Jump to content

Tyrod = Jeff Blake v. 2.0 (or who do you say?)


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 53
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Tyrod - was never much of a passer at VA Tech and I do not see him ever being more than what we seen thus far - some good some bad and not great with the long ball. It would like to see him throw down field more and if no one is open take off running - use his strengths. He will never be a prototypical pocket passer so do not try to put the square peg into the round hole. Go with his talents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is sort of unique. His numbers are very impressive so far. But I am left with the impression that he is totally reactive rather than able to dictate the play on the field. I think a boxing analogy fits for describing my view of him, he is a very good counter puncher, but he doesn't really have the ring generalship to dictate the play.

I think "elite" players at any offensive position are the players opposing teams have to really game plan for. Right now I feel as though teams can play whatever they feel as though their "best" base defense is against Taylor and expect to not be exploited.

In terms of comps his best analog right now is Colin Kaepernick. He is smaller, his arm isn't as strong. He is faster. I feel as though their mid and long range accuracy is similar.

Edited by PlayoffsPlease
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is sort of unique. His numbers are very impressive so far. But I am left with the impression that he is totally reactive rather than able to dictate the play on the field. I think a boxing analogy fits for describing my view of him, he is a very good counter puncher, but he doesn't really have the ring generalship to dictate the play.

 

I think "elite" players at any offensive position are the players opposing teams have to really game plan for. Right now I feel as though teams can play whatever they feel as though their "best" base defense is against Taylor and expect to not be exploited.

 

In terms of comps his best analog right now is Colin Kaepernick. He is smaller, his arm isn't as strong. He is faster. I feel as though their mid and long range accuracy is similar.

 

I think you are right, but it's only been a 4 game career.

 

We still don't know how much freedom he has to audible, the offensive system is new to the team, and he didn't even get a complete training camp. I wouldn't expect him to be dictating play.

Edited by HoF Watkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been trying to figure out who Tyrod reminds me of, and it hit me: Jeff Blake, Bengals QB in the mid-90s.

 

6th Round pick, listed at 6'1" but looked shorter, threw a really pretty long ball, had a nice few years including a Pro Bowl season. He wasn't nearly as fast as Tyrod but he was athletic - they called in Shake 'n' Blake for his scrambles, and he had over 300 yards rushing in 3 different seasons. And as I mentioned in another thread when Blake popped into my head ... I think Blake is a realistic upside for Tyrod.

 

Others have said Vick 2.0, but I don't really see that. After 4 full games, who do you think he plays like? Anyone else come to mind as a comparable?

 

Why because they're both right handed black QBs? Stop it.

 

Tyrod is Tyrod. Peyton is Peyton. Eli is Eli

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see a bit of Warren Moon, mixed with some Randall Cunningham, some Slash, a bit of Mike Vick, with some McNabb in there as well plus a touch of McNair as well as some Russ Wilson, a smidgen of Doug Williams, and 2% Vince Evans.

 

Jeff Blake?....nah, I really don't see it......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Blake was perfectly league average over his career according to PFR's advance passer system: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BlakJe00.htm.

 

He had two good seasons and hung around for a long time. He played on the 2002 Ravens, a team that had Rex Ryan, Mike Pettine, and Dennis Thurman as defensive assistant coaches. Rex and Thurman would know better than anyone else how he compares to Taylor. I don't see much similarity, but it must be said that if you're going to compare Taylor to anyone, it has to be to a very fast and quick QB who could tuck and run.

 

If he ends comparing with Cunningham, we should all be happy: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/C/CunnRa00.htm .

 

Cunningham was an above average QB, although his fumbling problem was horrible.

Edited by dave mcbride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He is sort of unique. His numbers are very impressive so far. But I am left with the impression that he is totally reactive rather than able to dictate the play on the field. I think a boxing analogy fits for describing my view of him, he is a very good counter puncher, but he doesn't really have the ring generalship to dictate the play.

 

I think "elite" players at any offensive position are the players opposing teams have to really game plan for. Right now I feel as though teams can play whatever they feel as though their "best" base defense is against Taylor and expect to not be exploited.

 

In terms of comps his best analog right now is Colin Kaepernick. He is smaller, his arm isn't as strong. He is faster. I feel as though their mid and long range accuracy is similar.

 

Check those feelings. Kaep is a career 60% passer. We have an admittedly small sample with Tyrod but he's over 70% -- and he has been going downfield.

 

I find your assessment curious -- you've already determined what Tyrod's ceiling is after four games in which he's been pretty damn good and done more than what the Bills expected of him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A young McNabb is a pretty good comp too. Big arm, fast, elusive, moves well -- a little bigger overall than Tyrod, but I like it. Maybe we can say McNabb is his upside? That would be pretty great. As for folks complaining that we're all mentioning black QBs - I see the point. So let's try this -- Plummer with a stronger arm is a good one too. How about a righty Mark Brunell? He could really run and he had a plus arm.

Of course, someone will inevitably say that Tyrod is faster/has a better arm/is smarter, etc than McNabb, as if we shouldn't be happy that we feel comfortable comparing Tyrod to a 6-time pro bowler. Something makes me think Bills fans can never be satisfied.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A young McNabb is a pretty good comp too. Big arm, fast, elusive, moves well -- a little bigger overall than Tyrod, but I like it. Maybe we can say McNabb is his upside? That would be pretty great. As for folks complaining that we're all mentioning black QBs - I see the point. So let's try this -- Plummer with a stronger arm is a good one too. How about a righty Mark Brunell? He could really run and he had a plus arm.

Of course, someone will inevitably say that Tyrod is faster/has a better arm/is smarter, etc than McNabb, as if we shouldn't be happy that we feel comfortable comparing Tyrod to a 6-time pro bowler. Something makes me think Bills fans can never be satisfied.

Don't McNabb's career numbers compare pretty similarly to Jim Kelly's? I feel like I remember that being a take a few years back. The host put up McNabb's numbers next to Kelly's and asked which was the hall of famer and which wasn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Don't McNabb's career numbers compare pretty similarly to Jim Kelly's? I feel like I remember that being a take a few years back. The host put up McNabb's numbers next to Kelly's and asked which was the hall of famer and which wasn't.

They're almost identical, but if you stack Kelly's numbers up relative to the years he played in vs. McNabb's, Kelly's look better. That's because QB numbers in the 1980s-mid-1990s were across the board worse than in the 2000s (rule changes being the main reason for the uptick in more recent years). Kelly's lifetime advanced passer rating (PFR) was 111; McNabb's was 106. Basically, the measure assigns the perfectly average QB performance from a particular year a 100 rating.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/K/KellJi00.htm

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/McNaDo00.htm

Edited by dave mcbride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

They're almost identical, but if you stack Kelly's numbers up relative to the years he played in vs. McNabb's, Kelly's look better. That's because QB numbers in the 1980s-mid-1990s were across the board worse than in the 2000s (rule changes being the main reason for the uptick in more recent years). Kelly's lifetime advanced passer rating (PFR) was 111; McNabb's was 106. Basically, the measure assigns the perfectly average QB performance from a particular year a 100 rating.

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/K/KellJi00.htm

 

http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/McNaDo00.htm

Thanks! I thought I remembered that comparison, but I honestly couldn't remember. And yeah, I understand the slightly different eras. Just thought it was interesting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tyrod - was never much of a passer at VA Tech and I do not see him ever being more than what we seen thus far - some good some bad and not great with the long ball. It would like to see him throw down field more and if no one is open take off running - use his strengths. He will never be a prototypical pocket passer so do not try to put the square peg into the round hole. Go with his talents.

Nothing wrong with his deep ball - though his right sideline pass to Harvin last weekend could have been a TD if placed more in the field ofplay. He has spread the ball to all parts of the field. His pocket awareness was bad against the Patriots but has been quite good in other games.

 

He moves to make throws not to get yards. I agree with you that he should run more. That may make defenses spy him a little bit and open up the underneath coverages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks! I thought I remembered that comparison, but I honestly couldn't remember. And yeah, I understand the slightly different eras. Just thought it was interesting.

Yeah, Fergy has some pretty good advanced passer rating numbers (i.e., 106 or so) in some of his seasons despite a low-50s percent completion rate, more INTs than TDs, and a passer rating in the mid-70s. The logic is that you have to compare like to like, and QBs in the 70s simply didn't put up the numbers today's QBs do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...