JESSEFEFFER

He has a tendency to ask a single question but in paragraph form. It's inherent with someone new to the job trying to establish that they are legitimately qualified to ask it. "I am aware of A, B, C, D, E and F so what effect do you think they have on G?" IMO, as a listener, it can get irritating trying to follow an entire monolog that gets connected to a question at the very end. General rule: the questions asked in an interview should not be longer than the responses.

I dislike the NFL QB rating as a measure of QB play but as a measure of WR or DB play it means alot more to me. For instance, Josh's rating throwing to Robert Foster vs. Kelvin Benjamin. Same QB throwing the ball but such different outcomes. Their love of catch rate in the article is misplaced as it is only a small part of a much bigger picture.

They were a .500 team last year in games Josh started and finished. Do you think an extra win or two is too much to shoot for? Like E-Ball posted, just being an average offense could take them a long way toward a better record.

It's tough for me to imagine Josh playing well within the structure of an offense and what he'd look like doing it. He didn't do that NFL year 1 or at Wyoming (maybe Jr. year?) but he had no choice. He had to make off script plays to extend drives or take a seat. As the team around him improves the question becomes "can he operate within the structure of what's called or is he hardwired to play Hero Ball?" I commented in a different thread that he should play like Bruce Wayne until the Bat Signal goes up. That mindset would be his formula to a successful season/career and that would elevate the play of his teammates. But, he might not be inclined to play that way. Ten is a legitimate target. There is plenty of precedent for QBs getting their team there in NFL year 2. The schedule gives them a chance to stack some wins early and then improve enough during the season to compete at the back end. It's not crazy talk and these kinds of improvements have been occurring with regularity.

Getting in my wayback machine, but wasn't it played at Candlestick when there was still a baseball field cut in the turf? Maybe they played their entire seasons with it that way. I think defenses had problems playing on that field as the footing could be real dicey for reactive coverage or pass rush moves. Almost like playing on a slippery, winter weather field where the offense has the advantage. As the OP rewatched the entire game, did it seem to play that way?

I saw that thread. Roll the dice on potential or take a more sure thing? Someone mentioned Osweiller(?) and Lynch as having shaken the Broncos faith in their abiblity to evaluate QBs to the point where they needed to take the sure thing. If the Bills beat them and Josh is a big part of it, that could reset the needle on their collective opinions.

That was the reading from a sensor on his wrist and was tied to the velocity of his fingers. The drag force on a football should be way more than that of a baseball so the difference in velocity from release to target should be significant. So, it would matter greatly where along the flight of the ball that the measurement takes place.

Didn't bother viewing the PFF link in the original post, but here is a PFF article I ran across on Twitter (has to be from a different writer/analyst) that lays out the reasons to like the offseason moves the Bills made from the standpoint of what Josh did well, the areas of the field they can attack and the strengths of the players they acquired. So we have a reason to like PFF again. .profootballfocus  the-buffalo-bills-put-josh-allen-in-a-position-to-succeed-with-active-offseason

And he wasn't because he did not fit the profile. He was not 1 of the 14 considered because the Chiefs were not sub .500 in 2017 and he did not play enough games that year. I included all the higher drafted QBs since the CBA began in 2011 for completeness but found only 14 of them meeting the criteria I laid out in the post for purposes of the over/under 6.5 wins betting line. I went back and bolded the 14 names that fit the criteria.

Ball security. He needs to make the Bills coaches forget about the 8 fumbles in 19 career games.

I can only think of two hits Josh took on a scramble run that gave me any concern. He did take on some tacklers on a naked bootleg where his legs buckled (home game scoreboard endzone-late 4th quarter-- Jacksonville?) I can think of many more he took from inside the pocket that were more worrisome including the helmet to his elbow at Houston that cost him 4 games. Defenders will take shots at him as he continues to frustrate them.

I would qualify that as learning that 100% hero ball is not necessary 100% of the time. Sort of like Marshawn's Beast Mode, I think we'd all be happy if Josh's hero ball can make spectacular appearances when it's most needed. Maybe he can learn to function like Bruce Wayne until the Bat Signal goes up.

This was looking at what happened to the TEAM"S win total from year 1 to year 2 in a situation defined as: 1) a QB on rookie deal 2) starting ~ half the games or more of year 1 3) the team having a sub .500 record 4) entering year 2 as the likely starter. This was related to the the Bills over/under at 6.5 wins and how likley it would be for the team to improve at least 1 win, i.e. how often a one win improvement in the team's win total was achieved since the current CBA. The answer was 12 of 14, with Gabbert and Glennon failing to "win the bet." A 1 win improvement is a very low Barr for Josh to clear. So, of the 2018 1st rounders, the Ravens won 10 so Jackson is out and Rosen was traded so he is out. That leaves Allen, Darnold and Mayfield as candidates that fit the situational criteria. But , a rather striking trend included in this pool is the number of of times that the teams improved their win total by 4 or more. That was 7 of 14. So half of these situations showed some big improvements in team win totals. Thus, my optimistic suggestion that thinking big about this season is not such a radical idea. The premise is that bad teams draft the more talented QB prospects. That these prospects are likley to play in year 1 even though they are not fully prepared to do so. Entering year 2 gives them many more resources to be better prepared. The current CBA means that a QB on a rookie deal leaves considerable more salary cap room to improve the roster. The trends are that all their teams will show at least a 1 win improvement and one or two will show a win improvement of 4 or more.

I originally did this in consideration of the 6.5 over/under line for the Bills season but it also illustrates an important idea opposed to the myth to which you refer. Big changes in win totals for teams having a starting QB going into year 2 on their rookie deal are trending. The basic thinking would be: 1) Rookie QBs are not fully equipped to win in year 1 and their team's record will suffer fot it. The highly drafted QBs almost always play in year 1 but teams do not fully prepare them to do so. It's like they are afraid to let the veterans on the team see the starting job handed to a rookie without them "earning" it, therefore the foolish effort to give the Petermans and McCarron's of the NFL the bulk of the reps. 2) QBs usually have multiple advantages going into year 2 as the starter that were not available to them in year 1 and they should be noticeably improved. The entire offseason, usually within the same offense as year 1, gives them many additional months to hone their craft. 3) Their relatively low salary cap numbers are compatible with building the roster around them. Year 2 improvement is almost a certainty for both the QB and the team. Teams having a sub .500 record where a rookie played at least 8 games went 12 of 14 at improving their year 2 record at least 1 game (bolded names in the table.) That elminates Mahomes, Luck, Dalton, Bridgewater and Griffen from consideration. Glennon and Gabbert were the only over/under "losers." That's 8 of 14 (excluding EJ) with at least a 3 game improvement and 7 of 14 with a 4 or more win improvement. So screw the sophomore jinx crap and dare to think big. A 4 game improvement gets the Bills in the playoffs and 5 or more threatens the Patriots for the divison. These kinds of improvements have been happening almost every year since the current CBA was in place. Why not the Bills in 2019? QB Drafted # Team Year 1 Wins Year 2 Wins Δ Goff 1 Rams 2016 4 2017 11 7 Trubisky 2 Bears 2017 5 2018 12 7 Watson 12 Texans 2017 4 2018 11 7 Ponder 12 Vikings 2011 3 2012 10 7 Wentz 2 Eagles 2016 7 2017 13 6 Mariotta 2 Titans 2015 3 2016 9 6 Carr 36 Raiders 2014 3 2015 7 4 Winston 1 Buccaneers 2015 6 2016 9 3 Manuel 16 Bills 2013 6 2014 9 3 Mahomes 10 Chiefs 2017 10 2018 12 2 Bortles 3 Jaguars 2014 3 2015 5 2 Tannehill 8 Dolphins 2012 7 2013 8 1 Newton 1 Panthers 2011 6 2012 7 1 Dalton 35 Bengals 2011 9 2012 10 1 Luck 1 Colts 2012 11 2013 11 0 Mayfield 1 Browns 2018 7 2019 ? 0 Darnold 3 Jets 2018 4 2019 ? 0 Allen 7 Bills 2018 6 2019 ? 0 Rosen 10 Cardinals 2018 3 2019 ? 0 Jackson 32 Ravens 2018 10 2019 ? 0 Glennon 73 Buccaneers 2013 4 2014 2 -2 Bridgewater 32 Vikings 2014 11 2015 8 -3 Gabbert 10 Jaguars 2011 5 2012 2 -3 Smith 39 Jets 2013 8 2014 4 -4 Griffen 2 Redskins 2012 10 2013 3 -7 Notes: Watson only started 6 games his rookie year. Jackson 7 games. Kizer got traded to the Packers after year 1 so he is irrelevant to the discussion. If you see any other inconsistencies/mistakes I will edit this post accordingly.

#2 in Defense DVOA last year according to FO. That's much better than a "yards gven up" ranking.

Call it "tight window throws," then I'm good with it. To me, aggressive is a choice or maybe a preferred style of play. As such, I think Allen plays with way more aggression than Rosen, for instance. By their definition, a throw made with crappy protection to a tightly covered receiver is aggression. The only choices may be that or a sack. Allen can create other options so he is less aggressive? Not by my thinking.

Lots to improve upon for sure. He was still .500 in games he started and finished. How did he manage that? It looks to me like he can help his team win while he is still developing his overall game and, in some cases, still be the best player on the field. Their definition of aggressive is weak, imo. It may only be a function of no other choice, an attempt to make plays from a nonexistent pocket to well covered targets. Theirs is a definition that could easily be an artifact of having poor circumstances, limited options and lesser tools to use. That's how George Plimpton would play QB and it's not a choice. Throwing past the sticks on 3rd down is more of a choice than this particular definition. Avoiding the pressure, breaking the pocket and averaging 10+ ypc on scramble runs or creating extra time and space looking to make a play or just avoid a sack and throw it away is another definition of aggressive. Those are aggressive choices.

The thought that there is a path to being a top 10 group is on point. There are ways that having a versatile, deep supporting cast can be a strength in the face of lacking elite talent in the prime of their careers. We'll see what kind of chef Brian Daboll can be with these ingredients. Maybe the lack of elite talent in their prime careeer years, often the diva types, can work to the benefit of the team and, after kicking the tires on Antonio Brown, it's what Beane decided they wanted all along. “It is amazing how much can be accomplished if no one cares who gets the credit.” ― John Wooden

Joe Marino's take on how important the Allen/Morse connection is to the team: The Draft Network:  Mitch-Morse-critical-to-Josh-Allen's-growth. I pegged Morse as the most important off season acquisition in a Twitter post to a WGR poll. Aside from acquiring a better center, I thought the o-line got a Kent Hull-like leader that they lacked last season. Kent's son appreciated the thought. Kent got alot of credit from his teamates for their success much like Joe Marino's mention of Alex Mack in the article.

There have been games where Tom Brady was never even touched by a Bills defender. I suspect he has been the best protected QB of the modern era. If he took a hard, legal blow and got up a little damaged damn right I'd cheer as the Bills need more of those. If he I knew he were knocked out of the game, maybe. If he were done for the year or his career, no. It's impossible to know in the moment the full extent of the event. From an intimidating blow to temporary pain to lingering hurt to game, season or career ending injuries. I definintely know the Bills have needed to hit TB (within the rules) way more than they have over the years so any such effort going forward will be greatly appreciated by me. I'd probably cheer when he took the hit, stop if it looked like he couldn't get up and cheer again when did. As for the the TO fans, its tough to know a ruptured achilles from a tweaking of a persisting injury, especially from the nose bleeds. I judge them not.

Maybe Josh should start learning the guitar, buy a cowboy hat and boots and then PS&E can sign him to an exclusive recording contract. Should help with the salary cap down the road. He can't be any worse at music than he was at drawing the Bills' logo.

He answered a question about a Bills draft mistake or draft/roster omission. To me that's just being consistent to a "Twitter Tuesday" questioner. To say that he mentioned it every episode is an exaggeration but it did come up in different circumstances predraft. The topic could be his Bills mocks, draft steals, edge rushers, etc. Two he really liked are DK Metcalf and Winovich.

Agreed. He has a good voice and his delivery is smooth which is a bonus. He has strong opinions that he owns. For instance, he thinks Singletary was the one draft mistake as he wanted an edge rusher and Chase Winovich was still available and he did a hindsight grading of his mock draft from last August, which was pretty good for being that far out, imo.

I believe he was 1) not a leader of men which is closely related to 2) not being an alpha competitor. My #1 memory of his play is of him collapsing to the turf before Bruce even got there. He knew he was coming and did not have any notion of trying to make a play at the risk of taking a hit. He seemed to have more of a need to battle his own coaches than he did any defenders. I always got the impression that he was not respected much around the league.

Not what I meant. This opinion after year 1 seems unchanged from the predraft opinion . Is it due numbers only? Some particluar set? Or did he actually "see" him play and attmept to put numbers into context? Many people who viewed him as bust risk predraft, including posters here, have since modified that view. Aaron Schatz appears to have an unchanged opinion and I would have been more inclined to ask him why.