[Vague Title] It continues... Josh Allen...

[YoloinOhio]

 

 

 

Well I was excited for the 1st day of camp!

[CommonCents]

3 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

 

Well I was excited for the 1st day of camp!

Is he trashing Allen or is he just linking what other people are saying? Or both?

[YoloinOhio]

Just now, Commonsense said:

Is he trashing Allen or is he just linking what other people are saying? Or both?

Having listened to him on the radio recently... both. 

[CommonCents]

Just now, YoloinOhio said:

Having listened to him on the radio recently... both. 

 They are spending the week trashing Belichick and harassing him about benching Butler, that’s a better listen than some blowhards torching Allen over and over again. 

 

Heres to hoping that Allen has a big set of balls and he is about to show everybody how they swing. 

[Billsman623]

9 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

Is he trashing Allen or is he just linking what other people are saying? Or both?

It is very obvious he has made his mind up on Allen and he is pouting because his golden boy Rosen was not the Bills selection. He has an agenda to smear Allen and when people call him out on it he gets all touchy and bent out of shape. It's gotten old and tiring. We get it, you don't like him. Some of us do and some of us are open minded. They are becoming very unlistenable already and it's day 1 of camp.

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

59 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

 

Well I was excited for the 1st day of camp!

 

On the one hand, I hope Allen isn't paying any attention to this crap.

 

On the other hand, I hope he's making a scrapbook and it's lighting his fire.

 

 

[teef]

59 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

 

Well I was excited for the 1st day of camp!

ouch!

[GunnerBill]

19 hours ago, Bills Pimpin' said:

It's always more accurate to say a player is going to be a bust since 80% of them are (QB's are prolly closer to 90%). That's why most media D-bags and forum trolls claim bust. It is not because they are really smart or did any work to come up with their opinion. They are the bunch that cares only about claiming "I told ya so". In fact, in this specific case, even if Josh Allen is a serviceable QB for 10 years they will say " I told ya he wouldn't be a hall of famer" or "I told ya (QB X) would be better" or "I told ya we shouldn't have picked him 7th". It's really a miserable existence for them and especially kool aid drinking homers

 

Homers aren't all that great either (I tend to be one, I can't help it. I talked myself into Tyrod Taylor as a franchise QB and now I get to tell another fanbase he sucks), but it is a much better daily existence for sure.

 

I think realism is a much better existence. Don't come at any decision with a preconceived notion of them being right or wrong and just evaluate what you think of that decision. I promise not having to talk yourself into believing things that you don't deep down believe is a much less stressful way to live.  

[Hapless Bills Fan]

14 hours ago, Zerovotlz said:

The argument about Allen is this:  Given his physical tools and mental makeup, either A) he really does suck because we have a BIG SAMPLE size that says he does. or B) He has sucked so far because in his youth and college years, he never was around good coaching or other players that would push his development along and he won't suck anymore after he gets good coaching and has teammates and opponents who are better quality.

 

That's it.  I love metrics...I think metrics are really useful.....but it doesn't take advanced metrics to tell any reasonable person that Josh Allen's actual performance in football has been poor.  That includes the Bills staff.  

 

The Bills staff believes the answer is B....because you don't take him if you think it's A....and you also don't take him even if you believe it's B, but you aren't sure you can fix him.  They think he's undercoaced and underdeveloped.  

 

I don't think they can do it.  I would only say, in this case, where you may actually have a guy with a ton of talent, who just hasn't been developed properly for years...that could be something the analytics would miss because the analytics are analyzing high level football players, and makes no assumptions where they came from or how much football they played where, or against who.  This is where you'd not rely on a number spit out by a formula...but a human judgement.  Again..I don't think it will end well, but I can see a case here about why the analytic numbers may not apply.

 

This is a pretty good summary. 

 

The only thing I'll say is that the claim by Football Outsiders is that they do, in fact, factor in the talent level on the team and how much football they played where against whom.

And that's part of the problem some of us have with them.   They claim it's an objective formula - but let's look at what they say it is.

 

"QBASE favors quarterbacks expected to go high in the draft who also have a relatively long resume of college success according to the stats. Those stats include completion percentage, yards per attempt, and team passing efficiency. These numbers are adjusted both for the quality of the defenses that a prospect had to face as well as the quality of his offensive teammates. "

 

So let's see what goes into it.  https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/introducing-qbase

-Completion percentage

-YPA

-Team Passing efficiency.  The NCAA formula is: [ { (8.4 * yards) + (330 * touchdowns) - (200 * interceptions) + (100 * completions) } / attempts ].
-Quality of defenses  "The strength of opposing defenses was measured in the same way as Pro-Football-Reference's Simple Rating System. "

-Quality of his offensive teammates "We measured teammate quality based on the draft value of offensive teammates in both the player's draft year and the following year."

(OK - but there's "not drafted" and there's "truly abysmal" and can this method distinguish?)

 

As stated, they are doubling down on completion percentage and YPA, and counting them twice.  As someone who once dealt with statistics in daily life, I don't like that.  Quality of defenses and Quality of offensive teammates are not objective stats kept by the NCAA, and it's not clear what they're doing.  Good luck if you try to figure it out.  The link above to "Simple Rating System" doesn't take me to anything that explains. 

 

Then apparently they're using the QBase number along with "College Experience" and "Projected draft slot" to conduct some sort of regression - again, details not explained.

So it sounds all objective and stuff (50,000 simulations), but that all depends upon the quailty of what they're putting in there.

 

Anyway, the real question: does it work?  If you go to the link above, they show how their model applies to a bunch of QB drafted between 1997 and 2010.

(Nothing I can find between 2011 and 2014, if anyone does, LMK...).  Note that their color coding is inconsistent - they flag Peyton Manning as someone their model under-predicted, but they don't flag RGIII as someone their model over-predicted even though he's overpredicted to the same degree as John Beck (another model failure).  Anyway, their data is there, chew it up if you like.

 

My initial chewing is as follows:

43% of the time their model correctly predicted the QB's career

40% of the time their model over-predicted the QB's success

22% of the time their model under-predicted the QB's success. 

 

Under-predictions included Peyton Manning, Aaron Rogers, Matt Stafford, Chad Pennington,Daunte Culpepper, Drew Brees, Matt Schaub, Matt Ryan, Brian Griese, and Josh McCown (for some of these, they did predict decent careers, just not Franchise Success)

 

Correctly predicting players gives them credit for Mike Vick and Alex Smith (they say bad, Vick had some good years esp Philly and Smith just got the Big Bucks), Vince Young and Bradford (they say good, Young as we know flamed out and Bradfordwas meh before getting sidelined by injuries)

 

If someone offered me a statistical package for my field that was correct 43% of the time, over-predicted 40% of the time, and under-predicted 22% of the time, I would not purchase their product or make business decisions based upon it, no matter how much hyperbole about "zero chance of success" and "nigerian princes" they laded it with.

 

 

 

 

[Figster]

42 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This is a pretty good summary. 

 

The only thing I'll say is that the claim by Football Outsiders is that they do, in fact, factor in the talent level on the team and how much football they played where against whom.

And that's part of the problem some of us have with them.   They claim it's an objective formula - but let's look at what they say it is.

 

"QBASE favors quarterbacks expected to go high in the draft who also have a relatively long resume of college success according to the stats. Those stats include completion percentage, yards per attempt, and team passing efficiency. These numbers are adjusted both for the quality of the defenses that a prospect had to face as well as the quality of his offensive teammates. "

 

So let's see what goes into it.  https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/introducing-qbase

-Completion percentage

-YPA

-Team Passing efficiency.  The NCAA formula is: [ { (8.4 * yards) + (330 * touchdowns) - (200 * interceptions) + (100 * completions) } / attempts ].
-Quality of defenses  "The strength of opposing defenses was measured in the same way as Pro-Football-Reference's Simple Rating System. "

-Quality of his offensive teammates "We measured teammate quality based on the draft value of offensive teammates in both the player's draft year and the following year."

(OK - but there's "not drafted" and there's "truly abysmal" and can this method distinguish?)

 

As stated, they are doubling down on completion percentage and YPA, and counting them twice.  As someone who once dealt with statistics in daily life, I don't like that.  Quality of defenses and Quality of offensive teammates are not objective stats kept by the NCAA, and it's not clear what they're doing.  Good luck if you try to figure it out.  The link above to "Simple Rating System" doesn't take me to anything that explains. 

 

Then apparently they're using the QBase number along with "College Experience" and "Projected draft slot" to conduct some sort of regression - again, details not explained.

So it sounds all objective and stuff (50,000 simulations), but that all depends upon the quailty of what they're putting in there.

 

Anyway, the real question: does it work?  If you go to the link above, they show how their model applies to a bunch of QB drafted between 1997 and 2010.

(Nothing I can find between 2011 and 2014, if anyone does, LMK...).  Note that their color coding is inconsistent - they flag Peyton Manning as someone their model under-predicted, but they don't flag RGIII as someone their model over-predicted even though he's overpredicted to the same degree as John Beck (another model failure).  Anyway, their data is there, chew it up if you like.

 

My initial chewing is as follows:

43% of the time their model correctly predicted the QB's career

40% of the time their model over-predicted the QB's success

22% of the time their model under-predicted the QB's success. 

 

Under-predictions included Peyton Manning, Aaron Rogers, Matt Stafford, Chad Pennington,Daunte Culpepper, Drew Brees, Matt Schaub, Matt Ryan, Brian Griese, and Josh McCown (for some of these, they did predict decent careers, just not Franchise Success)

 

Correctly predicting players gives them credit for Mike Vick and Alex Smith (they say bad, Vick had some good years esp Philly and Smith just got the Big Bucks), Vince Young and Bradford (they say good, Young as we know flamed out and Bradfordwas meh before getting sidelined by injuries)

 

If someone offered me a statistical package for my field that was correct 43% of the time, over-predicted 40% of the time, and under-predicted 22% of the time, I would not purchase their product or make business decisions based upon it, no matter how much hyperbole about "zero chance of success" and "nigerian princes" they laded it with.

 

 

 

 

Nice post Hapless,

 

guesswork anyone?

[Cripple Creek]

4 minutes ago, Figster said:

Nice post Hapless,

You haven’t read that many words since 4th grade. Who are you trying to kid?

[Buddy Hix]

3 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

 

Well I was excited for the 1st day of camp!

The needy Nigerian prince line....????

 

[Figster]

9 minutes ago, Cripple Creek said:

You haven’t read that many words since 4th grade. Who are you trying to kid?

Hapless brings out the best in me.

[Mikey152]

17 hours ago, Zerovotlz said:

 

...um...North Dakota State plays in an indoor stadium.  

 

The argument about Allen is this:  Given his physical tools and mental makeup, either A) he really does suck because we have a BIG SAMPLE size that says he does. or B) He has sucked so far because in his youth and college years, he never was around good coaching or other players that would push his development along and he won't suck anymore after he gets good coaching and has teammates and opponents who are better quality.

 

That's it.  I love metrics...I think metrics are really useful.....but it doesn't take advanced metrics to tell any reasonable person that Josh Allen's actual performance in football has been poor.  That includes the Bills staff.  

 

The Bills staff believes the answer is B....because you don't take him if you think it's A....and you also don't take him even if you believe it's B, but you aren't sure you can fix him.  They think he's undercoaced and underdeveloped.  

 

I don't think they can do it.  I would only say, in this case, where you may actually have a guy with a ton of talent, who just hasn't been developed properly for years...that could be something the analytics would miss because the analytics are analyzing high level football players, and makes no assumptions where they came from or how much football they played where, or against who.  This is where you'd not rely on a number spit out by a formula...but a human judgement.  Again..I don't think it will end well, but I can see a case here about why the analytic numbers may not apply.

 

This is a good post, and I generally agree with your points...but I think you are a little off (and it's not just you) when you say he was poor in college.  Inefficient, maybe, but not poor...it was clear that he was carrying his team, though...they were really bad before he got there and when he was hurt, and an 8 win bowl team when he played. 

 

Serious question:

 

Would you take Tyrod Taylor right now over Brett Favre in his prime?  Do you know who would?  Analytics...because their model rewards "efficiency" and has no measure for things like plays left on the field.  The year the Packers won the SB, Brett Favre completed 59.9% of his passes.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Mikey152

[oldmanfan]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This is a pretty good summary. 

 

The only thing I'll say is that the claim by Football Outsiders is that they do, in fact, factor in the talent level on the team and how much football they played where against whom.

And that's part of the problem some of us have with them.   They claim it's an objective formula - but let's look at what they say it is.

 

"QBASE favors quarterbacks expected to go high in the draft who also have a relatively long resume of college success according to the stats. Those stats include completion percentage, yards per attempt, and team passing efficiency. These numbers are adjusted both for the quality of the defenses that a prospect had to face as well as the quality of his offensive teammates. "

 

So let's see what goes into it.  https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/introducing-qbase

-Completion percentage

-YPA

-Team Passing efficiency.  The NCAA formula is: [ { (8.4 * yards) + (330 * touchdowns) - (200 * interceptions) + (100 * completions) } / attempts ].
-Quality of defenses  "The strength of opposing defenses was measured in the same way as Pro-Football-Reference's Simple Rating System. "

-Quality of his offensive teammates "We measured teammate quality based on the draft value of offensive teammates in both the player's draft year and the following year."

(OK - but there's "not drafted" and there's "truly abysmal" and can this method distinguish?)

 

As stated, they are doubling down on completion percentage and YPA, and counting them twice.  As someone who once dealt with statistics in daily life, I don't like that.  Quality of defenses and Quality of offensive teammates are not objective stats kept by the NCAA, and it's not clear what they're doing.  Good luck if you try to figure it out.  The link above to "Simple Rating System" doesn't take me to anything that explains. 

 

Then apparently they're using the QBase number along with "College Experience" and "Projected draft slot" to conduct some sort of regression - again, details not explained.

So it sounds all objective and stuff (50,000 simulations), but that all depends upon the quailty of what they're putting in there.

 

Anyway, the real question: does it work?  If you go to the link above, they show how their model applies to a bunch of QB drafted between 1997 and 2010.

(Nothing I can find between 2011 and 2014, if anyone does, LMK...).  Note that their color coding is inconsistent - they flag Peyton Manning as someone their model under-predicted, but they don't flag RGIII as someone their model over-predicted even though he's overpredicted to the same degree as John Beck (another model failure).  Anyway, their data is there, chew it up if you like.

 

My initial chewing is as follows:

43% of the time their model correctly predicted the QB's career

40% of the time their model over-predicted the QB's success

22% of the time their model under-predicted the QB's success. 

 

Under-predictions included Peyton Manning, Aaron Rogers, Matt Stafford, Chad Pennington,Daunte Culpepper, Drew Brees, Matt Schaub, Matt Ryan, Brian Griese, and Josh McCown (for some of these, they did predict decent careers, just not Franchise Success)

 

Correctly predicting players gives them credit for Mike Vick and Alex Smith (they say bad, Vick had some good years esp Philly and Smith just got the Big Bucks), Vince Young and Bradford (they say good, Young as we know flamed out and Bradfordwas meh before getting sidelined by injuries)

 

If someone offered me a statistical package for my field that was correct 43% of the time, over-predicted 40% of the time, and under-predicted 22% of the time, I would not purchase their product or make business decisions based upon it, no matter how much hyperbole about "zero chance of success" and "nigerian princes" they laded it with.

 

 

 

 

Couldn't agree more.  It appears there may be some bias here; they think certain measures should be more important and thus put them into their model first, as oppose to actually assessing various factors to determine prospectively what factors have a more relevant basis for use. 

[TheElectricCompany]

Are there any CFB performance stats out there where J.A. was in the top 3 among 2018 prospects? 

I don't care if it's " 2/2 - 50+ yard throws off his back leg with 35 mph gusts". 

There has to be something. 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by TheElectricCompany

[ToGoGo]

On 7/24/2018 at 1:48 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Meh.  It's accurate reporting on the Football Outsiders take.

 

But all we really need to know about how Football Outsiders sees things is encapsulated in this sentence:

" Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders said he'd rather have Tyrod Taylor. ".  Then turn to Pro Football Focus, which lists Taylor as the #12 NFL QB for 2017, above Marcus Mariota, Matt Stafford, and Dak Prescott, and far above Jared Goff, Kirk Cousins, Derek Carr. 

 

Any one here prefer to have one of those 6 as our QB over Tyrod Taylor?  I know how I vote.

 

The funny thing about all this to me is that I'm 100% a stats geek and here I am critiquing stats geeks.  But as a stats geek, I know that stats tell you something - not always what you think they're telling you.  You need to look carefully at which ones are meaningful, and which ones are correlated to winning.  All these groups try to roll and tumble a bunch of different stuff to boil complicated factors down into a single number, which means they've become critically dependent on the weighting of different factors (in the case of Football Outsiders, I believe they over-weight low INT and underweight passing yards per game, or at least don't penalize falling below a certain threshold there).

 

 

 

I have a data analysis background and I've been annoyed by the aura around advanced stats for many years now. Stats + intuition is key in any kind of data analysis you do otherwise you come up with more useless conclusions than true. These guys forgot about intuition a long time ago, and in many cases don't believe in intangibles at all. That's how you come up with a quote like that about Josh Allen. I'm willing to bet they didn't watch a second of game film. 

[Figster]

1 hour ago, Mikey152 said:

 

This is a good post, and I generally agree with your points...but I think you are a little off (and it's not just you) when you say he was poor in college.  Inefficient, maybe, but not poor...it was clear that he was carrying his team, though...they were really bad before he got there and when he was hurt, and an 8 win bowl team when he played. 

 

Serious question:

 

Would you take Tyrod Taylor right now over Brett Favre in his prime?  Do you know who would?  Analytics...because their model rewards "efficiency" and has no measure for things like plays left on the field.  The year the Packers won the SB, Brett Favre completed 59.9% of his passes.

The quality of a QB/teams Defense is a variable that plays a big part in everything the team does on Offense in my humble opinion.

 

At the college level for instance and I'll use Alabama by way of example. It probably wouldn't matter how good the QB that starts for the tide looks in every possible category because when all is said and done he's a product of the system/s. Playing with a lead vs coming from behind changes how a QB and teams O operates and how the opposition defends them. 

 

Taylor played well with a lead, but not so well from behind when Buffalo was forced out of their comfort zone running the football.

 

 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Figster

[Scorp83]

On 7/24/2018 at 9:29 PM, Bill_with_it said:

Wrong. Maybe to ignite you. Lamar has no more potential than Allen. Do you recall in OTAs they were lining him up at we? What legitimate QB does that? I mean a rookie should be lining up at quarterback  regularly, not like some veteran in a gadget play. You don’t really believe what you type do you? 

Yes I do! 

 

They line him up at WR ...quite sure they have some plays installed where he's playing decoy. If people paid attention, you'll know Lamar Jackson can't catch. But, people dont pay attention...which means teams are going to probably fall for the Jackson Wideout decoy play about 5 times this year. 

 

He's a QB...& all reports out of Baltimore is he has a great chance to win the job.

On 7/24/2018 at 1:03 PM, Gugny said:

 

Please try to stay on topic. 

Huh....yea...smh ... It's my topic to begin with...?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

2 hours ago, oldmanfan said:

Couldn't agree more.  It appears there may be some bias here; they think certain measures should be more important and thus put them into their model first, as oppose to actually assessing various factors to determine prospectively what factors have a more relevant basis for use. 

 

I mean, that's what everyone building a predictive multivariate model does. 

You start with an idea of what factors you think are important, based on your initial analysis.  It works, kind of, but not as well as you like.

So you slice and dice and roll in some other stuff, and come up with your chef d'oeuvre (not to be confused with the famous TBD rettata)  and see how that works.

 

Pretty much everyone has an inkling completion percentage matters for a QB, INTs matter, passing TDs matter, the quality of the competition matters, the quality of the team matters, so it's not as though they're using factors anyone would consider irrelevant.  It's more a matter of whether they've really found a winning formula.

 

My first roll through their actual results says "not too impressed here".  They indeed called a bunch correctly, but their failure rate is along the lines of the "bust probability" they came up with for Allen.

 

Oh - and one thing that struck me.  They were apparently using "predicted draft slot" as part of their regression model.  This is what they say: " We used mock drafts to project draft slot for this year's quarterbacks. "  OK - whose mock drafts?  Theirs?  Kipers?  Average of 10 different mock drafts? 

 

Unless it's their own mock draft, here's the paradox -  Football Outsiders is all in for predicting the demise of traditional, oldschool scouting as inferior and outdated relative to their wonderproduct of modern analytics.  But they are actually, in small print, encorporating it into their model.

 

 

[Scorp83]

On 7/24/2018 at 1:26 PM, Bangarang said:

If he was drafted by literally any other team, these criticisms would have merit. 

So true! 

 

It's crazy! Its like the fanbase COMPLETELY forgot he was the one voted in the poll on WGR & on Twitter as THE QB BUFFALO DOES NOT WANT! Yet people want to be delusional like it was never the case. 

 

The reports about Josh Allen not being good or not becoming a great QB is coming from everyone under the sun, except probably 5 people in the professional media. I get it... we haven't have a QB here in decades! It's hard to hear the Bill's might have got it wrong! 

 

I still say...I was tired of getting the text messages to watch Josh Allen games from WGR. It was horrendous! The tape doesn't lie people. 

5 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

On the one hand, I hope Allen isn't paying any attention to this crap.

 

On the other hand, I hope he's making a scrapbook and it's lighting his fire.

 

 

It's not crap... it's the same stuff that was said about him for the past YEAR! 

 

Nothing has change...except the Bill's homer koolaid. 

6 hours ago, YoloinOhio said:

 

 

 

Well I was excited for the 1st day of camp!

 

Again... nothing has change about the perception of Josh Allen. The fanbase can't be mad when you hear this...its been said all year long about Allen.

 

He was considered The worst QB prospect out of the top 6 (Mayfield, Rosen, Darnold, Jackson, Allen & Rudolph)

 

Sorry...I've decided to not be delusional & forget this stuff!

 

Nothing has change 

Edited July 26, 2018 by Scorp83

[Hapless Bills Fan]

4 minutes ago, Scorp83 said:

Yes I do! 

 

They line him up at WR ...quite sure they have some plays installed where he's playing decoy. If people paid attention, you'll know Lamar Jackson can't catch. But, people dont pay attention...which means teams are going to probably fall for the Jackson Wideout decoy play about 5 times this year. 

 

He's a QB...& all reports out of Baltimore is he has a great chance to win the job.

Huh....yea...smh ... It's my topic to begin with...?

 

Thought reports were they were lining LJ up in the backfield, where he could either take a handoff and run, or take a handoff and throw.  Makes sense and hard to defend. 

 

If they line him up as a WR just as a decoy, that won't work, because there's not an employed NFL coach who doesn't pay more attention than you imply.  I'd be expecting some sort of jet sweep or reverse if I saw that.

[TBBills Fan]

So the prince in nigeria isnt sending me the money??!?!!?!

 

 

Oh **** ivsme got to call the bank!

[CommonCents]

Just visited the Ravens board to see what ScorpRosen is talking about with Lamar Jackson. I see some members that attended TC saying RG3 looks better than Lamar Jackson. I don’t see much of anything about him unseating Flacco. 

 

 

[oldmanfan]

29 minutes ago, Scorp83 said:

So true! 

 

It's crazy! Its like the fanbase COMPLETELY forgot he was the one voted in the poll on WGR & on Twitter as THE QB BUFFALO DOES NOT WANT! Yet people want to be delusional like it was never the case. 

 

The reports about Josh Allen not being good or not becoming a great QB is coming from everyone under the sun, except probably 5 people in the professional media. I get it... we haven't have a QB here in decades! It's hard to hear the Bill's might have got it wrong! 

 

I still say...I was tired of getting the text messages to watch Josh Allen games from WGR. It was horrendous! The tape doesn't lie people. 

It's not crap... it's the same stuff that was said about him for the past YEAR! 

 

Nothing has change...except the Bill's homer koolaid. 

 

Again... nothing has change about the perception of Josh Allen. The fanbase can't be mad when you hear this...its been said all year long about Allen.

 

He was considered The worst QB prospect out of the top 6 (Mayfield, Rosen, Darnold, Jackson, Allen & Rudolph)

 

Sorry...I've decided to not be delusional & forget this stuff!

 

Nothing has change 

You're right,  Nothing changes.  We still have people purporting to be fans of the team who want to think of nothing but gloom and doom. 

 

Let the kid play and see what he does.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

6 minutes ago, Scorp83 said:

It's crazy! Its like the fanbase COMPLETELY forgot he was the one voted in the poll on WGR & on Twitter as THE QB BUFFALO DOES NOT WANT! Yet people want to be delusional like it was never the case. 

 

The reports about Josh Allen not being good or not becoming a great QB is coming from everyone under the sun, except probably 5 people in the professional media. I get it... we haven't have a QB here in decades! It's hard to hear the Bill's might have got it wrong! 

 

I still say...I was tired of getting the text messages to watch Josh Allen games from WGR. It was horrendous! The tape doesn't lie people. 

It's not crap... it's the same stuff that was said about him for the past YEAR! 

 

Nothing has change...except the Bill's homer koolaid. 

 

Again... nothing has change about the perception of Josh Allen. The fanbase can't be mad when you hear this...its been said all year long about Allen.

 

He was considered The worst QB prospect out of the top 6 (Mayfield, Rosen, Darnold, Jackson, Allen & Rudolph)

 

Nothing has change 

 

I believe you to be incorrect.  You appear have fallen into the "absolutism fallacy" that catches so many.

 

I'm amoung those who did NOT want the Bills to draft Josh Allen.  I felt that way based upon watching his film, and a few analyses I respect.  I would have preferred Josh Rosen.  I'm on record with that.  I felt Allen was a "high ceiling, low floor, high risk" prospect.  I still fell that way.

 

Yet I can also recognize the Football Outsiders Almanac of "zero empirical evidence to support him becoming a reasonable NFL starting quarterback" and of asserting that drafting Allen as analogous to sending $$ to a Nigerian Prince is CRAP.  Plainly and simply.  It's hyperbole, it's based on a QBASE assessment that has some successes and some failures and actually folds "old school scouting" into its prediction, and it ignores the empirical aspects of "old school scouting" as well as the fact that intangibles do play a role.

 

Allen remains what he is - a "high ceiling, low floor, high risk" prospect.  But to say he has zero chance, or there's zero evidence he could succeed, or to imply that anyone who despises comparison between drafting Allen and Nigerian swindles is drinking "homer Koolaid", is incorrect.  I'm sure there are even some sources who considered Allen, as you suggest,"the worst QB prospect out of the top 6 (Mayfield, Rosen, Darnold, Jackson, Allen & Rudolph)" but they were hardly universal - as you seem to imply.

 

Something has changed - the Allen critique has totally "Jumped the Shark".

[Shaw66]

4 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

This is a pretty good summary. 

 

The only thing I'll say is that the claim by Football Outsiders is that they do, in fact, factor in the talent level on the team and how much football they played where against whom.

And that's part of the problem some of us have with them.   They claim it's an objective formula - but let's look at what they say it is.

 

"QBASE favors quarterbacks expected to go high in the draft who also have a relatively long resume of college success according to the stats. Those stats include completion percentage, yards per attempt, and team passing efficiency. These numbers are adjusted both for the quality of the defenses that a prospect had to face as well as the quality of his offensive teammates. "

 

So let's see what goes into it.  https://www.footballoutsiders.com/stat-analysis/2015/introducing-qbase

-Completion percentage

-YPA

-Team Passing efficiency.  The NCAA formula is: [ { (8.4 * yards) + (330 * touchdowns) - (200 * interceptions) + (100 * completions) } / attempts ].
-Quality of defenses  "The strength of opposing defenses was measured in the same way as Pro-Football-Reference's Simple Rating System. "

-Quality of his offensive teammates "We measured teammate quality based on the draft value of offensive teammates in both the player's draft year and the following year."

(OK - but there's "not drafted" and there's "truly abysmal" and can this method distinguish?)

 

As stated, they are doubling down on completion percentage and YPA, and counting them twice.  As someone who once dealt with statistics in daily life, I don't like that.  Quality of defenses and Quality of offensive teammates are not objective stats kept by the NCAA, and it's not clear what they're doing.  Good luck if you try to figure it out.  The link above to "Simple Rating System" doesn't take me to anything that explains. 

 

Then apparently they're using the QBase number along with "College Experience" and "Projected draft slot" to conduct some sort of regression - again, details not explained.

So it sounds all objective and stuff (50,000 simulations), but that all depends upon the quailty of what they're putting in there.

 

Anyway, the real question: does it work?  If you go to the link above, they show how their model applies to a bunch of QB drafted between 1997 and 2010.

(Nothing I can find between 2011 and 2014, if anyone does, LMK...).  Note that their color coding is inconsistent - they flag Peyton Manning as someone their model under-predicted, but they don't flag RGIII as someone their model over-predicted even though he's overpredicted to the same degree as John Beck (another model failure).  Anyway, their data is there, chew it up if you like.

 

My initial chewing is as follows:

43% of the time their model correctly predicted the QB's career

40% of the time their model over-predicted the QB's success

22% of the time their model under-predicted the QB's success. 

 

Under-predictions included Peyton Manning, Aaron Rogers, Matt Stafford, Chad Pennington,Daunte Culpepper, Drew Brees, Matt Schaub, Matt Ryan, Brian Griese, and Josh McCown (for some of these, they did predict decent careers, just not Franchise Success)

 

Correctly predicting players gives them credit for Mike Vick and Alex Smith (they say bad, Vick had some good years esp Philly and Smith just got the Big Bucks), Vince Young and Bradford (they say good, Young as we know flamed out and Bradfordwas meh before getting sidelined by injuries)

 

If someone offered me a statistical package for my field that was correct 43% of the time, over-predicted 40% of the time, and under-predicted 22% of the time, I would not purchase their product or make business decisions based upon it, no matter how much hyperbole about "zero chance of success" and "nigerian princes" they laded it with.

 

 

 

 

Hapless

 

I gotta thank you for this.  Its one of the best things I've read in a while. Very enlightening.  

 

I like the basic stuff Outsiders does.  I think their problem is that in order to monetiz their product they needed more content.  To generate content they needed "data" to talk about.  But once they get into the realm of college footvall, there are too many variables and they have to start using surrogates for real data. 

 

Anyway, thanks for the analysis of QBASE.  Very helpful.

[oldmanfan]

59 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I believe you to be incorrect.  You appear have fallen into the "absolutism fallacy" that catches so many.

 

I'm amoung those who did NOT want the Bills to draft Josh Allen.  I felt that way based upon watching his film, and a few analyses I respect.  I would have preferred Josh Rosen.  I'm on record with that.  I felt Allen was a "high ceiling, low floor, high risk" prospect.  I still fell that way.

 

Yet I can also recognize the Football Outsiders Almanac of "zero empirical evidence to support him becoming a reasonable NFL starting quarterback" and of asserting that drafting Allen as analogous to sending $$ to a Nigerian Prince is CRAP.  Plainly and simply.  It's hyperbole, it's based on a QBASE assessment that has some successes and some failures and actually folds "old school scouting" into its prediction, and it ignores the empirical aspects of "old school scouting" as well as the fact that intangibles do play a role.

 

Allen remains what he is - a "high ceiling, low floor, high risk" prospect.  But to say he has zero chance, or there's zero evidence he could succeed, or to imply that anyone who despises comparison between drafting Allen and Nigerian swindles is drinking "homer Koolaid", is incorrect.  I'm sure there are even some sources who considered Allen, as you suggest,"the worst QB prospect out of the top 6 (Mayfield, Rosen, Darnold, Jackson, Allen & Rudolph)" but they were hardly universal - as you seem to imply.

 

Something has changed - the Allen critique has totally "Jumped the Shark".

Excellent summary

[Scorp83]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I believe you to be incorrect.  You appear have fallen into the "absolutism fallacy" that catches so many.

 

I'm amoung those who did NOT want the Bills to draft Josh Allen.  I felt that way based upon watching his film, and a few analyses I respect.  I would have preferred Josh Rosen.  I'm on record with that.  I felt Allen was a "high ceiling, low floor, high risk" prospect.  I still fell that way.

 

Yet I can also recognize the Football Outsiders Almanac of "zero empirical evidence to support him becoming a reasonable NFL starting quarterback" and of asserting that drafting Allen as analogous to sending $$ to a Nigerian Prince is CRAP.  Plainly and simply.  It's hyperbole, it's based on a QBASE assessment that has some successes and some failures and actually folds "old school scouting" into its prediction, and it ignores the empirical aspects of "old school scouting" as well as the fact that intangibles do play a role.

 

Allen remains what he is - a "high ceiling, low floor, high risk" prospect.  But to say he has zero chance, or there's zero evidence he could succeed, or to imply that anyone who despises comparison between drafting Allen and Nigerian swindles is drinking "homer Koolaid", is incorrect.  I'm sure there are even some sources who considered Allen, as you suggest,"the worst QB prospect out of the top 6 (Mayfield, Rosen, Darnold, Jackson, Allen & Rudolph)" but they were hardly universal - as you seem to imply.

 

Something has changed - the Allen critique has totally "Jumped the Shark".

I disagree...nothing has change when people talked about Josh Allen. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

15 minutes ago, Scorp83 said:

I disagree...nothing has change when people talked about Josh Allen. 

 

You can hold any opinion you like, but if you want it to be credible, you need to be able to point where people said "jump the Shark" stuff like comparing the Allen draft pick to Nigerian prince schemes or saying he has "zero empirical chance" to be good - before the draft.  Put those links right here.  Go.

 

You're already discredited for your claim that Allen was universally considered " the worst QB prospect out of the top 6 (Mayfield, Rosen, Darnold, Jackson, Allen & Rudolph)" when a number of national draft pundits/mock drafts exist which contradict this.
For example

Mayock: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000927595/article/mike-mayocks-2018-nfl-draft-position-rankings-30

Kiper: https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/mel-kipers-big-board-position-rankings-top-2018/story?id=53475544

WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/03/07/2018-nfl-draft-ranking-the-top-10-quarterbacks/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4aaf360dd756

etc.

 

Did some guys have him 5 out of 6 (eg, Lance Zierlein), yes (had Rudolph below him).    Not sure who had him last of all 6.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Scorp83]

1 hour ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

You can hold any opinion you like, but if you want it to be credible, you need to be able to point where people said "jump the Shark" stuff like comparing the Allen draft pick to Nigerian prince schemes or saying he has "zero empirical chance" to be good - before the draft.  Put those links right here.  Go.

 

You're already discredited for your claim that Allen was universally considered " the worst QB prospect out of the top 6 (Mayfield, Rosen, Darnold, Jackson, Allen & Rudolph)" when a number of national draft pundits/mock drafts exist which contradict this.
For example

Mayock: http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000927595/article/mike-mayocks-2018-nfl-draft-position-rankings-30

Kiper: https://abcnews.go.com/Sports/mel-kipers-big-board-position-rankings-top-2018/story?id=53475544

WaPo: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/sports/wp/2018/03/07/2018-nfl-draft-ranking-the-top-10-quarterbacks/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.4aaf360dd756

etc.

 

Did some guys have him 5 out of 6 (eg, Lance Zierlein), yes (had Rudolph below him).    Not sure who had him last of all 6.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've said there were a handful of people that felt otherwise about Allen... but that's like 5%

 

I've been posting threads for months on almost everyone that was on one accord about him. Mayock, Chris Simms...his pop, kiper... & maybe 2 other people that were high on Allen. That's almost it. Like...I'm not going to sit & repost everything again...just so you can deem it credible.

 

I stand by my opinion on Josh Allen, as someone that actually watched his game not YouTube clips (not saying you didn't)...but he sucked in College. Does he have a big arm...yea...so did JP Losman, does he have a good personality? Yea... but so did Fitzpatrick. Whatever "It" is... he doesn't have it. 

 

I'm on record saying "I want to be wrong about Allen"

 

I pray that I'm totally wrong. But I've been around this game for a long time, played it & all. Played it, coaches it & all... there's nothing that jumps out that he's going to translate well. I think he's going to make some plays...but not be consistent. 

 

Heck Tannehill has made some plays... but I feel Miami should have drafted a QB too. 

 

Just because I'm not posting the same links doesn't mean what I wrote about Allen isn't credible. & yes... ignoring the entire landscape on Allen...& only believing the good about him is "Homer Koolaid" at it's finest batch!

 

People get upset when they hear what people say about Josh Allen... yet nobody was this tight about it during the predraft.

 

Everyone on this board wanted NOTHING to do with this man... but yet our team took him...& it's wrong to point out that they probably made the biggest mistake since Buddy Nix taking TJ Graham over Russell Wilson.

 

That's be delusional brah

[CommonCents]

3 minutes ago, Scorp83 said:

I've said there were a handful of people that felt otherwise about Allen... but that's like 5%

 

I've been posting threads for months on almost everyone that was on one accord about him. Mayock, Chris Simms...his pop, kiper... & maybe 2 other people that were high on Allen. That's almost it. Like...I'm not going to sit & repost everything again...just so you can deem it credible.

 

I stand by my opinion on Josh Allen, as someone that actually watched his game not YouTube clips (not saying you didn't)...but he sucked in College. Does he have a big arm...yea...so did JP Losman, does he have a good personality? Yea... but so did Fitzpatrick. Whatever "It" is... he doesn't have it. 

 

I'm on record saying "I want to be wrong about Allen"

 

I pray that I'm totally wrong. But I've been around this game for a long time, played it & all. Played it, coaches it & all... there's nothing that jumps out that he's going to translate well. I think he's going to make some plays...but not be consistent. 

 

Heck Tannehill has made some plays... but I feel Miami should have drafted a QB too. 

 

Just because I'm not posting the same links doesn't mean what I wrote about Allen isn't credible. & yes... ignoring the entire landscape on Allen...& only believing the good about him is "Homer Koolaid" at it's finest batch!

 

People get upset when they hear what people say about Josh Allen... yet nobody was this tight about it during the predraft.

 

Everyone on this board wanted NOTHING to do with this man... but yet our team took him...& it's wrong to point out that they probably made the biggest mistake since Buddy Nix taking TJ Graham over Russell Wilson.

 

That's be delusional brah

I wanted Allen prior to the draft.

[Scorp83]

39 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

I wanted Allen prior to the draft.

Great! Your part of the few people that did.

 

If you've listened to WGR... you would of heard a TON of people that didn't...guests, Callers...heck our own beat reporters are on record saying they are not a fan of the pick but can understand why McBeane would take him prior to the draft. Chris Brown (who's probably better then everyone when it comes to the Bills), Joe. B., Sal C. These dudes all said they would rather take 3 other QB's over Allen...

 

Now that the pick is made...all you hear them say "for them...they've better hope it was the right pick". 

 

I totally understand them...that's as far as they can go...they can't bash it like they want to...but they give enough to say... "look...I dont know what they were thinking"

 

In the end, we will all be watching, & judging the front office on this pick. It was huge... & what's worse...Allen will have to be compared to Watson & Mahomes too...because they traded out of their pick that year to load up for Allen. 

 

Watson, Mahomes, Rosen, Jackson...better stink more then Allen...period

Edited July 26, 2018 by Scorp83
Typo

[Shaw66]

49 minutes ago, Scorp83 said:

I've said there were a handful of people that felt otherwise about Allen... but that's like 5%

 

I've been posting threads for months on almost everyone that was on one accord about him. Mayock, Chris Simms...his pop, kiper... & maybe 2 other people that were high on Allen. That's almost it. Like...I'm not going to sit & repost everything again...just so you can deem it credible.

 

I stand by my opinion on Josh Allen, as someone that actually watched his game not YouTube clips (not saying you didn't)...but he sucked in College. Does he have a big arm...yea...so did JP Losman, does he have a good personality? Yea... but so did Fitzpatrick. Whatever "It" is... he doesn't have it. 

 

I'm on record saying "I want to be wrong about Allen"

 

I pray that I'm totally wrong. But I've been around this game for a long time, played it & all. Played it, coaches it & all... there's nothing that jumps out that he's going to translate well. I think he's going to make some plays...but not be consistent. 

 

Heck Tannehill has made some plays... but I feel Miami should have drafted a QB too. 

 

Just because I'm not posting the same links doesn't mean what I wrote about Allen isn't credible. & yes... ignoring the entire landscape on Allen...& only believing the good about him is "Homer Koolaid" at it's finest batch!

 

People get upset when they hear what people say about Josh Allen... yet nobody was this tight about it during the predraft.

 

Everyone on this board wanted NOTHING to do with this man... but yet our team took him...& it's wrong to point out that they probably made the biggest mistake since Buddy Nix taking TJ Graham over Russell Wilson.

 

That's be delusional brah

I like this.   It's clear, makes sense.   You've watched the guy and you don't think he's a football player.   That's about as good an argument against his chances as there can be. 

 

I hope you're wrong, of course.  And I have a theory about how you can be wrong.  I think up until now, Allen's played something that's close to sandlot ball.   Go out there kid, use your athleticism and see if you can win the game for us.   

 

I don't think that's how QB is played in the NFL any more.   I think NFL QBs are coaches on the field.   They're programmed to execute the plays, not create plays.   I think that's why Kirk Cousins got $30 million a year, or whatever.   He is NOT a guy who takes the game in his hands and wins it.   He's a guy who studies the plan, studies the opponent, and executes.   

 

I think the Bills see Allen as a Kirk Cousins type, but with better athleticism.   I think they see a guy who will learn the system, do what he's told to do, execute the system.   

 

I don't think the Bills were looking for John Elway.   They want a guy who by his very nature will buy into the process and execute.   

11 minutes ago, Scorp83 said:

.Allen will have to be compared to Watson & Mahomes too...because they traded out of their pick that year to load up for Allen. 

 

Watson, Mahomes, Rosen, Jackson...better stink more then Allen...period

I never look at it this way.   All I care about is that Allen makes it and is a solid, long-term starting QB.   If he is, I don't care if any of those other guys are better.   

 

The GM's job is to get good value for his pick, not to get the best value.   

[Stank_Nasty]

this scorp character may have overtaken xrushx for me when it comes to being the most dramatic poster on the board in recent memory.

 

its especially annoying that he likes to lump the majority of us in with how he feels about the qb. 

 

I love how he says about 5% of the analysts out there like allen. are you freaking kidding me? a qb doesn't enter talks of being drafted in the top 5-10 on a consistent basis if he's only talked about in a positive light by about 5% of these people. dude..... you gotta dial it back. just so over the top, man.

Edited July 26, 2018 by Stank_Nasty

[Figster]

58 minutes ago, Scorp83 said:

Great! Your part of the few people that did.

 

If you've listened to WGR... you would of heard a TON of people that didn't...guests, Callers...heck our own beat reporters are on record saying they are not a fan of the pick but can understand why McBeane would take him prior to the draft. Chris Brown (who's probably better then everyone when it comes to the Bills), Joe. B., Sal C. These dudes all said they would rather take 3 other QB's over Allen...

 

Now that the pick is made...all you hear them say "for them...they've better hope it was the right pick". 

 

I totally understand them...that's as far as they can go...they can't bash it like they want to...but they give enough to say... "look...I dont know what they were thinking"

 

In the end, we will all be watching, & judging the front office on this pick. It was huge... & what's worse...Allen will have to be compared to Watson & Mahomes too...because they traded out of their pick that year to load up for Allen. 

 

Watson, Mahomes, Rosen, Jackson...better stink more then Allen...period

The highest wonderlic score out of the QB class. The strongest arm out of the QB class. ( may have the strongest arm the NFL has ever seen) Big, athletic, courageous, calm under pressure. Shows good leadership abilities. Wins football games. Looked good with better talent around him at the Senior bowl. Sure it was a gamble, a roll of the dice, but If Buffalo wants to end the search for a franchise QB these are the kind of chances a team has to take IMO.

 

There's allot to like about this kid in my humble opinion.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

Quote

I stand by my opinion on Josh Allen, as someone that actually watched his game not YouTube clips (not saying you didn't)...but he sucked in College. Does he have a big arm...yea...so did JP Losman, does he have a good personality? Yea... but so did Fitzpatrick. Whatever "It" is... he doesn't have it. 

 

Now THIS, I'm 100% fine with.  You aren't trying to make grandious claims about "universally regarded".

You're stating your opinion.  You watched his game, you thought he sucked in college.  Fair enough. 

 

I can respect that as your opinion, acknowledging there are some other folks here who have also watched Allen live and who have a different opinion.

 

Quote

Just because I'm not posting the same links doesn't mean what I wrote about Allen isn't credible

 

It does, I'm afraid.  When what you're writing is claiming that Allen was universally considered " the worst QB prospect out of the top 6 (Mayfield, Rosen, Darnold, Jackson, Allen & Rudolph)" and it's proven a number of national QB prospect rankings contradict this, it refutes the "universal" bit.

 

Then it's really on you to show that they're only a small minority or whatever.  And ya know....I've been watching you post for months, and I have never seen links, despite all the "I already posted, I'm not going to bother again just to defend myself" schtick.

 

Why not just stick to posting your opinion as such or what you can defend?  Far more credible and respected.

 

Quote

. & yes... ignoring the entire landscape on Allen...& only believing the good about him is "Homer Koolaid" at it's finest batch!

 

Ignoring the entire landscape on Allen and focusing exclusively on the negative is a different kind of Koolaid, y'know?

 

You're entitled to your opinion and I respect it...as your opinion... but not when it's presented as some grandiose universal claim coupled to the attempt to discredit other viewpoints by sticking a label like "homer koolaid" on them.

 

Quote

People get upset when they hear what people say about Josh Allen... yet nobody was this tight about it during the predraft.

 

I dislike hyperbole.  I dislike organizations that "jump the shark" in their negativity, and I don't care for unsupported claims about universal negative views.

 

Quote

Everyone on this board wanted NOTHING to do with this man

 

See, there you go again with the hyperbole.  That is not true.  Several here were positive about Allen, including one who has a lot of football chops and reviewed a lot of film, and one who watched his games live. 

 

Probably the largest number here are dubious, but willing to reserve judgement because we recognize we are not professionals, and we give professionals the "benefit of the doubt" until proven incompetent (a la Rex)  That's what being a fan means to most .... give the team the benefit of the doubt and support our guys until proven wrong.  Since Allen has yet to throw a pass in an NFL game, we're not there yet.

[Thurman#1]

On 7/25/2018 at 1:52 AM, Shaw66 said:

Everyone's entitled to his opinion, but you'd like the opinion to make sense. 

 

He says "there's zero empirical evidence" to support him becoming a reasonable starting quarterback.  What?   He has one of the best arms in the history of the league, so that's some empirical evidence.   He can run, so that's some empirical evidence.   He had a 37 on the Wonderlic.   That's some empirical evidence.  His trajectory as a developing QB is trending upward.  That's some empirical evidence.  

 

There is a very simple truth about college quarterbacks:  If you aren't Andrew Luck, there is no reliable predictor of success in the NFL.   These guys haven't even been to training camp.  At this point there is no meaningful difference in the probabilities that Rosen, Allen, Mayfield and Darnold will be effective NFL starters at some point.   None of them is a sure-fire starter; none of them is a sure-fire bust.   

 

Declaring any of these guys as certifiable busts now is pure guess work.   Sure, it can be your opinion, but that just means you're opinion isn't supported by sufficient evidence to make it credible.   Each of these guys has too many positive measureables, each of these guys has been vetted and found to be a quality prospect by multiple pro teams, to make a certifiable-bust opinion make anything but guessing.  

 

 

Yeah, he has a strong arm and he can run. And that's empirical. But not empirical evidence that he will be a reasonable starting QB. Otherwise there would be empirical evidence that Aroldis Chapman could become a reasonable starting quarterback. Strong arm and he can run like hell. Same with the Wonderlic. From what I can tell, even the NFL's personnel people aren't taking that seriously anymore. They give guys another test, recently, I forget the name, but one that has a bit of correlation.

 

For evidence that a guy will be a reasonable starting QB, you need to look at performance-based evidence, specifically how he performed at playing QB.

 

I'm with you that this "zero empirical evidence" is hyperbole. The art of picking QBs is so nebulous it's legit to question how much of the evidence can be considered empirical evidence a guy will be a successful QB.

 

I'm hopeful. But wasn't until I saw that he'd been going to Jordan Palmer and that smarter football people than I were saying his throwing had improved each time he had a showcase in the offseason. It's legit to question his college performance. And equally legit to note that there are some real justifications for a lot of his worst numbers. Not to mention that completion percentage does NOT equal accuracy.

 

This report makes sense, IMHO. It's very pessimistic, though. There are plenty of legit optimistic ones, as well. Here's one that I thought made me a bit more hopeful:

 

 

Hard for me to take any predictions on Allen seriously, positive or negative. More than nearly any other QBs around, it's just going to be a matter of sitting back, watching what happens, hoping he develops and being happy he is apparently an extremely bright football guy and a very hard worker.

[WPBillsFan]

On ‎7‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 12:36 PM, Teddy KGB said:

Crap OP  Crusade

I see you catch feelings when something bad is posted about Josh Allen???

10 hours ago, Shaw66 said:

I like this.   It's clear, makes sense.   You've watched the guy and you don't think he's a football player.   That's about as good an argument against his chances as there can be. 

 

I hope you're wrong, of course.  And I have a theory about how you can be wrong.  I think up until now, Allen's played something that's close to sandlot ball.   Go out there kid, use your athleticism and see if you can win the game for us.   

 

I don't think that's how QB is played in the NFL any more.   I think NFL QBs are coaches on the field.   They're programmed to execute the plays, not create plays.   I think that's why Kirk Cousins got $30 million a year, or whatever.   He is NOT a guy who takes the game in his hands and wins it.   He's a guy who studies the plan, studies the opponent, and executes.   

 

I think the Bills see Allen as a Kirk Cousins type, but with better athleticism.   I think they see a guy who will learn the system, do what he's told to do, execute the system.   

 

I don't think the Bills were looking for John Elway.   They want a guy who by his very nature will buy into the process and execute.   

I never look at it this way.   All I care about is that Allen makes it and is a solid, long-term starting QB.   If he is, I don't care if any of those other guys are better.   

 

The GM's job is to get good value for his pick, not to get the best value.   

After reading your post about 3 times... I disagree with this comment.  Why wouldn't you want John Elway?  You should want the best QB prospect you can get, now if we end up with Kirk Cousins,  and those other guy's end up being better....then heck yea...I think the poster is right... Why did they pass on Mahomes?  He was a raw prospect that had a better college career then Allen.  What made Watson not draftable in McBeane eyes???  This has to be counted when we evaluate Allen.  Sorry Shaw,  I disagree... good point. But nah, the GM job is to get the best players with his picks. 

[WPBillsFan]

9 hours ago, Stank_Nasty said:

this scorp character may have overtaken xrushx for me when it comes to being the most dramatic poster on the board in recent memory.

 

its especially annoying that he likes to lump the majority of us in with how he feels about the qb. 

 

I love how he says about 5% of the analysts out there like allen. are you freaking kidding me? a qb doesn't enter talks of being drafted in the top 5-10 on a consistent basis if he's only talked about in a positive light by about 5% of these people. dude..... you gotta dial it back. just so over the top, man.

I agree with him... I was wondering when somebody on these boards were going to say something.  I usually sit back and read most of the threads.  I can't believe how may people on this specific board love Josh Allen.  It's almost like every Bill fan that loves Josh Allen is on this message board alone LOL.  Well,  I can tell you from social media, listening to WGR, Joe B Podcast...reading a lot of local beat writers...people do not like the Josh Allen move.  I hear and read more people bashing the Josh Allen pick except when I get on here... it almost seems like this forum has been living in a bubble during the pre draft build up.  

 

I for one...just don't understand...It's like this message board decided to wipe away anything bad that was reported about Josh Allen... there's not many that like him as a QB in the NFL.

 

 

Just google "Is Josh Allen going to be a bust" and watch what pops up...you might get 6 good articles saying he won't... it's hard to find professionals that love him. That's all i'm saying