his years in Baltimore. it's nearly impossible to project success.

If he is in the "right" environment at the "right" time. Rex , Roman and the rest of the Offenses staff. Maybe they know something we dont?

He does not need to start this year lets keep in mind. still young physically and a developmental player mentally.

i dont mind rooting for him.

[Uffalo Ills]

His stats are gonna look atrocious: he's only played in one full game! Any well thought out analysis should account for sample size. Whether or not the lack of sample size is a knock on T-Mobile is a different argument entirely...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

for accuracies sake, its probably worth mentioning that he did go from a part time rotational player (and injured) that had 100 something throws as a freshman, to a starter with 300+ throws and i believe healthy as a senior. that freshman year benchmark of growth was a pretty tight sample itself.

 

that he never cracked 60% completions, is a very valid question mark on his passing ability. he may emerge from flaccos shadow a completely different player -- but thats hard to bank on. and if any team besides us thought it he surely wouldve been closer to chase daniel offers, i would think.

 

but i do agree with the philosophy - because ultimately, why not take a shot. if theres a lotto ticket on the ground, i may as well check the numbers.

 

Hi NoSaint, thanks for the gouge. I saw 11 games played (of 14) and didn't look further (starting, played part of each game,etc) -as I've said before, I'm not a college football fan. I think the same size is OK, though, not tight - 134 passes thrown vs 315, can compare that with validity for completion percentage and YPA, probably TD/INT. Yardage comparison not valid, of course.

 

It's when samples are off by an order or orders of magnitude, that things get statistically dicey - comparing Cassel's 2000+ passes with Manuel's ~200 passes with Taylor's 35...um, No.

 

It does still look as though he was improving all 4 years in college. So the question is, where did he wind up?

 

Chase Daniel is an interesting comparator. As far as I can tell, the only reason he didn't get drafted coming out of college is that he doesn't "look the way you want your QB to look", combined with a spread offense. Unlike Taylor, he had mad completion percentage in college. Like Taylor, he was an almost total NFL enigma in N'Awleans. I think it's really the college transcript combined with the aura "backup to Drew Brees" which garners Daniel the interest. "Backup to Joe Flacco" just hasn't the same charisma, y'know?

[C.Biscuit97]

 

Hi NoSaint, thanks for the gouge. I saw 11 games played (of 14) and didn't look further (starting, played part of each game,etc) -as I've said before, I'm not a college football fan. I think the same size is OK, though, not tight - 134 passes thrown vs 315, can compare that with validity for completion percentage and YPA, probably TD/INT. Yardage comparison not valid, of course.

 

It's when samples are off by an order or orders of magnitude, that things get statistically dicey - comparing Cassel's 2000+ passes with Manuel's ~200 passes with Taylor's 35...um, No.

 

It does still look as though he was improving all 4 years in college. So the question is, where did he wind up?

 

Chase Daniel is an interesting comparator. As far as I can tell, the only reason he didn't get drafted coming out of college is that he doesn't "look the way you want your QB to look", combined with a spread offense. Unlike Taylor, he had mad completion percentage in college. Like Taylor, he was an almost total NFL enigma in N'Awleans. I think it's really the college transcript combined with the aura "backup to Drew Brees" which garners Daniel the interest. "Backup to Joe Flacco" just hasn't the same charisma, y'know?

Very fair points. At the same point, a fast QB who went to VT could be a giant boost after Vick.

 

IMO, Taylor is a new toy at Christmas. We're not sure how good it is, but it's better than our old toys (Manuel, Cassel). Mike Vick was a physical freak, #1 overall pick. He would catch lightning in a bottle, then injury would happen or defenses would make him beat them as a passer. He couldn't do that. So when you have a less physically talented version of Vick who has never played extended NFL snaps, consider me doubtful.

 

I'm still on the ABC bandwagon (Anyone But Cassel) so if EJ doesn't start, I want Taylor. But IMO, EJ is a lot closer to being Kaepernick than Taylor.

[Bob Malooga]

I don't think he is the starting QB...but I do believe there is a reason Kubiak wanted to bring him to Denver.

 

That tells me he is comfortable enough with him, that if Manning went down, he would trust Taylor to step in and take over.

 

He's known as a good offensive coach, so to me, that is a positive sign.

 

(Roman also made something out of nothing with two QB's who people didn't give much of a chance, in Smith and Kaepernick. Sure their pedigree and all that is better, but Taylor has the same athleticism as they do, which made them successful...am I wrong?)