Tyrod is a franchise QB

[KW95 - JA17]

On 11/3/2017 at 3:31 PM, Domdab99 said:

He proved it last night. There is no QB in the league who could've done better that TT did last night. Constant pressure, a sieve of an OL...but he kept it calm and cool and did what he could. Hit every damn receiver he had all over the field.

 

If anyone ever again says he can't throw over the middle, you need to turn in your Bills card.

 

The running game was awful. His receiver dropped balls and fumbled. He had three monsters in his face hitting him within 2 seconds of just about ever play. He still fought and still had a good game.

 

I know it sounds strange after such a drubbing, but this may be the game that we look back on and point to when we say, "Tyrod is finally the Man."

 

Embarrassing loss, yes. But don't blame Tyrod. He played great.

 

 

OOPS!

[BigBuff423]

To those who continue to support Tyrod as the current (or future or both) answer to the QB equation, if we took away his running ability and elusiveness - which I don't think anyone could say isn't elite at the QB level - would you still maintain your current opinion? And I'm not trying to be dismissive, or condescending, I'm simply asking if we isolated what is the traditional (and usually the long-term) model of QB success does he still meet your standard? 

 

Honest question for discussion, not setting anyone up for a slam or anything, I really want to know. 

 

(Also, I know that's a huge part that makes him unique, but that's not the point of the question, thanks)

[BringBackOrton]

7 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

 

 

Possibly that is because you are looking at a stat that is designed with a gigantic flaw. For example, if a QB comes out in his first game and lays a 50-burger on the other team, going into the fourth quarter up by 37, guess how that dumb stat looks at it ...

 

He's 0 for 1. Because he didn't get a 4th quarter comeback or a game-winning drive.

 

It's an extremely poor stat even for looking at what it's trying to look at. The very least you would do to begin to fix it is to take all the wins that weren't 4th Quarter Comebacks (4QCs) or Game-Winning Drives (GWDs) out of the denominator. Wins should absolutely NOT be counted against the QB in this. 

 

Oh, and right now you know the game where Rodgers was injured in the first half? It's counted against him in this stat, even though the Pack was up by 14, I think when he went out and then lost behind Hundley and Rodgers didn't see a snap in the 4th quarter. Any game the QB starts is counted as a game he might've had a 4QC or GWD. Again, just poorly designed.

 

Right now the way it's calculated is this ((4QC + GWD) / GSQB)  where GSQB is Games Started by that QB.

 

The very beginning of a fix would be to switch it to something more like this:

 

                             (4QC + GWD))

             -----------------------------------------------------

              ( GSQB - (TWGSQB - (4QB + GWD))  ) -  GQBDP4Q

 

 

 

where TWGSQB is Team Wins in Games Started by that QB

and GQBDP4Q is Games when that QB Didn't Play the 4th Quarter

 

(And yeah, I know the names of the variables are clunky and stupid. Hopefully they get the point across, though.)

 

And that's only a start. How should games where the team lost by 30? Or lost by eight when they had a last drive? Or lost by 14 but had two drives that were stopped at the end without the other team scoring? I could go on and on. It's a dumb stat generally. 

 

But at the absolute least you need to get team wins that weren't 4th quarter comeback or Game-Winning Drives out of that denominator, and starts where the QB didn't play in the 4th quarter too.

 

 

He was actually also just wrong. Rodgers had a better number.

[Dr. Who]

In the CFL, probably.

[Thurman#1]

15 hours ago, Scott7975 said:

I understand busy.  I have been really busy too.  Plus the game took a little wind out of my sail.  I kind of expected a loss to the Saints but not to be completely embarrassed two weeks in a row.  Anyhow,  I have not made a new thread yet but after I compile the third week I will make one and message you the link.  Might be a bit.  I'll see what I can do to add yards.  That might be tough.  Air yards probably be fairly easy because of the chart but actual yards I would probably have to search game logs to find each play.

 

As to this post... that was me and yes you are right.  I was actually thinking about that reading a different post so... good points.

 

 

 

Cool. I'll look for the message.

[Thurman#1]

9 hours ago, jmc12290 said:

He was actually also just wrong. Rodgers had a better number.

 

 

Rodgers had a better number of pure 4QCs and GWDs.

 

But if I remember correctly, he is actually below Tyrod (who's very low on the list) in terms of (4QCs + GWDs / starts ). Which is an indictment of the stat. Every time Rodgers went into the fourth quarter up by 20 and the Pack won, it counted AGAINST Rodgers in this stat. Bizarre.

[BringBackOrton]

On 11/11/2017 at 8:38 PM, transplantbillsfan said:

 

12 in 141 starts (8.5% of all starts) vs 3 in 37 starts (8.1% of all starts).

 

Way to cherry pick

 

1 minute ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Rodgers had a better number of pure 4QCs and GWDs.

 

But if I remember correctly, he is actually below Tyrod (who's very low on the list) in terms of (4QCs + GWDs / starts ). Which is an indictment of the stat. Every time Rodgers went into the fourth quarter up by 20 and the Pack won, it counted AGAINST Rodgers in this stat. Bizarre.

All I saw was this post by transplant.  I assumed the 141 starts was Rodgers.

[Thurman#1]

17 minutes ago, jmc12290 said:

 

All I saw was this post by transplant.  I assumed the 141 starts was Rodgers.

 

 

Didn't see that. I was going off a list I saw last year. Rodgers was worst or second-worst. It was a travesty.

[Teddy KGB]

Any other top 10 qb's getting benched this week ? 

 

?????? takes !! 

[QCity]

On 11/14/2017 at 1:13 AM, BADOLBILZ said:

 

The CoT never existed.   That was an exaggeration created by the anti-Taylor machine.

 

He'll bounce back and continue to be a good quarterback.........he had a bad game but he'll adapt.......he always has and he has had to adapt to a lot of personnel changes and downgrades.

 

 

 

 

 

That's the funny thing about cults -- when you're in one, you're not consciously aware of it. If you think there is some "anti-Taylor machine" out to get you (lol), you might want to take a step back.

 

For the past decade this forum has been built on wishful thinkers that jump through hoops trying to convince themselves that some other teams' backup QB is going to be our savior. It never ends well.

[BADOLBILZ]

6 minutes ago, QCity said:

 

That's the funny thing about cults -- when you're in one, you're not consciously aware of it. If you think there is some "anti-Taylor machine" out to get you (lol), you might want to take a step back.

 

For the past decade this forum has been built on wishful thinkers that jump through hoops trying to convince themselves that some other teams' backup QB is going to be our savior. It never ends well.

 

I wanted the Bills to draft a QB in round 1 and was critical of them for not doing so despite the fact that I had Tre'Davious rated as the drafts top CB........not taking Watson in particular looks like a colossal mistake by McD right now.

 

But Taylor can be a very productive QB given the right supporting talent and the system.........and that's ACTUALLY a method teams like the Rams and Eagles are using to make very young QB's look like franchise QB's this year........ but I am always looking to upgrade.   Again, the CoT talk is laughable.   You aren't even barking up the wrong tree you are barking at the moon.

 

 

[BuffaloBill]

38 minutes ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

 

 

But Taylor can be a very productive QB given the right supporting talent and the system.........and that's ACTUALLY a method teams like the Rams and Eagles are using to make very young QB's look like franchise QB's this year........ 

 

 

 

 

This whole notion is just so laughable.  Your QB is supposed to lift the play of those around him .... not the other way around.

 

At the end of the day Taylor has proven he has a ceiling its called 500 football.  If you want 9-7, 8-8 and 7-9 seasons to end its time for the Bills to find the right answer at QB.  Taylor is not it.  Peterman has a dress rehearsal to show what he can do.  He’s probably not “the one”. However, you will not know unless you try. Next is the Bills have to go to the draft.  

 

The move today is really about the future and determining if Peterman is a part of it.  Taylor hit his ceiling and is as good as gone.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Paging domdab....domdab99

 

[bigduke6]

5 hours ago, Air it out Fitzy said:

Any other top 10 qb's getting benched this week ? 

 

?????? takes !! 

top 10 in what,  dumpoff passes?

[BullBuchanan]

Hey all, just wanted to check in and see how this thread's doin'

[BringBackOrton]

4 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

I wanted the Bills to draft a QB in round 1 and was critical of them for not doing so despite the fact that I had Tre'Davious rated as the drafts top CB........not taking Watson in particular looks like a colossal mistake by McD right now.

 

But Taylor can be a very productive QB given the right supporting talent and the system.........and that's ACTUALLY a method teams like the Rams and Eagles are using to make very young QB's look like franchise QB's this year........ but I am always looking to upgrade.   Again, the CoT talk is laughable.   You aren't even barking up the wrong tree you are barking at the moon.

 

 

Dude.  No.  He doesn't even come close.

[QCity]

4 hours ago, BADOLBILZ said:

 

  Again, the CoT talk is laughable.  

 

 

 

I don't visit enough to know who came up with that (certainly did it for comedic effect), but the cult thing seems oddly accurate to me. There's a group of people that pretend to be neutral and objective, but if you dare insinuate that Tyrod isn't a franchise QB,  they will defiantly contest that argument to no end. You'll soon be reading a large cherrypicked statistical presentation on why he is our future, complete with a comparison to Russell Wilson. This thread is proof of that lol.

 

I've read some crazy and amusing things on this forum, but some of the lengths fans will go to are just insane. For example, over the past 2 years there's been this growing narrative that passing yards don't matter. What?? In the dozen weekly Tyrod threads there will always be quotes similar to, "HAH, Rodgers passed for 457 yards and lost! I'd rather take a win anyday!" I mean, we all want a HOF QB, but because Tyrod lacks in that area, there are people arguing that passing yards are irrelevant. You know, a QB's primary purpose. That seems cult-like on a "Xenu and volcanoes" level to me.

 

This was the hottest thread of last week, and that changed real fast in a matter of 3 hours last Sunday. If anyone is out there reading and still wants to know if Tyrod is a franchise QB, I can tell you this -- NOT IN BUFFALO!

[Fadingpain]

Can you imagine if we actually ever land a great QB again! 

 

These QB zealots will flip out!  I mean they thought EJ was good and TT was a franchise player.

 

What if we had a real QB that everyone agreed was great? 
 

These people would lose their minds.

 

[Domdab99]

Well, I didn't actually say THIS franchise's QB...

[The Frankish Reich]

You know how everyone always throws out the old insult, "He'd be great in the CFL?"  In this case, it's true!  And it's not just that the level of talent is so much lower. It's the game itself. It's not Tyrod's fault that the NFL rules/field of play doesn't suit his talents as well as the CFL versions.