Tyrod Taylor receives high marks for week 2

[Wally The Barber]

By Ryan Talbot (http://connect.newyorkupstate.com/user/rtalbot/posts.html)
talbotrj@yahoo.com,
Contributing writer

Tyrod Taylor's Week 2 stat line against the Carolina Panthers was pedestrian at best. The Buffalo Bills (http://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/)' quarterback seemed to settle for short passes all game and finished with 125 yards passing on 17-of-25 passing. Taylor added another 55 yards on eight carries.
Despite his stat line, Pro Football Focus (PFF) had Taylor has the Bills' highest graded offensive player following the Panthers game. PFF gave Taylor an 80.1 grade (https://www.profootballfocus.com/news/pro-refocused-carolina-panthers-9-buffalo-bills-3). The analytics site noted that Taylor was actually pretty good when he wasn't facing pressure.
It was a rough outing for the Bills offense, but quarterback Tyrod Taylor still made plays throughout the game. As a runner he picked up 51 of his 55 yards on quarterback scrambles and forced a missed tackle. As a passer keeping him clean was key. When pressure was kept away from him he produced a passer rating of 86.1, when pressure got there, that dropped to 59.0.
Taylor may have received the Bills' highest grade on offense, but two defenders finished with better grades for Buffalo. Defensive end Jerry Hughes received an 84.7 overall grade and safety Jordan Poyer received an 83.5 overall grade.
Hughes was strong against the run and pass on Sunday according to PFF.
Hughes was the best Buffalo pass-rusher today while being among the best run defenders as well. The Bills edge rusher finished the day with five defensive stops, which led Buffalo's defense. Furthermore, Hughes had a successful day against Carolina LT Matt Kalil as he recorded two sacks and four quarterback hurries on 28 pass rushing snaps.

http://www.newyorkupstate.com/buffalo-bills/index.ssf/2017/09/buffalo_bills_tyrod_taylor_earns_high_week_2_grade_from_pro_football_focus.html

[BertSquirtgum]

Wtf?

[Joe Fo Sho]

The JFS Rating for Tyrod this week was dog s***.

[Mace]

Probably goes to show that analytics never tell the whole story.

[DraftBoy]

I don't know why people are surprised. The issues with PFF are the same as they always have been.

[Skooby]

Let's trade him for another top 5 starter,
oh wait he's a back up on every other team.

[Mouldsie]

Probably goes to show that analytics never tell the whole story.

Wait, how is this analytics? It's old school scouting. Grading a players performance on a snap by snap basis while trying to account for all intangible variables. Or do you mean the 125 yards analytic?

[Mr. Pink]

He's always going to grade well, especially when he has a decent day running the football.

He simply doesn't take any chances, ever, because he's afraid to turn the ball over. Because he doesn't take chances, he rarely turns it over and since he rarely turns it over and touches the ball every play, he's always going to grade well.

Doesn't mean jack in the real world or in the standings but it's something for people to keep defending him with.

[Fixxxer]

the grade is high because he ran for 55 yards, that's it.

[Topas]

I don't know why people are surprised. The issues with PFF are the same as they always have been.

What are these problems? I dont read PFF, this is a serious question.

[Forward_Lateral]

PFF doesn't watch the games, they just analyze the stat sheet. Not a surprise here, and just another reason why QBR and all that other crapola doesn't really mean squat

[YardRat]

Wait, how is this analytics? It's old school scouting. Grading a players performance on a snap by snap basis while trying to account for all intangible variables. Or do you mean the 125 yards analytic?

Because it fits the definition of 'analytics'.

Also, I would argue it's certainly not 'old school'.

[DraftBoy]

What are these problems? I dont read PFF, this is a serious question.

PFF relies on an assumption of what the play call, read, and what the outcome should be v. what happens. They assign a grade per snap based on that outcome, but there is no guarantee that the outcome is correct. There are some incredibly bright people at PFF, this isn't meant to say they suck or don't know what they're doing.

[Mouldsie]

PFF doesn't watch the games, they just analyze the stat sheet. Not a surprise here, and just another reason why QBR and all that other crapola doesn't really mean squat

It's actually exactly the opposite. They watch every play and grade every player on every play and dont care about the stat sheet. If you're going to criticize something at least know what it is.

- - - Updated - - -


Because it fits the definition of 'analytics'.

Also, I would argue it's certainly not 'old school'.

But how is it analytics? You guys are making the claim, I don't have to try and figure out what it means. See above^

[SpikedLemonade]

TT is a waste of practice snaps.

I can only assume the coaching staff has seen enough and is slowly giving Peterman more and more 1st team snaps over the next 3 weeks heading into our bye week where the 2 weeks off can be used to get Peterman ready to start at home in Week 7 against the Bucs.

Seems like a decent plan.

[daryls61]

Is this a joke?

[Homegrown]

Is this a joke?
Is that a rhetorical question?

[Arm of Harm]

Tyrod Taylor had 125 yards passing, while leading the Bills' offense to 3 points. Tom Brady had 447 passing yards while leading the Patriots to 36 points.

If their analytics determined that Tyrod's performance merited "high marks," then there's something wrong with their analytics.

[Mouldsie]

Tyrod Taylor had 125 yards passing, while leading the Bills' offense to 3 points. Tom Brady had 447 passing yards while leading the Patriots to 36 points.

If their analytics determined that Tyrod's performance merited "high marks," then there's something wrong with their analytics.

Well yeah Brady had like a 95

[djjimkelly]

the grade is high because he ran for 55 yards, that's it.

a nice day for our RB who happens to throw also

[Bill Cody]

The scoreboard gave TT a grade of 3

[Forward_Lateral]

It's actually exactly the opposite. They watch every play and grade every player on every play and dont care about the stat sheet. If you're going to criticize something at least know what it is.

- - - Updated - - -



But how is it analytics? You guys are making the claim, I don't have to try and figure out what it means. See above^


If they watched that game play by play, they are either blind, or have no idea what football is.

[DraftBoy]

If they watched that game play by play, they are either blind, or have no idea what football is.

That's not exactly how it works. They are watching the play and assigning a grade not based solely on the outcome but based on a number of factors. For example, PFF College gave UCLA QB Josh Rosen a negative score for a play where he threw a touchdown because it was a bad pass that should of been picked off (literally went through the defenders hands). The play ended up in a positive for the team, but their score was negative for him for the play.

It's not as simple as saying the Bills put up 3 points, therefore Taylor sucked. At least not when you're talking about how they break down film.

[Forward_Lateral]

I didn't say Tyrod sucked because they put up 3 points. He sucked because anyone with 2 eyes and any football knowledge whatsoever knows that he sucked. He was terrible. Completing passes to guys 1 yard off of the LOS with a defender right there are not "positive" or "good" plays. Anyone who rates them that way should be fired.

[Arm of Harm]

Well yeah Brady had like a 95

And they gave Tyrod an 80. A grade like that implies he was 80/95 = 84% as good as Brady.

Let's say you had two choices for yesterday's game.

Choice 1: Have Brady in there for 84% of the snaps, and a quality backup take the remaining 16%.
Choice 2: Have Tyrod take all 100% of the snaps.

Any particular preference between those two choices? Because if their grade for Tyrod is accurate, none of us should have such a preference. We should be indifferent between having Tyrod taking all 100% of the snaps, and Brady taking 84%.

[ticatfan]

I did not get to watch the whole game, but I seen receivers that are as slow a molasses's. What about not going for a time out at the end and wasted 13 sec on the clock. To blame the QB, when everyone else except some of the defence sucked bigtime.

[Bill Cody]

And they gave Tyrod an 80. A grade like that implies he was 80/95 = 84% as good as Brady.

Let's say you had two choices for yesterday's game.

Choice 1: Have Brady in there for 84% of the snaps, and a quality backup take the remaining 16%.
Choice 2: Have Tyrod take all 100% of the snaps.

Any particular preference between those two choices? Because if their grade for Tyrod is accurate, none of us should have such a preference. We should be indifferent between having Tyrod taking all 100% of the snaps, and Brady taking 84%.

the "quality backup" would need to take a knee every play for those choices to be equal

[Arm of Harm]

the "quality backup" would need to take a knee every play for those choices to be equal

You've raised an interesting point here. And I'd like to raise another.

The first is: what do you do on the 16% of snaps that Brady isn't taking, for the two choices to be equal?

The second is: should you give 16% of the plays to the quality backup, or should you give 16% of the drives to the quality backup? The more I think about this, the more I feel that the quality backup should get 16% of the drives.

Let's say you had two quarterbacks, and wanted to divide things 50/50 between them. The obvious way to do that would be to give the entire first half to one QB, the entire second half to the other. If one quarterback always went 3-and-out, and the other always put together long, many-play drives, then obviously the second QB would get a lot more offensive snaps than the first. Even though the game had been divided 50/50.

So you give Brady 84% of the offensive drives. But what do you do with the remaining 16% of the drives, to make the comparison even? Well, one thing you could do would be to go out on the field with no quarterback or WRs at all. Instead your offense would consist of a collection of offensive linemen, blocking TEs, runningbacks, and fullbacks. Sure, you'd probably go 3-and-out with an offense like that. But you might get the occasional first down here or there. This would also have the benefit of tiring the defense out a bit. Which, obviously, would not happen if your QB simply took a knee.

[kscdogbillsfan1221]

As bad as Tyrod was yesterday (and he was horrible) his O line was just as bad, the WR's were getting no separation and the play calling (especially in the first half) was beyond abysmal. T

at the risk of being called a tyrod apologist, there is plenty of blame to go around for the loss, not just Tyrod. But he gets a huge chunk of it.

[DraftBoy]

I didn't say Tyrod sucked because they put up 3 points. He sucked because anyone with 2 eyes and any football knowledge whatsoever knows that he sucked. He was terrible. Completing passes to guys 1 yard off of the LOS with a defender right there are not "positive" or "good" plays. Anyone who rates them that way should be fired.

Sorry, I wasn't saying you said that. Just quoting your post and addressing the multiple things that were brought up. Should of been clearer.

The question you have to ask yourself is why was the pass thrown to the guy 1 yard off the LOS? Was that the play call? Was it a check down? Did he go through reads and the only result be that WR/RB/TE?

Then you have to ask yourself was it the right decision? Then was the pass accurate, inaccurate but catchable, or inaccurate? If it was incomplete was it because the pass was bad, was it dropped by the WR?

These are all questions the evaluator should be answering per play.

And again that is assuming they get the play call and desired outcome correct.

[ticatfan]

The Bills weren’t very good offensively yesterday, but they were also playing one of the league’s better defenses.

So they’re not making any changes.

According to Jay Skurski of the Buffalo News, Bills coach Sean McDermott said he wasn’t replacing quarterback Tyrod Taylor despite yesterday’s dismal outing against the Panthers.

“We have to stay with the plan,” McDermott said.

There had been some conversation about Nathan Peterman during the preseason (when Taylor was in the concussion protocol), but it’s hard to imagine how putting him in against the Panthers would have helped. And Joe Webb‘s new enough that he’s not a viable option (I mean, they’re not the Colts).

Taylor was 17-of-25 for 125 yards against the Panthers, and ran for another 55 yards. But their limited receiving options would make it hard for anyone to have much success throwing the ball at the moment.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/09/18/bills-are-sticking-with-quarterback-tyrod-taylor/

[SpikedLemonade]

As bad as Tyrod was yesterday (and he was horrible) his O line was just as bad, the WR's were getting no separation and the play calling (especially in the first half) was beyond abysmal. T

at the risk of being called a tyrod apologist, there is plenty of blame to go around for the loss, not just Tyrod. But he gets a huge chunk of it.


"....but...but....but.... drafting OL early is NOT sexy....Any fat slob can be a NFL OL....We desire faster/taller/exciting WRs...."

Said every year by the ignorant going into the Draft.

[kscdogbillsfan1221]

"....but...but....but.... drafting OL early is NOT sexy....Any fat slob can be a NFL OL....We desire faster/taller/exciting WRs...."

Said every year by the ignorant going into the Draft.
yup. living in indiana and watching the colts **** up andrew luck is an exercise in just what you're saying. They brought in Gore and Andre Johnson which is the equivalent of purchasing 2 ferrari's when you live in the backwoods with no roads and need a pickup truck or something with traction.

[Mr. Pink]

The Bills weren’t very good offensively yesterday, but they were also playing one of the league’s better defenses.

So they’re not making any changes.

According to Jay Skurski of the Buffalo News, Bills coach Sean McDermott said he wasn’t replacing quarterback Tyrod Taylor despite yesterday’s dismal outing against the Panthers.

“We have to stay with the plan,” McDermott said.

There had been some conversation about Nathan Peterman during the preseason (when Taylor was in the concussion protocol), but it’s hard to imagine how putting him in against the Panthers would have helped. And Joe Webb‘s new enough that he’s not a viable option (I mean, they’re not the Colts).

Taylor was 17-of-25 for 125 yards against the Panthers, and ran for another 55 yards. But their limited receiving options would make it hard for anyone to have much success throwing the ball at the moment.

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2017/09/18/bills-are-sticking-with-quarterback-tyrod-taylor/

Their receiving options aren't all that limited.

They have a quality receiver in Matthews, a highly though of rookie in Jones, one of the better pass catching tight ends in the league in Clay and a stud dual purpose running back. There's no depth but go look at other teams receiving corps.

Hell, Rashard Higgins had 7 catches for 95 yards yesterday for the Browns, he had 6 catches total all last season. Is anyone going to claim Higgins is better than any of those guys I mentioned?

You need a QB who's actually willing to target players.

[kishoph]

I didn't say Tyrod sucked because they put up 3 points. He sucked because anyone with 2 eyes and any football knowledge whatsoever knows that he sucked. He was terrible. Completing passes to guys 1 yard off of the LOS with a defender right there are not "positive" or "good" plays. Anyone who rates them that way should be fired.

On his show, Coach Sal said at least half a dozen times (before I turned it off) how great Taylor's completion % was. I can see another Pro Bowl in his future. :lol:

[Arm of Harm]

On his show, Coach Sal said at least half a dozen times (before I turned it off) how great Taylor's completion % was. I can see another Pro Bowl in his future. :lol:

Trent Edwards' career completion percentage (http://www.nfl.com/player/trentedwards/2507189/profile) is 60.6. John Elway's (http://www.nfl.com/player/johnelway/2500547/profile) is 56.9. Easy to have a high completion percentage if you just keep dumping the ball off short.

Hmmm . . . I wonder how Tyrod achieved his high completion percentage yesterday?

[kishoph]

Trent Edwards' career completion percentage (http://www.nfl.com/player/trentedwards/2507189/profile) is 60.6. John Elway's (http://www.nfl.com/player/johnelway/2500547/profile) is 56.9. Easy to have a high completion percentage if you just keep dumping the ball off short.

Hmmm . . . I wonder how Tyrod achieved his high completion percentage yesterday?

First half, 5 of 6 for 15 yds. with a net passing total of 6 yds. Although it is better than the 0 yards passing he had in a 1st half last season. So maybe "he is getting it". :balloons:

[SpikedLemonade]

On his show, Coach Sal said at least half a dozen times (before I turned it off) how great Taylor's completion % was. I can see another Pro Bowl in his future. :lol:
Really?

Sal must really miss coaching female soccer teams.

[YardRat]

It's actually exactly the opposite. They watch every play and grade every player on every play and dont care about the stat sheet. If you're going to criticize something at least know what it is.
- - Updated - - -
But how is it analytics? You guys are making the claim, I don't have to try and figure out what it means. See above^

Because it is the "interpretation, and communication of meaningful patterns in data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data). Especially valuable in areas rich with recorded information, analytics relies on the simultaneous application of statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics), computer programming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programming) and operations research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research) to quantify performance" which is the definition of analytics.

Do you think PFF is doing something different than the definition?

[Mace]

It's actually exactly the opposite. They watch every play and grade every player on every play and dont care about the stat sheet. If you're going to criticize something at least know what it is.

- - - Updated - - -



But how is it analytics? You guys are making the claim, I don't have to try and figure out what it means. See above^

Heh.....


NFL News & Analysis

Get the unique insights you can’t find anywhere else. PFF brings you more than the latest NFL news. You get opinions based on our NFL player rankings and analytics.




https://www.profootballfocus.com/

It's analytics.

[Mouldsie]

As bad as Tyrod was yesterday (and he was horrible) his O line was just as bad, the WR's were getting no separation and the play calling (especially in the first half) was beyond abysmal. T

at the risk of being called a tyrod apologist, there is plenty of blame to go around for the loss, not just Tyrod. But he gets a huge chunk of it.

A reasoned take? Where am I???

- - - Updated - - -


Because it is the "interpretation, and communication of meaningful patterns in data (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data). Especially valuable in areas rich with recorded information, analytics relies on the simultaneous application of statistics (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics), computer programming (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_programming) and operations research (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operations_research) to quantify performance" which is the definition of analytics.

Do you think PFF is doing something different than the definition?
Yes, because their "data" in this case (game grade) is subjective. (and does not fall under statistics, computer programming, or operations research)

[Mouldsie]

Heh.....



https://www.profootballfocus.com/

It's analytics.

Cool they use a buzzword as part of their marketing strategy. Sometimes they use real basic statistics but that's not what game grades are.

[Mouldsie]

Sorry, I wasn't saying you said that. Just quoting your post and addressing the multiple things that were brought up. Should of been clearer.

The question you have to ask yourself is why was the pass thrown to the guy 1 yard off the LOS? Was that the play call? Was it a check down? Did he go through reads and the only result be that WR/RB/TE?

Then you have to ask yourself was it the right decision? Then was the pass accurate, inaccurate but catchable, or inaccurate? If it was incomplete was it because the pass was bad, was it dropped by the WR?

These are all questions the evaluator should be answering per play.

And again that is assuming they get the play call and desired outcome correct.
This.

(I encourage certain people to leave the individual player you have a bias against out of this portion of the discussion for a second so you can be objective)

[SpikedLemonade]

I can't make sense of what the author of this piece was thinkin'.

Did he mean "HIGH" in this way?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WeYsTmIzjkw

[Mace]

Cool they use a buzzword as part of their marketing strategy. Sometimes they use real basic statistics but that's not what game grades are.

They call themselves an analytics site. They use analytics they developed for their conclusions, the article calls them an analytics site, they're known for analytics. They use them in their write up :


As a passer keeping him clean was key. When pressure was kept away from him he produced a passer rating of 86.1, when pressure got there, that dropped to 59.0 (https://www.profootballfocus.com/nfl/elite/stats/quarterback/under-pressure).

No idea how you can dispute it, or why you'd want to. It's pretty straightforward.

[Mouldsie]

They call themselves an analytics site. They use analytics they developed for their conclusions, the article calls them an analytics site, they're known for analytics. They use them in their write up :



No idea how you can dispute it, or why you'd want to. It's pretty straightforward.
Right, it's a hot keyword. They do analytics stuff, but that's not how they determine an individual game grade.


In this case, they're using a stat to justify a grade. Not grading based on the stat.

[YardRat]

A reasoned take? Where am I???

- - - Updated - - -


Yes, because their "data" in this case (game grade) is subjective. (and does not fall under statistics, computer programming, or operations research)

We'll just have to agree to disagree...IMO it certainly does fall under statistics, and individual and team performance falls under operations research.

[Mace]

Right, it's a hot keyword. They do analytics stuff, but that's not how they determine an individual game grade.


In this case, they're using a stat to justify a grade. Not grading based on the stat.

That's how they base an individual game grade, Mouldsie, they say so themselves and try and make their rep on it. If you look up the def of analytics, and compare that to what they say they do, it's still not something you're ever going to get past. They grade by the stat and that's pretty obvious, because they're all about grading by the stat and say so themselves.

And back to the basic point, Taylor may well have graded best through the oft mentioned analytics, which like it or not were analytics by definition, but his completion percentage hardly meant a crap for 107 net yards and nothing to show for it in the end result. It meant nothing to the result. There isn't any defending this unless I'm missing something.

[Mouldsie]

You're the one obsessed with (bashing) Tyrod (understandable because you don't see him as the future and want to throw some different **** on the wall / the known unknown is intriguing).

I'm defending the claim that because PFF does subjective grading of players based on all 22 video of each snap that player was involved in AND that they graded Tyrod as not being as ****ty as our super smart Bills fans say THAT MEANS football analytics are useless.

1) PFF does do some analytics. Never disputed that. They even take their non analytics information (grades) and try to apply them analytically (i.e. grades over time, average grades, grades vs peers, vs common opponents etc).
2) What I am saying is that the way they grade a player from a game is not based in analytics because none of it is objective. See DraftBoy's posts as an explainer on how a game grade is given.
3) Tyrod's grade is not analytics. When you take that grade and defend it with stats, compare it to other grades, etc then it becomes "analytics"
4) That is not what people are criticizing
5) None of that means that analytics in football are bunk.

Of course this is just gonna keep going around in circles because "OMG 125 YARDS" ---which is so ironic, given the "analytics are stupid" backdrop, that it actually makes this funny/tolerable.

[Forward_Lateral]

Ah another idiot to my ignore list

[Joe Fo Sho]

I wonder how Tyrod would have graded out if it wasn't for his last drive when the Panthers were playing that stout prevent defense?

Through 57 minutes and 25 seconds Tyrod was 10/16 for 74 yards. Those are the kind of numbers I want my starting QB to have, analytics or not...STUD.

[Mouldsie]

Ah another idiot to my ignore list

Goodbye snowflake

[Mouldsie]

I wonder how Tyrod would have graded out if it wasn't for his last drive when the Panthers were playing that stout prevent defense?

Through 57 minutes and 25 seconds Tyrod was 10/16 for 74 yards. Those are the kind of numbers I want my starting QB to have, analytics or not...STUD.

I see another person who likes to talk to himself here

[Skooby]

Ah another idiot to my ignore list
Haha, trying to defend Tyrod's play is just about as sad as it gets.

[Skooby]

I wonder how Tyrod would have graded out if it wasn't for his last drive when the Panthers were playing that stout prevent defense?

Through 57 minutes and 25 seconds Tyrod was 10/16 for 74 yards. Those are the kind of numbers I want my starting QB to have, analytics or not...STUD.
He would of graded out terribly. Tyrod literally kept the defense on the field all day long and they stood their ground allowing 3 FG's. Tyrod can't and will not pull his weight, its plain for all to see but some still refuse to accept it.

[Joe Fo Sho]

I see another person who likes to talk to himself here

Seems like you were listening.

[Forward_Lateral]

Haha, trying to defend Tyrod's play is just about as sad as it gets.
It's one thing to defend his play, it's another to ramble on and on and on and on and accuse those who don't have the same opinion as you do to be biased because they don't like Tyrod.

I don't know Tyrod as a person, I have no issues with him personally. I think he's a mediocre at best QB who can make plays with his legs, but when push comes to shove won't win you a game with his arm.

He's a one read, then tuck it off and run or check it down QB.

[Joe Fo Sho]

He would of graded out terribly. Tyrod literally kept the defense on the field all day long and they stood their ground allowing 3 FG's. Tyrod can't and will not pull his weight, its plain for all to see but some still refuse to accept it.

21 minutes of possession, 1 first down in the 1st half, 66 yards receiving between our receivers...no reason to panic.

We had the ball for 6 minutes and 53 seconds in the 1st half, so the Panthers had more TOP in the first half than we had all game.

1st drive - 1 min 6 sec, 3 plays (punt)
2nd drive - 2 min 1 sec, 3 plays (punt)
3rd drive - 3 min 8 sec, 6 plays (punt)
4th drive - 32 sec 3 plays (punt)
5th drive - 6 sec, 1 play (half)

Pretty standard stuff for an NFL offense, no need for change. There's nothing to worry about.

[ICRockets]

It's one thing to defend his play, it's another to ramble on and on and on and on and accuse those who don't have the same opinion as you do to be biased because they don't like Tyrod.


"If you want to just say 'Tyrod isn't AS bad as some of you are saying' then that's fine, but if you want to actually EXPLAIN AND SUPPORT that take, you can go **** yourself."

[Mouldsie]

I'm not even talking about Tyrod.

I'm talking about whether or not a subjective game grade based on human judgment constitutes analytics and whether that grade makes analytics a useless practice in football.

- - - Updated - - -



Pretty standard stuff for an NFL offense, no need for change. There's nothing to worry about.

I'd love to meet the idiots saying that, you and I could give them hell!

[yordad]

These replies hurt. Lmao

[Arm of Harm]

You're the one obsessed with (bashing) Tyrod (understandable because you don't see him as the future and want to throw some different **** on the wall / the known unknown is intriguing).

I'm defending the claim that because PFF does subjective grading of players based on all 22 video of each snap that player was involved in AND that they graded Tyrod as not being as ****ty as our super smart Bills fans say THAT MEANS football analytics are useless.

1) PFF does do some analytics. Never disputed that. They even take their non analytics information (grades) and try to apply them analytically (i.e. grades over time, average grades, grades vs peers, vs common opponents etc).
2) What I am saying is that the way they grade a player from a game is not based in analytics because none of it is objective. See DraftBoy's posts as an explainer on how a game grade is given.
3) Tyrod's grade is not analytics. When you take that grade and defend it with stats, compare it to other grades, etc then it becomes "analytics"
4) That is not what people are criticizing
5) None of that means that analytics in football are bunk.

Of course this is just gonna keep going around in circles because "OMG 125 YARDS" ---which is so ironic, given the "analytics are stupid" backdrop, that it actually makes this funny/tolerable.

Statistics, when used well, can be a very powerful tool. But the average person doesn't understand statistics. They cannot tell the difference between a correct, rigorous use of statistical methods, versus a case of shoddy statistical methodology used to support clearly erroneous conclusions. Hence the overused and inaccurate Mark Twain quote.

Football analytics is similar to statistics, in that it can be a powerful tool when used well. But when used incorrectly, it can cause people to reach erroneous conclusions. In this particular instance, the erroneous conclusion is their claim that Tyrod played well against the Panthers.

If a poorly engineered car breaks down all the time, it doesn't mean that engineering is bunk, or that cars in general are trash. Likewise, the fact that not everyone who attempts football analytics is actually good at it, does not invalidate football analytics as a whole.