Shaw66

thanks for the observations.

Thanks for the write up. Great stuff. Kyle is one of those guys who just do it right. Always has been.

I like this. It's clear, makes sense. You've watched the guy and you don't think he's a football player. That's about as good an argument against his chances as there can be. I hope you're wrong, of course. And I have a theory about how you can be wrong. I think up until now, Allen's played something that's close to sandlot ball. Go out there kid, use your athleticism and see if you can win the game for us. I don't think that's how QB is played in the NFL any more. I think NFL QBs are coaches on the field. They're programmed to execute the plays, not create plays. I think that's why Kirk Cousins got $30 million a year, or whatever. He is NOT a guy who takes the game in his hands and wins it. He's a guy who studies the plan, studies the opponent, and executes. I think the Bills see Allen as a Kirk Cousins type, but with better athleticism. I think they see a guy who will learn the system, do what he's told to do, execute the system. I don't think the Bills were looking for John Elway. They want a guy who by his very nature will buy into the process and execute. I never look at it this way. All I care about is that Allen makes it and is a solid, long-term starting QB. If he is, I don't care if any of those other guys are better. The GM's job is to get good value for his pick, not to get the best value.

I long for a season of that kind of excitement in the stands.

Hapless I gotta thank you for this. Its one of the best things I've read in a while. Very enlightening. I like the basic stuff Outsiders does. I think their problem is that in order to monetiz their product they needed more content. To generate content they needed "data" to talk about. But once they get into the realm of college footvall, there are too many variables and they have to start using surrogates for real data. Anyway, thanks for the analysis of QBASE. Very helpful.

Thanks. This a really good nutshell summary. I tend to think the Bills CAN do it, can teachAllen what he needs to learn. Why do I think so? Because the way this front office and coach operate, they've evaluated the guy's work ethic, his understanding of the game, his intelligence. They've done that with testing and through interviews with the player and his coaches. They analyzed kind of a learner he is. Remember, McBeane saw Cam Newton come into the league and learn the things he had to learn. He played in a pretty simple college offense, and he had a lot to learn. He's been learning for years. So McBeane knows what it takes, they know what kind of learner Cam was and they know what kind of learner Allen is. I think when they took Allen, they had a high level of confidence that they can teach him what he needs to know. And that confidence was based on actual investigation into the guy.

Amen.

But in this case, the guy is neither dumb nor annoying. In fact, if he's annoying at all, it's because he relentlessly is looking to get better. So he's annoying like Kirk Cousins.

It's clear that purely physically he has all the tour. Whether his mechanics, his judgment etc are good enough is an open question, like with every other rookie. What gives me confidence is that the Bills have evaluating those things and come to the conclusion that whatever it is about his game they DON'T like is susceptible to being fixed. Frankly, I put a lot of stock in Allen's work ethic, his attitude, and his brains.

I'm biased against PFF and toward Outsiders, because as I understand it, PFF's "data" is largely compiled film review, and I'm suspicious of amateurs, which I assume they are, evaluating film. As Kyle Williams said once, how can people evaluate my play if they don't know the play call, my assignment, what I was told to do this week as we were preparing for the game? Outsiders, as I understand, is driven by objective data - down and distance, result, etc. So I tend to think statistical analysis of PFF's "data" is less reliable than the statistical analysis the Outsiders do.

And personal discipline. And focus. But, but, but ... he isn't as much fun to listen to!

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.