NEW NARRATIVE ON TYROD

[Wayne Arnold]

On 8/23/2018 at 9:55 PM, Shaw66 said:

Agreed. Taylor is a great athlete and he still may be an excellent qb.

 

Sorry Shaw. I love Tuh'Rod the person. But it's already a fact that he's never going to be an "excellent qb". He's a very solid stop-gap QB. Which is better than most, for sure.

[BringBackOrton]

8 hours ago, Ol Dirty B said:

 

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

Haha prove it.

[GimmeSomeProcess]

With that defense he may lead them to 9 or possible 10 wins cause he doesn’t turn it over. But that won’t lead to play off success 

[billsredneck1]

in my 45th year as a fan of this team and the nfl,  there are only 3 qb stats that matter to me and they all, imo, certainly correlate with wins....call me capt. obvious if you will.

 

1.  comp. %   you ain't winning jack hanging around 50%

2.  ypg...see above.    ie. a 15/30 game with 200 yds or less won't take you far either.

3. td/int. ratio....for obvious reasons

 

if your qb can't be efficient in any one of these 3 things, wins ain't happening and every qb we've had  since drew bledsack has been poor in at least 2 of the categories.

 

 oh and i get a laugh at the new pronunciation of tyrod....tuhrod lol.   i think a good compromise would be dropping the o ....tyrd?

[prissythecat]

12 minutes ago, billsredneck1 said:

in my 45th year as a fan of this team and the nfl,  there are only 3 qb stats that matter to me and they all, imo, certainly correlate with wins....call me capt. obvious if you will.

 

1.  comp. %   you ain't winning jack hanging around 50%

2.  ypg...see above.    ie. a 15/30 game with 200 yds or less won't take you far either.

3. td/int. ratio....for obvious reasons

 

if your qb can't be efficient in any one of these 3 things, wins ain't happening and every qb we've had  since drew bledsack has been poor in at least 2 of the categories.

 

 oh and i get a laugh at the new pronunciation of tyrod....tuhrod lol.   i think a good compromise would be dropping the o ....tyrd?

 

 

Am pretty sure Tyrod was good on 1 and 3 .  So your premise is already wrong ?

[The Red King]

Look at Cleveland's defense.  That team is going to follow Buffalo's game plan from last season to the letter.  Lean on a strong D, rely on Tyrod not making mistakes and hopefully doing just enough to win.  Mayfield is their Allen.  There are a number of parallels between the Bills' and Browns' rebuilds.  Wouldn't be surprised to see both teams emerge as serious threats together next season.

[LeGOATski]

33 minutes ago, billsredneck1 said:

in my 45th year as a fan of this team and the nfl,  there are only 3 qb stats that matter to me and they all, imo, certainly correlate with wins....call me capt. obvious if you will.

 

1.  comp. %   you ain't winning jack hanging around 50%

2.  ypg...see above.    ie. a 15/30 game with 200 yds or less won't take you far either.

3. td/int. ratio....for obvious reasons

 

if your qb can't be efficient in any one of these 3 things, wins ain't happening and every qb we've had  since drew bledsack has been poor in at least 2 of the categories.

 

 oh and i get a laugh at the new pronunciation of tyrod....tuhrod lol.   i think a good compromise would be dropping the o ....tyrd?

Tyrod checks off two of those: completion % and TD/INT ratio

 

Just sayin

[Hapless Bills Fan]

17 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

Correlation doesn't equal causation.

 

That's an interesting question in this case.  Superficially, I would say you're right - it's a correlation because teams tend to pass pass pass when they're behind, and shut down the pass in favor of the run when they're ahead, the score differential being caused by other factors such as how effective the team's defense is and how many mistakes (turnovers) the offense has made.

 

On the other hand, I've done some back-of-envelope calculations that suggest effective running teams may tend to abandon the run too soon when they're behind.  Chan Gailey I think was an example of this.  So some amount of causation may be involved.

[bobobonators]

7-page thread on Tyrod. Gotta love it. Some of you sure love to hate the guy. 

15 hours ago, The_Dude said:

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

Just read our boards. No need to head over to the Browns. Tyrod is still alive and well here. 

[BringBackOrton]

2 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

That's an interesting question in this case.  Superficially, I would say you're right - it's a correlation because teams tend to pass pass pass when they're behind, and shut down the pass in favor of the run when they're ahead, the score differential being caused by other factors such as how effective the team's defense is and how many mistakes (turnovers) the offense has made.

 

On the other hand, I've done some back-of-envelope calculations that suggest effective running teams may tend to abandon the run too soon when they're behind.  Chan Gailey I think was an example of this.  So some amount of causation may be involved.

But they are already behind.  I'd imagine the stats bear out teams who are behind at any point in a game are more likely to lose than teams who aren't.

 

Mostly you can't prove causality with any stat that the NFL uses.  They are all correlations.  When you look at the bulk of the numbers, the QB's who throw a lot of yards and TD's most consistently are almost always "good," even with the silly "passing yards are negatively correlated with wins."

[Hapless Bills Fan]

37 minutes ago, billsredneck1 said:

in my 45th year as a fan of this team and the nfl,  there are only 3 qb stats that matter to me and they all, imo, certainly correlate with wins....call me capt. obvious if you will.

 

1.  comp. %   you ain't winning jack hanging around 50%

2.  ypg...see above.    ie. a 15/30 game with 200 yds or less won't take you far either.

3. td/int. ratio....for obvious reasons

 

if your qb can't be efficient in any one of these 3 things, wins ain't happening and every qb we've had  since drew bledsack has been poor in at least 2 of the categories.

 

 oh and i get a laugh at the new pronunciation of tyrod....tuhrod lol.   i think a good compromise would be dropping the o ....tyrd?

 

I think you want ypa more than ypg -- as has been pointed out elsewhere, ypg is a function of number of passing attempts and honest! is not correlated with wins - your opinion not withstanding.  As has been pointed out by a couple folks here, teams that get out to a lead but can run, tend to shut down the air attack and grind it out - while teams that are behind by a couple scores tend to ramp up the passing in an attempt to score quickly.

 

However, there is probably a "floor" for QB performance in passing yards, below which it's a "red flag" for an insufficient or ineffective passing attack.  I noticed it this spring when I was doing a big assessment of QB success in the NFL vs. draft position, and I noticed that my parameters (completion %, ypa, and td/int ratio) were largely sorting NFL QB performance along lines that most would agree with - if someone exceeds all 3 parameters, you got yourself a pretty good NFL QB - but that there were 4-5 other guys getting sorted in, all of them low in the ypg metric.  I haven't gone back to try to figure out where the correlation point lies, but somewhere around 200-220 ypg would be my guess.

Tyrod is one of the guys who sort in without a passing yards floor, Colin Kaepernick is another, Cody Kessler (who?) is a third, Jacoby Brissett a 4th, Alex Smith prior to last season, and I think AJ McCarron depending upon where one puts the floor.  It should be pointed out that Tyrod, CK, and Smith all exceed 200 ypg easily if you factor in their running contributions.

 

[TheFunPolice]

We had these same threads about Fitz right after he left here...

 

Tyrod is always going to be the same QB. Good deep ball, excellent mobility (until he gets a few years older) and ultra conservative with the ball so he doesn't turn it over.

 

He is a more athletic, stronger armed but less efficient Alex Smith. Easy to defend aside from a few wow plays here and there.

 

He looks exactly the same with the Browns as he did here.

Edited August 25, 2018 by TheFunPolice

[billsredneck1]

49 minutes ago, prissythecat said:

 

 

Am pretty sure Tyrod was good on 1 and 3 .  So your premise is already wrong ?

on no. 3 i agree...even though he had probably half the attempts of the top 15 qbs.   as far as no.1  see also saints game...for example. i probably should have used the word consistently....

[buffalobloodfloridahome]

I think we are all frustrated at watching the commentary over the last few years by people who didn't even watch the game and comment on highlights of the game in which Tuh Rod looked good. Missing all of the inconsistent throws misreads and dump off passes in between that kept his completion percentage up as well as very few turnovers. While actual Bills fans who watched the game could clearly see multitudes of opportunities to score evade us time and time again. We are all frustrated at the narrative that was pushed by the media in how he is so unappreciated and why can't they be happy with such a unique talent. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

12 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

But they are already behind.  I'd imagine the stats bear out teams who are behind at any point in a game are more likely to lose than teams who aren't.

 

Mostly you can't prove causality with any stat that the NFL uses.  They are all correlations.  When you look at the bulk of the numbers, the QB's who throw a lot of yards and TD's most consistently are almost always "good," even with the silly "passing yards are negatively correlated with wins."

 

I'm either not writing clearly enough, or you're not putting enough effort into reading and absorbing what I've actually written.  Well, Durrr, the team is already behind.  The question is: what at that point, would best increase their odds of converting the loss to a win?  The conventional behavior for most teams is to switch to a passing attack, which often does get the score closer since the team that's ahead switches to a "prevent" type D that gives up short passing yards over the middle. 

 

The point is, is that actually the best strategy to increase their chances of coming from behind?  Amateur armchair analytics says "maybe not" or at least "not always, at the point where teams employ it".

Your second paragraph simply begs the question "how do you define 'good' in a QB?"  ??

For many, throwing a lot of yards and TD = "good", even if the QB in question is not helping his team win many games (see: Newton, Cam 2011; Stafford, Matt 2011-2013) for various reasons (lots of INTs being one).

 

There's a whole industry grown up around linking stats and causality for NFL games. 

 

 

 

[TheFunPolice]

No matter how good your defense is if you want to win big in today's NFL you need TDs.

 

You can hold a team like NE to 7 points at the start of the 4th quarter and have a 17-7 lead and you are still losing 21-17.

 

Hue Jackson will be fired and Tyrid benched by the bye week.

[BringBackOrton]

44 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm either not writing clearly enough, or you're not putting enough effort into reading and absorbing what I've actually written.  Well, Durrr, the team is already behind.  The question is: what at that point, would best increase their odds of converting the loss to a win?  The conventional behavior for most teams is to switch to a passing attack, which often does get the score closer since the team that's ahead switches to a "prevent" type D that gives up short passing yards over the middle. 

 

The point is, is that actually the best strategy to increase their chances of coming from behind?  Amateur armchair analytics says "maybe not" or at least "not always, at the point where teams employ it".

Your second paragraph simply begs the question "how do you define 'good' in a QB?"  ??

For many, throwing a lot of yards and TD = "good", even if the QB in question is not helping his team win many games (see: Newton, Cam 2011; Stafford, Matt 2011-2013) for various reasons (lots of INTs being one).

 

There's a whole industry grown up around linking stats and causality for NFL games. 

 

 

 

Cam Newton and Matt Stafford are good QB's.  Cam has won an MVP.  JFC.

 

Anyone arguing that passing when you're behind isn't a good strategy is being silly to the point of not understanding anything about football.  Is it less effective if your QB sucks?  Obviously. Should you run the ball down 21 because your QB sucks?  ?

 

If you'd like to blow my mind, produce statistics that show that passing the ball when you're down is less effective than running the ball when you're down.  Produce the stats that show the folks who run in a deficit win more games.  Otherwise, the "passing yards is negatively correlated to wins" is the most worthless "point" ever uttered in the defense of TT.

Edited August 25, 2018 by BringBackOrton

[GoBills808]

4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

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. 

 

I think you misunderstood. My indictment is of passing yards as an indicator of a game's particular outcome, which as you've explained is not a very relevant method of assessing the 'why' a particular game ended as it did. The negative correlation fits the bill, I agree.

 

But do passing yards tend to correlate with QB quality regardless of team record, defensive prowess, or a multitude of factors that also contribute to a game's final score? You betcha. And it makes sense intuitively; in general, the best quarterbacks will be able to accumulate the most yards passing over the course of a season (or career) because they're better at completing passes. They may be ASKED to do this more because their team is behind often, or their rushing offense isn't up to par, but is that an indictment of the quarterback or his team? That's what I meant by looking at 'position-specific' statistics...I believe it's useful to isolate players' individual contributions from how well their team played in a game or over a season, because the complexities between players and units over the course of a game or season are vastly complicated and not necessarily related to how they performed as individuals...poor team or great team, if a quarterback is completing passes for a lot of yards, he's doing his job well. 

 

If you just look at the top 5 QBs by passing yards in a given year, by and large they're going to be among the consensus 'best' QBs that year. Not coincidentally, the ones with the lowest amount of passing yards are by and large going to be among the consensus 'worst'. It's not the be-all and end-all (probably not even top 5) most important QB statistic, but to say that passing yards aren't indicative of the quality of a quarterback is pretty easily disproved by a cursory glance at yearly passing statistics. 

[#34fan]

On ‎8‎/‎23‎/‎2018 at 7:08 PM, clayboy54 said:

Someday the truth will come out. Tyrod is legally blind over the middle.

 

And legally paralyzed when a receiver is wide open...

 

Drew Stanton could be the starter by week 5.

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, #34fan said:

 

And legally paralyzed when a receiver is wide open...

 

Drew Stanton could be the starter by week 5.

 

Drew Stanton?  Nope!