Mikey152

That's the point...he did. He got rid of the football that time.

You're completely missing the point about being drafted in the top 10. Guys don't wind up there by accident. Some dude drafted in the third round with a sub 57% completion percentage might have unfixable issues. But a guy drafted in the top 10 either has a trump card or, upon further scrutiny, his stats weren't a true reflection of his ability. Maybe both.

You literally said "guys that have accuracy issues" then clarified via 57% comp %. Out of curiosity...how many of those guys were top 10 picks? My guess is we are talking about less than 5. Not exactly a huge sample size. So maybe, just maybe...there is some context there that makes him different? I mean, his numbers on third down, completion % wise, were similar to Darnold and Rosen.

Types of passes, too... It was nice to see him show he is capable of running an efficient offense against the Browns, where they moved the ball without a bunch of chunk plays.

Again, completion percentage and accuracy are not the same thing. That's the whole point. I mean, do you really think that Joe Flacco is more accurate than Dan Marino?

What, exactly, is a "guy like him"? This is the problem with your whole argument, in a nutshell. It has ZERO context. Low completion percentage = inaccurate. It doesn't take much to see that narrative was incorrect.

People said he was a "project" because they thought he had crappy accuracy and sloppy footwork. But the reality is he is a smart kid who ran what was quite possibly the most (or second most behind Rosen) pro-style offense of all the rookies. Not to mention his physical tools which can mask some of the typical rookie problems. He had the highest floor, not the lowest...once you got past the narrative that he couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, anyway (bear in mind this sentiment was based almost 100% on his stats and not his actual ability)

That's funny, because you seemed pretty sure before... Josh Allen was all set to be the poster child for the analytics crew...I think it's hilarious that he is shaping up to be the exact opposite, basically proving that a lot of those numbers are contextual and can't be compared in a vacuum.

Maybe he isn't explosive in pads (or you are just making this up based on what you read), but his jumping numbers (which are shown to correlate the most with explosiveness) at the combine were incredible...39.5 inch vert and over 11 feet in the broad jump indicate he is extremely explosive. I don't think he is very physical, though...and because he is tall, he isn't exactly agile, either. Maybe that's what you're actually seeing

Honestly, I feel like Incognito and Wood regressed quite a bit last season... Wood was abused routinely and Incognito was seemingly good for at least one holding penalty a game, which is a clear sign of losing a step at LG where you generally aren't blocking guys in front of you...he just wasn't getting to his spot fast enough. The Bills might miss their leadership, but their on-field play wasn't what it once was...whether it was old age or scheme? Not sure

This is a good post, and I generally agree with your points...but I think you are a little off (and it's not just you) when you say he was poor in college. Inefficient, maybe, but not poor...it was clear that he was carrying his team, though...they were really bad before he got there and when he was hurt, and an 8 win bowl team when he played. Serious question: Would you take Tyrod Taylor right now over Brett Favre in his prime? Do you know who would? Analytics...because their model rewards "efficiency" and has no measure for things like plays left on the field. The year the Packers won the SB, Brett Favre completed 59.9% of his passes.

My problem with Analytics, as used in football, can be summed up very concisely with this article... "Old School" vs. "New School": JT Barrett completed 64.7% of his passes for 35 TDs and 8 INTs in the Big 10 this year. Those are better numbers than anybody but Mayfield w/ regards to the big 4, and that doesn't even include his rushing stats. On paper, he should have been a top choice in the draft this year...and yet it was his physical tools and game tape that kept him from getting drafted anywhere near the top of the draft. Don't even get me started on Guys like Mike White and Luke Falk. This, in a nutshell, is the problem. All these indicators, like comp%? They only appear to be "predictive" once you have already evaluated a prospect by more traditional means, like size, arm strength, level of comp, scheme, etc...so for them to in turn be so cavalier about the value of traditional scouting is hilarious. Also, call me crazy but I don't think I need analytics to know that most guys that had bad numbers in college probably won't have good numbers in the pros....but to act like there can't be justfiable rationale for it to occur based on a flawed statistical sample? That's bastardizing stats.

I think this has more to do with demographics and socio-economics than it does weather. For example, Ohio in general has a ton of overweight people...but in the small, wealthy, town I live in near Columbus there is an abnormally high number of attractive people relative to the rest of the state. Better food, better education, better means...and likely more of an emphasis on appearance. It would stand to reason that, on average, places near the beach would also tend to have wealthier people...and people who enjoy active lifestyles.

On the decline? They're 26. Matthews was playing with a rookie and Cam was hurt and had easily his worst season in the NFL. As for Hogan and Woods...More Yards and touchdowns on less targets as #2 or 3 options in a better offense. Goodwin with more targets and more varied targets at that. It really is that simple. What makes him a #2? When healthy, he is a nice X receiver, which is what this team has desperately needed. He might not be a number #1 in the sense that he will put up game breaking numbers, but he is a #1 in the sense that he will draw and can beat man coverage, allowing the other receivers to play off the line of scrimmage and be schemed open.

Jordan Matthews and Kelvin Benjamin were more productive prior to coming to Buffalo, and Chris Hogan, Marquise Goodwin, and Robert Woods were more productive after leaving. I think it is safe to say that QB play and offensive philosophy were a contributing factor to the current impression most fans have regarding our WR core. As for slot guy vs. outside guy...flanker and slot aren't all that different, functionally. Most guys that can play slot can play flanker just fine, and clearly Benjamin is our primary Split End (if we don't split a second TE). The mix will be fine.

I posted this in another thread, but it underscores how the comp. % can be misleading... On 3rd down and 7-9 yards (aka the money down/distance for quarterbacks) in 2017 Player A: 10/24 for 132 yards and a pick. 8 first downs. Player B: 13/22 for 124 yards and a TD. 7 first downs. Player C: 15/22 for 236 yards and a TD. 10 first downs. Player D: 16/28 for 162 yards and a TD. 10 first downs. Darnold, Rosen, Mayfield, Allen....and that doesn't even factor in running. Where those other guys gained tons of ground on Allen was on first and second down, where they threw 2-3x more often and all 4 completed a significantly higher number (easier throws and soft coverage).

Not just McDermott...Leslie Frazier, too. He led the '85 bears in picks.

I know we all hate Rex Ryan now, but I read his book a while back and one of the interesting things he said in it is that it is very difficult for a football team to be successful when there is a guy between the football guys and the owners...because that guy has the owner's ear and will likely play both sides. When **** hits the fan, he will be protecting himself. He had a point.

In my mind, it runs similar to the idea that Josh Allen has the "lowest floor". I think it was Mayock who said it, and I have been saying it for a while too, but when you stop to think about it...Allen actually has the highest floor. He is biggest, strongest, smartest and has the best arm, fastest release, etc. That is the floor.

Who is getting emotional? We are arguing on a message board. Nobody is saying he is perfect. I'm just tired of all the invented flaws and misinformation parading under the guise of "analytics". Basically, a standard stat is chosen, massaged to make it seem "advanced", and then it is attributed to a single cause without any kind of fact checking, regression testing, etc.

And those kinds of analytical metrics make perfect sense...because unlike statistical analysis, which measures team performance, these are actually individual player focused and allow you to compare apples to apples performance.

It's funny how football is only more complicated when it suits your argument. What the defense does, what his receiver does, what his offensive line does, what the weather does...all of these things are completely out of a quarterback's control and ALL of them factor into the outcome of a play, which is what statistics are based on. That is 100% the reason why stats are a silly way to evaluate performance, and the idea that someone who never even played the sport has the ability to identify, understand and isolate the variables in order to assess players is just...silly. I see it happen all the time at work. Metrics designed by people that understand metrics but not the process they are measuring. 10/10 times it leads to garbage metrics that only look good on paper.

How is footwork mental? At all? As for bailing from the pocket? bull ****. They moved the pocket quite a bit and had a bunch of designed runs. Outside of that, he didn't move the pocket unless protection broke down and more than any other QB.

You're making an assumption based on little actual evidence. What evidence, aside from statistics which we are clearly demonstrating are multi-variable, is there that Allen cant handle the mental aspects? He set his own protections, took snaps from under center and has a developed play action game. What other QB in this class can say that?

The fact of the matter is, Allen's numbers on third down look remarkably similar to Rosen's. The big difference in their stats is that Rosen threw the ball 213 times on first down, and completed 141 (66.2%) for 1942 yards and 15/4. Allen attempted 90(!) first down throws, completed 56 (62.2%) for 723 yards and 9/2.