VW82
-
Posts
2,430 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Gallery
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by VW82
-
-
6 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:
Many in the media and especially analytics types care more about being right than anything else. Lots of these folks are numbers geeks , not sports types. When they’re wrong they are silent. That’s the media world we live in today . Hot takes and declarations get more clicks than nuance. It’s an example of opinion from someone who has observed the change in media over the years.
I think you may have missed the point. If Benoit cares most about being right then he probably isn't stuck on some preconceived bias which might get in the way of that.
Also, you seem to be talking in generalities about something that has nothing to do with this conversation. Benoit might be considered an analytics type (I don't know) but he certainly didn't use that as the basis for this article. Rather, he broke down game film and talked about play design, coverage scheme, and the QB decision tree. This article was anything but a hot take.
-
17 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:
There will be plenty of Allen detractors quickly cranking out columns about how terrible he is. When he wins he will garner faint praise and many will be silent. This will likely follow him his whole career as media types won’t rest in their quest to be right.
This is an example of hostile attribution bias among others. Instead of taking a third party’s most likely unbiased view at face value you assume they must be saying negative things because they are out to get Josh or are protecting their previous critical stance (as if they would care more about doing that than just being right).
-
25 minutes ago, K-9 said:
I get the impression the author didn’t watch much of the first three games of the season. Nor did he take note of the second half of the Pats*** game.
So you think Benoit, a respected NFL writer, authors a piece exclusively about Allen, provides numerous examples of plays in it where he details not only the play designs but the coverages and reads of those plays, but he didn’t watch the games?
There are many things we can point to in support of our guy but this “others don’t watch the games and I do” argument that is oft repeated on this site is such a head scratcher to me.
-
3
-
-
1 hour ago, iinii said:
This article does a really good job illustrating what many of us have been trying to say wrt Josh's issues. Lots more in the link.
QuoteAllen’s trouble with identifying pressure is equaled by his trouble with identifying coverage, particularly as it pertains to the backside safety. His first interception against the Pats was a glaring example, when he failed to account for Devin McCourty out of a Cover 2 shell (the most basic of backside safety looks). Allen’s second interception—caught by cornerback J.C. Jackson—was, in some ways worse, as the young QB failed to account for a middle-field safety on a deep post that naturally takes the passer’s eye to … the middle of the field. The safety did not make the pick, but his presence allowed Jackson to play in trail coverage underneath the receiver, which is how the pick occurred.
Interceptions like these should be relatively from which to learn. For a good quarterback, making such blatant errors is like touching a hot stove, but that’s only the case if the passer understands how his team’s play designs relate to the coverage. There are plenty of non-turnover plays that illustrate the severity of Allen’s learning curve here. In Week 2 against the Giants, for example, on the game’s second play, the Bills ran a wheel route for tight end Dawson Knox. It was a perfect route combination to flood multiple players into the outside zone of New York’s Cover 4 (the play can also work against Cover 3—it’s a similar read for the quarterback). This was a scripted shot play that the Bills undoubtedly rehearsed carefully during the week. And yet Allen did not process the read and instead looked to the other (i.e. wrong) side of the field.
QuoteWhat Sean McDermott and his offensive coordinator, Brian Daboll, must figure out is how to accommodate Allen’s youthful flaws without catering to them. No QB can correct these weaknesses overnight—especially not midseason. But a QB can maybe avoid them if he’s asked to, say, dropback and throw on first and second down, when defenses, forced to consider the run, are inherently more predictable. Throwing the ball from two-back or two-tight end sets (aka “base personnel”) is a great way to exploit a predictable defense.
Daboll, a former tight ends coach, has a strong working knowledge of this sort of passing game, and the Bills this season have indeed shown some creativity with dropbacks out of base personnel (including spreading out into empty formations, which is another way to clarify the coverage for the QB). It’s a fine line to walk, though. Buffalo’s offense ultimately hinges on the success of its ground game; incomplete passes on first down can quickly derail a ground game. And Allen, gifted a fastball thrower as he is, does not deliver with stable accuracy. Like Cam Newton, he is liable to simply miss on a half-dozen throws each game. This cannot be coached out of a guy, it can only be coached around.
-
4 minutes ago, BillsfanAZ said:
So the Bills should make Allen sit because of a bad game? Terrible idea. Allen has to know the ups and downs of the position. I think it was a great lesson for him to learn that his mistakes cost the Bills points in close game that they lost. It was a winnable game. Until the Pats game Allen was able to overcome his mistakes and pull out a win. Being on the losing side maybe he sees the consiquences on his actions. He also has to learn to put it behind him and move on to the next game. Would you still be saying the same thing if Allen wasnt knocked out of the game and was able to pull out a win? No because all his mistakes wouldnt be so glaring if he pulled out a win against the Pats.
I suspect there are a lot of times in the NFL where the best thing to do is sit a guy out for a week, especially a young player, and have him work on his weaknesses and watch someone else do it to provide a different perspective. Unfortunately, that doesn't happen because of the politics of the game. I think this concussion provides a unique opportunity to do that with Allen.
Also, just because he gets cleared doesn't mean he wouldn't be less susceptible to getting another concussion if he sat out until Miami. Like most injuries, you have a better chance of avoiding a repeat occurrence the longer you wait to test it again.
-
13 minutes ago, JoshAllenHasBigHands said:
His mechanics are a work in progress. They are inconsistent. They are, however, more consistent than they were in college. I watched as many Wyoming games as I could after we drafted him. I even followed his last season at Wyoming, just because he was billed as a top-tier quarterback. I could not believe how a guy that bad could be considered a top-tier quarterback. Josh Allen this year is far better than Josh Allen back then. Again, for the reasons I stated. Is he still a work in progress? Absolutely. Has he made considerable progress? Absolutely. Those things can both be true. I just don't think this can be disputed based on his completion percentage, if nothing else.
As far as turnovers, you are right. But I don't think it is about the wins. I was through the moon all the way through the Jets games, even when I thought they were going to lose. Those turnovers were fluky. There were not his classic bonehead turnovers (like he did against the Pats). I felt the same way during the Bengals and Giants game. And Jrb, I have no idea what you mean by "average." He was literally perfectly average in every statistical category (aside from the fluky Jets turnovers) for those first three games, and then made a couple exceptional plays that make him who he is.
I agree there was an element of bad luck in a couple of those turnovers but also some very good luck in having one ugly INT called back and another easy INT dropped by the Jets secondary. The fact is he made a lot of mistakes vs Jets and in the end we only scored 17 points, so even though he did some things very well in that game it isn't fair or accurate to only credit him with the good stuff.
I can't comment on Josh's college career but he certainly has improved since the beginning of last season. Very few would dispute that. The problem is that the areas where he struggles (accuracy, decision making, etc.) haven't improved enough to say he's now a franchise NFL QB. You seem to acknowledge this fact.
The question we're left with is this: is it realistic to think he's still going to improve enough moving forward to get there? I don't know the answer to this but I've tried and struggled to come up with a recent example (as the game has changed a lot in the last 5-10 years) of a QB who only became good after multiple years of playing. In every instance I can think of the QB was either good by his second year or never got there. Eventually there will be a shallow learning curve guy who bucks this trend , and maybe it's Josh -- he certainly would fit the profile of that type of player given his talent and background -- but finding examples of that in today's NFL is becoming much tougher.
-
1
-
-
12 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:
Josh's ability to play will hinge purely on whether he clears protocol or not.
If you try playing that game you're talking about because of his confidence and poor play last week, I would argue it has the opposite effect.
He's a competitor. If he's healthy and kept off the field, that's more of a shot to his confidence FOR SURE than him MAAAAAAAYBE playing poorly.
It all depends how the message is delivered. McD is eminently capable of putting a positive spin on it; something along the lines of, "Great job on getting through the protocol so quickly. You're one tough MFer! Brian and I talked it over with Terry and Kim and we've decided to play it safe on this one and go with Matt this week. That was one hell of shot you took. You're the future of this team and we want to be 100% sure we're not jeopardizing that. Plus, if we're being honest that was a rough performance Sunday. There are some things we want you to work on with Brian over the bye -- footwork, reads -- so we come back strong vs. Miami. You're doing great, just keep working."
If Josh can't handle an explanation like that and loses his confidence over it then perhaps we've all misjudged him. I think it's easier to get over the idea that you're being held back than going out there and failing before you're ready.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, 3rdand12 said:
I will validate your opinion.
it is just that.i would not freak out if they sat him as an active player. get a different viewpoint and support Barkley.
But i suppose no forward thinking NFL team would do that to be honest with you.
if he is good to go? They play him. He is the Bills Franchise QB and gives them the best chance to win. But anyone that trusts the NFL to look out for the player's long term health is placing trust in the wrong place. as far as concussion protocol and anything else reallyI will Trust McBeanes. they are solid.
I trust them too which given the history with Bills coaches and GMs since Levy/Polian is a strange feeling. Have to give the Pegulas props on both those hires.
I also agree with the bolded for most players/positions but I think even the poorly run franchises treat franchise QBs differently.
There are two issues at play here: the concussion and Josh's confidence. If he's completely free of concussion symptoms already and participates in all the meetings and practices leading up to the game then great. If he'd performed admirably prior to the hit on Sunday then there'd be no question about him starting, but that performance raised questions IMO. Not everyone learns the same way. Maybe what's best for Josh's development is to get right back in the ring, so to speak. Maybe he'd be better off watching Barkley and regrouping over the bye. Miami is a much easier opponent to come back against and should help restore that confidence of his which is arguably his best quality. The worst outcome is he comes back, performs poorly again vs. a tough Titans defense -- Baker is still having nightmares over that pass rush -- or gets concussed again, and actually starts to doubt his abilities.
Maybe I'm overthinking it but we have too much invested in this kid to be putting him in positions to fail. This might be the last time we get to use an injury as an excuse for a teaching moment. All I'm saying is that McD might be wise to use it or at least consider it. If he doesn't I'm sure he'll have good reasons. Like I said, I actually trust those guys.
-
2
-
-
6 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:
Its obviously McDermott's team but you need to give Frazier credit for calling the game
He isn't just there to look pretty, he's calling the plays so gets credit for Dictating what teams do
That’s fair though I do question how much autonomy he really has. Are we sure McD gave him play calling duties back after he took them away last year?
-
5 minutes ago, The Wiz said:
So you're saying everyone else is wrong and you are right. Got it.
When the topic of conversation is my personal thoughts about something then yes. Are you or transplant or Joe seriously trying to tell me you know more about what I think than I do?
As far as whether I’m right about whether Josh should play right away after being concussed or any other issue, I’m not pretending to know anything for certain. It’s just my opinion.
-
Love how the defense is playing. They deserve all the credit though I’m going to go out on a limb and suggest that we could lose Leslie Frazier tomorrow and wouldn’t miss a beat. McD is the one calling the shots here.
-
3 hours ago, transplantbillsfan said:
We all know you'd love for Allen to sit for another week so you can push your "Allen sucks, Barkley should start!" narrative all the way through the bye week.
But sorry, if he's cleared, he starts. Honestly if he wasn't involved with meetings or anything today, I would have been more inclined to want Barkley to start just because of the missed practices for a young, still raw QB like Allen.
But looks like he's back, so let him start.
The Patriots are the #1 D in the NFL right now. The Bills are close behind. Yes, the Patriots made Allen look awful. But don't forget that the Bills D made Brady look pretty bad, too.
Moving on...
Huh?? I don’t want Barkley to be the long-term starter. He’s a career back up at best. Like I said, there are multiple benefits to giving Josh the week off considering both his performance to start the year and the brutal shot to the head. There are also drawbacks to throwing him back out there too soon.
Seriously what is with you guys and putting words in other people’s mouths!? Maybe stick to worrying about your own opinions because you obviously have no ability to decipher anyone else’s.
-
3 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:
good portion to address.
Thank you. I thought so too.
-
11 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:
that's fair
You know what's not fair? Cutting up someone's posts so you can remove context in order to misrepresent what was said. At least have the courage to quote the whole thing and bold it. Do us both a favour and stop quoting me unless/until you want to have an actual discussion that doesn't involve BS attempts to put people on blast.
-
1
-
-
1 minute ago, Joe in Winslow said:
Man, I'm just going on your post history. It ain't hard.
If you're NOW claiming you want him to succeed, great. But let's not pretend you've been that way for a while.
No, you're not going by my post history. I challenge you to find any post of mine where I say I hate him or want him to fail. When I'm critical, it's because of something specific I've observed with his play on the field. You're taking those criticisms of his play and inferring that I must hate him and want him to fail. It's illogical.
I'd understand your position better if you argued that I don't think he's any good. There's definitely evidence in my posting history of that -- for the record, I think he's raw and wild, but has incredible talent. It's anyone's guess at this point if he'll be good.
-
1
-
-
16 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:
Let's be honest here. You want him to sit, because you don't like the guy. Bottom line. All these other little ancillary reasons you're coming up with are so you can feel good about thinking that.
Let's be honest here. You want to believe I hate Allen so you can justify completely disregarding anything I say regardless of whether it has merit or not.
I'm straight up telling you I want Allen to succeed. I'm forming my opinion on the subject of sitting/playing him Sunday based on what I think is best for him long-term as the team's starter, but rather than accept that perhaps we may have differing opinions you perform mental gymnastics to fit your anchoring bias -- that I want Allen to sit because I hate him because that's what you first thought and so you're sticking to it. It's a huge reach and definitely incorrect. You seem to also be exhibiting hostile attribution bias. Anyone with a critical view of Josh must be out to get him. It's ridiculous.
-
6 minutes ago, SCBills said:
Yes, it can be ruled out. You can't lie about where you're at in concussion protocol.
If Allen was struggling with side effects from the hit, we can't just trot him out there in daylight running drills.
He wasn't suggesting that, nor was I. He just meant that even if Josh clears McD will likely leave it as a game time decision and force Tenn to have to prepare for both, which given the difference in styles is actually a big advantage for us.
-
9 minutes ago, BillsfanAZ said:
I am not on board with letting Allen sit to learn. Sitting him his rookie year I can understand but not now. He needs as much playing time as possible to try to develop as quickly as possible. There are only so many games in a season and Allen needs to play in all of them unless he is hurt.
Maybe, maybe not. Confidence is a fragile thing, especially for NFL QBs. Coming into the season Josh had it in spades. Sunday vs. Pats was the first time where it looked to me like maybe he thought he couldn't do it. Now you want to put him in against one of the best defenses in the league coming off a concussion and with less than the usual time to prepare (due to said concussion)? That sounds like a recipe for another poor performance.
Also, and this is perhaps a secondary consideration, but Barkley's best attribute is making quick decisions and getting the ball out which is exactly what we need vs. Titans' D.
-
4 minutes ago, Rigotz said:
My guess is that any status we hear about Josh Allen's concussion progress or lack thereof is all BS.
If I'm McDermott, I'm making the Titans prepare for both Josh Allen and Matt Barkley. Their two games are completely different.
This is actually a significant advantage for us.
This can't be ruled out. Good thought.
-
11 minutes ago, whatdrought said:
You're blurring the lines between sitting him for his health, and benching him for performance. That's two different conversations really.
- If he's out of the protocol, he's healthy and ready to go. It doesn't make sense to not play your best players when they are healthy. If he's healthy he plays. They also can't mess with the protocol. He's either cleared (thus healthy) or he isn't. There's no room to hold him out and say he's still got issues, unless he were to lie to the Neurologist, but i'm guessing there are a lot of issues with that idea.
- If you want to argue he should be benched, that's another conversation. While the performance was terrible, I don't think benching him at this time is a good idea and would have an overall negative affect on him long term. Not that EJ Manuel was ever going to be a franchise QB, but the little chance he had left was shot out the window when he got benched.
I hear what you're saying but I don't think it needs to be that black and white. If he clears we can still dress him as QB2 and justify it by saying that it was a big hit and we wanted to be on the safe side given how important Josh is to the franchise. Plus, the team prepared with Barkley as the starter all week. So it doesn't have to publicly be about performance issues despite that being part of the issue in reality.
Do you truly believe we rushed Josh back last year after the injury? Or did we maybe slow roll it a bit and use the extra time to coach him up, make sure he was 100% ready to go, and put him in a better position to succeed? I think it was the latter. That's all I'm suggesting in this case.
-
10 minutes ago, whatdrought said:
They can be 100% sure he's okay this week, that's how the concussion protocol works. More to that point, you play him because he's your franchise QB and you do everything you can to win every single game. The titans don't scare me, but if Allen is good to go and we don't play him and then we lose, the what if of that situation is the kind of thing that ruins a season.
If he comes back and plays and gets concussed again or performs poorly, that's the kind of thing that can ruin a career.
If Josh had been lighting up the Pats D on Sunday then I'd agree you bring him back as soon as he clears assuming the coaching staff feels like he's prepared and ready to go. The fact he was so out of sorts prior to the hit suggests he might need a little extra time. Bills have a lot invested in this kid. It's not just about one game with him.
-
1 minute ago, Stank_Nasty said:
independent neurologist run the tests for players to clear protocol. if they clear they are 100% ready.... so if he clears he should play. PERIOD.
The thing with concussions is you never really know. Josh can get cleared by the best neurologists on the planet. It's still an educated guess. Like I said, there's also the added benefit of letting him watch and learn for a week. That was a brutal performance on Sunday and he's struggled at times in the other games too. Maybe sitting out a week will help him learn that every possession counts.
-
It would be insanely dumb IMO to play Josh on Sunday. Even if he's able to clear concussion protocol prior to game time why not give him the game off and be 100% sure he's OK. Bring him back after the bye vs Miami and let him find his feet against a weak opponent. You also have the added benefit of letting him watch and learn, and take the necessary time to digest that Pats loss and his up and down start to the year. It worked last year.
-
I think Dabol deserves a tonne of credit for how he's handled Josh and the offense this year. I had no problem with his actions on the sideline Sunday. What's he supposed to do? Josh was single-handedly losing the game for the team. It's not like Dabol was all over him right away either -- he waited until like the tenth screw up to really get on his case. If anything he should have got on him sooner.
I especially liked the way Dabol audibled away from the game plan in the second quarter when it was clear Josh was in deer-in-headlights mode, and put the ball in Gore's hands to slow the game down and give the defense a breather. Then, after a lively pep talk at halftime, he put the ball back in Josh's hands to start the 3rd. He showed faith. Unfortunately Allen just didn't have it Sunday.
Dabol deserves heavy praise for the way he handled a very tricky situation. Sometimes I wonder whether I'm watching the same team as everyone else.
-
1
-
Have You Started To Lose Faith in Josh Allen?
in The Stadium Wall Archives
Posted
You definitely missed the point. I wasn't defending Josh at all or even talking about him. It was about another poster who was assuming that Andy Benoit, the SI MMQB writer, was only writing critical things about Allen because he didn't like him / was trying to protect some alleged prior bias against him. That poster was exhibiting hostile attribution bias.