jrober38

Why do people like yourself keep referring to Josh Allen as a gunslinger? I don't get it.

The Bills are 5-2 and they're also not a very good team. You can win games and have a really good record without actually being a really good team. Our record alone doesn't make us a good team relative to other good teams, it just means we've won more games than we've lost. I'll take the 5-2 record, but this team, particularly on offense, has a heck of a long way to go before anyone considers them a top team.

Grab him if possible. He's a terrible fit in New England's dink and dunk offense but could be an asset here.

They count, but they take a toll. Josh has already been concussed and he's taken several legit roughing the passer or personal foul calls outside the pocket. When he runs, he exposes himself to big hits which will eventually take a toll. I don't think our running game is bad, so much as we just don't give our backs the ball enough.

It's week 9, we've played 7 games, with 5 of those games coming against teams with a defense ranked 22nd or worse, and Allen is yet to get an A on his report card. I'm not an Allen guy, but I thought he'd be better than he's been, especially when you reflect on how many opportunities he's had against the NFL's worst defenses. He and our passing game still need to improve dramatically, which is a concern because so few QBs over the years have made a big jump in their play from year 2 to year 3.

Our data is the same. Dallas' 27.1 PPG is 6th best in the league. You seem to only be looking at total points, which makes no sense if not everyone has played the same number of games. In terms of total points, Dallas is 13th, but 9 of the teams ahead of them have played an extra game so obviously they're going to have more points. I'm not slamming your data. I'm just showing you that your rankings for Points PER Game is wrong. If the stat you've used is flawed, it's hard to accept the charts and graphs you've shown.

Both guys are right. The organization is run better, and that sets them up for success (as Sal is suggesting), but there aren't any tangible results that show that they've actually arrived yet (as Schopp is saying).

Are you factoring that they've played 7 games? 190 / 7 = 27.1 PPG which is 6th best in the league. You must be looking at total points vs points per game. Given some teams have played 8 and some 7 total points is useless.

I'm not saying a high passer rating guarantees wins. That's not what I'm arguing. I'm saying our point production is really bad primarily because our passing game is really bad, this year. If our passing game had a QB Rating of over 90, I'm certain we'd score more points. If you disagree, that's your choice. I disagree with this. They might want an Alpha #1 receiver but I'd guess they think they have everything else they need on offense given how many guys they signed in the offseason and what some of those contracts look like in terms of the player's salary. They need to keep improving, but I'd bet that inside OBD they think they gave Allen a pretty good hand to work with. One that is significantly better than the one he had as a rookie.

Your rankings list for scoring offenses isn't accurate. Dallas is 6th in the league in scoring but isn't on your top 10. Rankings are silly because the 11th best team averages 0.4 PPG less than 10th place. That difference equates to less than a field goal over a 7 game span which is inconsequential. I don't know where to cut things off. Odds are we won't agree on anything. 25 PPG seems like a good target. Looking at the rankings, things begin to drop off quickly from that mark. Of the 14 teams in the NFL who average over 25 PPG, 6 of them have a QB Rating over 100, and 11 of them have a QB Rating of 91.7 or higher. I want my offense to be there even if it's not based on anything. I think that's where you begin to find the good offenses in the NFL whose teams will contend for the Super Bowl.

I agree here. There are a few outliers for sure, but there's a correlation between passer rating and winning games. I'm not saying it's perfect, but it exists to some extent. If you pass the ball efficiently (which is what passer rating effectively measures), you'll probably have a good offense. If you pass the ball inefficiently, you'll probably have a bad offense. 8 of the bottom 10 teams in passer rating score less than 20 points per game.

We should be aiming for a QB who does that. Saying we shouldn't is really sad. Allen is currently 28th in QB Rating. The Bills are currently 24th in scoring at just over 19 points a game. Neither is good enough, and I'm 100% certain that if Allen's QB Rating was at least 10 points higher, we'd be scoring a lot more points. Our passing game is really bad. For Allen to actually be our franchise QB he needs to get a heck of a lot better.

Agreed. In both games they'll need to slow the game down, limit possessions and try to win the turnover battle. In other words, we'll need pretty much everything to go right to win either game. Ultimately I view this as an indictment for where our QB is in his development. We're well into year two and we're still running an offense with training wheels because he can't be fully trusted to take care of the ball.

We should be running the ball as much as San Francisco, and mostly throwing the ball off play action. Singletary should be getting 18-20 touches a game, with Gore sprinkled in for 12-15 touches and Allen running 3-5 times. That should limit Allen to around 30 passes a week, which I think would make the offense better overall.

The Bills have faced the 1st, 14th, 22nd, 26th, 29th, 31st and 32nd ranked offenses. In other words, our defense has faced mostly garbage opposition. Point differential looks great, because we've mostly played horrible teams this year.

Honestly it should be higher. I'm just trying to give Josh a target that might actually be attainable. Reality is that we should be aiming for a QB who can consistently post a rating of close to 100. High 90s is where the QBs on the top offenses seem to start.

Thanks for continuing to contribute nothing to the conversation.

We have one of the worst passing games in the league. Points will remain at a premium until Josh Allen's cumulative QB Rating surpasses 90.

Our consistent weakness throughout the season has been our passing game. We invested heavily in receivers and linemen and retooled at running back, and the results haven't been what they need to be.

I'm in the same boat. This is fine. The team is winning and should make the playoffs, I just haven't seen anything that says this will be a team capable of beating anyone in a playoff game and I think that mostly stems to the fact our passing game is so poor. I think Allen has mostly looked as advertised. He's a good field general who commands the huddle, makes some impressive throws and can get out of trouble with his legs, but there are glaring flaws as well, particularly with accuracy and his decision making. Usually those things don't get a whole lot better which is why I'm not overly optimistic. I think to contend for a Super Bowl right now you need an elite QB, and I'm not sure he's going to become one. Guys with his issues don't usually go onto be top tier NFL QBs. Exactly. The guys who have become elite passers over the past 15 years almost entirely showed signs they'd be elite almost as soon as they got on the field. In their 2nd season they were almost all playing at an extremely high level. Our QB sits 28th in the NFL in QB Rating, despite playing one of the worst schedules in the league. Allen does a lot of good things that don't show up in the box score to influence his QB Rating (similar to Cam Newton in his prime who never had a great rating), but I don't think he does enough to make up for his shortfalls as a passer, particularly against good competition. Unless we want him to keep running 10+ times a game, which will inevitably lead to him getting hurt, he needs to get a hell of a lot better with his arm, throwing from the pocket.

If you're satisfied that's great. I'm just saying that I see a guy who still struggles to do the basics a few times each game, and literally hasn't completed a deep pass all season. He was bottom of the barrel in QB Rating as a rookie and is still 28th in the NFL this year. That's not good enough. I was expecting more improvement. Given where he's at, I don't see anything whatsoever that says Josh is eventually going to be a 4,000 yard and 30 TD type QB. Reality is there aren't many QBs from the past 20 years out there who struggled like this early on who went on to become elite passers.

I'd agree with this. For me everything changed two years ago when we made the playoffs and got the monkey off our back. Now it's how do we win a playoff game, and ultimately a championship. Josh Allen is an okay QB who can probably guide us to the postseason most years as long as the defense is good, but I don't see a guy who is going to win in the postseason. Our achilles heel as a team right now is our passing game and lack of point production, and that primarily stems from our QB play which hasn't been very good. Allen is 28th in QB Rating despite a massively upgraded offense around him over what he had a year ago. He's improved over last season, but not enough IMO. I was hoping for a QB rating above 90 and he's not even close at this point despite having faced a fairly cupcake schedule up until this point.

Winning is fine. I'm certainly not complaining. I just don't see how the offense is going to go from a 19 PPG unit to a 25+ PPG unit with this QB or coordinator. I think the talent on offense is generally pretty good and our issues mostly revolve around our inability to pass the ball effectively. Allen is an okay QB, but absolutely nothing about his play suggests he's ever going to be a top 10 guy, throwing for 4,000 yards and 30 TDs a season.

They move him around a fair amount. Seems like there are a handful of role outs per game. The improv has been hit and miss. He often throws the ball into harms way when improvising. I see them trying to do the basics with him, and he's struggling. Asking him to do more, when he's already struggling with the simple stuff seems counter intuitive.

The Favre comparisons never made any sense to me. Favre had an elite feel for the game. He made mistakes, but he also threw a hell of a lot of deep touchdowns. Josh isn't that. He's big, strong, and can run around, but his accuracy is simply way too hit and miss. His deep ball is quite frankly terrible and he misses open throws to the intermediate part of the field as well. At this stage, Josh is best doing what he's been doing, which is mostly dinking and dunking his way down the field, with the occasional big play when he escapes the pocket to his right, buys time and hits a receiver working back to him on the sideline. As I said, Josh isn't terrible, and we can probably win games with him and make the playoffs if the defense remains as good in future years, but this isn't a team that's built to have postseason success because the offense is just too much of a liability. Do you really think allowing Allen to throw the ball more will make the offense more successful?