Shaw66

so far as I can tell, sitting back and having a drink is your answer to just about everything. not knocking it, just observing.

Yeah, there's some evidence to support this. I think people are too tough on him for Mills and the guard (sorry, senior moment). But you have to wonder how he misfired on his offensive coordinator so badly that he had to make a move after one year. What I like about McDermott is that he thinks about things, makes a decision, but then is perfectly willing to evaluate the decision and change if it didn't work. So as bad as the Dennison choice was, McD at least wasn't afraid to fix it. He did the same thing with the Peterman start. The essence of being a professional is continuing to work at your craft, learning and getting better. McD is a relatively young professional, and he's still learning, still accumulating knowledge. It's clear he works really hard at it. So far, I'm pleased with what I see, but he certainly isn't yet a master at his craft.

Of course you're right about this, as to you. I readily admit there are outliers, that the best people at any skill - investing, golf, evaluating pro football talent, are not always the professionals. But of all the professionals, a high percentage of them are the best people at that skill, and of all the amateurs a very, very low percentage of them are among the best people. So when I'm listening to an amateur and a professional, the odds are very much weighted toward the professional doing it well and the amateur not. So when an amateur is telling me Allen can't make it and professional is telling me he can, and when I know I don't know, I'm inclined to trust the professional. Doesn't mean Allen is going to make, just like it doesn't mean my stock broker is giving me a winner. It's just that the chances are pretty high that a random next door neighbor is NOT giving me a stock winner.

I know. Gunner's really good. As you can tell from my posts, it's not that I have undying faith in this or any other stuff. But until this staff shows me they don't know what they're doing, I have more reason to believe them than I have to believe posters who disagree with them. Why? Because they have knowledge, experience, access and time that the posters don't. They've risen to the top of the profession by being better than all the other people who didn't rise. Unless Gunner posts his curriculum vitae explaining how he collected similar knowledge and how he's dedicated his adult life to this work and what his overall +/- percentage is on NFL decision making, I just don't have any reason to take his word over the experts.

Got it. And, by the way, I love reading your stuff. It's always well thought out. I really was talking to Electric Company and you jumped in. I wasn't saying, don't think I have said, that I think his or your opinion about the question is wrong. What I've been saying is that from my perspective, there's not reason for me to reach the same conclusion you have. But when I'm your situation and reach a conclusion opposite from the conclusion the professionals have reached, I ask myself what it is that they are seeing that I'm not? What's their thought process? More often than not, I learn something about football by doing that, because I figure some things that they are considering that I am not.

Of course. And how many people have THAT neighbor as compared to the neighbor whose personal picks are consistently outperformed by quality professionals? One out of 100. I've worked around the investment field for a long time and one thing is obvious: there are a lot more amateur losers than amateur winners. A lot. Why? Because many of the amateur winners become professionals, that's why. They become professionals because they can make more money doing it all day, every day because they're good at it. Can an amateur win the US Open golf tournament? Sure. There are some good amateurs around. Is it likely? No. Why not? Because if you're amateur good enough to win then US Open, you turn pro. Why? Because you can make more money as a pro than doing whatever else you're doing to earn a living. If some message board analyst's opinion was regularly better than the opinion of general managers and scouts, why wouldn't he go work in the NFL for a few hundred thousand bucks a year and a great pension? Yes, it's true, some good amateurs don't turn pro, because they don't like the lifestyle, they don't need the money, whatever. But the point is there are very few amateurs good enough to be pros, and many of them who are good enough DO become pros. That means most of the amateurs, like you and me, are not as good as the pros. So when I'm listening to you and listening to the pros on the same subject, I have a bias in favor of the pros because you're almost certainly not as good at the job as they are. You may be right about a particular opinion and the pros may be wrong, but from where I'm sitting, my head tells me that the odds that you're right and the pros are wrong aren't very good. It's more likely they're right and you're wrong.

Wait. So we have ZERO data points to evaluate McBeane on, because they've only done one draft and we haven't seen yet how well they did on their picks. So I'm supposed to conclude what? That they're picks are as bad as some guys who got fired for the picks they made? Why would I conclude that?

Sure, you can be supremely confident that your opinion, based on your examination of whatever you've studied, is correct and that the opinion of the Bills' coaches and scouting staff is wrong. You are correct in your opinions sometime, and all coaches and scouting staffs are wrong some time. But what about me, a third person, listening to you and listening to the Bills scouting staff. What am I supposed to conclude? What I'm going to do is trust the Bills' coaches and scouting staff. Why? Because each of them (not to mention all of them collectively) has more knowledge, more experience, more information available and more time to study than you do. They are true experts in their field and you aren't; you're just a reasonably well-informed amateur. They've seen everything you've seen, EVERYTHING, and they've considered it all. They see the problems you see, and they've considered how to fix those problems. They know better how to fix those problems, because they've been teaching football for 15 or 20 years and they know how to teach football. Does that mean the experts are always right? Of course not, we all know that. But for me, a third party listening to you on the one hand and the Bills on the other, the only way I can conclude yours is the better opinion is to decide that I'm going to trust you simply because you're saying I should. I choose to trust the experts. I choose to trust these guys particularly because of my growing respect for how hard they work, for how much they study the details, for the work they put into what they do. They maximize their chances of success by their work ethic. Still, they may be wrong. I get that. But I'm not going to decide for myself that they are wrong because you say they are. It's illogical.

You miss the point. The point is not that they may be wrong. Even THEY know they might be wrong. The point is that YOU might be wrong and YOU behave like that's not possible.

This is good. Who is Josh Allen? Exactly. I'd guess that what the Bills and others saw is a guy who hasn't had the opportunity to grow into all he can be. He hasn't been in big programs anywhere, hasn't had big expectationso thrust on him. The word used most often to criticize Allen pre-draft wasn't accuracy,nit was "raw." The questions is what will he be when he's cooked?

Try to look at it from a third person's point of view. On the one hand you have a half dozen or more pro football scouts and coaches watching every play the guy has played in college, dozens of times and grading all aspects of his play. Those guys conclude the player is a solid prospect. On the other hand you have guy posting on a message suggesting he watched some film. He concludes the guy can't cut it. Which opinion would YOU credit? You really expect us to take your opinion over theirs because ALL of them were seeing things that really weren't there? ALL of them thought the Emperor had clothes? Have you ever met the Bills scouting staff? I assume not. So why would you conclude that they are completely misunderstanding the film they're watching? Right. None of the 2018 prospects is a sure-fire starter.

I'm expecting AJ. McD will want his experience on the field. His defense will keep games close, so McD will want no mistakes. That's AJ.

Have you read what Beane said? He and his staff turned on the film and studied it for a long time. They didn't see a mediocre QB.

I'm excited about him because he has brains, is a competitor and is a dedicated guy. He's a perfect fit for McDermott. I think he's EJ Manuel with a football head on his shoulders. I expect he'll be starting before the end of the season.

I agree all those things are suspect. I'd argue that they're all suspect with the other rookie QBs, too. None of them has ever been in an NFL game, and they haven't shown they can do anything. There plenty of explanations why Allen did those things less well in college, maybe the explanations, maybe they aren't. But Allen has a lot of talent that we DON'T have to worry about. He can throw every pass the NFL demands. He can throw deep, he can throw with touch, he throw bullets, he can throw the sideline out routes. He has a quick release. He's big and strong. He's faster than any of the others in the top four rookies drafted. In short, he has a lot the other guys don't have. Mayfield's not getting any taller, Rosen's not getting any bigger, Darnold's not getting any smarter. I'm just gonna wait and see.

Yeah, I agree it's an opinion, but it's based on fact. His trajectory is 1. Out of high school no D-1 team wanted him, so he went to Jr. College 2. Then a D-1 school wanted him, so that's upward. 3. Going into his first year starting, he wasn't on many people's NFL radar. 4. After his first year starting, he WAS on the NFL radar, so that's upward. 5. After his second year starting he was clearly in the top 4 QBs coming out, so that's upward. 6. Good Senior Bowl (yes, that's a small sample, but it's something), so that's upward. He's also had lower level coaching than most high-profile QBs. He was in a tiny high school, a junior college and a backwater D-1 school. Compare that to the other three - highly touted out of high school, no doubt going to big-time QB clinics and showcases, then multi-year experience at big-time football factories - Oklahoma. USC and UCLA. I think it's a good bet that Allen is less well-developed, technically, than any of the other three, so he has more room to grow, which also suggests that he's trending upward. Still, none of it means anything. Let's see what he looks like on an NFL playing field.

All I'm saying is this guy isn't worth reading. It's my opinion. Unlike the guy who wrote the article, I backed up my opinion with facts.

I'm not saying whether Allen make it or not. What I'm saying is it isn't worth reading someone who's so imprecise with his words that his opinion becomes untrustworthy. He said there's NO empirical emphasis suggesting Allen can make it. NO means none, zero. Well, that's nonsense. How's 6'5", 240 pounds? That's empirical evidence. How's a 4.75 40-yard dash? That's empirical evidence. How's a 37 on the Wonderlic? That's empirical evidence. How's the strongest arm in the class, and among the strongest in the league? That's empirical evidence. So Allen is bigger, stronger than all of the QBs in his draft class and has the strongest arm. It's pure nonsense to say there's no evidence. One thing above all else is clear about McBeane - they do their homework. They are NOT trading up like they did to take someone who doesn't have a shot, so for some bozo sitting at a keyboard, some clown who hasn't coached football for one day in his life, to write that stuff is truly not worth your time or mine. Maybe Allen makes it, maybe he doesn't. It is not knowable at this time, and it's especially not known by some guy who crunches numbers and thinks he knows something. Yeah, that's part of it. It's part of all that stuff Beane said recently about the due diligence they did. They watched every play multiple times, they met with the guy multiple times, they saw him play multiple times. They've sliced and diced Allen so many ways, it's mind boggling to the amateur. Does that mean Allen will be a star? No, it doesn't mean that, and Beane would be quick to tell you that they could be wrong. But to suggest that Allen hasn't shown ANYTHING that suggests he can be successful in the NFL is absurd.

Everyone's entitled to his opinion, but you'd like the opinion to make sense. He says "there's zero empirical evidence" to support him becoming a reasonable starting quarterback. What? He has one of the best arms in the history of the league, so that's some empirical evidence. He can run, so that's some empirical evidence. He had a 37 on the Wonderlic. That's some empirical evidence. His trajectory as a developing QB is trending upward. That's some empirical evidence. There is a very simple truth about college quarterbacks: If you aren't Andrew Luck, there is no reliable predictor of success in the NFL. These guys haven't even been to training camp. At this point there is no meaningful difference in the probabilities that Rosen, Allen, Mayfield and Darnold will be effective NFL starters at some point. None of them is a sure-fire starter; none of them is a sure-fire bust. Declaring any of these guys as certifiable busts now is pure guess work. Sure, it can be your opinion, but that just means you're opinion isn't supported by sufficient evidence to make it credible. Each of these guys has too many positive measureables, each of these guys has been vetted and found to be a quality prospect by multiple pro teams, to make a certifiable-bust opinion make anything but guessing.

This defense is going to be good. The pressure is on Daboll.

Long jump/triple jump means he can run. The emphasis in this defense is on speed. especially at linebacker. And hybrid players. McDermott is looking for interchangeable parts who can run.

The Bills want a MLB who can play Cover 2 and who can get get out to the flats, too. That's what they drafted him for. They aren't going to play him on the outside unless he shows he can't play the middle.

I DO believe Beane. Everything I have heard from him seems like he is completely straight when he talks. McD is all coach-speak, but not Beane. Particularly in this case. Beane is VERY serious about how he uses his picks, and if he had major problems with Allen, he wouldn't have moved up for him. It's obvious by where they took him that they really liked him, so what he says in this interview is totally believable to me.

This doesn't surprise me. I listen pretty carefully to what they say about the process, and Mayfield and Rosen each had issues that suggested they wouldn't fit. McB have been clear that fitting the system is a critical component in their decision making. So Darnold and Allen at the top of their board makes sense.

I agree, except that McD DOES say some things about the "process" that are revealing. Never anything about players.