Shaw66

Hard to understand why that kind of throwing ability didn't get recruited. My goodness, he threw then like he throws now. Ah!! That explains it. I though he looked awfully big, as big as he is now. The story was that he was smaller coming out of high school, and that might have had some bearing on whey he wasn't recruited.

Well, Straight, I try to be clear that I don't have any inside information, so I don't know anything as a matter of absolute fact. However, I think a lot about what the Bills are doing, and I listen to what McBeane say. I also tend to believe that people are honest and don't knowingly lie when they answer questions. And McBeane seem to be particularly honorable men. They aren't liars. You can tell when they don't want to answer a question - they either tell you they won't answer it or they gently talk around it. Some things they have been completely clear about from day one. One is that they are building for sustained long-term success. They've said repeatedly that they won't make short-term decisions that aren't consistent with their long-term goals. They've also said that they want to build the right way, which they've said is different from the quick way. Diggs, for example, is great for the short-term, but they wouldn't have done it if Diggs weren't relatively young and under contract. Beane also has said on multiple occasions that he hopes Allen makes the Bills write big checks. That, too, is consistent with the long-term message. They obviously want a true franchise quarterback. When Cousins and all those other guys were free agents, they didn't chase after any of them, because they weren't fits with the long-term plan. McDermott has explained quite clearly his process. It's about competition, commitment to team and continuous improvement. He said at the end of this year that he would be happy if he just could have everyone back for next season, so changes. He said that, I think, because he genuinely believes in the process, that he has guys, including Allen, who are committed to getting better and have the potential to get better. It wasn't the comment of a guy who had any doubts about his quarterback. Most of the rest of what I've said is just logic. It's obvious that quarterbacks are much more valuable than any other position. It's obvious that the only way to have sustained long-term success is to have an excellent quarterback you can build on. You can't have sustained long-term success by just running through a new guy every three years, because there will be plenty of times in that process where you won't have success. It's also obvious that the big time successful quarterbacks hit their true prime six, seven years out. Sometime around then they seem to master what's going on on the field - they understand it all and they know how to adjust to what they see. After they reach that level, they still have ten years left, more or less. So you put that reality together with what McBeane say about sustained long-term success, and what Beane has said about wanting to write big checks to Allen, and it's clear that they very much want Allen to succeed. He, or someone like him who has the ability to play AB at a high level, is the key to long-term success. From there it's obvious. If you have a guy who's coming off his rookie deal, who hasn't demonstrated yet that he's a true franchise guy but who hasn't failed, and if you want long-term success, you have to invest in him. You have to write the checks even though he isn't Drew Brees yet, because your whole system is premised on getting the right QB. That's why I agree with Gunner or whoever who has been saying he'd sign Dak. It's a no-brainer. Dak has all the tools, and he hasn't failed. That is, he hasn't shown that he has flaws that will keep him from succeeding. Maybe Garrett was the problem, but whatever the problem, you're better off trying to figure it out with Dak than starting over. The reward is still great if you succeed. Frankly, I might have bit the bullet on Winston too, simply because it's hard to give up on all the talent the guy has. My hesitance with Winston is that unlike Dak, he hasn't shown any continued success. Dak (and Allen) have had games or quarters where you think you're looking at a superstar. Their problem is that they can't do it consistently enough yet. Winston looks spectacular sometimes, but his bad streaks are simply too much to take. So, no, I don't know for sure what Beane thinks about all this, but I think what I'm saying is a pretty good guess. I think it's fan-talk when people say this is a make-or-break year for Allen, because fans like to think that way. They want success, and whenever they see something that isn't success, they want to get rid of it. In particular, they don't recognize that players at most positions learn and improve for multiple years. They see a Mahomes and they say "see, Allen hasn't done that, time to move on." That feels good, it's a way to get the frustration of losing out of the system. But it's inconsistent with what I've heard McBeane say. It it ignores the supreme importance of QBs - of course it's foolish to pay an average quarterback $25 million or $30 million a year, but when they agreed to the contract it was a bet. The GM was betting that the guy would continue to get better. If he does get better, like Brees did, people say "well, of course, they paid him, look how good he is." But at the time it was a bet. When the GM makes the bet and the guy doesn't get better, some fans criticize it as a dumb move. It's no different than the bet you make on draft day. The Jets spent a ton of draft capital to bet on Darnold. The Bills spent a ton to bet on Allen. Maybe both bets were stupid, maybe one was, maybe neither was. We'll find out over the next few years. The point is, if you want a franchise QB, you have to put your money on the table. The Chiefs will pay Mahomes (or did they already?). No one will think that's a bet, but it is the same bet. The only difference is that the gap between where he is when he gets his new contract and where he needs to be to be a true franchise quarterback is not as big as Allen's gap currently is. It's an easier bet to make, just like it was an easier bet for the Ravens to make on Flacco when they paid him. How'd that turn out? The fact is, the second contract comes up sooner than GMs would like, so they have to put their money on the table if they want to play.

I would suggest that you may be seeing your theory blown out of the water by Ryan Tannehill.

Hooray!!! Nice summary of what this us all about. And the ultimate question is how long do you wait to see if he can do it? The problem of course is that if you want to wait for him, you have pay him.

I agree with this. I want the guys who want the whole challenge. The fans are part of the challenge. I'm glad he's not in Buffalo.

You guys have gone off on a tangent with the Lieutenant, and I'm not interested, but this post struck me for a couple of reasons. First, I'm convinced that Allen is the guy, but I'm not in love with his story. I like the Duke Williams story and root for him, but I really don't care about Allen's story. He's always struck me as a bit of a goody two-shoes, and I like the guys with a little bit of an edge to them. I find Mayfield's swagger interesting, although it may also be one of his problems. I like Mahomes attitude. I like what I see so far from Jackson. Allen is more like Luck, or Peyton without the sense of humor. Second, and more interesting, is your statement that Allen was the main reason the Bills weren't better last year. I don't know about main reason overall (because maybe Daboll gets that award), but without question if we're talking about guys on the field, Allen was the main reason. Without question. There are four or five QBs in the league who, if you put them on the Bills in training camp, maybe win a Super Bowl last season. That's a really good measure of how far Allen has to go. But it also makes clear how much different the position is from all the other positions. It's almost impossible to say of a guy who plays any other position "________ is the main reason we weren't much better last year." It's that gap in performance that frustrates everyone and seems to make a lot of posters here impatient. It's a big gap, and it isn't easy. Now, I'm still not a believer, but it certainly seems like Mahomes has closed the gap pretty well, and Watson seems to be well on his way. Jackson I'm not so sure. But for me, the fact that the gap is big isn't nearly as important as what's being done to close it. Some people, like Gunner, agree, but even Gunner wants to see tangible year-over-year progress that the gap is closing. I don't think that's necessary from a fan point of view. I don't think there's necessarily a one-to-one correlation between closing the gap and improving performance. You can make changes under the hood that make a car run more efficiently without making it go faster. Then when you add the turbo-charger, big change in performance. If QBs burned out in ten years, I'd say, sure, you've got to fish or cut bait. In fact, Cam Newton played a style that actually did cause him to burn out in ten years, and the Panthers have moved on. But classic franchise QBs are hitting their prime at ten years and have at least five years left after that, maybe seven or even ten. So investing a few extra years in them can be worth the investment. I think there's no way the Bills want Newton in the locker room. The Bills don't want Allen to run the ball like Newton did, so why bring him in as a mentor? Barkley is better, because Barkley is an actual student of how the Bills want Allen to play. Plus, Newton wants to start, and the Bills aren't going to want to have a player on the downslope of his career challenging Allen. A youngster, sure, because Allen isn't exempt from competition. But not Newton. If the Bills bring in a veteran, it would be someone who held out the promise of winning now while everyone waits for Allen to improve. Brady would have made sense - he would have loved running that offense. Rivers is done, I think, but at least he knows about leading a winning team. Newton has to be Superman, he has to be the star of the show. Newton never got over being about Newton first, and McBeane know that and don't want that.

You know what's always bothered me about the Cowboys game? They seem to run a simple, passive defense. That game looked like a preseason game to me. Not like the Pats or the Ravens.

That's a great list, and it's all true. However, I don't think it matters. History doesn't matter in McBeane's world. What matters in their world is this and only this: 1. Does he have potential? 2. Can we expect him to improve? You may answer #2 with history, but McDermott doesn't. McDermott believes above all else in continuous improvement, and if he sees the reasonable opportunity for improvement, he wants the guy. Now, granted, if they've tried for three seasons to teach Allen how to do some critical things, at some point they decide they can't expect him to improve. But it's not going to be whether he succeeded in 2020, and it's not going to be whether he had 300-yard games. It's going to be things that I don't understand or rarely think about. It's going to be about details known pretty much only to the coaches and Allen. As for nothing behind Allen, that's for sure, and I'm sure Beane is thinking about that. But right now, and next year, he's more likely to be thinking about the string of Brissetts, and Cassels and all those other guys the Pats had. He's not thinking too hard about a Garoppolo.

I think you, most posters here, and most fans generally are mired in this way of thinking. What's wrong with it is that it is not how Beane is thinking about it, it's not how McDermott is thinking about it, it's not how Belichick is thinking about it. Their goal is to build a program that wins a lot of football games, year after year. From week to week, their goal is to play good football in the upcoming game. Their goals don't change depending on whether they have a good QB or a bad one, or whether they have a good defense or bad one. So their goal is NOT to build a winning offense in a hurry, just because they happen to have a good defense this season. They EXPECT to have a good defense every season, so they aren't in a hurry. They EXPECT to have a good offense every season, so this season isn't going to make them make short-term decision. Each decision is based on what's going to have the best long-term impact on the quality of the football the team plays. In terms of player personnel decisions, there is only one player at one position who can have a major long-term impact on the quality of the football - football. You get the right guy at quarterback, you can have a quality football team for ten or fifteen years. You can't say that about any other position. Get JJ Watt or Polamalu or Jason Peters or Adrian Peterson, none of them assure you the long-term impact that Brady and Favre and Brees do. If the conclusion of the analysis the Bills do in their process is that Allen has the potential to be great, if the Bills see what they think is a path to making him great, they are NOT going to conclude they need a new guy. They aren't. Will they start thinking about investing a second or third round pick in a QB? Maybe, probably certainly if he isn't producing better in 2021 than he did in 2019. But they won't give up him, because they're in it for the long-term, and Allen still has a lot of football to play. And don't demean yourself by referencing Edwards, Fitzpatrick and Taylor. They're just three of thousands of quarterbacks who didn't have all the tools necessary to play the game at a really high level, and you know it. Allen has all the tools; he just hasn't played at a high level. Just because Allen hasn't done it doesn't mean he won't do it. There is no football law to that point. Young didn't do it out of the box, Elway didn't do it out of the box. Each player is unique. Put another way, your team can recover from all kinds of personnel mistakes, but there's only one kind of mistake that affects your team for a decade - letting a franchise QB get away. That has long-term consequences. McBeane have told us over and over that they're in this for the long-term, and they are not going to make a long-term mistake by getting rid of a QB who doesn't meet short-term goals, especially goals established by the fans.

That's possible, but not necessarily the case. McDermott and his coaches will evaluate Josh after 2020 just like after 2019. They will decide what it is that he needs to learn, and they will decide whether they think he can learn it. If they think he can learn it, they keep going. The process is not about his numbers. It's about what he knows, what he still needs to learn and whether he can learn it. It isn't about his passer rating in 2020 or about his 300 yard games.

I'm not committed. I believe, and I will believe until he shows me it's a mistake to believe in him. A flat 2020 won't show me. I didn't realize the option has to be exercised after the third year. I think there's no question they exercise the option. He'd have to be horrible in 2020, or run off with Kim Pegula, or Terry, or or Mrs. Beane and Mrs. McDermott, together, before they wouldn't exercise the option.

I don't. I actually believe that if he plays two seasons like 2019 and the Bills don't exercise the fifth year option, he will be a star someplace else. I think Allen is a star in the making. I understand that's just an opinion, but I think he's too talented and too committed to succeeding to fail. I think he found the perfect head coach to nurture and grow him, year after year. I think Allen understands that. Five years from now Allen will have mastered a complex offensive system for the Buffalo Bills, the Bills will be winning a lot of games, and Allen will be recognized as on his way to the Hall of Fame. Allen and McDermott are Brady and Belichick. I've been enjoying the ride since Allen wowed me with a couple of passes in his rookie preseason, and I see no reason why it is going to stop. I just hope I live long enough to see Allen in full bloom.

I agree, I expect he will improve. I agree with most everything you say all the time, including this post. However, and simply for the sake of intellectual curiosity, I would challenge you to explain how anything you said leads to the conclusion that he "has to continue to show signs of forward progress." There is no reason he "has" to do anything. His 2020 season does not determine his future, any more than his 2019 season determined his future. I agree, that if he isn't progressing, his leash probably gets short - GMs actually have to make decisions. But even the short leash isn't automatic, by any means. Allen's in a process. The process evaluates him every week and every season. His coaches make a judgment about how much potential for improvement he has and how likely it is that they, the coaches, will be able to help him achieve that improvement. When the determination is made that he's more or less reached his potential, then they decide what to do with him. It is quite possible that even off a no-improvement year in 2020 the coaches will have the exact same view of Allen's potential and how likely it is that will achieve it. The guy is only 24 this season, and there's nothing wrong if he doesn't reach is prime until he's 27 or 28. Look at Elway's numbers. He played 10 seasons without being in the top 10 in passer rating. In his 10th season he was 20th in the league; the next season he was 3rd, the beginning of a five-year Hall of Fame run. There simply is no reason to conclude that Allen "has" to do anything in 2020 except be committed to the process.

And one other point that is lost in this conversation. For a month or so, plenty of people were talking here about Daboll being a problem. That talk has died down, and I've never been a serious subscriber to that theory, but it's relevant here. How does any of us know that the extra 147 and extra 92 yards weren't on Daboll, not Allen? These men have a goal, a variety of goals. They are operating in a complicated game where everyone needs to perform to achieve the goals. Their roles are interconnected enough that it often is not easy to ascribe responsibility for particular outcomes. As I reminded us all a minute ago, there is a process. McDermott is driving a process to achieve some goals. Allen is a participant in the process. He hasn't achieved his personal goals yet. The process does not establish deadlines. It seeks improvement. 2020 is not some magical year by which certain things must happen.

Why does he have to show progress? He should show progress, but he doesn't have to. If Josh Allen becomes a true franchise quarterback, he's going to give us ten or more seasons of top 10 quarterbacking. I don't care if those ten seasons start in 2020 or 2023. I'd like them to start in 2020. But if I told you today Josh Allen was going to be exactly the same in 2020 as he was in 2019, and then he was going to be exactly the same again in 2021, and then he has going to have ten seasons in a row where his stats by any reasonable measure are in the top 10 every year, would you cut him after 2020? That's absurd. Young men have been trying there hands at playing quarterback for 75 years, millions of them. Over all that time and all those guys slinging it, only 30 or so have gotten to be outstanding. The 30 or so that made it didn't all get there the same way. Curt Warner didn't do it like Steve Young, who didn't do it like Peyton, who didn't do it like Brady, who didn't do it like Bart Starr, who didn't do it like Brees. There is no well-defined path to greatness at quarterback. In a word that we talked about a lot a year or two ago, we should all remember that it's a process. Allen is going through a process. The process isn't written in a textbook somewhere. The process doesn't involve straight line improvement; there are ups and downs. The only judgment to be made in evaluating the process is the extent to which the person is reaching his limit. Has he reached his potential? If he hasn't reached his potential, then you keep looking for ways to move him along. Sure, at some point, you give up and move on, but with Allen's potential and give his age, we aren't anywhere close to the time when it makes sense to give up. I discovered a month ago and keep talking about Elway, who I've always thought was more like Allen in terms of skill set than any other quarterback. Size, running ability, arm strength at the very top of the charts. Here's Elway's rank in the league, year after year, in passer rating: 27, 17, 17, 11, 11, 18, 17, 14, 19, 20. That's ten years of quarterbacking where Elway did not perform in the top 10 in the league. Imagine what the fans in Denver were saying. Those numbers mean that his play was completely mediocre in terms of things like TD-INT ratio, completion percentage, yards per attempt. Mediocre. Bronco management didn't give up on him. Why not? Potential. Big body, big arm, good runner, good leader. They were content to wait for him. What happened for the last five years of his career? 3, 4, 14, 4, 7, two Super Bowls. People will say it doesn't take that long to succeed in the NFL any more, but that's incorrect. It may not take some people that long to succeed, but successful QBs don't follow the same paths. It makes no sense to me to say that Allen MUST do anything at all next season. He will have the season he has. Then the coaches will evaluate it, decide how he needs to improve, and work on it. Then Allen will play another season, the coaches will evaluate that season, decide how he has to improve, and work on it. When the coaches decide that he no longer has reasonable room for improvement, they'll move on. There's no reason apparent today why he won't be able to improve in 2021 if he doesn't improve in 2020. There are position players in the Pro Bowl every year who played their first three or four years in the NFL without being a full-time starter. Why does that happen? Because they learn and improve. If it takes position players four years or more to get good at their position, why should we think that at the most difficult position in all of sports, Josh Allen is supposed to get good in three? There's a big difference between what we want from him and what he must do in 2020. I want him to be a top 10 quarterback. I'm not cutting or trading him if he isn't.

Why is this the year? What if 2020 and 2021 are just like 2019 and 2022-2029 are as you request. Why does it have to happen in 2020?

Very interesting. You may be right. I think you will have four or five, but they just haven't emerged yet. Allen, Darnold, Dak, Wentz, and I know people think I'm nuts but I put Tannehill there too, all are guys who might emerge. Burroughs. Mayfield. Jackson. Some of them will turn out to be dominant. But that's just what I think. I see how you could be right. Thanks.

Right, but that's the end of his rookie deal, not the end of the 2020 season. The original question here was is 2020 a "prove it" year for Allen. I think definitely not. Unless he crashes and burns in 2020, he's the starter in 2021, and that season, his fourth, is when I'd want him to be in that range - 6-12 in the league. I think it's important that in 2020 Allen is better than, rather than simply as good as, the 2019 Allen. If he shows no improvement, that would be a bad sign. rober would say, and I would agree, I guess, that you'd better start looking for the next one. A second or third round pick.

Interesting thoughts. First, although a lot of people complain about it, the passer rating is a very good tool. The passer rating gives us numbers that correlate very well with good quarterbacking. The best QBs have the best passer ratings, more or less, and not many bad QBs have good passer ratings. So, I think if you want compare over eras, it's much better to look at passer rating. And not to compare raw passer rating numbers, but to look at the QB's rank in terms of passer rating each season. When you do that, you see that the best QBs had the best passer ratings in their era. So in Elway's case, I don't care about the number of his attempts and completions, because he played in a different era. Of course they won't compare. But I looked a few weeks ago at his rank in the league in passer rating throughout his career. He was essentially 15th to 25th in passer rating rank for eight seasons, and then he was top ten four years in a row and won two Super Bowls. Now, that's a pretty dramatic jump to have made, and no one in this era is waiting eight years for his QB to develop, but the point is with some QBs you simply don't know yet when the time comes to sign the second deal. You just don't know. I don't like Winston, but I hear what your saying. Can I tell with a certainty to three years from Winston will not be a star in the league? No, I can't. He's done some really impressive looking stuff. I think that's exactly the point. Jameis Winston wins the Super Bowl in three years, and the career of the GM who let him go is over. And although I like Allen's chances better than Winston's, their stories in the pros are similar. As for Rivers, I haven't understood why he's been on the field for the last three years. He just didn't have it, stats or not.

Thanks. That's a really good explanation of what you mean. I understand, and I don't disagree. But I think there's a little more going on than that. Your explanation that the rule changes have made it easier for college QBs to transition must be true, because you're right about how long guys had to be understudies in the NFL 40 years ago. That's interesting. What I think also is going on is by the time that college guy has been in the NFL for five years, he sure better have learned how to play complex offense, because whatever edge he got from athleticism and scheme in college and for a year or two in the NFL, whatever that edge was is going to be gone. The defenses will adjust and will take that edge away from you. Everyone will do it to you, and you'd better be able to do what the traditional franchise QBs do - read, diagnose, make decisions in real time, because if you can't, you're done starting. If you're correct, teams will figure out that it's more efficient, in terms of building a winner, to get a good kid, run his special stuff for a few years, see if you can surround him with good pieces, and go for the Lombardi. Then when the kid fails, you go get another one and do it again. That's not crazy. I just think coaches and GMs would rather have a team with true franchise QB and spend ten or 15 years building and rebuilding supporting cast around him. That's what the Patriots and Steelers and Colts have been doing. I think McBeane clearly are of the view that they want to run a system that always has the next guy in line, waiting to play, at every position except QB. They aren't going to fall in love with a player at any position and overpay him. They won't do it; they'll go with the next man up. At QB, I think they want the franchise QB. Beane has said at least a few times that he hopes Allen makes him start writing some big checks. What does that mean? It means above all else, he wants a franchise QB. He wants the long-term guy. f you're right, Beane is behind the times. I mean that seriously. It's certainly possible that McBeane are really wired into 2010 thinking about football, they're evangelists for that style, but the league is moving on. The style still works, once every fifty years or so, but it's not the most effective style. That would be really cruel to Bills fans - to have been wishing and hoping to get on the modern football train instead of mired where we were for all those years. Then a couple of guys finally come along and show us how to get on the train, only to discover that although that train used to go to Canton, now it just goes to a landfill in central Pennsylvania.

I've been away from this thread for a while and there are some interesting things being said here. I hope I can come back later and read through all of it. In the meantime, I wanted to comment about this statement. I think it's at the core of the discussion, and I completely disagree with the notion that the franchise QB era is ending. I think all that's happening is that you and I and all the rest of us can't see yet who the next franchise quarterbacks are. I think that NFL football has been on a one-way street for 70 years, and it's going to continue. The game keeps evolving, and the evolution is making the game continuously more complex. It's not going back. Coaches keep inventing new techniques, and the techniques never go away. So when the standard QB option sweep was invented 70 years ago, it was a devastating weapon until people figured out how to stop it. And at the highest level, the pros, they learned to stop simply because the defender who was the option read was so athletic that with training he could cover both options. But the option sweep didn't go away; it just became part of the repertoire. Offenses have to be able to run it and defenses have to be able stop it. The same was true with the "rub" pass patterns. They worked until defenses figured out a scheme for beating the pick. The same will be true with run-pass options. They work now, but defenses are in the process of figuring out how to stop them. Teams will still run those plays, but they can't be the mainstay of your offense, because if you're running it all the time, defenses will stop you. The point is, offenses keep getting more complicated, and defenses add complexity to stop the offenses. It's a one-way street. Yes, colleges have these wide-open offenses and guys like Mayfield and Murray and others are truly explosive running them, but colleges play those offenses because if you have the right QB, none of your opponents have enough talent on defense to stop them. The QB's athletic ability is enough to win, and the offenses are simple enough that most good athletes can learn them. When those QBs get to the NFL, it's different. There are 11 elite athletes on defense, and the coaches can figure out an infinite number of combinations of athletes and strategies that will stop the QB. Once that happens, the QB has to understand the defense and adjust. In short, once that happens, the QB has to learn to play the same game that all the other QBs are playing. Part of it is simply the complexity of having 11 defenders. In the NBA, if you double team Hardin, he doesn't have to be a rocket scientist to find the open man. He's trained to do it, and it's relatively easy for him. But in the NFL, if the defense spies the running QB with a combination of players, so the QB doesn't know where the spy is coming from and where to attack as a result, it isn't so easy. It's not going to get simpler. And if it isn't going to get simpler, having a QB who understands the whole offense and the whole defense, who can read and attack defenses pre- and post-snap, is still the pre-eminent weapon. You might win a Super Bowl with Matt Stafford, but it you might win four with Drew Brees. The traditional franchise qbs are weapons that are in a completely different league than players in any other position. Nobody talks about JJ Watt as a "franchise" defensive tackle. Best in the league for a few years, but having him on the roster doesn't make your team competitive for ten years. It doesn't even necessarily make your team competitive from game to game. Franchise QBs make your team relevant the day training camp opens, they make your team a threat to win it all. The consequence of that, despite what you say, is that GMs are not going to look for a string of Bridgewaters and Foleses and other guys, pay them $15 million a year, and hope that the GM and coach can put together a collection of other players and somehow win a Super Bowl. It happens, of course, as it did with Flacco, but the GMs are going to continue to look for the Breeses, because if you can get a Drew Brees with a coach to go with him, you have ten years where you have a shot, multiple shots, even consecutive shots. The consequence of that is that they GMs are going to continue to write $30 million contracts to the Goffs of the world, not because they're that much better than the Foleses, but because they still have the potential to be better than the Foleses, the potential to become franchise QBs. The QBs who can process information quickly and accurately, who can make accurate decisions quickly and who can execute once the decision has been made are invaluable, and GMs will continue to make fools of themselves going after guys who might be one of those.

Ha ha ha! That's hysterical. Bye.

You seem to be having trouble understanding this. The best QBs in the league have good passer ratings. They often are in the top 10. Most of their seasons. Newton was in the top 10 once. That is not most. That is not close to most. That is once. Tyrod Taylor was in the top 10 once. Spend a little time looking at the stats.

All franchise QBs have passer ratings in the top 10 most years. Look em up..

His passer rating was in the top 10 once. Same as Tyrod Taylor. Nobody whose passer rating is consistently in the top 20 or 30, which is where he consistently was, is a top10 QB.