oldmanfan

Your # 1 should demand a double team on every play.

I think Allen probably had more time than he thought and could have set his feet more. And when you say hit him in the numbers, that's all well and good. But how many QBs even when being set with their feet hit a guy right in the numbers from 50 yards away? Very few. Bottom line is Clay has to catch that ball. As for all the stats and junk, as I have pointed out a number of times now, people confuse accuracy and precision. I will mention the dartboard analogy once again. If you surround the bull's eye consistently but don't hit the center of the bull's eye, you are accurate. But you are not precise. If you throw every dart on top of each other, but you are two inches away from the bull's eye, you are precise, but you are not accurate. Allen is pretty accurate; most all his throws are within the catch radius of his receiver where they can make a play. Last game I saw two throws, one to Thompson and one over the middle to Ike, that were truly inaccurate. He like may Qbs could stand to be more precise, while also being accurate. Guys that have high accuracy and high precision are your stars. Now as for this completion percentage stuff, a true statistical interpretation of such would involve adding a lot more variables into the equation than most do. Things like the play call on both sides of the ball, quality of the WR and the DBs playing against such, atmospheric conditions, as just a few. I think it is fairly well established in the college game that many guys have high completion rates because they throw a lot of very short passes to WRs that are better at what they do than the DBs trying to cover. In the pros you have so many different route combinations, preferences of the OCs, etc it's hard to compare. Watching the Bills offense, it seems clear their preference right now is to throw down field a lot more than other teams, and that would of course affect completion percentage. Last game I counted three throw aways and three flat out drops by Allen's receivers, which would have moved his completion rate into the 60's. Which is why using completion rate for some measure of accuracy is a fallacy. You want to assess his accuracy, the best way is to actually look at all his individual throws. He is fairly accurate, but needs to be more precise with placement. The kid, and I emphasize kid, has work to do. Like many young QBs the game has to slow down, and it looks like it is. He seems quicker at making reads now, still needs to work on the correct read of course, and he has thrown some very nice balls the past few weeks. Still misses a few, but all this should improve with time. Unfortunately in a world of Internet and smart phones and drive through McDonald's the impatience of society at large and Bills fans in particular think a kid with 8 games under his bely should already be a mature, finished product.

Don't know if you ever played football, but I did when I was a kid. Was a receiver actually. And even in pee wees my coach would tell me if you get two hands on the ball you have to catch it. Clay has to catch that ball. Allen could have thrown it one more yard I suppose while running for his life, so Clay would not have had to go down to the ground to get it. But Clay had two hands on the ball and didn't get the job done.

You're correct that three passes a game, if you throw 36 times, would get Allen from 50% to the magic 60% that so many obsess over. He averages about 3 throwaways a game because either his line can't block or his receivers can't get open or both. Thus the reason why completion percentage has nothing to do with accuracy. Watching everyy throw last week out of 36 there were two, maybe three that were truly inaccurate. Is that different than most guys? Maybe. He has work to do, but so do so many that incorrectly look at stats.

Allen has work to do. No question. Overall Bucky's analysis was OK except for thinking Clay has any value. But as I have pointed out a number of times now this accuracy thing and this 60% completion rate thing are fallacies. Let's take last game 18/36 for a 50% completion rate. To get to 60% he has to complete 21 passes (actually 21.6). So that's either 3 drops or three throwaways, none of which have anything to do with his accuracy. Like any young QB he needs to work on his reads, needs to work on recognizing where guys are open, etc. But as far as throwing a football, about the only thing he needs is more touch especially on the short stuff, which should not be a problem.

If they were Rogers stats sure because he has more experience, and because his offense is designed differently. But that's assuming he didn't have as many drops or throwaways. You refuse to understand the complexity of statistics so this becomes pointless. And that is not an insult, that is just reality.

Sure . But when you make purposely inflammatory statements like calling someone an utter failure expect to be challenged. And when you don't really understand stats take advantage of posts from others with a bit more insight and try and learn something.

When the receiver gets both hands on the football, that is not a miss. Or at least that what my coach in pee wees told me. You get your hands on it, catch it.

If Barnwell had gone back and looked at his first couple games and then compared them to the last two his article would have, or should have, read differently. Allen is a work in progress, and some of what he says is valid. Like better decision making. But to say he's worse version than Taylor? Silly. Taylor's issue is he wouldn't try to let his receivers makes plays, and Allen's is that at times he's too aggressive. I said it when Taylor got traded and Allen started playing: the same people that were critical of Taylor for not taking chances and throwing the occasional pick will be the same ones criticizing Allen for taking a chance and throwing a pick. And here we are. It's also a bit silly to give Darnold a pass for his O line and not mention it with the Allen critique. It's also a bit silly to just critique and not mention some of the really good throws he's made like some to Foster. One last thing. Clay has to catch that pass. He gets two hands on it in the end zone, he has to catch that pass. Plus what ever happened to the diea of working back to your QB when he's in trouble?

It is unreasonable because you have to factor in a plethora of variables that affect the equation. Looking at the offense in Wyoming and thus far in Buffalo he does not have the simple little check downs and such that can inflate percentage completions, as just one variable. He has things to learn, like some more touch on passes as an example. Read what Hapless wrote and what I wrote; we are objective and realize he has things to learn, pluses and minuses. You on the other hand come out with statements such as he is an "utter failure" and then try to walk that back. You ask if I really think you'd be disappointed if Allen led them to a Super Bowl.. Sadly, I think that's quite possible. There are others on this site that I definitively think would be sad, and I hope that's not the case with you.

He is not a terrible passer. As I said before you are addicted to stats that don't tell an entire story. And you do so to fit your preconceived bias. People like you want to see him fail so you can brag on an Internet site about how smart you are. Refer back to a number of comments I've made about accuracy. You don't understand the meaning of the word.

Yes that would be right. You think rookie QBs should be finished products. They're not.

Agreed. I keep saying Allen has a ways to go. Has a lot to learn. But he has brought some excitement to WNY

If you were being objective you would realize there have been many times Allen has hung in the pocket and delivered a strike. As an example the 75 yard bomb to Foster. You don't see it because you don't want to see it. So spare me your objectivity nonsense.

You haven't seen him stay in the pocket and deliver the ball because you don't want to see it. For some odd reason it appears you do not want the Bills QB to be successful.

What can I tell you? You are slavishly devoted to stats that may or may not mean much. You say he's last in release time. You know why? Because he has an Oline that cannot protect him on anywhere near a regular basis and thus he scrambles around more trying to make a play. On the occasions where he gets protection, watch him. He sets up better in the pocket now than he did earlier in the year, he makes his reads, and has delivered the ball pretty accurately overall. Yes he misses a few, as do all young QBs. His TD/Int ratio? He has to know not to throw the ball back into the middle of the filed when scrambling, that accounts for a couple. And it would be great if his receivers would actually catch the ball when thrown to them. You fall into the trap so many fall into. You look at stats as a be all and end all and don't really think about all the variables that can go into said statistic. Again, I listed a bunch in another thread, but here's one more to think about. Who is actually doing the analysis? Do they know enough about football to make an intelligent assessment. Do they have an agenda against a player that skews their perspective? I'll give you an example we saw on this board this week, courtesy of the rober guy who clearly has an anti- Allen agenda. It involved the dropped pass by Clay over the middle. He claimed it was a bad throw by Allen, not a problem with Clay. He started out by erroneously talking about how Clay was running a post and how the ball should have been over his shoulder. He wasn't; he was slanting across the field. He then erroneously talked about how you knew it was a post because the ball hit him on the 39 and he stumbled on the 44 yard line. Not even close to being right; the ball hit him on the hands on the 42 and he fell between the 43 and 44 (again, because the pattern was a slant and not a post). The it was the ball was at his feet, and when several people pointed out the fallacy of that then he claimed it was below the waist. The reality, as indicated by many, was the ball was right out in front of him, waist high, nice accurate and precise throw, which Clay dropped, and then held his hands to his head as if to say How could I have dropped that ball? Now, that is one play. Imagine if you have guys who don't really know that much about what they're seeing doing that for every play around the league, and you start to get why I am not a huge fan of some of the stats thrown around. Allen is a work in progress. He has a lot to learn. So do all the young QBs. Allen needs to continue to have the game slow down for him, although one can see that it is starting. As the game slows down he should make quicker and better decisions with his throws. He needs to continue working on mechanics, especially on passes that require more touch than velocity. But based on his 8 games to date, he also brings some skills to the table that seem fairly unique. His arm will allow for more open routes downfield because he should be able to fit passes into tighter windows with his velocity. You pooh pooh his running but that is a nice weapon to have, and opens up the field for the passing game. He has the intangibles one looks for in a QB such as leadership and work ethic. His teammates believe in him. Does that all mean he's the QB for the next 15 years? Too early to tll, but my gut says yes. Could eb worng of course. But it won't be because he doesn't give it everything he has to be the guy. And it won't be because fans who have an agenda and say he's an utter failure as a thrower.

That's laughable. Stats lie all the time, because they are either used incorrectly or more often interpreted incorrectly. Here's an answer to your question. Barkley produced in one game first of all. And if you know anything about statistics, an N of 1 doesn't give you am leg to stand on. But why did he do so well against the Jets in that one game? Because the Jets D laid down, and because Barkley is a veteran QB that has been around the block more than Allen and knows more right now about reading defenses. So he had a good game. Not miles better than Allen, but a good game nevertheless. And history would show that a backup QB like Barkley may have good and bad games; put him in again and he may wet the bed. Your statement that Allen is an utter failure at passing the ball is even more laughable than your thoughts about stats. You are one of those dopes that hang on completion percentage as some Holy Grail of performance. Look up some of my posts elsewhere on the fallacy of using that as a sole arbiter of QB play if you want to learn something about stats. And then go back, watch some of Allen's throws. He does a fine job throwing the ball downfield, misses some as most especially young QBs do. But anyone with any sense of objectivity to them will tell you Allen can get the ball downfield pretty well for a rookie. Unless you have an agenda that doesn't allow you to see what is right in front of you. Which apparently you do.

It can't be # 4, can it? I think Dawkins is Ok although his play has slipped a bit, and Teller shows some potential. But they desperately need a C and another G, and a RT.

I have to assume they are going to make the O line a priority this off season. It will be interesting to see if that's their main focus in free agency, or if they go for a stud T or G day 1 or 2 of the draft. They have to know they need to protect their franchise QB.

If that's not the second decision in the offseason I'll be surprised. The first of course being Crossman.

It helped having Richie next to him last year

Glad to hear that. And regarding the stats you mention it's a prime reason I am skeptical of all these different QBR, etc, etc. methods. One will say a guy's good, one not. I just don't think they're very predictive of much.

I'm not interested in proving what other QBs do because I'm not the one trying to argue that Allen is so inaccurate. Look elsewhere on the site and you will see data indicating his passer rating the past couple games is quite good. Glad you don't think he can't improve. Now for a tough question: do you really want him to improve? I hope so. I do believe there are a select few around here that want him to fail so they can say I told you so on an Internet site.

I think it would be fine to have him lead the charge. But he asks us to name a player past or present that reps Buffalo more than him? Seriously? I can name a bunch starting with Paul MacGuire and Tom Sektak.

Could be. I don't want to argue over one play. As a rule I respect what you post.