thebandit27

Oh I absolutely recognize the distinction where completion percentage is concerned, and I appreciate that certain folks are willing to dig into the numbers and actually recognize the trends. I still have Allen as my QB4, and he's obviously got some deficiencies to correct at the next level.

This doesn't get any more true regardless of how often it's repeated... Dan Marino - 59.4% career passer Jim Kelly - 60.1% career passer John Elway - 56.9% career passer You want to say it's more important in today's game? Fine, go ahead. Let's stop trotting out false narratives like "every elite QB was pinpoint accurate", "guys below 60% in college don't make it in the NFL", and "accuracy never takes a big jump from college to the NFL", because every single one of those is simply untrue.

Since you want to ignore that accuracy does indeed improve in the NFL (as proven by more QBs than I can mention here, but I'll name R. Wilson, C. Palmer, M. Ryan, M. Stafford, and J. McCown as easy examples), I'll just retire from this discussion. The OP wanted someone to put forward the arguments for Allen, and I've done that. Now I'll just sit back and watch to see if he goes in the top 3 as I've said he will, and you all can watch and pretend that NFL talent evaluators haven't had this exact discussion 100x over already and decided that accuracy can indeed improve in the pros.

Why do you keep repeating this idea? Plenty of QBs have gotten significantly more accurate as NFLers, and Staff isn't the only example from recent years I've given multiple others in this very thread

It's in the exact same link: "Sloppy footwork. ... Will get lazy and throw off his back foot, which could lead to turnovers in the NFL... ... Willing to throw into tight spots, though more often than not he places the ball where it needs to be... ... Not great accuracy on crossing routes. ... Too often leads his receivers too far or forces them to reach back, slowing their momentum and limiting their ability to generate yardage after the catch."

Just FYI, a few folks I know in the business disagree with you. They like to see how QBs challenge (or don't challenge) themselves at their pro days, how well they script it to show off what they're good at, and how they script it to show that they can do the things that they've been knocked for not being able to do. Moreover, they like to see how QBs perform when they're at their most comfortable; it's basically a contrast to the combine, when guys have to perform with WRs they've never thrown to, in an unfamiliar environment, after days of being poked and prodded and questioned to no end.

Dude, a Geno Smith comparison? They're not anything alike. Sorry, but I don't think you're being impartial here: http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/matthew-stafford?id=79860 "Sloppy footwork" - no qualifier; just plain sloppy "Will get lazy and throw off his back foot" "Not great accuracy on crossing routes" "Too often leads his receivers too far or forces them to reach back, slowing their momentum and limiting their ability to generate yardage after the catch" And the reason that Stafford was a consensus #1 pick is because he was competing against Sanchez and Josh Freeman for the QB1 spot that year.

Let's play "fun with numbers"...pop quiz: what did Allen's numbers look like against the top 3 FBS pass defenses he faced this year?

You spoke to how each player's accuracy was described; my point is that I don't care how it's described. Both players faced accuracy questions coming out of school. As for Allen's accuracy always being discussed as a negative, well, that's not true. Take, for example, Daniel Jeremiah's opinion on him: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000919918/article/daniel-jeremiahs-top-50-prospects-for-2018-nfl-draft-20 "He generates outrageous velocity and can squeeze the ball into very tight windows." Sounds very similar to Stafford. And then there's Lance Zierlein: http://www.nfl.com/draft/2018/profiles/josh-allen?id=2560029 "Prototype frame for pocket passer. Sturdy base allows him to shake off sacks and extend plays. Rare arm strength and overall arm talent. Has variety of release points if needed. Can uncork suddenly when it breaks open. Able to thread the needle with a rocket launcher. Makes throws that no other quarterback in college can make. Excellent thrower of deep outs. Able to outpace safeties to deep sideline throws. Aggressive pump-fakes open double moves. Turns into competent traffic director when scrambling. Can roll right and fling it down the field with impressive velocity and placement. Asked to read the entire field. No throw is too challenging. Has arm strength and mobility to create explosive plays when play goes off-schedule. Ability to challenge safeties over the top could help running games. Attacks intermediate windows with pretty good precision when allowed to sit down in the pocket. Has experience under center and operating in play-action passing attack. Willing to pull it and move the chains with his legs. Has experience in poor weather."

Try reading; I know it's asking a lot, but try it...also, if you're going to take pot shots, then man up and respond directly to me, or--failing that--tag me in the post where you mention my username. For example, I'm willing to be a man and respond directly to you: you've brutally missed the point of my post, and you've provided zero context to support your assertions. You've distilled an entire discussion of the kid down to his completion percentage, and you've done no analysis and provided zero persuasive points to further the discussion. So I challenge you: instead of taking shots at someone and spouting one-liners, do a scintilla of work and attempt to make your point. Have the gumption to take me up on it?

Who cares how their respective accuracies are described? They're less than 1% different Are we really drilling down to phrasing at this point?

Your comments about Stafford are revisionist history: http://www.nfl.com/combine/profiles/matthew-stafford?id=79860 "Sloppy footwork. ... Will get lazy and throw off his back foot, which could lead to turnovers in the NFL... ... Willing to throw into tight spots, though more often than not he places the ball where it needs to be... ... Not great accuracy on crossing routes. ... Too often leads his receivers too far or forces them to reach back, slowing their momentum and limiting their ability to generate yardage after the catch." http://bleacherreport.com/articles/118342-nfl-combine-analysis-matthew-stafford "When Stafford is “on” there are few quarterbacks who can take over a game the way he does." "Although Stafford can be brilliant at times, he has been known to be plagued with inconsistency, a trait that cannot be masked in the NFL." " He has so much potential and is so physically gifted that at times he seems to try to play above his potential. While this is a concern for some scouts, others argue that all of the greats have some of this in their DNA. Let’s not kid ourselves. Matthew Stafford has a cannon for an arm! The kid has his question marks attached, but so does every budding star. Much of his future in the NFL will depend on what other offensive weapons are around him. Right now the Detroit Lions seem to be the most probable landing spot for the Bulldog quarterback and that is not good news for him."

Show me and we'll discuss it, because I've shown examples of the opposite in this thread.

You continue to harp on a fallback argument and ignore the data. I've mentioned more than Stafford as examples (Palmer, McCown, Matt Ryan), but hey, if you're stuck on "COMPLETION PERCENTAGE!!1!!1!1!!" as your argument and have no interest in actually scouting the kid, then cool, just say so and I won't discuss him with you. Let's make it all about the %age; we'd much rather have guys that completed nearly 67% of their passes in college like Tim Tebow and EJ Manuel.

This isn't even close to being an accurate take--it's not even hyperbole; it's laughable. True, but that's also true of 90% of QB prospects nowadays.

Good post; indeed, I watched every throw I could three times over, and your last sentence captures it perfectly: when he's right, he's easily the best QB in this draft--and it isn't close. You need him to be on his game more consistently than he was in college, but I find his faults to be correctable. The more I dig into him, the more I become convinced that he's got a real shot...to the point where I won't be upset if Buffalo ends up with him one way or another. Now, I still think he's going to go either 1 to Cleveland or 3 to NYJ.

Congrats on defaulting to a lazy argument instead of considering the point of the post. Does his completion percentage need to improve? Yes. Can it? Absolutely; guys do it all the time in the NFL. Josh McCown was a 51% passer in college; he completed 67% of his passes last year. What I want to know is if you actually watched the kid? When does he have accuracy issues? When he's under immediate duress, and when his footwork gets leaky trying to rush the ball to the perimeter--are those fatal flaws, or can they be corrected? Let's go man, put a reasonable argument together that doesn't amount to "COMPLETION PERCENTAGE!!1!!1!1!!" Are we really condemning the kid to doom because he was 1% less accurate in college than Matthew Stafford and 3% less accurate in college than Carson Palmer?

First, ask yourself why you believe that he won't. It's extremely likely that the answer is going to come down to one thing: you don't like his completion percentage. I say this because I haven't seen many folks say anything beyond that. Usually it's not that succinct though; the detractors will say utterly ridiculous things like "he can't hit the broadside of a barn", which right away tells me that they haven't watched a lick of football from the kid. Why can he succeed? Well, let's start with the embarrassingly obvious: he's easily the most physically talented QB in the draft. Huge arm, good athlete, extremely hard worker, and a clean kid off the field. You can't ask for a lot more than that as a starting point. Then you start to dig into what he does after the ball is snapped, and you see that he keeps plays alive when he's under pressure, is able to keep his eyes downfield, keeps communication with his targets when scrambling, and has a unique ability to challenge defenses over the top when on the move--that's the kind of thing that can't be defended. For example: You'll also notice that he makes pre-snap reads like a pro, and is asked to read the whole field, and not the half-field hi-lo type reads to which other QBs (Darnold) are limited. You want to talk accuracy? I'll talk accuracy with you no problem. I think people get way too hung up on completion percentage. I am more interested in knowing if they've actually watched Allen face teams like Iowa, and saw how he threw the ball. I also want to know if the same folks were aware that Allen competed against 3 teams that finished in the top-20 pass defense in FBS in 2017 (Air Force, Utah State, and Central Michigan--and in those games he completed 72.7%, 69.2%, and 57.9% of his passes, respectively. You want to see a kid that can pinpoint the ball, observe: I've got more: And this one...are you kidding me? And for my final piece of evidence, I present this play. The next time someone tells you that this kid sucks, show them this play, and ask them to show you a better play from someone that "doesn't suck": ^and this one came against Utah State, a team that ranked 19th in all of FBS in pass defense.

I'm not gonna lie; my first thought was of Rags and Kentrell Hey, those guys have spots in the NFL, even if they're not "3-down" players in today's schemes.

You and your skull-cracking LBs Never change Blokes, never

The reason I'm asking whether or not you've watched him much is that your respective characterizations of his accuracy don't mesh with the eye test. What tendencies do you see when you watch him, or--in other words--when does his accuracy fail him? I don't see a guy that can't place the ball; I see a guy that felt like he had to compensate for his relative lack of a supporting cast by trying to make throws he shouldn't be making, as well as a kid that was all-too-often trying to throw under a LOT of pressure. And again, I reference the data that I put together earlier in this thread: there are multiple instances of sub-60% passers that have gotten more accurate (much more, in fact) as pros. Giving the kid an NFL OL and some decent targets would be a good start. I digress though: I keep reading the blanket characterization of the kid that reads "he can't hit the broadside of a barn"; that's simply not what shows up on video (I refuse to say "tape" since I haven't access to the All-22).

You know they're all there to see my boy Foley!

I keep asking this of people that are dead set against the guy: how much of him have you watched?

When a team challenges a catch, and the super-duper-slo-mo replay shows control prior to the ball being dislodged, how do you decide at which point it becomes a catch?

I have to ask: how much have you watched him play? His performance on the field is a stark contrast to the guys you are mentioning.