Tyrod wants to “Continue to be accurate..”

[CaptnCoke11]

He’s one of least accurate QBs ive seen play.  Never places the ball accurately for receivers to continue running.  High, low etc.  completion percentage is decent because he constantly checks it down.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 minute ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

I will gladly take 30 passing TD's and 10 INT's if the end result is an extra win or 2 to lock up the 5th seed.  

 

That is obviously the "live lion" situation but what if it's 13 TDs and 10 INTs (Foles has been called "garbage" for 2014 in Philly) or 24 TD and 23 INT (Bills 2011)?  Because that is what you can get if you have a QB who is willing to "sling it" and take a shot with unfamiliar WR he isn't exactly in sync with or with WR who really aren't that good (or if he really isn't that good, to be fair to all possibilities).

 

I'm not debating "Tyrod is great" here, but people who want our QB to be careless with the ball seem to have "Mommy memory" that forgets the last time the Bills were #10 in passing attempts and #15 in passing yards, 23 INTs is exactly where we were.

 

I forget who said it but it's true: everyone wants to see the QB "sling it" until the INTs mount up, then it gets old, fast.

[Luxy312]

11 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

They could lead to a 14 point swing depending on field position.    An INT at the 5 in the RZ that ends in a TD by the other team is a 14 pt swing.

 

A TD at your own 30 really isn't 14 pts.   

 

Buffalo's D had 3 INT's against Cincy IIRC and netted no TDs from any of them.  

 

I will gladly take 30 passing TD's and 10 INT's if the end result is an extra win or 2 to lock up the 5th seed.  

 

You hit the nail on the head, but probably don't realize just how bad this team was on the turnover front.  In their 9 regular season wins, the Bills outscored their opponents by 74 points on a turnover differential of +15.  That's about 4.9 points per turnover.  That doesn't seem all that bad until you look at the 7 regular season losses.  The Bills were outscored  by 141 points on a turnover differentail of -8.  That's losing to the tune of 17.6 points per turnover.  That right there is Mr. play it safe check down Tyrod.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

25 minutes ago, Teddy KGB said:

Ok, you win.    I’ll change his score from F to D minus.  

Congrats, I don’t get your cause but others seem to be afflicted too. 

 

 

 

Tell me "Teddy KGB", if a point looking like Kate Upton did a striptease on your front porch, would you acknowledge it?

I can't do the experiment, but I can give up.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Hapless Bills Fan

[Big Turk]

8 hours ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

That's the thing. He ISN'T a slightly above average starter. He's a slightly below average starter. Slightly above average starter would mean he's top 15 or so, and it's not difficult to make a list of 15 starters you'd rather have than Tyrod. It is indeed straightforward, but there are still a few on here who don't get that.

 

As for having a good cap number, questionable. Cap number is relevant to two things. Relevant to the first, league-wide QB cap numbers, his has indeed been decent. But a cap number is also relevant to how good a player the guy is. And Tyrod's cap numbers have been pretty high when you look at what we actually got, after that first year anyway.

 

As for what it says that he's the all time leading Bills passer, I'd say it says more about the way the game has changed over the years. Tyrod wasn't a better passer than Kelly. I think everyone can agree with that. But completion percentages have steadily risen over the years. What it says is less that Bills QBs have been bad than that the last two or three QBs, the ones who played in the era when stats were roughly the same, weren't very good, not that that's big news.

 

And it also says something about which stats you're looking at. Orton's one year in Buffalo he had higher completion percentage than Tyrod has ever had here.

 

 

 

 

That's not Tyrod who has the good track record of beating the teams we should beat. It's the Buffalo Bills. Wins and losses is a team statistic.

 

We will agree to disagree. Typically you lose to bad teams because they get turnovers against you and end up scoring on them.  Tyrod doesnt turn the ball over hardly at all, which basically forces the bad teams to play better than you, which usually doesnt happen because they are bad.

 

Therefore, Tyrod is mostly responsible for the record against bad teams.

 

Edited February 8, 2018 by matter2003

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

28 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

That is obviously the "live lion" situation but what if it's 13 TDs and 10 INTs (Foles has been called "garbage" for 2014 in Philly) or 24 TD and 23 INT (Bills 2011)?  Because that is what you can get if you have a QB who is willing to "sling it" and take a shot with unfamiliar WR he isn't exactly in sync with or with WR who really aren't that good (or if he really isn't that good, to be fair to all possibilities).

 

I'm not debating "Tyrod is great" here, but people who want our QB to be careless with the ball seem to have "Mommy memory" that forgets the last time the Bills were #10 in passing attempts and #15 in passing yards, 23 INTs is exactly where we were.

 

I forget who said it but it's true: everyone wants to see the QB "sling it" until the INTs mount up, then it gets old, fast.

 

Brett Favre was a slinger. When he was spot on he was dangerous against the opposition.  When he was off he was dangerous to his own team.   Yet he's a SB Champ. 

 

There are inherent risks and there are also rewards.  

[uticaclub]

The narrative was always "Tyrod is never going to lose a game because he doesn't turn the ball over, he'll also never be the reason you win the game because he can't use the whole field" 

[Thurman#1]

2 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Do I?  I tell you what, I make you a fair offer.  Can you explain to me what "garbage time" is, in any objective way other than "I know it when I see it"?

 

Too often, people use it to describe any throws in the 4th quarter when the team is behind by more than one score, even if they have been moving the ball and stopping the opponent well in the 2nd half, closing the gap.  It's not exactly a surprise that every QB passes more in that situation.

 

 

I do know it when I see it. But beyond that, it's basically when the defense changes from the standard defense to the prevent and starts letting teams have the shorter passes to trade for time burnt and a chance to rush the passer hard. That's the shorthand. You can't get too much more precise than that because it's different based on defensive personnel and strategy, the offense's quick-strike ability, the time left in the game and so on. But it absolutely exists.

 

Can you explain to me in an objective way what a franchise QB is? Does the fact that you can't mean they don't exist? Can you explain precisely what momentum is and what difference it makes? When a defense is bend-but-don't-break and what the dividing line is between that and a defense that just gets pushed around a lot? There are a ton of things in football ... in any endeavor so complex and highly observed ... that can't be precisely objectively explained, and yet they exist. Accuracy, the subject of this thread, is one of them.

 

Garbage time is also one of those things.

Edited February 8, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Cash]

47 minutes ago, ShadyBillsFan said:

 

I will gladly take 30 passing TD's and 10 INT's if the end result is an extra win or 2 to lock up the 5th seed.  

over 14 TD's and 4 INTs and backing into the playoffs 

 

 

Well, yeah, of course.  We would all prefer 30/10 over 14/4.  But that's not really on the table.  Here's the QBs this year who came at all close to 30/10:

1. Russell Wilson - 34/11

2. Carson Wentz - 33/7

3. Tom Brady - 32/8

4. Matthew Stafford - 29/10

5. Jared Goff - 28/7

6. Philip Rivers - 28/10

7. Alex Smith - 26/5

 

There were 5 in 2016, and Brady was the only repeat.  30/10 is an incredibly unrealistic standard, especially if you're hoping for it to happen more than once.  You're basically saying you'd prefer a top 5-7 QB over Tyrod.  Duh, so would everyone.  I'm all for getting a top 5 QB, but it's very hard.  

 

EDIT: Also, with all the discussion around Foles in this thread, I think it's worth laying out his TD/INT numbers for his career:

2012 - 6/5

2013 - 27/2 regular season, 2/0 postseason, 29/2 total

2014 - 13/10

2015 - 7/10

2016 - 3/0

2017 - 5/2 regular season, 6/1 playoffs - 11/3 total

 

It's almost as if the same player can be better or worse depending on the coaching staff and talent around him.  

Edited February 8, 2018 by Cash

[Thurman#1]

22 minutes ago, matter2003 said:

 

We will agree to disagree. Typically you lose to bad teams because they get turnovers against you and end up scoring on them.  Tyrod doesnt turn the ball over hardly at all, which basically forces the bad teams to play better than you, which usually doesnt happen because they are bad.

 

Therefore, Tyrod is mostly responsible for the record against bad teams.

 

 

 

We might disagree, but anyone insisting one guy is responsible or even mostly responsible for a football team's record is wrong.

 

Flat-out wrong. 

 

It's a team game. Success is a team result. It depends on the run game. And the pass game. And the STs. And the run defense. And the pass defense. And the times when the ref thinks a forward lateral on the final kickoff wasn't forward. And the coaching. And on and on. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. 

 

Yeah, QBs have more impact than any other player, but there are 22 others. Was Foles better than Brady? Or was Philly better than New England?

 

When evaluating a QB, you don't look at how well, for instance, the middle linebacker played when he dropped or caught a probably game-winning INT, or whether or not the FG kicker missed or made the crucial kick. You look at how well the QB played QB. Period.

[Thurman#1]

52 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

That is obviously the "live lion" situation but what if it's 13 TDs and 10 INTs (Foles has been called "garbage" for 2014 in Philly) or 24 TD and 23 INT (Bills 2011)?  Because that is what you can get if you have a QB who is willing to "sling it" and take a shot with unfamiliar WR he isn't exactly in sync with or with WR who really aren't that good (or if he really isn't that good, to be fair to all possibilities).

 

I'm not debating "Tyrod is great" here, but people who want our QB to be careless with the ball seem to have "Mommy memory" that forgets the last time the Bills were #10 in passing attempts and #15 in passing yards, 23 INTs is exactly where we were.

 

I forget who said it but it's true: everyone wants to see the QB "sling it" until the INTs mount up, then it gets old, fast.

 

 

It does indeed. I remember the Fitz years well.

 

But that's not what you get when you have a QB who is willing to sling it. That's what you get when you have a QB who isn't very good and slings it. There are no "people who want our QB to be careless with the ball," as you put it. That's some serious spin you're throwing with there, it would cut right through the wind at the Ralph. There are plenty of people who want us to be extremely proactive in getting a QB who is good enough to better take advantage of situations so as to be a lot more productive while upping the mistake levels a bit but not too much. It's possible. It involves being willing to throw to spots before the guy is open, for instance. 

 

I agree with anyone who says that Tyrod's lack of turnovers is a very good thing, but not good enough to overcome the passing game's lack of productivity. We need to stop worrying about bridges and get the long-term answer in here one way or another. We'll never be a really dangerous team till we can have a passing offense that teams respect.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

26 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

But that's not what you get when you have a QB who is willing to sling it. That's what you get when you have a QB who isn't very good and slings it. There are no "people who want our QB to be careless with the ball," as you put it. That's some serious spin you're throwing with there, it would cut right through the wind at the Ralph.

 

You may be right if you cut everyone open and look into their heart (eeeeewwwww!)

 

But it's no "spin" at all on what's been posted.   A number of people, including posters I generally respect, have explictly stated multiple times their position is "anyone but Tyrod" or that they would be happy to see Peterman start.  It's actually "serious spin" to claim these folks don't exist.

And if you want "anyone but Tyrod" or even, a QB who can be good in the right circumstances like Keenum or Foles or Smith.....without serious upgrade to the WR and OL, it follows that's exactly what you're going to get, because a "QB who isn't  very good", and a QB who slings it when he's not in sync with his WR/they aren't very good (or he is under pressure every throw) are functionally indistinguishable.

[Thurman#1]

3 hours ago, ScottLaw said:

Tyrod was incredibly accurate in the deep ball game the last two seasons prior to this season. (When the team was devoid of any legitimate NFL WR and has no speed for most of the year)

 

 

He wasn't, Scott.

 

He was incredibly accurate in the deep ball game his first year. His second year there was a major regression, and that has continued this year. From ESPN splits:

 

2015:

21 - 30 yards: 13/34, 38.2%, 339 yards, 6 TDs, 2 INTs, 90.6 passer rating

31-40 yards:  8/21, 38.1%, 314 yards, 3 TDs, 1 INT, 105.7 passer rating

41 yards and up: 7/14, 50% 360 yards, 3 TDs, 0 INTs, 135.4 rating

 

That's some really good long passing. Over a thousand yards. 12 TDs and 3 INTs

 

2016: 

21-30 yards:  9/28, 32.1%, 228 yards, 1 TD, 3 INTs, 35.1% passer rating

31-40 yards: 3/17, 17.6%, 168 yards, 3 TDs, 1 INT, 83.3% passer rating

41+ yards: 4/8, 50%, 237 yards, 2 TDs, 0 INTs, 135.4 passer rating

 

That's much less effective. Particularly the 6 TDs and 4 INTs.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

the thread title is very misleading considering whom it's speaking of.

[Luxy312]

8 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

the thread title is very misleading considering whom it's speaking of.

 

I think when Tyrod said that "he wants to continue to be accurate" that what he really meant is that he "wants to continue to be a starting quarterback".

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

Just now, Luxy312 said:

 

I think when Tyrod said that "he wants to continue to be accurate" that what he really meant is that he "wants to continue to be a starting quarterback".

                            

 

well, they both go hand in hand but he might be a little delusional since he is not the most accurate to begin with.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

4 minutes ago, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

                            

 

well, they both go hand in hand but he might be a little delusional since he is not the most accurate to begin with.

 

I mean - in the video he was asked what do you want to work on in the offseason.  He basically said he wanted to work on his accuracy, but answered it as "Continue to be accurate"

[Elite Poster]

12 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

What makes you believe he’s slightly above average? I have him in 18-24 best range...slightly to well below average.

 

List the 17-23 QBs you believe had a better season than him this year, not QB situation you would rather have, but performance this year.

[DaBillsFanSince1973]

7 minutes ago, dneveu said:

 

I mean - in the video he was asked what do you want to work on in the offseason.  He basically said he wanted to work on his accuracy, but answered it as "Continue to be accurate"

  

honest mistake on his behalf I'm sure.

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

Just now, DaBillsFanSince1973 said:

  

honest mistake on his behalf I'm sure.

 

Eh - i mean... he's a buffalo bill til hes not.  He's just trying to get paid so he can buy more fancy suits.