NEW NARRATIVE ON TYROD

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

Someone doesn’t get sarcasm. 

 

 

[C.Biscuit97]

1 hour ago, joesixpack said:

 

all the lols

I know why you like them better but what actual proof do you have that 5 int Nate and AJ chest tattoo are better?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

1 minute ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I know why you like them better but what actual proof do you have that 5 int Nate and AJ chest tattoo are better?

 

OOOOH tell me why I like them better?

 

Go on, you can do it.

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

5 minutes ago, joesixpack said:

 

OOOOH tell me why I like them better?

 

Go on, you can do it.

 

Does the word tentative fit in???

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Just now, ShadyBillsFan said:

Does the word tentative fit in???

 

I'm certain it doesn't, if it's c.biscuit's opinion.

 

 

[reddogblitz]

20 hours ago, Wagon Circler said:

I heard it today on NFL network and just now from Joe Buck.

"He played under two defensive minded coaches and never had an opportunity to cut it loose."

OMG!

This is Cleveland propaganda. Always amazing to me how little the national media knows.

 

are you saying he DIDNT play under two defensive minded HCs?

 

i would argue that he pretty much did "cut it loose" in his first 2 years when we were top 1/3 in the league in scoring.

Edited August 24, 2018 by reddogblitz

[twoandfourteen]

19 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:

 

It might be true.

 

If Taylor plays well this year, that narrative gains a lot of credence.

 

One thing's for sure, his OC last year sucked.

 

Meet the new Tyrod. Same as the old Tyrod.

18 hours ago, Estro said:

With 4 seconds left in the half, 45 yards away from the endzone and he throws a 5 yard pass across the middle.  The guy has 0 football IQ

 

But he didn't turn the ball over. 

[transplantbillsfan]

9 minutes ago, twoandfourteen said:

 

Meet the new Tyrod. Same as the old Tyrod.

 

Speaking of the Tyrod obsessed...

 

twoandfourteen... contributions to Tyrod threads as his primary aim, future on any Bills message board in question.

[BringBackOrton]

4 hours ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Yards are a function of attempts, and have a slightly negative correlation with wins. FWIW.

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 hours ago, MJS said:

I didn't say I had done the analysis. I said I would bet what that analysis would show.

 

So when you said " People can get into all kinds of crazy stats if they want, but none of them are as important as 1) Passing Yards 2) Passing TD's, and 3) Interceptions", you got nothin' behind it, it's just what you assert based on your personal belief. 

 

Got it.

 

4 hours ago, MJS said:

I did just look at teams from the last 4 years and average passing yards per game, and looked at which teams made the playoffs.

Teams who averaged less than 200 passing yards per game who made the playoffs from 2014-2017 = 4 total (three of them from last year, including Buffalo)

Teams who averaged more than 250 yards passing per game who made the playoffs from 2014-2017 = 21

So I'd say passing yards do matter. You are much less likely to make the playoffs if you throw for less than 200 yards a game than if you exceed the averages by throwing 250 or more yards per game.

 

(FYI, there were 10 teams to average less than 200 yards passing in 2017, and 7 who averaged more than 250 a game)

 

I would never say that passing yards don't matter.  Specifically, there is probably a floor - and I haven't honed in on just where it is, but it's a likely bit higher than 200 ypg - below which a QB isn't really a "franchise guy" even if he hits all the other stats that probably matter (which IMO are completion percentage, YPA, and ratio of TD to INT thrown and yeah, I got data)

 

I would also never assert that no stats are as important as 1) passing yards 2) passing TDs, without having some actual data to back that up, but that's just me. 

 

Kudos to you for actually doing some digging.  That's interesting.   There are what, 48 teams who made the playoffs in those 4 years?  So basically, less than half of them exceeded that 250 yard mark.  It kind of supports that there's a floor, but that above that floor, excess passing yards may not correlate with winning or with playoffs.

 

I'll put it out there, further:  Imma betcha that if you go back and look at those 21 teams averaging >250 ypg, their QB are mostly named Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Roethlisberger, with a side order of Wilson, Smith, and Newton and a smattering of Luck, Romo, and Carson Palmer. 

 

Wilson was below 250 ypg in the 3 of the first 4 years he took Seattle to playoffs - in fact below 200 the 1st year, his 2012 rookie season.  In 3 of the 4 years Smith took KC to playoffs, he was well below 250 ypg.  Dalton, 3 of 5 playoff years below 250 ypg.  Newton, below 250 ypg all 4 playoff years, including the SB.

 

The real causation may be that having a quality QB makes your team more likely to make the playoffs - whether or not that QB is putting up gaudy passing yards. 

 

[The_Dude]

I can’t wait to read the Browns boards after 12 quarters of Tyrod. 

[LeGOATski]

If they were so happy being conservative, they would not have made the desperate change to Peterman.

[Teddy KGB]

28 minutes ago, LeGOATski said:

If they were so happy being conservative, they would not have made the desperate change to Peterman.

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

5 hours ago, The_Dude said:

I can’t wait to read the Browns boards after 12 quarters of Tyrod. 

 

Are you seriously gonna go there and do that?

[Ol Dirty B]

7 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

 

In this case it does. But it is cute that you think you know statistics.

Edited August 25, 2018 by Ol Dirty B

[Wagon Circler]

7 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

What about castration? 

[The_Dude]

6 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Are you seriously gonna go there and do that?

 

Am I going to visit the Browns boards to see there reaction to Tyrod after games? Yes. To see what there saying. Is that sinister? 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

47 minutes ago, The_Dude said:

 

Am I going to visit the Browns boards to see there reaction to Tyrod after games? Yes. To see what there saying. Is that sinister? 

 

Sinister completely the wrong word.  I'm not sure what the right word is....obsessive perhaps? 

[The_Dude]

24 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Sinister completely the wrong word.  I'm not sure what the right word is....obsessive perhaps? 

 

Obsessive? Naw. It’s like farting and waiting in gleeful anticipation for the person next to you to smell it. I can’t wait to see Cleveland’s reaction when they realize Tyrod is like a fart — he stinks. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

19 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

(....)

It's true that passing yards do not correlate with wins. However, to use that lack of (or negative if you will) correlation as an indictment of their usefulness in determining actual QB quality would be a mistake for two reasons IMHO. First, because as we all know, winning teams will often elect to stop passing the ball at a rate they normally would in an attempt to run out the clock. This tends to skew the passing yards/win rate correlation statistic.

(....)

TLDR: all stats matter, just probably not in the way you think they do.

 

Few things here.  First, my posts in this thread are specifically addressing the assertion that passing yards, passing TDs and INTs were the only stats that mattered wrt QB play.  I think that's been laid to rest.  They are not the only stats that matter, far from it.

I find your paragraph quoted above confusing.  You seem to be acknowledging one of two primary reasons why QB passing yards are not a good metric for QB quality: when the team is ahead, common practice is to play clock-control and stop passing.  The flip side, is that when the team is behind, teams abandon the run in favor of 'slinging it', so a high passing yardage game is often a symptom of a team trying to come from behin - which is often a losing team.   In other words, you "indict" the passing yards stat as a QB quality metric.

But then you appear to be trying to indict the indictment, as it were, and say that passing yards are a good QB statistic after all, because if you look at the top and bottom QB for passing yards it gives you a rough idea who played QB well - while pointing out your own preferred statistic, ANY/A, which in fact typically sorts QB in a different order and correlates to winning.    If we just want a rough idea who played QB well, one could as well look at the teams with the best W-L records as well as the worst W-L for that rough idea, right?  That's how critical QB play is to the outcome.

 

I suppose overall, I don't buy into the premise that "the best way to look at position-specific statistics is in a vacuum" - since the whole point of a a football game is to win, and the QB is critical to that point, I would say if the stats don't correlate to the desired outcome, they may not be very meaningful stats.