Jump to content

how is Josh Allen doing so far?


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Royale with Cheese said:

Reports seems to be that he’s making some really good throws but also missing ones he should hit.  

 

That, in a nutshell. was the scouting report on hime coming out of college. 

 

I have no problem bringing him along slowly.  I have a feeling it would be best for both the Bills and his development long term.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gugny said:

If a team drafts a QB within the first 10 picks and he doesn't start game one ... then he was the wrong pick.  Period.

 

I would err on the side of caution. There are a lot of factors, and it’s not ALL about the QB. The situation can make a big difference, and some guys may need some time. I’d LOVE for him the be ready and start his HOF career ASAP,  but I can wait if that’s best. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My 2 cents on this.

 

Before the draft, NO ONE anywhere was saying Josh Allen would be a day one NFL starter.  If ever there was a guy who needed to "sit and learn" it is Josh Allen.  Allen is the same guy today he was before the draft..a physical specimen with a powerful arm....who has CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE flaws that need to be addressed before he would be considered ready to get onto an NFL field.  

 

Allen is at MINIMUM a one year bench project and probably should be brought along even more slowly than that given what he is at this point.  For comparison, look no further than Paxton Lynch.  Go read his scouting reports pre draft a couple years ago..he was a "2-3 year project" with great size and arm who played in a spread BLA BLA BLA.  They knew he was a project when they took him....and they got impatient and have given up on him already out there.  I can't say it's justified to have given up or not, but it's a little unfair to call a "2-3 year project" a bust when you haven't given him 2-3 years EVERYONE though it would take to develope the guy.  This is the danger with Allen.  It is VERY HARD for a coaching staff to survive at 2-3 year development QB and see it though to where it pays off.  If NOTHING ELSE, then ending the playoff drought last season might have bought your staff enough credibility and time to see it through....but that won't matter if the team is losing while waiting for Allen to be ready and the fans quit showing up...ownership will be tempted to compell the coaches to get the kid on the field NOW, or fire the coaches to placate the impatient fans.  It's going to be a rough go.  ....and after the time has been put in...you better get some results that show he is the QB to lead the team or a housecleaning comes and this all starts over again.

 

One other note....as much as I love Mahomes...and I think he could have started and done fairly well last season, KC had a pretty unique situation being able to sit the kid, work on his issues, while fielding a division winning team with a really good QB onboard already.  Whole lot easier for even me, to wait while Smith was still leading a good football team.  

 

Buffalo has a really rough schedule to start the year off.  Let AJ take that beating..take the negative press, ....Allen needs work and reps...for at least a whole year....I'm normally of the shcool of thought that if a QB is going to be good, then he will be good wether he sits or not. ...this would be an exception.  You drafted a KNOWN project...now let him go through "THE PROCESS" of being a project.  If it is going to pay off at all, it has to be this way.

  • Like (+1) 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, BearNorth said:

Aaron Rodgers got three years as a 2.  312 TD's later he's probably a first ballot HOF'r.

Is he a first ballot HOF'er because of his three years as a two, or despite them?

 

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, machine gun kelly said:

From what I hear from Sal and Vic, it sounds like they are bringing along slowly with the 3rds.  I agree with their decision to take it slow with hm and get as many reps for AJ as possible as he’s definitely the starting guy week 1.  Josh needs time to develop.  He will learn the system slowly and when he’s finally ready, I trust McD and Daboll will get him in with the 1’s.  

 

Just remember what happened to the older Carr who was killed when the Texans who put him out there week1.  I know they had to as an expansion team, but it ruined him he was sacked so many times.

 

i don’t care if we see him at all this year, but if the experts think he is ready, they know when to put him in there.

 

It's OTAs... the 1st team reps thing will really start mattering in Training Camp. McDermott already said Allen might get some 1st team reps in Minicamp and that "they have a plan." 

 

I'm sure part of that plan will really involve our starting QB earning the job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

You're wrong. Period.

How can you say he's wrong? This isn't 2004 bud ... I sort of agree with this. He has the easiest competition then any QB, it's not like he's going against Joe Flacco or Sam Bradford... his competition is McCarron & Peterman... top 10 QB's normally start...if he isn't ready...then why draft him in the top 10??

8 hours ago, Gugny said:

If a team drafts a QB within the first 10 picks and he doesn't start game one ... then he was the wrong pick.  Period.

This was a good point

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Scorp83 said:

How can you say he's wrong? This isn't 2004 bud ... I sort of agree with this. He has the easiest competition then any QB, it's not like he's going against Joe Flacco or Sam Bradford... his competition is McCarron & Peterman... top 10 QB's normally start...if he isn't ready...then why draft him in the top 10??

This was a good point

I can say he's wrong because historically, in a time when patience was a virtue, Qbs sat and learned for a bit before being thrown into the fire.

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

I can say he's wrong because historically, in a time when patience was a virtue, Qbs sat and learned for a bit before being thrown into the fire.

Perhaps more to the point there are examples of guys who were thrown into the fire too early that then did not work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Fadingpain said:

Is he a first ballot HOF'er because of his three years as a two, or despite them?

 

Correlation does not imply causation.

 

 

I don't think Rodgers needed 3 years of sitting but he needed a minimum of 1, if not 2, years.  Earlier in his career, according to the reports out of Green Bay, it would have been exceedingly difficult to envision him becoming arguably the best QB in the entire NFL.  It took him some time to pick up the offense, his preseason performances did not portend the sort of career he'd far (or even close to it), and when he got into regular season games in his first 2 years (2005 & 2006) he went a combined 15-31 for 111 yards with no TD's and a pick.

 

In 2007, he turned a corner and by 2008 he had instilled enough confidence in the organization that Green Bay wouldn't accept back Favre after he reneged on his retirement- the first time.  But he wasn't close to a finished product or anywhere what he is now the first couple of years of his career.

  • Like (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, Bangarang said:

He’s running with the 3rd team and has ups and downs.

This succinct synopsis isn't entirely wrong but the implication is probably more negative than the reality.  To elaborate on Allen's performance- and I've tried to be as plugged in as anyone and take it sources everywhere- for the one day the media was there for rookie minicamp the week before Mother's Day he generally showed well.  Then in week one of OTA's (5/22-5/24) most reports were very positive, to the point that Sal Capaccio had to temper them down, saying that from what he saw Allen was doing fine but not enough to be jubilant over and definitely far better than to produce panic.  

 

Then in last week's OTA's (5/29-5/31) we had Chris Simms' comments earlier in the week ("According to a team source and someone in the media, Josh Allen is blowing people away.  I mean, just blowing people away").  And we also had Tre'Davious White's awfully bullish "report" on the NFL Network where he liked what he was seeing out of Allen so much he thought he'd emerge as one of the league's best young QB's pretty quickly.  However, some of that optimism was extinguished with Allen's performance last Thursday, the day the media was permitted to watch, where he was "inconsistent," making some very good throws but also missing bad ones, including a really bad and telegraphed INT in his first 2-minute drill.

 

The media has only been there for one day per three-day weekly OTA's (so just a third of the time, which limits our information).  Yesterday's reports of OTA's didn't spotlight Allen, though Mike Rodak tweeted that all three QB's were having "solid" days- before Allen's week ended on a pick on a severely underthrown ball.  So it was a discouraging end but still a decent day overall, from the sound of things.

 

If you add it all up, I think there's more positive than negative.  It needs to be kept in mind that he is still just performing with the 3rd-team (playing against AND with third-stringers).  But that's also by design since it's clear that the Bills weren't going to deviate from their plan unless Allen was flat-out dominant, which he hasn't been.  But it sounds like he's been "good" more than he's been "bad."

Edited by Midwest1981
  • Like (+1) 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Gugny said:

 

To be specific, I do it for YOUR attention.  And it worked.  Again.  :wub:  HLM

The attention whore with a heart for eveyone...

 

Part of me is happy to be a regular, but the other part of me misses the Vegas Knight's "professionals" walking the subs on these here boards. It sucked when they all got picked up by the reality police. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Gugny said:

If a team drafts a QB within the first 10 picks and he doesn't start game one ... then he was the wrong pick.  Period.

 

You're trolling, right? Aaron Rodgers would have been a home run pick at #1 overall. Most rookies don't start game one these days. I'll assume you're joking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...