The Ringer: How the 2018 Draft Proved That the Modern NFL Doesn’t Exist

[26CornerBlitz]

 

 

While Cleveland’s selection of analytics darling Baker Mayfield with the first overall pick was a win for progressive thinking, Buffalo’s decision to trade up for the unproven Josh Allen sent the league in the other direction. The future of football lies somewhere in the middle.

[Chuck Wagon]

I take anything about the Bills on the Ringer with a MASSIVE grain of salt.  The boss is a Pats fan boy who loves to make jokes about the Bills at every turn.  Personally I think a QB who has enough athleticism to keep defenses honest on RPOs, a big body to keep plays alive and a big arm to rip off chunk plays is the modern NFL.   

 

The reality is with any QB prospect, but especially these QBs, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  One person can see Allen as being in the mold of Cam / Wentz / Big Ben / Luck.  Another just sees Ryan Mallet or EJ.  

[26CornerBlitz]

3 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

I take anything about the Bills on the Ringer with a MASSIVE grain of salt.  The boss is a Pats fan boy who loves to make jokes about the Bills at every turn.  Personally I think a QB who has enough athleticism to keep defenses honest on RPOs, a big body to keep plays alive and a big arm to rip off chunk plays is the modern NFL.   

 

The reality is with any QB prospect, but especially these QBs, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.  One person can see Allen as being in the mold of Cam / Wentz / Big Ben / Luck.  Another just sees Ryan Mallet or EJ.  

 

Simmons didn't write the piece and I doubt he's ordering his staff to slant things negatively against the Bills. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Simmons didn't write the piece and I doubt he's ordering his staff to slant things negatively against the Bills. 

I heard they get a bonus for every negative Bills comment.

[TheBeane]

1 minute ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Simmons didn't write the piece and I doubt he's ordering his staff to slant things negatively against the Bills. 

 

Come on man...  Didn't you know everyone in the national media is slanted negatively against the Bills?  

[Chuck Wagon]

10 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Simmons didn't write the piece and I doubt he's ordering his staff to slant things negatively against the Bills. 

 

 

I know he didn't and I don't believe he would tell his staff to do that.  I just find Clark and Mays to be VERY condescending in their takes.  They act like Allen belongs no where near a NFL roster. Lombardi is the only one on staff who has ever been near a team and even he just rode his name and Belichick to his success.  If you listen to him, he was pounding the table for every All Pro available at every draft pick from any organization he's been involved with but was just ignored.

[jo39416]

"However, just six picks later came Wyoming’s Josh Allen, whose entire existence seems to indicate that scouting has not advanced particularly far. I like the Bills a lot. I think their front office is forward-thinking and that they have a great coaching staff. Allen, though, is an inaccurate college passer whose key trait—throwing the ball a long way—is used very rarely among current NFL offenses."

 

Did you actually read the article, or just assume it was bad?  The comments were very fair - I think Allen actually has a great chance to succeed, but yeah by almost all advanced analytics take, the pick makes little sense. 

[zonabb]

As a quantitative researcher/analyst, it is no surprise that those who have brought this type of analytical approach out from the shadows and touted its value are going to slam Allen as a bad pick because of what their research, models, and data tells them. It's why the pick is questionable to me. However, their analysis does not account for, not can it predict, the impact of coaching, hard work, system, and other qualitative data they most certainly denounce since it's not as empirical as they prefer. 

 

Aside from the quantitative data, I tend to think about the Peter Principle, which basically states that in simple terms, everyone in business (the original theory) gets promoted to their level of incompetence. So the fear I have and others have is in line with this principle but with one major caveat.... promotion to a position is based on competence in the current position and assume competence in the new one. Allen was not exactly competent at Wyoming (current) position which allows analysts to write him off as likely unsuitable for a promotion to the NFL. Or put another way, he should have dominated at inferior Wyoming in an inferior division and he didn't. And therein lies the immense challenge, turning incompetent skills displayed against inferior talent into competent skills against far superior talent. It's like promoting the 22-year-old Horton's cashier to be a the regional manager for Starbucks. 

[SCBills]

26 minutes ago, jo39416 said:

"However, just six picks later came Wyoming’s Josh Allen, whose entire existence seems to indicate that scouting has not advanced particularly far. I like the Bills a lot. I think their front office is forward-thinking and that they have a great coaching staff. Allen, though, is an inaccurate college passer whose key trait—throwing the ball a long way—is used very rarely among current NFL offenses."

 

Did you actually read the article, or just assume it was bad?  The comments were very fair - I think Allen actually has a great chance to succeed, but yeah by almost all advanced analytics take, the pick makes little sense. 

I'd actually argue that his size and quick release (only rivaled by Rodgers/Brady) are his key traits. 

[26CornerBlitz]

2 minutes ago, SCBills said:

I'd actually argue that his size and quick release (only rivaled by Rodgers/Brady) are his key traits. 

 

None of that matters if he can't decipher information fast enough to allow him to make correct decisions to put those tools to use. 

[ddaryl]

I'm so burnt out on opinion.

[Zac]

I'm a big believer in analytics, but I do think there are exceptions and I think Josh Allen is one of those.  Looking at the tape, I'm not convinced he is an inaccurate passer.  The dearth of talent on his team is in my mind significant enough that it is an outlier vs. a majority of QB prospects.  He consistently has good placement on 5-10 yard outs and slants. 

 

I don't think Brandon Beane and our coaching staff thinks he's an inaccurate passer on shorter passes.  

[Chuck Wagon]

14 minutes ago, zonabb said:

Aside from the quantitative data, I tend to think about the Peter Principle, which basically states that in simple terms, everyone in business (the original theory) gets promoted to their level of incompetence. So the fear I have and others have is in line with this principle but with one major caveat.... promotion to a position is based on competence in the current position and assume competence in the new one. Allen was not exactly competent at Wyoming (current) position which allows analysts to write him off as likely unsuitable for a promotion to the NFL. Or put another way, he should have dominated at inferior Wyoming in an inferior division and he didn't. And therein lies the immense challenge, turning incompetent skills displayed against inferior talent into competent skills against far superior talent. It's like promoting the 22-year-old Horton's cashier to be a the regional manager for Starbucks. 

 

 

This is just flat out wrong.  People who solely make the decision on analytics act like Allen is just a big dude spraying fastballs all over the field that just happen to occasionally hit WRs.  Wyoming was a bad football team who won a bowl game because of Allen.

 

I certainly recognize there's a place for analytics, but people who solely look at the numbers are the same type who claim JT Barrett was a good QB because Jalin Marshall took 3 pop passes 65 yards each to the house.  There's context in every number.  The reality is no one knows for sure how the QBs would have performed if Allen spent the last 3 years at Oklahoma and Baker had spent them at Wyoming. 

[BuffaloBill]

The missing variables in The analysis and discussion presented are coaching, stability and player motivation.  Josh Allen has all of the individual measurable.  Now the question is can he get coaching and will he have a system that will allow him to develop and flourish in the NFL?  Even if the coaching and the system are there does he have the personal motivation to put it to use?

 

To me it is the final element that will make or break Josh Allen.  If he wants to correct his problems with inaccuracy presumably all of the scouts suggest that he has the physical talent to do so.  They all also say he is smart enough to learn an NFL system.  

 

Only time on the field will tell if all of this comes together. 

[26CornerBlitz]

6 minutes ago, Zac said:

I'm a big believer in analytics, but I do think there are exceptions and I think Josh Allen is one of those.  Looking at the tape, I'm not convinced he is an inaccurate passer.  The dearth of talent on his team is in my mind significant enough that it is an outlier vs. a majority of QB prospects.  He consistently has good placement on 5-10 yard outs and slants. 

 

I don't think Brandon Beane and our coaching staff thinks he's an inaccurate passer on shorter passes.  

 

Check out this post.

 

[dave mcbride]

55 minutes ago, Chuck Wagon said:

 

 

I know he didn't and I don't believe he would tell his staff to do that.  I just find Clark and Mays to be VERY condescending in their takes.  They act like Allen belongs no where near a NFL roster. Lombardi is the only one on staff who has ever been near a team and even he just rode his name and Belichick to his success.  If you listen to him, he was pounding the table for every All Pro available at every draft pick from any organization he's been involved with but was just ignored.

I thought it was a pretty fair piece, but I thought he was wrong about one thing: Barkley. Bear in mind that I think that the Giants should have taken Darnold , but Barkley isn't just a RB. He's by all accounts a terrific receiver, with Marshall Faulk being the comparison. If you're gonna write a piece like this, you better look at a guy like Faulk's receiving numbers in his prime (1998-2001). In 1999-2000, he had nearly 2000 receiving yards and 13 TD receptions. 

Edited May 1, 2018 by dave mcbride

[BuffaloHokie13]

14 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

None of that matters if he can't decipher information fast enough to allow him to make correct decisions to put those tools to use. 

Isn't that the general purpose of the Wonderlic? The questions themselves aren't intended to be difficult, the point is to see how quickly you can receive the query and deliver the information accurately.

[26CornerBlitz]

4 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

Isn't that the general purpose of the Wonderlic? The questions themselves aren't intended to be difficult, the point is to see how quickly you can receive the query and deliver the information accurately.

 

I don't believe there is a 100% correlation to that test to how a QB handles information processing on the field in actual game play. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

I don't believe there is a 100% correlation to that test to how a QB handles information processing on the field in actual game play. 

No, but I believe that's the reason that the metric is relevant (for QBs), right?

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, BuffaloHokie13 said:

No, but I believe that's the reason that the metric is relevant (for QBs), right?

 

It's something to consider as part of an entire collection of information.  Some of the QBs who have scored the highest haven't been very good QB in the NFL. I think it's mostly irrelevant with prospects taking multiple practice tests.