Wayne Arnold Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: In what way? 1. Hackenberg was surrounded by 4-5 star recruits during his college career 2. He was coached by two of the best in football (Bill O'Brien and James Franklin) 3. Allen is bigger, more athletic, and has better arm talent (stronger and more accurate) 4. Allen has a giant chip on his shoulder and has earned everything he's achieved, whereas Hackenberg was crowned from childhood and has been coddled and handed everything Aside from that, they're exactly the same! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jrober38 Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 (edited) 6 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said: 1. Hackenberg was surrounded by 4-5 star recruits during his college career 2. He was coached by two of the best in football (Bill O'Brien and James Franklin) 3. Allen is bigger, more athletic, and has better arm talent (stronger and more accurate) 4. Allen has a giant chip on his shoulder and has earned everything he's achieved, whereas Hackenberg was crowned from childhood and has been coddled and handed everything Aside from that, they're exactly the same! Yikes. I remember 2 years ago people telling me how awful Penn States' team was and how it wasn't Hackenberg's fault his stats weren't better. I also remember people saying Bill O'Brien screwed him over after leaving him his first year. At that time, James Franklin was a nobody on the college football landscape. They're both 6'4-6'5 with 4.8 speed. Allen has a bigger arm, but Hackenberg also had a "big arm". I don't put any stock in #4. Like Allen, Hackenberg worked the predraft process. He was over drafted due to his "potential" and the hope his accuracy problems can be fixed, and the result is he'll be out of the NFL as of sometime this summer. Edited May 4, 2018 by jrober38 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HappyDays Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 17 minutes ago, jrober38 said: Everything I've read over the past couple weeks tells me there's no difference between Josh Allen and Christian Hackenberg I'm not necessarily saying you're wrong jrober, but I do think Allen is a better prospect than Hackenburg was. Hackenburg was projected to go in round 2 or 3; Allen was projected as a top 10 pick. And their scouting reports aren't as similar as you might think:http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/christian-hackenberg?id=2555416https://www.nfl.com/prospects/josh-allen?id=32462018-0002-5600-29bc-8750224414bd For example Hackenburg had an adjusted completion percentage of 51.5%, while Allen's was 61%. And Allen had much worse talent at Wyoming. Hackenburg's scouting report mentions that his balls sometimes wobble. I don't see that from Allen, his passes are almost perfect sprials pretty much all the time. I don't think Allen's throwing motion is his problem, it's really his base and footwork that give him issues more than anything else. I don't think Hackenburg's release time is in the same realm as Allen's. Allen is also much more athletic. Hackenburg also had 3 straight years of starting experience, whereas Allen had 2. So he was a more finished product. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Arnold Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 minute ago, jrober38 said: Yikes. I remember 2 years ago people telling me how awful Penn States' team was and how it wasn't Hackenberg's fault his stats weren't better. I also remember people saying Bill O'Brien screwed him over after leaving him his first year. At that time, James Franklin was a nobody on the college football landscape. They're both 6'4-6'5 with 4.8 speed. Allen has a bigger arm, but Hackenberg also had a "big arm". I don't put any stock in #4. Doubling-down, rober? Yikes is right. Normally you're on point but you're way off on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommonCents Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 (edited) 9 minutes ago, jrober38 said: Yikes. I remember 2 years ago people telling me how awful Penn States' team was and how it wasn't Hackenberg's fault his stats weren't better. I also remember people saying Bill O'Brien screwed him over after leaving him his first year. At that time, James Franklin was a nobody on the college football landscape. They're both 6'4-6'5 with 4.8 speed. Allen has a bigger arm, but Hackenberg also had a "big arm". I don't put any stock in #4. Like Allen, Hackenberg worked the predraft process. He was over drafted due to his "potential" and the hope his accuracy problems can be fixed, and the result is he'll be out of the NFL as of sometime this summer. Comparing a 5 star High School recruit with a JUCO kid that ended up playing at Wyoming. Hackenburg nuked his draft suit with his poor play. Allen improved his stock with a strong Senior Bowl, good combine showing and displaying improved mechanics. You have now left the Milky Way. Edited May 4, 2018 by Commonsense 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted May 4, 2018 Author Share Posted May 4, 2018 What was Hackenberg's Wonderlic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 6 minutes ago, Like A Mofo said: What was Hackenberg's Wonderlic? 24 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan1959 Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 19 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said: Hokay, I'll try this on. What all these groups of number cruncher are doing, at heart, is trying to build a predictive model for NFL QB success. And I have my "number cruncher" DNA, so I appreciate what they're trying to do. BUT, the very first thing you have to do when you're looking at a predictive model, is ensure that the situation where you apply your model, matches the test dataset from which you derived it. A simple example would be clinical trials for the safety of a new medicine conducted exclusively on young men 18-25 y.o., but now you want to apply these results to children <12, women, and men >50. The safety results may or may not be valid in these groups, because they have some significant metabolic differences and they weren't part of the dataset you modeled from. So here's the $21,481,462 question: does Josh Allen in fact match the test dataset from which all these analytics on QB success or failure were derived? Not only that; but, what is the validitiy of the data set itself. For example, I would like to see the study Fadingpain cited in his statement, "that since 1999, no college QB with fewer than 30 starts and a completion % in college below 60% has ever amounted to jack at the NFL level," if it was even a study. If it was, the sample size of such a study would be so small that it would be almost useless in its application to how successful or unsuccessful Josh Allen may be. I have some number cruncher DNA myself and I have been part of numerous research studies in the area of psychology and criminal behavior. I have learned that (1) not all research is scientifically sound, (2) one has to be very careful in the application of research data, and (3) it is especially tricky in the area of risk assessment (future behavior). 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 21 hours ago, Mat68 said: The problem is their are outliers. Guys with crazy arm talent breaks alot of those constructs. Stafford, Cutler, Newton, Marino, and Farve are all guys with crazy natural abilities who all fall out of those peremiters. Completion % is one aspect of the overall analytic analysis. Allen falls to Farve and Marino in thats aspect. Now here is where party lines form. You cant compare a player in 2018 to a player in 1992 and 83. Allen is closer to those players in college systems, supporting casts, and development. If you want to dive deep into the analytics. Allen was one of the best prospect when throwing from a clean pocket. He also saw the least amounts of them. Production wise, Allen had the highest percent of air yardage. Over 60% of his yards were through the air. In comparison mayfield was 39%. Why does everyone keep bringing up Newton? Newton absolutely dominated the toughest conference in college football. I understand that his team was bad, but the only tape against power 5 competition for Allen is horrid. It's near impossible to judge anything about how he will fare against even tougher defenses. Typically the small school QBs who garner huge interest are dominating their own divisions and often putting up numbers against better competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted May 4, 2018 Author Share Posted May 4, 2018 32 minutes ago, BuffaloHokie13 said: 24 37-24 in favor of Josh Allen, same score as Super Bowl 26, Josh is here to reverse the curse 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Over 29 years of fanhood Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 (edited) Josh has better hand size as an aside, all the hand waiving needs to stop. Draft is over. The guy is our guy. He’s either going to work or he will fail. The train has left the station Edited May 4, 2018 by Over 29 years of fanhood 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Arnold Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Trogdor said: Why does everyone keep bringing up Newton? Newton absolutely dominated the toughest conference in college football. I understand that his team was bad, but the only tape against power 5 competition for Allen is horrid. It's near impossible to judge anything about how he will fare against even tougher defenses. Typically the small school QBs who garner huge interest are dominating their own divisions and often putting up numbers against better competition. Because they are very similar from a physical/athletic standpoint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogdor Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 2 minutes ago, Wayne Arnold said: Because they are very similar from a physical/athletic standpoint. There is zero tape to back up the assertion that he is as athletic as Cam. I can't think of any QB I've ever seen at that level. The size might be close, but he doesn't even have Cam level tape in the WAC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 Again, if you want a comparable athlete based on measurables there is no clearer choice than Carson Wentz. They tested nearly identically in every way at the combine. Height, Weight, Arm Length, Hand Size, 40 time, broad jump, 3 cone, and wonderlic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RollBillsRoll Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 9 minutes ago, Trogdor said: There is zero tape to back up the assertion that he is as athletic as Cam. I can't think of any QB I've ever seen at that level. The size might be close, but he doesn't even have Cam level tape in the WAC. There were many games in 2010 where Cam made jaw dropping runs AND throws on their way to the natty...I remember watching him live and thinking that he may be the most athletic qb i had ever seen... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billsfan89 Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 28 minutes ago, Trogdor said: Why does everyone keep bringing up Newton? Newton absolutely dominated the toughest conference in college football. I understand that his team was bad, but the only tape against power 5 competition for Allen is horrid. It's near impossible to judge anything about how he will fare against even tougher defenses. Typically the small school QBs who garner huge interest are dominating their own divisions and often putting up numbers against better competition. Cam also had a 40 time of 4.59 while Allen had a 40 time of 4.75. Allen's 40 for a QB isn't too shabby but Cam's is pretty dam insane considering his size (For reference much smaller QB's like Michael Vick ran a 4.25 40 and RGIII ran a 4.1 40.) Cam Newton was not only a more successful college player against better competition but Cam also possessed better physical skills outside of maybe raw arm strength. That's not to **** on Allen, Allen has maybe the most insane rocket arm ever and is right out of central casting for a QB. Allen by all accounts is a hard worker and a good leader. But he just isn't the same physical freak as Cam and Cam also had a much better college resume. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Arnold Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 9 minutes ago, Trogdor said: There is zero tape to back up the assertion that he is as athletic as Cam. I can't think of any QB I've ever seen at that level. The size might be close, but he doesn't even have Cam level tape in the WAC. Including Wentz for @BuffaloHokie13 Height Wentz: 6-5 2/8 Newton: 6-5 0/8 Allen: 6-4 7/8 Weight Newton: 248 Allen: 237 Wentz: 237 40 Yard Dash Newton: 4.60 Allen: 4.75 Wentz: 4.77 20 Yard Dash Newton: 2.67 Allen: 2.74 Wentz: 2.75 10 Yard Dash Allen: 1.59 Newton: 1.60 Wentz: 1.65 Vertical Jump Newton: 35 Allen: 33.5 Wentz: 30.5 Broad Jump Newton: 10'6" Allen: 9'11" Wentz: 9'10" 20-Yard Shuttle Wentz: 4.15 Newton: 4.18 Allen: 4.40 3-Cone Drill Wentz: 6.86 Allen: 6.90 Newton: 6.92 Press Play... Press Play... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hapless Bills Fan Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 7 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Cam also had a 40 time of 4.59 while Allen had a 40 time of 4.75. Allen's 40 for a QB isn't too shabby but Cam's is pretty dam insane considering his size (For reference much smaller QB's like Michael Vick ran a 4.25 40 and RGIII ran a 4.1 40.) Cam Newton was not only a more successful college player against better competition but Cam also possessed better physical skills outside of maybe raw arm strength. That's not to **** on Allen, Allen has maybe the most insane rocket arm ever and is right out of central casting for a QB. Allen by all accounts is a hard worker and a good leader. But he just isn't the same physical freak as Cam and Cam also had a much better college resume. Um RGIII 4.41, not 4.1. I don't think people are saying he's a physical freak like Cam or had the same college stats against the same level of competition as Cam (there's a reason Cam was pretty much the consensus #1 overall pick). I think the comparisons arise because people see the ability to run some similar offensive elements with Allen as with Newton. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloHokie13 Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 1 minute ago, Wayne Arnold said: Including Wentz for @BuffaloHokie13 [RESULTS] Also, Wonderlic: Wentz: 40 Allen: 37 Newton: 21 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne Arnold Posted May 4, 2018 Share Posted May 4, 2018 14 minutes ago, billsfan89 said: Cam also had a 40 time of 4.59 while Allen had a 40 time of 4.75. Allen's 40 for a QB isn't too shabby but Cam's is pretty dam insane considering his size (For reference much smaller QB's like Michael Vick ran a 4.25 40 and RGIII ran a 4.1 40.) Cam Newton was not only a more successful college player against better competition but Cam also possessed better physical skills outside of maybe raw arm strength. That's not to **** on Allen, Allen has maybe the most insane rocket arm ever and is right out of central casting for a QB. Allen by all accounts is a hard worker and a good leader. But he just isn't the same physical freak as Cam and Cam also had a much better college resume. Newton gets the edge, but the difference is not quite as vast as you make it seem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts