transplantbillsfan

The rest of what's in this post here is based on the bolded opinion. You point to Brady, Brees and Rodgers as proof that sitting works, while neglecting the immediate and sustained success (in terms of player and, in most cases, team as well) of QBs who started right away like Big Ben, Ryan, Flacco, Wilson, Luck (all of whom went to the playoffs right away and 3 won Super Bowls before their rookie contract expired), Wentz (on pace to be league MVP 2nd year after flashing his rookie year), Carr (fantastic his 2nd year... both team and personal after flashing his rookie season), Newton (in the playoffs by his 3rd year and in the Super Bowl and League MVP by his 5th), etc. Maybe sitting Allen is best, maybe not, but sitting 1st round rookie QBs just overwhelmingly hasn't been happening for more than a decade, and there's been a lot of both individual and team success coming off those decisions to start these guys right off the bat, so saying that Allen's development would best be done in a way top QBs haven't been developed for a decade plus is awfully presumptuous.

You cite Beane saying "If he wins the job in TC, all the other players will see it. At that point, how can you not start him?"... are you saying you disagree with him or are you implying that statement is an argument for Allen sitting to start the season?

Do you think Cam obviously hurt his team by starting right away? Do you think his 4,756 yards and 35 TDs obviously hurt his team? Do you think Derek Anderson obviously would have led his team to more wins if he started instead of Cam? Hindsight is 20/20 with everything, but I think the notion that Derek Anderson should have started in Cam Newton's rookie year is silly. Moulding the perfect QB for every team by grooming him for 3 years like Aaron Rodgers or a year and a half like Tom Brady or a year plus like Phillip Rivers or for a bit like Eli Manning or a year like Patrick Mahomes or a year and a half like Colin kaepernick or a year like Jake Locker is a wonderful concept, but we don't have an established pro bowl to HOF vet to hold the fort like is a Brett Favre, Drew Bledsoe, Drew Brees, Kurt Warner, Alex Smith, or Matt Hasslebeck. We have the largely unknown AJ McCarron. Me too.

Warner said at the end of this that all 3 of our QBs are "basically the same guy... they're not mobile guys."

I'm in complete agreement with Teddy KGB... awesome Allen might sit for a little bit this season, but I fully expect he's the starter for most of the 2nd half of the season. And I still think, depending on how much of the work with Palmer he's done is retained, he should and will just start immediately. The NFL has rules that are so unbelievably QB friendly now that it's almost pointless to have a guy sit on the bench for an extended period of time. The only reasons to sit a rookie QB, in my opinion are: 1) Mechanics need a complete teardown and rebuild. As I said, I'm hoping the offseason work sticks, but his mechanics even at Wyoming weren't awful, he just had occasional bad habits. 2) No familiarity with what an NFL QB does. That's not Allen... he's arguably the most familiar with things like learning an NFL playbook and huddling and calling audible at the line and taking snaps under center. Mahomes sat last year because of both of those, but mainly #2 after functioning in an Air Raid offense. Also, Alex Smith. AJ McCarron is not Alex Smith. Kaepernick did the same... see all the above reasons for Mahomes. Jake Locker sat for a year behind Hasslebeck and it didn't seem to do him any good. Everyone likes to go back to Aaron Rodgers, but Rodgers wasn't sitting for long if at all, if Favre weren't there. Going earlier than Rodgers is a new era of QBing in the NFL with different rules. Allen might sit, but I think if he sits, the reason will primarily be some regression in form and mechanics from what he's worked on that needs tweaking. Otherwise, I think you'll find him under center in meaningful regular season action in the second half of the season, if not sooner.

2 inches taller Almost 20 lbs heavier SIGNIFICANTLY more athletic and nimble on his feet If you're a Wonderlic guy... McCarron got a 22 while Allen got a 37 McCarron has 4 years on the bench and 3 career NFL starts and didn't play in a pro style offense in College. Allen doesn't have those NFL starts, but he played in a pro style offense in college consistently making checks and reads at the line, calling plays in the huddle, and taking snaps under center. The chip on his shoulder has to be at least as big as McCarron, but probably bigger considering McCarron was part of a team that won 3 National Championships while he was at Alabama, 2 consecutively while he was the starter... I just don't think he has as much to play for, frankly. And OF COURSE McCarron did more in college... look at the team he was on and the players he played with! Oh yeah... and the arm strength thing, too

By this logic, I suppose you must think Carson Wentz, of North Dakota State, was WAY overdrafted then?

Sorry if this is already posted-- everything seems to be at this point-- but this is an interview with Brent Vigen on One Bills Live: http://www.wgr550.com/media/audio-channel/05-08-wyoming-oc-brent-vigen-one-bills-live This is a guy who recruited and coached Carson Wentz, too. Interesting notes from the interview itself (and yes, he also says all the obvious stuff about making all the NFL throws and such): - Allen won't have trouble transitioning from his "college offense" to an NFL offense in any other way than learning a new playbook. -He's seen the footwork improvements being talked about this offseason with regard to Allen's work with Palmer, and he seems a little bitter about the limitations the NCAA puts on time with coaches for athletes. -Allen (like Wentz) was a very late physical bloomer--likely the reason neither were really recruited by D1 colleges. More to the point, as Allen started at Wyoming in 2015, he was 6'4, but only 205 lbs. Having listened to a few other interviews, I know he was 6'2, 185 lbs as a Senior in HS and 6'0, 180 lbs as a Junior. Plus, he played at a small unknown HS in a small unknown town.

I agree, especially with the rules now skewed so much in favor of the offense and the QB, in particular

Went through 5 pages, actually. I see from 26CB's link that he posted it earlier in the thread I mentioned in the OP... honestly it's an article I figured he would have posted as a thread, so I was surprised not to see it. When I see any thread that grows up to the point where it's approaching 20+ pages, the notion of figuring out if an article that has been posted or jumping into a conversation like that on page 22 is daunting for some. Like I said, if this needs to be merged or deleted, it can be.

I get that there's a "Start Allen Week 1" thread that this will probably get merged with, if it's not already in there---->>> Sorry if it's already been posted, but I looked through the first 4 pages to see if this article was a thread already and I figure this article is worthy of its own thread and discussion... so for those of us who don't want to even open a 20 page discussion, here's an opportunity to take a quick look at a really thoughtful breakdown of why Allen starts this year... not necessarily week 1, but definitely in 2018: https://www.cover1.net/four-reasons-josh-allen-starts-in-2018/ with some tidbits... Reason 1: A serious lack of nuanced route runners (WR’s) You’re probably thinking to yourself, “what does this even mean, Nate?” Well, the fact of the matter is the Bills don’t boast a phenomenal group of athletes at the wide receiver position. For that reason, you might think it would be crazy to throw a rookie quarterback out there with the lackluster weapons currently sitting on the offensive side of the ball, but hear me out. What we have seen time and time again on film is a willingness from Allen to make highly contested throws. Doesn’t matter if he’s throwing across his body or believing in his receiver to make a play on the ball in heavy coverage, Allen showed he had the arm strength and guts to put the ball in places former Bills quarterbacks never dreamed of forcing it. and Reason 2: Problems on the offensive line This could go both ways, but I’m putting this factor in favor of the rookie. After departures of Richie Incognito and Eric Wood, the offensive line is set to be a work in progress in 2018. The additions of Russell Bodine and Marshal Newhouse haven’t exactly inspired much hope for a unit that looked overmatched at times in 2017. With the idea that they might take a step back again this season, whoever ends up at quarterback will likely spend a lot of time on the ground. On the field, outside of having to create something from nothing, the one thing Allen showed a lot on film was an innate ability to dodge would-be tacklers from inside the pocket. The impressive part on a lot of occasions for Allen was his ability to stretch the ball vertically with a muddy pocket using his incredible arm strength. and Reason 3: Simple offensive terminology One of the great things about the Erhardt-Perkins system that makes it so quarterback friendly is the complexity of the language. One of the biggest leaps a young quarterback has to make from college to the pros is figuring out the terminology of the offense. The problem for young guys is not only do they have to memorize the terminology; they have to be able to spit it out quick, clear and concise. Memories of Jared Goff on Hard Knocks having issues calling plays in the huddle go to show you just how difficult the jump from vanilla, dumbed down terminology in college to damn near dissertations in the NFL. But as it concerns Josh Allen and the Bills, the Erhardt-Perkins offense that Brian Daboll is rooted in is best known for its simple language. and Reason 4: Ability This is the reason that will become most apparent to fans in July. He’ll be able to make plays but more specifically throws that neither AJ McCarron nor Nathan Peterman will be capable of making. Click the link because there are plenty of great gifs that align with these arguments and an offensive play design for Reason #3 that's interesting, too. I can't believe the 180 I've done since we drafted Allen. Before we drafted him, I thought if we drafted him, McCarron had a better chance to be our long term Franchise QB if we actually drafted him. Now that we've drafted him and I've been inundating myself with as much as I could with Allen's personal and football background, I think he's the odds on favorite to be the starter Week #1... and the reasons above are a few of the reasons I've had in my mind.

Yeah... don't know who in the world could have seen Allen as the guy getting the most hype.

You actually know who the top 5 members in rep points are? Maybe more importantly... you actually care who the top 5 are? ---------->>>

This was the first video I think I watched right after we drafted him... I posted a thread the day after round one with it in there talking about how much the reason I like Allen now is really the kid and the story rather than anything he put on tape in college. That thread got merged with the Round 1 Josh Allen pick stuff... no biggie. That video is awesome... really makes him seem like the perfect fit for WNY. But in terms of football related stuff, it was my first realization as to how late a bloomer he was... thus coming to understand part of why he went so under the radar in terms of College scholarships. I think it was a different interview, but dude was like 6'0 and 180 lbs as a Junior in HS, 6'2 and 185 lbs as a senior, and according to the interview below (which has a ton of other interesting stuff in it) 6'4 and 200 lbs when he got to Wyoming. Interview also talks about him being a multi-faceted 3 sport athlete who was able to throw a 92 MPH fastball as a Senior in HS.

Well this is news to me, if true. I probably would have braced myself for this pick much earlier if I knew he said that. Vigorously, considering he might have been able to get either one if he just stayed at 12, or waited til one was picked and then traded up to 10 for the other. See... I really wish I knew this... we're people talking about it here?

Well, they also both have reported personality problems, but I know you don't really seem to believe a team would take a prospect like Rosen or Mayfield off their boards for that reason. I'll tell ya this, after listening to all of Rosen's interviews immediately after getting drafted (not just the TV one but also the radio broadcasts), he was off my board... of course it was conveniently after the fact

Or, better yet, if you don't need to read hundreds of words, why supply an answer at all?

Well... if Rosen was truly off Beane's board, it certainly seems that his persistence in trading up to #7 and trying to trade up to #6 and #5 was obviously in order to get Allen, but also not to be stuck with the possibility of Rosen or Rudolph even lower. Good God, imagine if we ended up stuck with Rudolph at 22.... Oy!

I didn't even know about Mayfield's concusssions. Interesting. Maybe with injury issues he saw in Carolina with Cam and briefly in Buffalo with Taylor have really taken guys with injury histories off his board for good reason. Had to look up "TLDR" again... Is there a reason you posted in this thread if you didn't bother reading? Just have to keep crankin those posts out, huh? Yes, I realize reading a lot would take away from all that quality posting you do. Same amount of time on this board as me and nearly 10,000 more posts... you're doing such a splendid job

Well... I think they preferred Darnold, but yeah, I think Allen was #2. But in a draft where 4 QBs went in the top 10 and were considered by many to be legitimate top 10 prospects, it's interesting that Beane, who was on record time and time again saying how much he valued his draft picks, still chose to give up those valuable assets to get one of them when 2 of them were still on the board and he could have given up less... or possibly none at all.

Welp... I'm sorry... I'm not in here all moments of the day. Actually, I haven't had the chance to be in here talking Bills football as much as I used to for months now. I followed protocol. I literally scrolled down to the bottom and looked at the thread titles of the first 3 pages and didn't see the topic. If it's been talked about for many days now, that thread wasn't in the first 3 pages after I read the MMQB and thought about posting it.

Where did Beane say something about Rudolph at 22?

Okay I vaguely remember Gunner's post. I was mainly thinking about this as I read Peter King's MMQB today and saw the Bills were trying to trade up with the Colts. If Rosen was legitimately off Buffalo's board, then I think the persistence of trading up while Arizona was reportedly also trying to do that for the same QB is pretty telling... I also think Arizona's changing narrative of now suddenly claiming they liked Rosen more than Allen is entertaining. https://www.revengeofthebirds.com/2018/5/8/17329316/the-arizona-cardinals-were-never-in-on-josh-allen-because-of-the-price

Searched through the first 3 pages... didn't see a thread this would be merged with. So sorry for the trouble.

Brandon Beane actually recounts all of this in terms of the trades and attempted trades almost two weeks ago now to trade up from 12 to get a QB. It's in an article by the Buffalo News, but is, unfortunately, behind a paywall. But even before that article, reports were wide-ranging now that the Bills had a deal in place to trade up to #5 with the Broncos. https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/heres-the-draft-day-trade-the-bills-and-broncos-had-in-place-before-bradley-chubb-fell/ And we all know they eventually traded up to #7 with the Bucs (a deal that apparently nearly didn't happen after Beane made an offer and the Bucs GM passed, but then he called Beane back just as they were getting on the clock), but Peter King reports this week in his MMQB that Buffalo legitimately was trying to trade with the Colts, too. http://amp.si.com/nfl/2018/05/07/peter-king-sports-illustrated-nbc-mmqb?__twitter_impression=true • The Bills moved from 12 to seven in the first round to get Josh Allen, and they tried to move from 12 to 6. The Colts, at six, did a great job disguising their intentions, because the league thought GM Chris Ballard wanted Roquan Smith there. But the Colts’ research showed their quarterbacks being hit more than any other quarterbacks in football since 2012. So sure-fire guard starter Quenton Nelson had been locked in for a while at six, and Ballard got the last prospective early interior-line starter on their board at 37, Auburn guard Braden Smith. Interesting that in his pre-draft press conference Ballard said the offensive and defensive lines are how they’ll build this team, and in the first two rounds, he took two guards and two defensive ends. Maybe those useless press conferences are worth something after all. Anyway, when the Bills called Ballard, he didn’t have much interest, because he wanted Nelson so bad as a shield for beaten Andrew Luck. So, Beane was, by his own account, ready to move up to #5 for sure and even had that deal in place before the draft, pending whether the Broncos guy (Chubb) was available or not. Clearly Beane was also trying to get higher, but wasn't willing to give up any future picks, which I'm guessing is what Dorsey at #4 and Gettleman at #2 was asking for. Based on some of his cryptic responses in that Buffalo News article in response to the question of where Allen was on his board, I think it's pretty clear that Darnold was #1 and Allen was #2. But my question is: how much of a drop from Allen to Rosen was there? Of course, this is just an educated guess, but I'd say if it went #1- Darnold and #2- Allen... do you think Rosen was even ranked #3 on the Bills board or do you think he was completely off the Bills board, whether for durability or personality concerns? Whether Rosen was completely off Buffalo's board or not, I don't know. But if Allen and Rosen were ranked even closely together, I don't think the mad scramble to get to #5, then #6, then #7 would have happened... and Benjamin Allbright also reported early this week that Arizona had been trying to get to #5 for Allen. https://twitter.com/AllbrightNFL/status/992792690600407040 There was no deal in place pre draft between Denver and Arizona. Arizona had called to inquire, but Denver had a deal in place with Buffalo (as we reported prior to the draft). Denver backed out of that deal to select Bradley Chubb. Both Buffalo and AZ were after Josh Allen at 5 So, knowing the price we paid and would have also been willing to pay going up to #5 and the picks we could have saved if the difference between Allen and Rosen were negligible, do you think our trade up to draft Allen is more a sign of how much Buffalo likes Allen or how much Buffalo didn't like Rosen?