The Tyrod Taylor Question

[HappyDays]

I used the byes because that represents the 4 teams that had the best records throughout the regular season. 2 threw the ball well and 2 didn't.

Wouldn't this always be the best way to do it? 16 game regular seasons vs 3-4 games in the playoffs. I'll take the final regular season rankings as a good barometer of what gets you to the playoffs.

 

But even just looking at recent Super Bowl winners the theory falls apart. Elite defense has made a resurgence. Brady himself is 5-2 in Super Bowls with an average YPA of just 6.7 in those games. But he can still win because he always has good weapons, good defense, and great coaching backing him up. Coaching is easily a more important factor than quarterbacking, or by all rights Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees and Peyton Manning should have more combined Super Bowl wins than Tom Brady.

 

I mean is it really so impossible for people to think that a change in coaching could make the passing game better, even assuming everything else stays the same? Our offense has been designed by rush game coordinators and RB coaches over the past two seasons. I think that that point isn't mentioned enough when talking about why our rush game was so far ahead of the pass game.

[Thurman#1]

...and the Broncos won the Super Bowl the previous year with the 2nd lowest passer rating. http://www.espn.com/nfl/statistics/team/_/stat/passing/sort/quarterbackRating/year/2015I'm not buying it and you aren't convincing me otherwise. There is too much information disputing that. You can win in a variety of ways (and being an elite passing team is one of them).

 

Are you really trying to tell me that you think that if we went back say ten years and checked the top four teams or so that it would all come out even? Seriously? Of course there are exceptions. That's why I said, "Not that every year will be like that, of course, but passing is more important than running." But it's by far the most common model of successfully building a Super Bowl winner.

 

Oh, and those Broncos had Peyton Manning at QB for most of the year, though they supplemented with Brock Osweiler. Having Manning helped them. A lot. Their offense that year had four fourth quarter comebacks and four game-winning drives, according to ProFootballReference. He wasn't the old Peyton Manning, not even close. But he was still Peyton Manning.

 

You can indeed win in many ways. As I have said before, I don't really care about winning alone. I care about being competitive for a title. Sneaking into the playoffs as a fodder team would mean little or nothing to me. And yeah, you can win a Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer. It's just the odds are much much worse that way.

 

 

 

I used the byes because that represents the 4 teams that had the best records throughout the regular season. 2 threw the ball well and 2 didn't.

 

To be clear I'm not terribly confident in Hauschka either. He struggled with extra points but was good on Fgs and can kick off. It's similar to how I feel about the coaching. I don't know if they will be good but I'm confident that they will be better.

 

In terms of the game management and record I think that the Bills are going to be around .500 (like always). I hate to keep using that Christmas Eve game but it was a microcosm of the Ryan era. If he didn't totally screw that up the Bills are in the playoffs. They would have beaten a garbage Jets team the next week. That's the difference between 7-9 & 9-7. It's not a drastic difference but it is in terms of record. So if the Bills are around .500 a few good decisions, execution on ST & eliminating undisciplined penalties can take you from 8-8 to 10-6. The Bills will be between 6-10 & 10-6 IMO. It's those little things that will make the difference. They've been bad at them recently so it would take quite a jump to get there.

 

 

I see we agree about the record likely being around .500. Unfortunately. Not quite on Hauschka, though. I'm not sure he'll be better, just hopeful. I don't know enough about kickers to have much of an intelligent opinion.

 

But as for the would've / could've / should'ves, I've never bought into that. Sure you can find some games that were lost and shouldn't have been. You can also find games that were won with the same kinds of ifs ands and buts. To me, it looks like you're adding four games there, not two. I'm with Parcells, you are what your record says you are.

 

Guess we can agree to disagree on some of this stuff.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Thurman#1

[HappyDays]

But Thurman all your argument is getting at is that the Bills would be better with Tom Brady or Aaron Rodgers at QB. And of course that's true. When you say "elite passing games win championships" you have to remember there are only like 4 elite passing games in the entire NFL, and they're all led by QBs from the last generation of players. I don't necessarily disagree that that statement is true - although I think it's taken a hit the last few years - but it certainly shouldn't be the only goal for a team looking to win a championship. It is a plain fact that there are multiple ways to build a championship caliber team. Right now the Bills are closer to being an elite rushing and defensive team than they are to getting the next Aaron Rodgers in the prime of his career. So why not try and build with what we have instead of waiting for the stars to align just so?

[Kirby Jackson]

 

Are you really trying to tell me that you think that if we went back say ten years and checked the top four teams or so that it would all come out even? Seriously? Of course there are exceptions. That's why I said, "Not that every year will be like that, of course, but passing is more important than running." But it's by far the most common model of successfully building a Super Bowl winner.

 

Oh, and those Broncos had Peyton Manning at QB for most of the year, though they supplemented with Brock Osweiler. Having Manning helped them. A lot. Their offense that year had four fourth quarter comebacks and four game-winning drives, according to ProFootballReference. He wasn't the old Peyton Manning, not even close. But he was still Peyton Manning.

 

You can indeed win in many ways. As I have said before, I don't really care about winning alone. I care about being competitive for a title. Sneaking into the playoffs as a fodder team would mean little or nothing to me. And yeah, you can win a Super Bowl with Trent Dilfer. It's just the odds are much much worse that way.

 

 

 

 

 

I see we agree about the record likely being around .500. Unfortunately. Not quite on Hauschka, though. I'm not sure he'll be better, just hopeful. I don't know enough about kickers to have much of an intelligent opinion.

 

But as for the would've / could've / should'ves, I've never bought into that. Sure you can find some games that were lost and shouldn't have been. You can also find games that were won with the same kinds of ifs ands and buts. To me, it looks like you're adding four games there, not two. I'm with Parcells, you are what your record says you are.

 

Guess we can agree to disagree on some of this stuff.

You can go back as far as you want on the passing end. That Denver team had a horrendous passing game. Manning's numbers were EJish. The Seahawks should have won twice with a strong running game and defense. The Giants won twice on the backs of their defense. The Ravens did the same (although Flacco caught fire in the playoffs). Those are just off the top of my head. There are lots of ways to win. Last year it was 2 teams with elite passing games. This year it's probably the Pats again. Brady is the exception to the rule. If you take Brady out, Brees has one, good Peyton has one, bad Peyton has one, Ben has 2, Eli has 2, Rodgers has 1, Flacco has one and Wilson has one. I'd say that they are all good QBs but only Brees, Rodgers and one of Peyton's and one of Ben's were in years where hey were great passing teams. It's about half.

 

 

The Bills are exactly .500 over the last 3 years. I'm of the belief that the last two years were better teams with a worse record. That's absolutely on Rex. The decisions in that Miami game, along with his scheme are the only reason that they lost. He allowed the same guy to get 200+ on the ground against them, twice in the same season!!! I would give the defensive players a harder time if I had not seen the same guys have success prior to his arrival. They share some blame but if we are ranking why the Bills were 15-17 over the last 2 years Rex is reasons 1 through 5.

 

I have no idea if McDermmott and company will be good. I'm just confident that they will challenge at the right time, make better in game decisions and have 11 guys on the field.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[Thurman#1]

Wow... this might be the biggest pile of crap I have ever read from you. Not even going to try to put some lipstick on this pig?

 

You can't separate his running from the whole QB thing because it's obviously part of it, much like it was/is for Fran Tarkenton, Steve Young, Randall Cunningham, Michael Vick, Cam Newton, Russell Wilson, Aaron Rodgers, Andrew Luck, Marcus Mariota, etc. The escapability and scrambling and running are all part of the whole QB thing for Taylor. It factors in. You don't separate it as you just did.

 

 

That smell is from the fertilizer I grew my stunningly terrific post on top of.

 

Not only can I separate running from the whole QB thing, but I do Everyone should.. Running in a QB is fine. It's just not what you want a QB for.

 

Having a QB who can run really well is like having a car with a terrific air conditioner. It adds value. It makes it a better car. But it doesn't mean all that much, it's just not what you buy the car for. You buy the car for getting you around. If it does that and has a great AC on top of that, terrific. You acquire a QB for passing. If he can do that and he can run also, that's great, You're right, it factors in, as an AC does.

 

You need a QB who can run a good passing game.

 

And read this again. I didn't just say, "full stop." I said, "not ... full stop."

 

 

Since you brought this up, do you remember that question I asked you recently about quarterbacks that fit certain criteria that Taylor fits? Remember how you said there were about 50 guys? I asked you to come back with a list of 10.

 

I'm still waiting...

 

And don't try to make up some new criteria. Find the post, it was in one of our recent interactions; you likely ignored it because you knew you were actually mistaken but find it impossible to admit fault. Find the criteria that you yourself said about 50 other quarterbacks fall into.

 

Name 10 of them...

 

 

 

I have no earthly idea what you're talking about. I have been mostly avoiding Tyrod threads. Boring. So I have no idea what you said, nor am I interested in looking back when I don't know what I'm looking for.

 

As a pure guess, were you talking about what I just talked about a couple of posts above? That there have been dozens and dozens of guys who like Tyrod spent three or four years on the bench and then got a chance? And that then outside of Gannon and maybe Plunkett none of them have gotten through six years of their career without becoming a franchise QB and then made it later?

 

If not, I have no idea what you're talking about. If so, it took me about five to ten minutes to quickly come up with around a dozen guys who had the same situation, three or four years on the bench and a chance. Here's the list, quoted from my post just above.

 

 

 

 

There have been probably dozens and dozens of guys who didn't play much for three or four years at the beginning of their careers and then got a chance. Cassel. Schaub. Derek Anderson. Shaun Hill. Seneca Wallace. Damon Huard. Rex Grossman. David Garrard. Jay Fiedler. Hell, our own Kelly Holcomb. Jim Miller. Steve Beuerlein. That's, what, a dozen guys who had only a little bit of work for three or four years or even more and eventually got their chance to be the starter. None were good enough and none developed and became franchise guys. Jake Delhomme was on the bench for two years before he started. But he quickly became a borderline franchise guy. He was what he was from pretty early on, a gutsy guy who was never going to be a top ten or twelve guy but was Carolina's franchise guy for years. The really good ones - Romo, for example, who sat the bench for two and a half years but looked good very quickly once he got out there - had become ready so that they were able to seize their chance like Rodgers. Of the ones who couldn't, none have even then later turned around and become franchise guys after not proving themselves as such for six years.

 

Basically, Gannon is it. There's an argument to be made for Plunkett, though I disagree. And that's it. Maybe you can find another one somewhere, but I can't and I've asked others before and nobody else could either. It's simply extremely rare.

 

 

Ten? That's what, fourteen? There have been tons of guys in Tyrod's position, guys who didn't have experience for three or four years and then got their chance to start. Problem is that nearly all of them aren't good enough. And the ones who are have shown it pretty much immediately.

 

Again, of all guys who hadn't proven themselves through six years as franchise guys, almost none have later improved enough to become franchise guys. That's the likely result with Tyrod.

 

It'd be much better for the Bills if he makes that major leap upwards. He's a great guy. I'm rooting for him. History shows that his chances are far from good.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Thurman#1

[Maury Ballstein]

1 of 2 things are evident by this ridiculous statement; Kapernik and RG III are franchise QB's -or you don't even follow pro football.

Rg3 pre injury for sure. Rookie season was electric, got hurt and never was the same.

[Royale with Cheese]

Rg3 pre injury for sure. Rookie season was electric, got hurt and never was the same.

I think he was finally figured out and his knee is the excuse.

RG3 isn't the only QB to suffer a knee injury.

[Thurman#1]

You can go back as far as you want on the passing end. That Denver team had a horrendous passing game. Manning's numbers were EJish. The Seahawks should have won twice with a strong running game and defense. The Giants won twice on the backs of their defense. The Ravens did the same (although Flacco caught fire in the playoffs). Those are just off the top of my head. If"There are lots of ways to win. Last year it was 2 teams with elite passing games. This year it's probably the Pats again. Brady is the exception to the rule. If you take Brady out, Brees has one, good Peyton has one, bad Peyton has one, Ben has 2, Eli has 2, Rodgers has 1, Flacco has one and Wilson has one. I'd say that they are all good QBs but only Brees, Rodgers and one of Peyton's and one of Ben's were in years where hey were great passing teams. It's about half.

 

 

The Bills are exactly .500 over the last 3 years. I'm of the belief that the last two years were better teams with a worse record. That's absolutely on Rex. The decisions in that Miami game, along with his scheme are the only reason that they lost. He allowed the same guy to get 200+ on the ground against them, twice in the same season!!! I would give the defensive players a harder time if I had not seen the same guys have success prior to his arrival. They share some blame but if we are ranking why the Bills were 15-17 over the last 2 years Rex is reasons 1 through 5.

 

I have no idea if McDermmott and company will be good. I'm just confident that they will challenge at the right time, make better in game decisions and have 11 guys on the field.

 

 

The Seahawks had Russell Wilson. He's been a top ten or twelve guy since about his second year. Eli has been up and down but absolutely a franchise QB with a good passing game overall and specifically in the years when they won, though admittedly the light came on very late in the year of that first Super Bowl win.

 

If you think I said they have great passing games, maybe I mis-stated myself. But very good passing games? Yeah. Nearly all of those teams had very good passing games. Just look at the list of guys. Peyton, Ben, Eli (#4 in 2011), Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Russell Wilson. As you say, Flacco was on fire, though he has looked pedestrian since then.

 

That's a list of very very good QBs, guys in the top ten or twelve. You can make a good argument about Peyton Manning that year, though I bet you'd agree they simply don't win that Super Bowl with Osweiler or Siemian. Manning wasn't anywhere near what he'd been and yet he willed them on in crucial spots and even when he couldn't win games for them because of that arm problem. he made good decisions with real consistency.

 

Me, I figure it's about 10% of Super Bowl winners who didn't have QBs playing top ten or twelve ball. And you don't want to follow a model that wins that kind of percentage.

 

As I said, I agree that game management should be better immediately. I just don't see this as a team with enough talent to do much damage, and especially so the year we input new schemes on both sides of the ball.

 

It'd be great if I'm wrong, and that has been known to happen.

[GunnerBill]

What Manning was still able to do that Superbowl run was beat teams with his brain. The critical TDs in the Championship game and the Superbowl were run plays that Manning checked into at the line.

 

Ironically if he hadn't spent much of his career checking OUT of run plays at the line Peyton would have won more than 2 Superbowls.

[HappyDays]

Me, I figure it's about 10% of Super Bowl winners who didn't have QBs playing top ten or twelve ball. And you don't want to follow a model that wins that kind of percentage.

Well sure, I've always thought having a top 12 QB is a good baseline for a team with serious Super Bowl aspirations (you get the occasional 2015-16 Broncos but that's very rare). I guess where we disagree is I absolutely think Tyrod could play at a top 12 level. I think he did just that in 2015 but the attempts weren't high. 2015 Bills offense + Seattle defense is a Super Bowl contender.

 

And on the flip side how many Super Bowl winners are not top 12 defenses? I would wager about the same, 10%. Actually I found this link immediately after typing that:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/2zltuy/offensive_and_defensive_ranks_for_superbowl/

 

From 2000-2014, if you rank offenses and defenses by points scored/points allowed, there were 4 Super Bowl winners with an offense out of the top 12, and 4 Super Bowl winners with a defense out of the top 12. Exactly even. If you include 2015 and 2016 the Broncos would bring it to 5 Super Bowl winners with a worse than top 12 offense.

 

So in total since 2000 you're technically slightly better off with a top 12 defense than a top 12 offense, if Super Bowl is your only goal.

 

Does this change your opinion at all?

 

EDIT: To add more to that analysis - five #1 defenses in points allowed have won a Super Bowl since 2000. Only one #1 offense in points scored has won a Super Bowl in the same time frame.

 

But it's an offensive league? Man I think everyone might just have it wrong. And if you took out the Patriots... man oh man.

Edited July 28, 2017 by HappyDays

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

The Seahawks had Russell Wilson. He's been a top ten or twelve guy since about his second year. Eli has been up and down but absolutely a franchise QB with a good passing game overall and specifically in the years when they won, though admittedly the light came on very late in the year of that first Super Bowl win.

 

If you think I said they have great passing games, maybe I mis-stated myself. But very good passing games? Yeah. Nearly all of those teams had very good passing games. Just look at the list of guys. Peyton, Ben, Eli (#4 in 2011), Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Russell Wilson. As you say, Flacco was on fire, though he has looked pedestrian since then.

 

That's a list of very very good QBs, guys in the top ten or twelve. You can make a good argument about Peyton Manning that year, though I bet you'd agree they simply don't win that Super Bowl with Osweiler or Siemian. Manning wasn't anywhere near what he'd been and yet he willed them on in crucial spots and even when he couldn't win games for them because of that arm problem. he made good decisions with real consistency.

 

Me, I figure it's about 10% of Super Bowl winners who didn't have QBs playing top ten or twelve ball. And you don't want to follow a model that wins that kind of percentage.

 

As I said, I agree that game management should be better immediately. I just don't see this as a team with enough talent to do much damage, and especially so the year we input new schemes on both sides of the ball.

 

It'd be great if I'm wrong, and that has been known to happen.

I agree that good QBs win the Super Bowl. With the exception of 2015 Peyton and Flacco (and that's debatable) I would say that all of those QBs are in the top half of the league. The irony is that the year the Seahawks won Wilson threw for 217 yards a game, 20 TDs and 7 INTs. He ran for 6 more. It is almost identical to what we are getting now. This is coming from someone that LOVES Russell Wilson as a player. He has "it" to me. I'm not saying that Tyrod is RW but that level of performance can win with good defense and a good running game. The Bills have half of that now.

 

Also, I agree that Denver doesn't win that game without Peyton.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[Runninrams]

I agree that good QBs win the Super Bowl. With the exception of 2015 Peyton and Flacco (and that's debatable) I would say that all of those QBs are in the top half of the league. The irony is that the year the Seahawks won Wilson threw for 217 yards a game, 20 TDs and 7 INTs. He ran for 6 more. It is almost identical to what we are getting now. This is coming from someone that LOVES Russell Wilson as a player. He has "it" to me. I'm not saying that Tyrod is RW but that level of performance can win with good defense and a good running game. The Bills have half of that now.

 

Also, I agree that Denver doesn't win that game without Peyton.

 

 

you got your years mixed up. He won it in 2013. 3,357 yds and a 26/9 TD/INT, and rushed for another 539 yds.

 

you also ignore that it was only Wilson's 2nd year in the league. Yet those 3,357 yards are still 300 more than Taylor has thrown in any of his 6 years in the league.

 

The other difference is Wilson can throw. He makes pre snap reads, he goes through his progressions, he anticipates and throws guys open. He fully has the mental side you want in a top QB. And most importantly, he runs as a last resort...and even when he does run he keeps his eyes downfield and never abandons the chance to throw.

 

Taylor cant/doesnt do any of that.

 

 

edit: Flacco is like an Aikman. Average stats, but in that SB run he was lights out. 1,140 yds and 11 td to 0 int over 4 games

Edited July 28, 2017 by Runninrams

[BuffaloHokie13]

The Seahawks had Russell Wilson. He's been a top ten or twelve guy since about his second year. Eli has been up and down but absolutely a franchise QB with a good passing game overall and specifically in the years when they won, though admittedly the light came on very late in the year of that first Super Bowl win.

 

If you think I said they have great passing games, maybe I mis-stated myself. But very good passing games? Yeah. Nearly all of those teams had very good passing games. Just look at the list of guys. Peyton, Ben, Eli (#4 in 2011), Brees, Rodgers, Brady, Russell Wilson. As you say, Flacco was on fire, though he has looked pedestrian since then.

 

That's a list of very very good QBs, guys in the top ten or twelve. You can make a good argument about Peyton Manning that year, though I bet you'd agree they simply don't win that Super Bowl with Osweiler or Siemian. Manning wasn't anywhere near what he'd been and yet he willed them on in crucial spots and even when he couldn't win games for them because of that arm problem. he made good decisions with real consistency.

 

Me, I figure it's about 10% of Super Bowl winners who didn't have QBs playing top ten or twelve ball. And you don't want to follow a model that wins that kind of percentage.

 

As I said, I agree that game management should be better immediately. I just don't see this as a team with enough talent to do much damage, and especially so the year we input new schemes on both sides of the ball.

 

It'd be great if I'm wrong, and that has been known to happen.

I'd love to know how you came to this conclusion.

In 2012 he averaged 194.9 YPG on 24.6 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #2 DVOA Defense, and the #1 DVOA Rush Offense

In 2013 he averaged 209.8 YPG on 25.4 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #1 DVOA Defense, and the #7 DVOA Rush Offense

In 2014 he averaged 217.2 YPG on 28.3 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #1 DVOA Defense, and the #1 DVOA Rush Offense

 

In our case:

In 2015 TT averaged 216.8 YPG on 27.1 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #24 DVOA Defense, and the #2 DVOA Rush Offense

In 2016 TT averaged 201.5 YPG on 29.1 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #26 DVOA Defense, and the #1 DVOA Rush Offense

[Thurman#1]

Well sure, I've always thought having a top 12 QB is a good baseline for a team with serious Super Bowl aspirations (you get the occasional 2015-16 Broncos but that's very rare). I guess where we disagree is I absolutely think Tyrod could play at a top 12 level. I think he did just that in 2015 but the attempts weren't high. 2015 Bills offense + Seattle defense is a Super Bowl contender.

 

And on the flip side how many Super Bowl winners are not top 12 defenses? I would wager about the same, 10%. Actually I found this link immediately after typing that:

 

https://www.reddit.com/r/nfl/comments/2zltuy/offensive_and_defensive_ranks_for_superbowl/

 

From 2000-2014, if you rank offenses and defenses by points scored/points allowed, there were 4 Super Bowl winners with an offense out of the top 12, and 4 Super Bowl winners with a defense out of the top 12. Exactly even. If you include 2015 and 2016 the Broncos would bring it to 5 Super Bowl winners with a worse than top 12 offense.

 

So in total since 2000 you're technically slightly better off with a top 12 defense than a top 12 offense, if Super Bowl is your only goal.

 

Does this change your opinion at all?

 

EDIT: To add more to that analysis - five #1 defenses in points allowed have won a Super Bowl since 2000. Only one #1 offense in points scored has won a Super Bowl in the same time frame.

 

But it's an offensive league? Man I think everyone might just have it wrong. And if you took out the Patriots... man oh man.

 

 

The difference being that it's not so much the offense as it is the quarterback. That's what you need.

 

Four defenses out of the top twelve since 2000. One or maybe two QBs out of the top twelve, IMHO, though that's impossible to say qualitatively because nobody can agree on how to measure a QB. You need a very good passing game.

 

And points is closer to being a team stat than a unit stat because it depends so heavily on field position which comes from the other units than the ones you're measuring, and in fact other units can even score points. I'd argue that points scored is around 80% based on the offense. Whereas yards is almost purely a unit-based stat.

[Bills757]

I'd love to know how you came to this conclusion.

In 2012 he averaged 194.9 YPG on 24.6 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #2 DVOA Defense, and the #1 DVOA Rush Offense

In 2013 he averaged 209.8 YPG on 25.4 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #1 DVOA Defense, and the #7 DVOA Rush Offense

In 2014 he averaged 217.2 YPG on 28.3 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #1 DVOA Defense, and the #1 DVOA Rush Offense

 

In our case:

In 2015 TT averaged 216.8 YPG on 27.1 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #24 DVOA Defense, and the #2 DVOA Rush Offense

In 2016 TT averaged 201.5 YPG on 29.1 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #26 DVOA Defense, and the #1 DVOA Rush Offense

 

There's no place in this thread for facts....you ought to know that!!

[Kirby Jackson]

 

 

you got your years mixed up. He won it in 2013. 3,357 yds and a 26/9 TD/INT, and rushed for another 539 yds.

 

you also ignore that it was only Wilson's 2nd year in the league. Yet those 3,357 yards are still 300 more than Taylor has thrown in any of his 6 years in the league.

 

The other difference is Wilson can throw. He makes pre snap reads, he goes through his progressions, he anticipates and throws guys open. He fully has the mental side you want in a top QB. And most importantly, he runs as a last resort...and even when he does run he keeps his eyes downfield and never abandons the chance to throw.

 

Taylor cant/doesnt do any of that.

 

 

edit: Flacco is like an Aikman. Average stats, but in that SB run he was lights out. 1,140 yds and 11 td to 0 int over 4 games

My bad I guess I did mix up the years but they should have won in 14 too. You mixed up by comparing 16 games played to 14 or 15. That's why gross numbers are stupid. Tyrod's per game numbers were very close.

 

I am a Wilson fan (thought that was clear). The point that I'm making that it isn't crazy to think that he can throw for 12 yards more a game.

Edited July 28, 2017 by Kirby Jackson

[HappyDays]

I'd love to know how you came to this conclusion.

In 2012 he averaged 194.9 YPG on 24.6 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #2 DVOA Defense, and the #1 DVOA Rush Offense

In 2013 he averaged 209.8 YPG on 25.4 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #1 DVOA Defense, and the #7 DVOA Rush Offense

In 2014 he averaged 217.2 YPG on 28.3 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #1 DVOA Defense, and the #1 DVOA Rush Offense

 

In our case:

In 2015 TT averaged 216.8 YPG on 27.1 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #24 DVOA Defense, and the #2 DVOA Rush Offense

In 2016 TT averaged 201.5 YPG on 29.1 Attempts per game. His play was accompanied by the #26 DVOA Defense, and the #1 DVOA Rush Offense

This is what I mean. Tyrod in 2015 was very similar to Russell Wilson's production when he won his Super Bowl and lost his other one. And we've only seen two seasons of Tyrod. Is it so ludicrous to think he could improve his game a little? After just 2 years starting? There isnt really enough history to draw on. People say "well no one's done it, excluding these 3 or 4 all time great QBs..." but it's a small sample size to begin with. You have QBs like Matt Schaub, or RGIII, who play at a Pro Bowl level briefly before regressing to awful. You have QBs like Carson Palmer who played the best years of his career in 2014 and 2015 after years of mediocrity. Peyton Manning had arguably the best years of his career in 2013 and 2014 but won his 2nd Super Bowl after his mechanics fell apart. None of this stuff was predictable or likely based on any historical data. What do we say about QBs like Matt Stafford? Or Sam Bradford? Are their careers already over?

 

I'm not sure on Tyrod, not even close. I wouldn't understand anyone who says they are sure on him being the franchise QB. There's just so much uncertainty at the position, now more than ever, so I equally don't understand anyone who says they are sure, or even think it's more likely than not, that he's hit his ceiling. There's no data to quantify the likelihood of a QB who sat on the bench for 4 years, then ran an offense run by Rex Ryan and a bunch of rush game experts, improving or not improving in a brand new offense with a different defense and several different players backing him up. The number of variables are astronomical! I have no clue how it's all going to look but I'm sure as hell excited and not really all that interested in what percentage of throws went to X part of the field and how many QBs managed to achieve X at Y points in their career. It's all so mind numbing and it ultimately doesn't matter.

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

At this point I would not call TT a franchise qb

 

That doesnt mean I dont like him.....still think he is a good qb.....franchise guys are rare

Oh agreed 100%

[Figster]

Are you really comparing modern day QB numbers to those from 30 years ago?

Compare Taylors first 2 seasons as an NFL starter with any QB in any Era you wish including the elite and tell me how many you find that scored 47 TD's (passing and rushing) and only 12 INT's

 

Let me know what you find...

Edited July 28, 2017 by Figster

[Bangarang]

Compare Taylors first 2 seasons as an NFL starter with any QB in any Era you wish including the elite and tell me how many you find that scored 47 TD's (passing and rushing) and only 12 INT's

 

Let me know what you find...

What point are you trying to prove? Just say it instead of making ridiculous comments like blindly comparing TD and INT numbers to guys from 3 decades ago. Edited July 28, 2017 by Bangarang