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!

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

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

 

In other words, you define “good QB” as “throwing for a lot of yards and TDs”.  

Got it.

 

Quote

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.

 

I’m not going to respond to this for the most part.   You’re verging very close on being personally attacking/insulting and I don’t choose to engage with that, except to say that you appear to be totally missing the point, and I don’t particularly feel the need to defend that I know a little bit about football.

 

I’ll put out a notion though.  Go look at Newton’s passing yards and his team’s W-L record.  It’s not very hard to see that he became a more effective QB - when he passed less, and took more sacks - with about the same number of TD.  Why?  He was turning the ball over less, and overall being a more effective QB who took what the D gave him.    You can do a similar thing with Matt Stanford.

 

G’day!

[BringBackOrton]

9 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

In other words, you define “good QB” as “throwing for a lot of yards and TDs”.  

Got it.

 

 

I’m not going to respond to this.  You’re verging very close on being personally attacking/insulting and I don’t choose to engage with that, except to say that you appear to be totally missing the point, and I don’t think I need to defend that I know a little bit about football.

Um. Yes.  

 

Do you think Stafford and Cam AREN'T good QB's?

 

I'm not personally attacking YOU.  I'm attacking the thought that you brought up, this one.  

 

"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"."

 

This is crazy.  Actually crazy. Implying that running the ball is more effective than passing as a strategy when you are down is basically sacrilege.  It's akin to implying that FG's are better to get that TD's.  

 

I mean, I'd need to see some hard numbers that imply ANYTHING of the sort before I'd even listen to that.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

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. (...

 

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. 

 

Then it would be a good thing that I didn’t say passing yards aren’t indicative of the quality of a QB, isn’t it?  My point is - you could look at another statistic - say, “team wins” and make the same statement - if you just look at the top 5 QB by wins in any given year, by and large they’re going to be among (fill in rest of statement).  But no one who studies player performance statistics would argue that team wins are an important metric for QB performance.

 

In any event, I think we agree more than we disagree with the above - passing yards overall are not a top-5 QB statistic or a “be all and end all”, and sure, roughly QB who can sling it and complete passes tend to be good NFL QB and QB who can’t, well, aren’t.  The reasons why “not a top 5 QB statistic” or “be all and end all”, I would guess you know and we probably also agree on (how many sacks?  How many INTs/fumbles?  Is this a guy who is moving the chains consistently, or missing a lot of “gimmes” then padding his yardage with deep zip-code balls?).

 

 

[nedboy7]

the negative obsession w tyrod is amazing.  Like trump supporters and Hillary. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by nedboy7

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 minutes ago, BringBackOrton said:

Um. Yes.  

 

Do you think Stafford and Cam AREN'T good QB's?

 

I'm not personally attacking YOU.  I'm attacking the thought that you brought up, this one.  

 

"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"."

 

This is crazy.  Actually crazy. Implying that running the ball is more effective than passing as a strategy when you are down is basically sacrilege.  It's akin to implying that FG's are better to get that TD's.  

 

I mean, I'd need to see some hard numbers that imply ANYTHING of the sort before I'd even listen to that.

 

OK, this is better.  You’ve left out the stuff about silly and not understanding anything about football, so I’ll go.

 

Last point first: it’s a hard case to put hard numbers on, because one winds up comparing Team A and Team B and one can always argue that Team B had better talent or faced a worse D or something.  But let’s run a test case to see if I can get you to understand what I’m saying from a theoretical perspective.  I actually did a pretty hard analysis on a Bills game back in 2011 or 2012, it’s in the archives somewhere.

 

Key words: “at least, not always, at the point where teams employ it”.  Now of course, if your team has a Pinball Wizard at QB like Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers, sure, sling it.  But most teams don’t, so let’s look.

 

Let’s say your team comes out 21 points behind at the half, 24 points when you get your hands on the ball 5 minutes into the 3rd Q.  What is the driver for passing?  In theory, it’s a more efficient use of the clock.  Your WR can get OOB and stop the clock.  You can achieve more yards per minute.  But is that what you need to do?  Is that your best strategy in this situation?  Presumably, either your QB has been throwing picks or your D hasn’t been getting reliable stops, or you wouldn’t be in this hole.  So you’ve got 25 minutes of game time left.  In the game I analyzed, we had Fredex and a competent CJ knocking off 5 YPA, and we were only about 20% slower per run play than per pass play because we weren’t good at working the sidelines.  It could be calculated that we had a better probability of scoring 4x while minimizing the probability that the other team would score, by sticking to the run with a judicious mix of passing, than by scrapping that and doing what Gailey did, which was going all pass-happy.  I’m pretty sure I’ve seen some other teams and games where that was true.

 

Of course, if you need 3 scores in 5 minutes or whatever, then your only option is pretty much Hail Marys, onside kicks, and prayers.

 

First point last: I think Matt Stanford is a very good QB now - has been very very good for the last 3 years.  Before that, he had a stellar season his 3rd year in the league, followed by 2 years where he passed a lot and threw a lot of TD, but also a lot of INTs and fumbled a lot, and hurt his team.  So even though he passed a lot and threw a lot of TDs in those early years, IMO he wasn’t a very good QB.

 

Likewise, Newton in his record-setting passing yards rookie season, was not a very good QB.  He threw too many picks and didn’t take care of the football.  It wasn’t until his third season, when he passed for 700 yards less (about 40 ypg less) and threw about the same number of TD but fewer picks and fumbles, that he became a good QB.  Since then he’s had ups and downs - his 2015 season was stellar, but the seasons flanking it not so much nor last season.  He’s certainly a dangerous QB who can burn you at any moment if you don’t take care, but I don’t consider him elite (JMO).

[twoandfourteen]

9 hours ago, GoBills808 said:

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. 

 

Ding! Ding! Ding!

 

There is a reason my profile picture is what it is. 

[Teddy KGB]

42 minutes ago, nedboy7 said:

the negative obsession w tyrod is amazing.  Like trump supporters and Hillary. 

 

Reported.        Start a PPP thread 

[atlbillsfan1975]

Good lord these types of threads will always exist. Tyrod is what he is guys. There is no more ‘potential’. Tyrod is never going to be a guy who can put a team on his back and win a game. Tyrod can manage a game and keep a team in the hunt. Tyrod will never win a Super Bowl. That’s why you play the game.

[BringBackOrton]

43 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

OK, this is better.  You’ve left out the stuff about silly and not understanding anything about football, so I’ll go.

 

Last point first: it’s a hard case to put hard numbers on, because one winds up comparing Team A and Team B and one can always argue that Team B had better talent or faced a worse D or something.  But let’s run a test case to see if I can get you to understand what I’m saying from a theoretical perspective.  I actually did a pretty hard analysis on a Bills game back in 2011 or 2012, it’s in the archives somewhere.

 

Key words: “at least, not always, at the point where teams employ it”.  Now of course, if your team has a Pinball Wizard at QB like Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers, sure, sling it.  But most teams don’t, so let’s look.

 

Let’s say your team comes out 21 points behind at the half, 24 points when you get your hands on the ball 5 minutes into the 3rd Q.  What is the driver for passing?  In theory, it’s a more efficient use of the clock.  Your WR can get OOB and stop the clock.  You can achieve more yards per minute.  But is that what you need to do?  Is that your best strategy in this situation?  Presumably, either your QB has been throwing picks or your D hasn’t been getting reliable stops, or you wouldn’t be in this hole.  So you’ve got 25 minutes of game time left.  In the game I analyzed, we had Fredex and a competent CJ knocking off 5 YPA, and we were only about 20% slower per run play than per pass play because we weren’t good at working the sidelines.  It could be calculated that we had a better probability of scoring 4x while minimizing the probability that the other team would score, by sticking to the run with a judicious mix of passing, than by scrapping that and doing what Gailey did, which was going all pass-happy.  I’m pretty sure I’ve seen some other teams and games where that was true.

 

Of course, if you need 3 scores in 5 minutes or whatever, then your only option is pretty much Hail Marys, onside kicks, and prayers.

 

First point last: I think Matt Stanford is a very good QB now - has been very very good for the last 3 years.  Before that, he had a stellar season his 3rd year in the league, followed by 2 years where he passed a lot and threw a lot of TD, but also a lot of INTs and fumbled a lot, and hurt his team.  So even though he passed a lot and threw a lot of TDs in those early years, IMO he wasn’t a very good QB.

 

Likewise, Newton in his record-setting passing yards rookie season, was not a very good QB.  He threw too many picks and didn’t take care of the football.  It wasn’t until his third season, when he passed for 700 yards less (about 40 ypg less) and threw about the same number of TD but fewer picks and fumbles, that he became a good QB.  Since then he’s had ups and downs - his 2015 season was stellar, but the seasons flanking it not so much nor last season.  He’s certainly a dangerous QB who can burn you at any moment if you don’t take care, but I don’t consider him elite (JMO).

But there's no numbers to support this.  Let's look at it.  We can even do 2011 Bills.

 

Fitzpatrick that year averaged a YPA of 6.7.  The Bills rushers averaged a YPC of 4.9.

 

Fitzpatrick averaged a TD% of 4.2%.  The Bills rushers averaged a TD% of 3.0%.

 

Fitzpatrick had a INT% of 4.0%.  The Bills rushers averaged a fumble% of 4.0% 

 

There is no other way to slice the numbers.  Per play, passing has always been more effective than rushing in gaining yardage and points faster.  The old adage is true.  Pass to score, run to win.  

 

Now surely, there are some games where your QB can't complete a pass.  But that's not common either.  The law of averages supports passing when in a deficit.  Indisputably. 

 

It sounds like you agree that Cam Newton and Stafford are good, so I won't belabor that point.  That's all I was saying, they are good.  Not HoF, not elite, just good.  And they both put up yards and points.

Edited August 26, 2018 by BringBackOrton

[twoandfourteen]

5 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

OK, this is better.  You’ve left out the stuff about silly and not understanding anything about football, so I’ll go.

 

Last point first: it’s a hard case to put hard numbers on, because one winds up comparing Team A and Team B and one can always argue that Team B had better talent or faced a worse D or something.  But let’s run a test case to see if I can get you to understand what I’m saying from a theoretical perspective.  I actually did a pretty hard analysis on a Bills game back in 2011 or 2012, it’s in the archives somewhere.

 

Key words: “at least, not always, at the point where teams employ it”.  Now of course, if your team has a Pinball Wizard at QB like Drew Brees or Aaron Rodgers, sure, sling it.  But most teams don’t, so let’s look.

 

Let’s say your team comes out 21 points behind at the half, 24 points when you get your hands on the ball 5 minutes into the 3rd Q.  What is the driver for passing?  In theory, it’s a more efficient use of the clock.  Your WR can get OOB and stop the clock.  You can achieve more yards per minute.  But is that what you need to do?  Is that your best strategy in this situation?  Presumably, either your QB has been throwing picks or your D hasn’t been getting reliable stops, or you wouldn’t be in this hole.  So you’ve got 25 minutes of game time left.  In the game I analyzed, we had Fredex and a competent CJ knocking off 5 YPA, and we were only about 20% slower per run play than per pass play because we weren’t good at working the sidelines.  It could be calculated that we had a better probability of scoring 4x while minimizing the probability that the other team would score, by sticking to the run with a judicious mix of passing, than by scrapping that and doing what Gailey did, which was going all pass-happy.  I’m pretty sure I’ve seen some other teams and games where that was true.

 

Of course, if you need 3 scores in 5 minutes or whatever, then your only option is pretty much Hail Marys, onside kicks, and prayers.

 

First point last: I think Matt Stanford is a very good QB now - has been very very good for the last 3 years.  Before that, he had a stellar season his 3rd year in the league, followed by 2 years where he passed a lot and threw a lot of TD, but also a lot of INTs and fumbled a lot, and hurt his team.  So even though he passed a lot and threw a lot of TDs in those early years, IMO he wasn’t a very good QB.

 

Likewise, Newton in his record-setting passing yards rookie season, was not a very good QB.  He threw too many picks and didn’t take care of the football.  It wasn’t until his third season, when he passed for 700 yards less (about 40 ypg less) and threw about the same number of TD but fewer picks and fumbles, that he became a good QB.  Since then he’s had ups and downs - his 2015 season was stellar, but the seasons flanking it not so much nor last season.  He’s certainly a dangerous QB who can burn you at any moment if you don’t take care, but I don’t consider him elite (JMO).

 

I could have saved you a ton of time. As it turns out.... a QB's yds/gm actually appears to be a pretty good indicator of team success. Who would have guessed that quarterbacks who are able to move the football down the field by throwing it with the goal of scoring points are more likely to win games?  Weird, I know. 

 

Join me, Hap. Let's go on this little adventure together. 

 

Let's look at the top 10 QBs in yds/gm from last season and their W-L records & the bottom 10 QBs in yds/gm and their W-L records:

 https://www.pro-football-reference.com/years/2017/passing.htm#passing::20

 

After 8 seconds or so of hard statistical analysis, certain trends started to become apparent. 

 

Out of the top 10, only 2 had a losing record. Of the Top 5.... none of them had a losing record. 

 

Out of the bottom 10, only 3 QBs had a winning record. Out of the Bottom 5... well, only one of them had a winning record. (Here's a hint: he has a new pronunciation of his name this year.)

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

10 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

But there's no numbers to support this.  Let's look at it.  We can even do 2011 Bills.

Fitzpatrick that year averaged a YPA of 6.7.  The Bills rushers averaged a YPC of 4.9.

Fitzpatrick averaged a TD% of 4.2%.  The Bills rushers averaged a TD% of 3.0%.

Fitzpatrick had a INT% of 4.0%.  The Bills rushers averaged a fumble% of 4.0% 

 

This is where it gets troublesome to support was my point - because you can't take the same personnel and make different play choices and see what happens.

I appreciate your approach here, and see the logic of your argument (though that 4% INT and 6.7 YPA hurts my eyes to see.)

 

The numbers aren't really right to support the argument, though.

The Bills top rushers, FredEx and CJ, had attempt-weighted YPA of 5.4.  It only gets down to 4.9 when you mix in all the bit players - Choice, White, Smith etc.

(And all the bit players are a small percent of the mix outside Fitzy scrambles)

Likewise, top 2 rushers TD% of 3.6%; FredEx had a fumble percentage of 1% and CJ less than 2%.  I'm not sure where the average fumble % comes from (I usually dig stats out of PFR) but perhaps it also includes Fitzpatrick? whose fumbles largely came on called pass plays where he was trying to make something happen?

 

So now the turnover and TD% numbers are a lot closer.  The two disparate statistics are YPA, which is a differential of 1.3 YPA, and one that I haven't found anywhere - TIME per attempt.  I actually went through a game using the NFL play by play, noted the elapsed time for each pass and each run play, and averaged.  As I recall, the run plays on average took 20-30% longer than the pass plays, and this difference diminished during game time when the defense presumably played to keep the receivers in bounds.

 

The question can then be seen to become "given the scores needed, is there enough time to achieve the scores we need rushing, or with the team's preferred mix of rushing and passing, or is there not?"

 

My point is that often, when a team turns very pass heavy because they're behind, they actually have the time to make those scores with their preferred mix, and the slower pace would be to their benefit (minimizing the other team's time on offense), so that might not be what they should actually do.

 

10 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

There is no other way to slice the numbers.  Per play, passing has always been more effective than rushing in gaining yardage and points faster.  The old adage is true.  Pass to score, run to win.  

 

The other way to slice the numbers, and the way I'm slicing it, is to ask "is that higher efficiency in YPA and time per attempt a) needed to achieve the scores in the time remaining b) to the team's benefit, overall, in that it may give the ball to the other team's offense for longer?

 

What you're saying is the conventional wisdom, what I'm saying is that sometimes I believe that conventional wisdom is wrong, and coaches make changes to their play mix that is based on gut feeling or truisms (as you say) rather than actually maximizing win probability given the score differential and the remaining time.

 

10 hours ago, BringBackOrton said:

It sounds like you agree that Cam Newton and Stafford are good, so I won't belabor that point.  That's all I was saying, they are good.  Not HoF, not elite, just good.  And they both put up yards and points.

 

We agree that they're good in the sense of "above average", but I thought the original contention was that if one looks at the top-5 passing yardage QB, you find the best (ie elite) QB in that list - not just good, elite.  And I'm not sure we agree on my point that it's not always so, and that sometimes for individual QB who have shown they can really rack up the passing yards, "less is more" because it reflects their transition to doing other things that QB are supposed to do such as taking the easy short pass over the lower-percentage deep throw and taking care of the football.  Stafford would be an example of a QB who has made the transition and still racks up the yardage.  Newton is off-and-on to this point, sort of like a superior version of Eli Manning (another QB who has sometimes hurt his team when he racks up 250 ypg and pushes 4000 yds in a season)

 

Anyway, good convo now so Thanks!

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

11 hours ago, atlbillsfan1975 said:

Good lord these types of threads will always exist. Tyrod is what he is guys. There is no more ‘potential’. Tyrod is never going to be a guy who can put a team on his back and win a game. Tyrod can manage a game and keep a team in the hunt. Tyrod will never win a Super Bowl. That’s why you play the game.

 

...seems to me to be a fair and equitable assessment.......and TT is NOT alone......how many guys can actually do this with regularity and consistency?...not many IMO....great teammate, great work ethic and competitor.....he just doesn't possess EVERY intangible that sets the great ones apart from the good ones, and you mentioned one of them...no harm, no foul here....maybe Hugh can get him closer to the next level.....best of luck TT.......

[nedboy7]

12 hours ago, Teddy KGB said:

 

Reported.        Start a PPP thread 

 

You have such touchy feelings. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by nedboy7

[Socal-805]

On 8/23/2018 at 9:57 PM, Gugny said:

“It’s always going to be twice as bad just because of who I am – an African-American quarterback,” Taylor said. “Look across the league, man. We’re held to a certain standard. We almost have to be perfect.

“I wouldn’t say it’s just an African-American quarterback thing. It’s an African-American athlete thing – or just an African-American thing. And that’s not anything I just found out. It’s been that way since I was a kid.”

 

So, he's been a crappy QB since he was a kid.  Got it.

 

" dilusional "  African-American quarterback.

 

Always cracks me up when someone gets criticized for poor performance and THEN plays the race card:  OWN it dude.

 

And the truth is,  he didn't take nearly as much heat for that statement as I though he might, probably because people in Buffalo were pulling for him.

 

On 8/24/2018 at 5:18 AM, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Tyrod, whatever he is to anyone, has more wins, starts, TD’s,  probowls and career contract earnings Then all 3 Bills QBs combined. 

 

I unstand being happy the team has moved on, but the level of vitriol and hate are simply out of line with the facts. 

 

Jeez, can't he just SUCK - and leave it at that??

 

TYrod tried to make it personal - playing the race card - It didn't work but nobody HATED him for it.  

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

35 minutes ago, Socal-805 said:

 

" dilusional "  African-American quarterback.

 

Always cracks me up when someone gets criticized for poor performance and THEN plays the race card:  OWN it dude.

 

And the truth is,  he didn't take nearly as much heat for that statement as I though he might, probably because people in Buffalo were pulling for him.

 

 

Jeez, can't he just SUCK - and leave it at that??

 

TYrod tried to make it personal - playing the race card - It didn't work but nobody HATED him for it.  

 

Because he doesn’t ‘suck’. He’s just not an elite QB.

 

i don’t know why people think he is the worst ever.

 

He simply isn’t. The facts have proven otherwise 

 

[Socal-805]

5 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

 

Because he doesn’t ‘suck’. He’s just not an elite QB.

 

i don’t know why people think he is the worst ever.

 

He simply isn’t. The facts have proven otherwise 

 

 

Actual Facts:  1 game

 

17 for 37 passing

 

46 % completion 

 

134 yards 

 

3.6 yards / attempt

 

1 INT

 

2 sacks

 

===================== NOT ELITE 

 

Guess who?

 

 

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

4 minutes ago, Socal-805 said:

 

Actual Facts:  1 game

 

17 for 37 passing

 

46 % completion 

 

134 yards 

 

3.6 yards / attempt

 

1 INT

 

2 sacks

 

===================== NOT ELITE 

 

Guess who?

 

 

 

 

...WHO CARES?...stats alone mean squat and are easily manipulate d to prove one's point and disprove another's...next question...........HINT: Dilfer got his 2000 SB ring with a prolific performance of 125 yds passing...now what?.................

[ngbills]

Actual Facts:  1 game

 

14 for 28 passing

 

50 % completion 

 

123 yards 

 

4.39 yards / attempt

 

4 INT

 

2 sacks

 

===================== NOT ELITE 

 

Guess who?  

 

Yeah that guy obviously sucks. How is he in the NFL. Wait, its Tom Brady. 

 

Edited August 26, 2018 by ngbills

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

But Tom Brady does suck 

 

 

Has Tom Brady ever had 3 very bad games in 4? 

 

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

2 hours ago, Socal-805 said:

 

Actual Facts:  1 game

 

17 for 37 passing

 

46 % completion 

 

134 yards 

 

3.6 yards / attempt

 

1 INT

 

2 sacks

 

===================== NOT ELITE 

 

Guess who?

 

 

 

 

 Aaron Rodgers ?

 

oops no he was 

 

17/42

 

40.5 percent completion 

 

185 yards

 

4.4 ypa

 

2 ints

 

1 sack 

 

Not saying Tyrod = A rod, you did 

 

 

2 hours ago, ngbills said:

Actual Facts:  1 game

 

14 for 28 passing

 

50 % completion 

 

123 yards 

 

4.39 yards / attempt

 

4 INT

 

2 sacks

 

===================== NOT ELITE 

 

Guess who?  

 

Yeah that guy obviously sucks. How is he in the NFL. Wait, its Tom Brady. 

 

Exactly- elite guys have bad games and so do bad ones, so do average ones. 

 

Tyrod isnt elite, but he’s proven himself beyond any of the other guys on the roster by quite a lot. 

 

Ps I hate this thread, guy is gone, Bills have moved on, I belive for all the right reasons, but the narrative this guy is the worst to ever play the game is wrong. 

 

Mccarron and Peterman have proven in no way they are upgrades. If Josh doesn’t pan out we are going to see the worst Bills qb play in several years. 

Edited August 26, 2018 by Over 29 years of fanhood