thebandit27

There are people in this thread that are either trolling or have no idea what they're watching. That is all.

Oh I don't know, how about the "rarely accurate" part for starters? Should we even discuss "often missing by a mile" and "touchless"? It's massive hyperbole at best, but flat out misrepresentation is more like it. What we have here is a guy that read "the rap" on Allen and decided it's what he'd write. It's lazy. But it's common enough now that I expect it.

What a shock: person posts generalization about Josh Allen without having watched him. This has been the case with Allen since, oh, December of 2017. I'd say it's about 56% accurate. But if the author can get that up to over 60% he might not be a bust.

No. Anderson is really good

Something else to factor into the cost: if Green stays in Cincinnati this year, and signs elsewhere in fa, the Bengals would almost certainly receive a 3rd round comp pick in 2021, so that probably has to be included in the compensation now. So the remaining compensation will basically amount to the value of 10 games of his services and the right to sign him to a new deal before anyone else.

I wonder if SF would make a move. They don't really have a WR1, and Kyle Shanahan knows what it's like to have a Julio Jones type. EDIT: I see that SF is listed as having 2nd highest odds. Guess my thoughts weren't very original ?

I liked them both ? But man was I wrong about Dak

He really needs to be ready. We need a half way competent RT, and he's the best we've got.

Anyone see if Nsekhe practiced? Need either him or Ford to be healthy.

Yes. And Allen is 10/13, because Barkley is 0/1. The 3 times that Allen didn't score a TD? 1) Yeldon's 1st down fumble against Cincinnati 2) a sack on a 1st down against NE that took them out of the RZ 3) the final series in Tennessee where they knelt down

I still get chills thinking about Colm Wilkinson belting out that iconic number. I know most folks think of him as either Jean Valjean or the original POW Phantom, but he was perhaps at his best as Jeckel.

Brady's age showing again; it gets a lot tougher to perform on 3 days rest when you're in your 40s.

Both of these QBs look bad.

Agreed with pretty much all of that. I'll also say that, regardless of how he played in the first 3 quarters, Josh wins that NE game if he doesn't get hurt. The offense is, I believe, 100% successful in TD conversions in the red zone with him at QB; no way he doesn't get in the EZ on the drive during which he got concussed.

It's not the play that's drawing so much discussion; it's the sheer lunacy of the analytical method that people are still entertained by. But if it makes you feel any better, your middle paragraph here is a much more subtle approach. Your attempt at snark, on the other hand, could use work. Guess that'd be lesson 3 ?

You lack subtlety in your approach. If you want to keep people talking about it, you have to be more creative and low-key. You're basically shouting from rooftops I haven't seen any inconsistencies related to poor mechanics this year. Like, at all. His problem this year has been almost exclusively two-fold: making ill-advises throws into coverage and breaking the pocket too soon (though he's clearly better than last year with regard to the latter). And I don't think anyone this side of @K-9 has proclaimed Josh a franchise QB at this point.

Go read that again smarty pants

Wish it worked that way with marriage...like, if I remove all the times I pissed off my wife, I'm one of the best husbands on the block! Gonna steer clear of giving an honest answer on that then...can't say I blame you at this point

And the point of you bringing it up for a 2nd time is what, exactly?

Why would he struggle to be consistent? He's been consistent for 4/5 games this season. Again, he's shown significant improvement in multiple key areas; there's no reason to believe he can't do so when it comes to turnovers etc

Well, you seem to be bothered by your opinion being criticized, so I figured I'd offer a suggestion. But yes, when the only context you choose to add is to make sure that the biggest play of the game shouldn't be viewed as a positive for the QB, that smacks of an agenda. It's your right of course, but seems silly to me

So the implication is that you're just trying to add some context for the poor dude that didn't see the game? Well, call me suspicious, but I find it very interesting that you chose to hone in on the biggest play of the game and make sure to note that it shouldn't reflect positively on Allen. No mention of the fact that 6 of his 9 incompletions on the day were drops or throwaways. That's a pretty unbalanced review if in fact one cared about painting the picture of his performance. Evaluate with no agenda. You'll earn more credibility

What was the purpose of calling out the McKenzie play? Honestly.

I love that some folks get defensive about their positions and then do the "yeah but if you take away this one big play" nonsense.

As I've been saying for months, Allen has 3 clear areas of his game that need to improve before he will be able to carry an offense: 1) play recognition post-snap 2) patience in the pocket 3) stop trying to do too much and take what the defense gives him He's made clear and obvious strides in 1 & 2, and 3 still needs some work. If you aren't encouraged by that, considering where he's come from in the last 18 months, then I would suggest that your expectations are more or less unreasonable