BigBillsFan

Your points make zero sense. If the Bills win the Superbowl 51-3 and Allen throws for 25/32 with 423 yard 4 TDs and rushes for 51 yards NO ONE will say a word about him which shows you're just wrong. This is how you envision this conversation: "Hey Joe we won the Superbowl!!!" "F this Randy! Allen succeeded! I'm choosing another team!!! No QB success is going to undermine my scouting ability!" Let's pretend he's right, are you going to admit that he had vision and will you refrain from commenting on the issue because of your lack of vision? Of course not. You're framing him guilty either way. It's juvenile.

One thing he hasn't factored in is a more consistent running game production for TDs. I think with the changes of Singletary/Yeldon/rookie we'll get more consistent production as far as scoring; so even if you take out less TDs from Josh running you have to add TDs for RBs. Considering he's going to have Josh throw 3500+ yards the offensive production has to be up with a better RB line-up, even if it's marginal. Right now he has scoring flat which makes ZERO sense. If he can't factor in 10% increase to offense he really thinks Allen is going to suck, which I don't. 10% increase is more than reasonable to scoring, it might be 15-20% with the improvement to Allen, Diggs, and more explosive running.

Ask my ex-wife... oh wait...

We have been spared from The Booger

How some people perceive any critique on here about Allen: How we see ourselves

The QB can only play on 1 side of the ball. QBs can't win games, they can only help you win. Brees was 7-9 for 3 years and their offense was great, and Brees was great. Prescott threw for 4900 yards, 65% completion, and 30 TDs to 11 Ints with the 6th best offense in the league. Stats mean you did your job to help the team, but the team couldn't win. Dak did his job. Stats are only meaningless when you build a false perception. A 12-4 Trubisky is fool's gold, a 7-9 Brees is still amazing. QBs don't win games, teams do.

Let me point out other posters have pointed to their resumes consistency when trying to make a point here and depending on the viewers bias they only interject if they disagree that the use of such a resume can or should be used. Do I think he has more credibility than a GM? Obviously not, but he is judging in hindsight not foresight which is easier to judge. When Akili Smith was drafted no person like myself knew more than any GM, but a few years later even a 7 yr old could look smarter in hindsight. "Dad I think he stinks!" Smarter than a GM? No, but hindsight knowledge is greater than foresight no matter what degree or position they hold. Watch: Stephon Diggs was a better pick than any pick in the 4th round of that year. Does that make me smarter than 32 GMs who picked in the 4th round? No, I have hindsight knowledge. Whaley spent 2 1st rounders on a WR to justify his previous QB decision to keep his job rather than what's best for the team. GMs are emotional and not always rational. To be fair you could be right, and the guy who is a coach could be wrong, but debates on logic and facts are always best.

He's just saying he has perspective, not that he is more valuable. Saying his football IQ is low is not biased, it's his view-point. What you could do if you weren't so biased yourself is maybe ask him "why do you think he has a low IQ?" Then be patient and make a reasonable response.

My biggest cause of concern is the 2nd half of the season. He had massive regression as a QB. He had the 2 good games against Miami and Dallas but the rest were poor.

Misunderstood you and yes I agree.

I don't want to argue, I want you just to explain why he's a top 10 QB in the league. I just want to see what I'm missing in my analysis of him. Thank you.

It's not lazy when its an historical problem. The numbers are what they are. If you watch him play he clearly can be accurate and in rhythm, but there are times he clearly isn't accurate. One thing is for certain and that is he very rarely hits anyone in stride, usually they are in zones. The one game where he proved he could hit people in stride consistently was the Dallas game. He had some unbelievable throws that made me say "Ok he can be elite." The truth is he needs to prove his accuracy. The 2nd half of the season are clear signs of inconsistency. He can do it. Maybe he's just young and growing. I hope so because as a player he's the most likeable QB I've ever seen in the league. Now? Not even close. There is nothing that even remotely indicates that, only subjective conjecture. If the argument is W/L I refer you to Sanchez, Mark; Tebow, Tim; King, Shaun; Grossman, Rex or Trubisky, Mitch. Tannehill is at least in a top 10 argument right now, and I can't imagine how that's true for Allen. Allen is a developmental QB who is improving and the team is winning despite the offensive output. Tannehill was the biggest change to their turn-around.

The upside is he's younger right now than when Tannehill played his rookie year. I'm still of the belief that now that QBs get paid so much they need to be either up or out as soon as possible and the 3rd year is a perfect test for Allen. I'm in 100% agreement with you.

I'll simplify it for you. If you look up the highest TD per attempt in the Hall of Fame to the guys who threw the most TDs you'll have your answer.

I guess that was my point @JetsFan20 and @T master although I should point out what we pay them should be proportionate to the team salary cap. I just think the idea of holding on to a QB will be impossible moving forward unless you are willing to allocate more money than team's previously had who didn't have studs. The Goffs, Prescotts, and Wentzs of NFL give you a shot to be entertaining and potentially in the playoffs annually but they can never be winners without getting more talent. It's a weird situation. Obviously I don't have the time or desire to do a full analysis but it was interesting that McVay said the best time to win was under Goff's rookie deal. Looking at it now it only makes sense if above average QBs went from 10% of the salary cap to to 12%. While it seems marginal it's the difference in $4 million annually to extend to other talent you want to retain. If someone did a full return on investment analysis based on metrics from cap spend that would be fascinating. I'm sure GMs have this hidden metric, but it's obviously the reason why teams aren't signing Winston. There is some hidden metric they have that says they can only allocate X budget to a player if they hit some formula. I'd be fascinated to know what that is.

I guess I was just pointing out that the concept of a decent quarterback who wins with a strong defense but gets paid more than 10% of the salary cap is a dead idea. They either need an elite defense which requires the QB isn't paid much but needs moderate competency with a great running game, or be one of the top 4 best in the game or you start over is the best case scenario for ever winning the Superbowl in the modern era. I don't think Big Ben for his 1st SB wasn't very good yet, I think Flacco hit fire in the playoffs but wasn't good otherwise. Mahomes didn't play all that well in the SB either. They all had that little margin for error to lack greatness and still win because of a strong team. My point is that goes away with a highly paid QB. You have to be amazing at the draft and finding FAs that perfectly fit your model to maximize wins.

Before 1993 free agency changes the league used to be a D-league winner or a stud QB winner. My point is due the rising cost of QBs having a middle of the road QB at the higher price to your salary cap is a horrible idea and you’re better off trying with a new rookie contract and moving on. My other point congruent to that is that it’s horrible for teams because they can’t just put a QB on the slow-burner and develop them as a starter like Big Ben.

It's not thinking they did, they did cheat. No connection to winning? Sure it does. It’s a butterfly effect. If the Pats weren’t cheating they probably don’t win a SB as quickly (or at all) and if they don’t win Brady won’t have as much confidence, which stifles his growth. It makes recruiting guys at discounts harder. It helps the league look the other way with penalties: https://www.theringer.com/nfl-playoffs/2018/1/29/16943670/new-england-patriots-penalties-edge How about fumbling rates? https://www.vox.com/2015/1/26/7906127/patriots-deflate-fumble-stats How about knowing how to tape the other teams and 2 of their assistants turned coaches getting busted as well? How about cheating this year? How about Brady never throwing over 30 TDs in his career and then Moss comes over for a 4th and he goes to 50 and bar is raised. That’s confidence and the Bannister-effect of the 4 minute mile. The difference between winning and losing is very small in the NFL and no team, coach, or individual can consistently beat the odds. Watching Brady throw into the ground and never getting a grounding call is all you need to see this year. I mean it’s endless: https://eu.usatoday.com/story/sports/ftw/2019/09/19/tom-brady-raekwon-mcmillan-hit-referee-stay-off-tom-video/2380026001/

That was my point overall. I wasn't saying middle tier QB vets were better, but their cost went up substantially which literally gives you no shot of doing anything. That the only chance to win really was off rookie deals or have stud QBs and nothing in-between.

My point wasn't that McNabb wasn't the highest in 2010 but the amount per year paid to QBs has gone up a few % making it harder to win. Even if you factor in McNabb it doesn't change what I said 1 bit. Even if the amount went up incrementally it shows a fundamental change in winning. Because being the Biggest Loser is great for an NBC show, not so great as a fan. I also don't have time, I wasn't working, now I am so I have to be brief. You might be correct but I don't believe any of their wins are representative of how teams work. We don't know how much they cheated, but we know they did and we have no idea of the impact that had both as to winning and to recruiting FA talent at a discount. Their cap space is not representative of the larger picture, and not just because Brady took less but players took less to play for them. Players took discounts to play for a champion*.

I wanted to do an analysis of QB salaries. I don’t think the amount is ever my concern, it’s the relationship to the overall cap number which just shows how much you can afford for other players. Salary cap 2020 $198.2 million Highest 2 salaies $34.5 mil 17.4% Median salary $25 mil which is 12.5% of the cap https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/ Cap in 2011 (2010 was uncapped) $120 million Highest 2 salaries: $22 mil 18% Minus the McNabb overpay it’s for the top 2 salaries at $18.5 mil which is 15.4% Median salary 10% of the cap at $12 mil https://overthecap.com/position/quarterback/2010/ Median cap for a QB is 12.5% in 2020 vs 10% 10 years ago. Biggest changes: the bottom 1/3rd of salaries was reasonable for their placement in 2010, now it’s a $20 million baseline+ per starter; much closer to the median of $25 mil. The top 10 guys in 2010 are paid around $15 million on average approximately with more variance from highest to 10th whereas 2020 salaries are much more tightly paid from 1-10 (minus McNabb). QB salaries haven’t moved dramatically for the highest paid guys as a % to the cap, the move is marginally incremental in proportion to the salary cap. The difference is a mid-tier guy is a bit more inflated to the cap with fully guaranteed money. Either you get a stud and try to win with a 15-20% hit to the cap (which it will reach for Mahomes) or you try to win on rookie salaries with more overall talent. I’ve voided the rings for the Cheats and there is more data you win with a rookie and less cap. SBs from 2010-2020 4 Rookies contracts have won, 3 vets (don’t count the Cheats). Vets QBs behind the Giants, Saints, Broncos were at 10% of the salary cap In all 7 wins the max value of the QB to SB was 10% at vet (highest Manning at 10.4%) to rookie salaries. Verdict: Some team will break the mold with a high paid QB but the odds are a team with a huge salary is low. This will happen as more teams will be cash-strapped at 10%+ to the QB as that is being normalized in the league. You have to draft unbelievably well and get the right mix of budget vets for it to work and other-worldly QB play.

I guess the way they do it is addition. If we have players all over 300 in their rankings and you add them together we might have the highest number.

What you said is true. But it runs both ways. There are hundreds of college studs who were pro duds as well as many college studs who were pro duds. But can you tell me of 1 college QB with the greatest season in history, playing in the hardest conference, who won the championship who shouldn't be shown love? Doesn't exist. We wasn't throwing for Washington St, but LSU in the SEC.

All he did was have the greatest year in college history. That usually merits some love

My former business was run on sponsorships or what would be called influencer marketing today. The central influencer was the head of a forum, but he stayed neutral and made money from ad revenue and sponsoring only certain products. Then he started to sponsor a product daily, then he made divisions of the site and sponsored multiple products a day and after 12 months the business was shut down from over-exposure but he did pocket some good coin. He would have done better not spamming the daylights out of the members and created a long-term business. The problem is you don't think it will disappear. Your arrogance blinds you and it's too late to fix.