Mikey152

7+ spots higher and I am the one making up crap? You literally just pulled that number out of your ass.

Here's the problem...every team needs different things; your offense needs to get better relative to other teams, not in a vacuum. If you pass on an A player for a B player...the team behind you is going to get that A player. Your team might have gone from a C to a B, but that team just went from a C to an A. BPA at a position of need as a statement does nothing to address the issue of reaching. In your description you said something about it, but the term "BPA at a position of need" literally implies you would skip positions you don't need. That is the definition of reaching.

Thats the point of tiers...to determine what is and isn't a reach. It's also why BPA at a position of need is not a good description, because the name alone IMPLIES reaching is ok.

I was thinking about an analogy that might help Lets say you want a blue shirt to go with some gray pants you got for Christmas, so you go to the store. When you get there, they are all out of your size. would you: A) Buy a different size (Draft for need) B) Look at different colors in your size (draft BPA) C) Look at pants that go with shirts you already have (draft BPA but at a position of strength) D) Go to a different store (trade down) I would say that as far as decisions go, B=D>C>A

It's not built on need...positions come into play, but more with regards to their intrinsic value than their value to a given team. Pushing players up or down your board based on position RELATIVE TO YOUR TEAM is exactly what you should never do

You're half right... Teams won't (and shouldn't) pass on a better player at a position they don't "need" to take one at a position they do. If that single player is truly the only BPA, they would likely trade down (or have traded up before they were stuck with just the one option) Whats subjective about BPA is who the Best player available actually is. Rarely is it just one guy, but rather a tier of guys that are of a similar grade. Using some planning and trading, you should be able to generally select players from an area of need from the top tiers on your board. What you should never do is skip tiers because the higher tiers don't have any players you need. That's poor asset management, but you see fantasy football players do it all the time...they will fill out their starting roster before even looking at bench players, almost no matter what, which would be fine if injuries, bye weeks and trades didn't exist, I guess. Repost from the Josh Allen thread: "Best Player available" is sort of a misnomer...it is incredibly rare where there is a literal "best player". Most of the time what happens is players fall into groups or tiers made up of similarly-ranked players (position is likely factored in somewhat, but from an absolute value standpoint and not based on need). When you adopt a BPA strategy, you should always be picking from the highest tiers left on your board. If there aren't any positions you need in your highest tier (or loads of guys left in that tier), maybe you trade down...and if there is only one or two guys left in a tier at a position of need maybe you trade up. What BPA really means is don't reach for need...you should trust your board you spent a year building. Crazy stuff happens to rosters in football, and you can always trade picks or players if you're in a position of surplus. Here is a simplified example: Lets say your team really needs an OL and a WR and does not need a QB or a S. Everywhere else is neutral. With your first pick, there are three guys on your board with first-round grades: QB, S, and RB. Your second round tier has 5 WR and 10 OL. The best choice would be to trade down for say 2 2nd round picks and draft a WR and an OL. That is BPA AND good asset management A good choice would be to draft the RB. That is BPA and neutral asset management A bad choice would be to take the QB or S because they are unlikely to increase in value from here...you may get lucky and at least you drafted "BPA", but it is poor asset management. A terrible choice would be to draft a WR or OL. It is not BPA and good asset management..

"Best Player available" is sort of a misnomer...it is incredibly rare where there is a literal "best player". Most of the time what happens is players fall into groups or tiers made up of similarly-ranked players (position is likely factored in somewhat, but from an absolute value standpoint and not based on need). When you adopt a BPA strategy, you should always be picking from the highest tiers left on your board. If there aren't any positions you need in your highest tier (or loads of guys left in that tier), maybe you trade down...and if there is only one or two guys left in a tier at a position of need maybe you trade up. What BPA really means is don't reach for need...you should trust your board you spent a year building. Crazy stuff happens to rosters in football, and you can always trade picks or players if you're in a position of surplus.

Whether or not I agree with the terminology, I totally get what you are trying to say and I agree with you...he was not an efficient passer, and part of that was due to ball placement. What I also think is, under certain (ie ideal) circumstances, he throws darts and can do so to all areas of the field. It’s those throws where he needs to gear down a little or quickly move his feet that he seems to be less consistent with...I’m not sure he will ever be more than ok at them. It’s the downside of having a rocket arm...you have to take so much off to get the proper trajectory, it’s almost impossible to maintain proper mechanics consistently...if you’ve ever tried to throw a football to a small child, it’s almost impossible to slow your arm down and still throw an accurate spiral. The other misfires are often timing related...throwing to a spot too early or too late (or right on time but your receiver is early or late) can have a huge impact, and throwing as hard as he does only exacerbates the problem because receivers don’t have as much time to adjust and make the throw look even wilder than it really is. I think those issue will work themselves out over time.

Precision can be calculated in one of two ways when it comes to throwing a football, and neither of them are possible during a live game due to A) a sample set of 1 per pass attempt (ie every attempt is different and has a million variables) and B) Throws are spacial, time-relevant, and optimal location (and therefore intent) is contingent on situation. So the reality is...we really only are talking about accuracy here. But, semantics aside...clearly the evaluation of accuracy is flawed for some of the same reasons (B) and because an "accurate pass" is subjective...it's why opinions on Josh Allen's accuracy varies so wildly. I don't have stats to back it up, but I would say that from a strictly observational standpoint...When Josh Allen has time and a clean pocket, he has the ability to deliver the football as accurately and consistently (ie precisely) as anyone in the league to all levels of the field. I don't recall too many misfires, and conversely saw quite a few dead-accurate passes, in this scenario. I think he would destroy other QBs at an "accuracy" skills challenge, for example. Where he struggles is when he is rushed, trying to do too much, and misreads/miscommunication. Those are all things that get better with experience, IMO (and with better teammates)...and I think for those of us that have watched him, it's why he looks a lot better when you watch him than he does on paper. I think OP's analysis at least partially helps to bridge that gap.

These threads are often so misguided...I'm pretty sure some of you would replace half the roster with rookies and other teams trash if you could, then you would complain when they suck. You'd also complain when our trash looks great on other teams. I still remember threads about how the Bills had the "worst WR corps in the league outside of Sammy" when they had Watkins, Woods, Goodwin and Hogan on the same team. Whoops. What this team really needs is...time. Maybe some consistency. And a quarterback (which takes, get this, time). Zay Jones is more than a Slot receiver. Dawkins is more than a guard. Hell, even the bottom half of the receiver roster has potential under the right circumstances..they are just young. This team should look for a few upgrades in FA at any position on the roster, including defense. Then draft BPA not counting QB. In a case where grades are close, I would hope they lean towards WR, OL or TE...but I also wouldn't mind a stud DLineman.

That is just something people say...It's not real. And I am not just talking about 40 times. The jumps in particular are fairly indicative of a player's explosive ability.

Ah, so you prefer anecdotal to analytical...gotcha The point is he is a good athlete, so if he is "playing slow" it's not because of his physical ability. Personally, I think it's bs until somebody shows me the contrary. He;s been able to get separation, even last year...he just has had problems dropping it or being targeted so far in his young career. Jerry Rice had similar problems. It happens to the best of them.

Somebody earlier said Zay isn't fast/explosive/etc... At the combine (which was just last year for him) he measured 6'2" and 201 pounds with a 4.45 40, 36.5 inch vertical, 133 inch broad jump and 4.01/11.17 shuttles. Those were all top 12 times in his class, and some of them were top 3-5 For comparison, Sammy Watkins was 6'1" 211. 4.43, 34, 126, 4.34 and Julio Jones was 6'3" 220, 4.38, 38.5. 135. 4.23/11.07

Something you have to realize is measuring ball velocity at the combine is not a separate test where the QB is intentionally trying to throw as hard as they can...it is measured when they are going through the passing drills. So while some QBs might try and throw with max or near-max velocity, others (especially those who are less accurate or throw very hard) might try to take something off to throw a more accurate, catchable ball. As an overall list, it's useful information...but it's also not an end all, be all. Also, for the record Josh Allen was at like 62 mph at the combine.

Identifying a blitzer pre-snap isn't always possible. It's called disguising coverage and happens all the time. Identifying blitzers POST-Snap IS his job...he failed the first time, but not the second. That is the point. He calls out the mike maybe...but he probably doesn't have audibles for the RB in a preseason game to pick up safety blitzes. That's not the kind of thing you just do on the fly. And all of this is assuming that the safety blitz was identifiable pre-snap. Chances are it was not...especially since there wasn't any game planning.

I feel like you are saying this because that is what Tim Couch said... It is his job to read the safeties, because that is what tells him what kind of coverage they are in...It is NOT necessarily his job to set protections and since this was week two of preseason, I highly doubt they had safety blitz audibles assigned. He missed it the first time. He did what he could with the play that was called the second time. Thats all we know. Anything beyond that is you putting your narrative one something you just don't know.

You don't know what play he killed, but it was likely either just flipping sides or changing from one run to another, which is a matter of counting defenders in the box and on each side of the center. It has nothing to do with reading coverage and identifying the pass rush, then changing to a play and/or blocking scheme that attacks it. One is basic football that people on this board could do...the other requires game planning and installation during the week

You assume that he is calling the blocking scheme and that they have audibles installed in a preseason game...my guess is they do not. He threw it to his hot read...that is likely all he had regarding options.

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)