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

[Sky Diver]

6 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Do you even read what you post?  You were upset with people who are finding faults with Allen when he hasn’t played yet, but that hasn’t stopped you from doing the same thing with Rosen.  Be consistent and stop holding a grudge against a guy for saying Bama doesn’t challenge its football players academically. 

 

And the Brady hate is out of jealousy and for the most part, not serious.  We “hate” him but would love to have him. As much as it’s weird how he kisses his son.

 

Allen plays for the Bills and Rosen doesn't. There is a time honored tradition of poking fun at opposing players and Rosen is an easy mark

[oldmanfan]

23 minutes ago, TheElectricCompany said:

Sure, let's go with that. Glad we cleared that up. 

What is a multivariate analysis?

[Sky Diver]

5 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

The only meaningful part of QBASE is who had elite scores, and who had negative scores. There are too many hits and misses in between. 

 

With that said, players with a negative score (like Josh Allen) literally never go on to become franchise QBs in the NFL. 

 

QBASE gave Wentz a 61.9% chance of being a bust? How well did that work out? We need some analytics on the analytics.

 

Edited July 25, 2018 by Sky Diver

[TheElectricCompany]

1 minute ago, oldmanfan said:

What is a multivariate analysis?

Something you looked up on Google 

[jrober38]

Just now, Sky Diver said:

 

QBASE gave Wentz a 61.9% chance of failing. How well did that work out. We need some analytics on the analytics.

 

 

Sure. 

 

I'm just pointing out that in 21 years, there hasn't been a QB with a negative QBASE score who went onto become a franchise QB in the NFL. As I said, there are plenty of hits and misses in the 0-800 point range. 

 

Althought Wentz's score was low, and his bust probability was high, it wasn't negative like Allen's was. 

[Figster]

9 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

This isn't about guys with a higher completion percentage. This is looking at guys whose college completion percentage was very poor, and history very clearly shows that these players don't go on to become quality NFL players. 

 

We're all hoping Josh Allen bucks the trend and becomes "the guy", but every stat and bit of data you can find say his chances of becoming a franchise QB are slim to none. Most 1st round QBs fail, so whoever we picked likely wouldn't have been successful. That's just reality. It's really hard to find a QB. 

So you admit most 1st round QB's fail.

 

Perhaps that should be telling us the way college QB's are being evaluated is not very reliable.

 

 

[C.Biscuit97]

6 minutes ago, Shaw66 said:

But in this case, the guy is neither dumb nor annoying.   In fact, if he's annoying at all, it's because he relentlessly is looking to get better.  So he's annoying like Kirk Cousins.   

I was thinking more about the girls.  With the tall, big armed guys, teams ignore serious flaws that can’t get them by in the nfl.

 

i did this with EJ.  I was in full homer mood and was excited to get a qb.  He had all the physical tools, was a great dude (played his senior year with his mom battling cancer and didn’t say a word), and a lot of people trashed the pick.  Looking back, people were concerned about his accuracy.  And he completed 67% of his passes at almost 9 ypa in the ACC.

 

 

[TheElectricCompany]

4 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

QBASE gave Wentz a 61.9% chance of being a bust? How well did that work out? We need some analytics on the analytics.

 

QBASE values 2+ years starting experience. 

I'm sure the odds of becoming an elite QB are significantly lower for <2 year starters. 

[C.Biscuit97]

2 minutes ago, Figster said:

So you admit most 1st round QB's fail.

 

Perhaps that should be telling us the way college QB's are being evaluated is not very reliable.

 

 

Is it 50-50 that 1st round guys become franchise qbs?  Well then it’s like 95-5 1st rounders with under 60% (in the last 10 years) become franchise guys.  

 

 

[CommonCents]

Just now, C.Biscuit97 said:

I was thinking more about the girls.  With the tall, big armed guys, teams ignore serious flaws that can’t get them by in the nfl.

 

i did this with EJ.  I was in full homer mood and was excited to get a qb.  He had all the physical tools, was a great dude (played his senior year with his mom battling cancer and didn’t say a word), and a lot of people trashed the pick.  Looking back, people were concerned about his accuracy.  And he completed 67% of his passes at almost 9 ypa in the ACC.

 

 

How long did it take you to realize that EJ didn’t have it? Did you watch EJ at FSU? 

[Sky Diver]

6 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Sure. 

 

I'm just pointing out that in 21 years, there hasn't been a QB with a negative QBASE score who went onto become a franchise QB in the NFL. As I said, there are plenty of hits and misses in the 0-800 point range. 

 

Althought Wentz's score was low, and his bust probability was high, it wasn't negative like Allen's was. 

 

They had Jackson rated the #2 QB and he went at 32.

[BillnutinHouston]

13 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

They have had some spectacular misses too, like Carson Wentz.

 

Im no analytics expert, but I think where analytics worshippers go too far is their belief that data from the past is always determinative going forward. It simply isn't, and the embodiment of this is the many late round picks (all of whom were measured analytically) who go on to outperform their higher-drafted peers at the NFL level. 

 

Its human nature to develop predictive models, and while these will inevitably get better with time, they will always be confounded by the unpredictability of the human element.  

[jrober38]

2 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

They had Jackson rated the #2 QB and he went at 32.

 

NFL teams obviously don't use QBASE. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't. 

[eball]

4 minutes ago, BillnutinHouston said:

 

Im no analytics expert, but I think where analytics worshippers go too far is their belief that data from the past is always determinative going forward. It simply isn't, and the embodiment of this is the many late round picks (all of whom were measured analytically) who go on to outperform their higher-drafted peers at the NFL level. 

 

Its human nature to develop predictive models, and while these will inevitably get better with time, they will always be confounded by the unpredictability of the human element.  

 

That right thar sounds purdy smahrt....

[C.Biscuit97]

3 minutes ago, BillnutinHouston said:

 

Im no analytics expert, but I think where analytics worshippers go too far is their belief that data from the past is always determinative going forward. It simply isn't, and the embodiment of this is the many late round picks (all of whom were measured analytically) who go on to outperform their higher-drafted peers at the NFL level. 

 

Its human nature to develop predictive models, and while these will inevitably get better with time, they will always be confounded by the unpredictability of the human element.  

Well taking anything as gospel is dumb.  But there are statistics that should factor in decision making.  Let hitting on 17 in blackjack.  You could pull a 4 but all evidence is you’re better staying.  

 

I feel the Allen pick is more of a gut feeling type pick.  

[Figster]

11 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

Is it 50-50 that 1st round guys become franchise qbs?  Well then it’s like 95-5 1st rounders with under 60% (in the last 10 years) become franchise guys.  

 

 

What are the odds of a 6th round QB becoming the best signal caller the league has ever seen. Or a guy like Kurt Warner is bagging groceries one minute yet goes on to win a championship.

 

I could care less about the odds...

 

with all due respect Biscuit

Edited July 25, 2018 by Figster

[jrober38]

6 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

How long did it take you to realize that EJ didn’t have it? Did you watch EJ at FSU? 

 

I gave up on EJ after the San Diego game in his second season. He showed no improvement from year 1 to year 2, was missing wide open receivers and seemed to have regressed. I defended him pretty thoroughly as a rookie, but after 4 games as a sophomore I felt his benching was completely justified. He looked completely lost. 

 

I bought into the idea he was a raw player with lots of upside and I overlooked all of his deficiencies as a passer. I won't do that again this year. 

[Sky Diver]

4 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

NFL teams obviously don't use QBASE. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't. 

 

If Philadelphia had used QBASE they would have missed out on Carson Wentz. QBASE gave him a 61.9% chance of being a bust, about the same percentage they have assigned to Allen.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Sky Diver

[jrober38]

3 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

If Philadelphia had used QBASE they would have missed out on Carson Wentz.

 

Not necessarily.

 

As I've said a few times, the only really meaningful aspect of QBASE is that guys with a negative score never work out. There are tons of misses for guys with scores in the 0-800 range. 

 

All the teams who picked QBs with a negative score would likely be very happy had they used QBASE. Just imagine if we'd not drafted JP Losman (-192 QBASE) and had a 1st round pick the next year that we could have used on Aaron Rodgers (+1198 QBASE). 

 

Picking players with a negative QBASE score has never proven to be a wise decision. If you use QBASE as a binary type of test to eliminate some players, if you took all the guys with a negative score off your draft board your odds of picking a successful QB would go up because you'd only potentially pick a player who actually had a chance of being successful. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by jrober38

[Sky Diver]

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

Not necessarily.

 

As I've said a few times, the only really meaningful aspect of QBASE is that guys with a negative score never work out. There are tons of misses for guys with scores in the 0-800 range. 

 

All the teams who picked QBs with a negative score would likely be very happy had they used QBASE. Just imagine if we'd not drafted JP Losman (-192 QBASE) and had a 1st round pick the next year that we could have used on Aaron Rodgers (+1198 QBASE). 

 

Picking players with a negative QBASE score has never proven to be a wise decision. If you use QBASE as a binary type of test to eliminate some players, if you took all the guys with a negative score off your draft board your odds of picking a successful QB would go up because you'd only potentially pick a player who actually had a chance of being successful. 

 

From an analytics perspective, do you think that using the 2nd overall pick in the draft on a player that has a 61.9% chance of being a bust make sense to you?

[C.Biscuit97]

8 minutes ago, Figster said:

What are the odds of a 6th round QB becoming the best signal caller the league has ever seen. Or a guy like Kurt Warner is bagging groceries one minute yet goes on to win a championship.

 

I could care less about the odds...

 

with all due respect Biscuit

That has to be less than 1% but I’m sure they are out there (and I’d love to see them).  

 

I think the odds of me dating Yanet Garcia (google her) is probably 60-40 but the likelihood of me meeting her is under 10%.  But I guess there’s a chance and now I feel better about Allen’s chances.

[CommonCents]

3 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I gave up on EJ after the San Diego game in his second season. He showed no improvement from year 1 to year 2, was missing wide open receivers and seemed to have regressed. I defended him pretty thoroughly as a rookie, but after 4 games as a sophomore I felt his benching was completely justified. He looked completely lost. 

 

I bought into the idea he was a raw player with lots of upside and I overlooked all of his deficiencies as a passer. I won't do that again this year. 

Go back and look at EJ at FSU, watch him deciding “how” to throw the football. That was never going to change. Allen is a natural thrower, if he can handle the mental part of the game and function presnap he will be a good one. 

 

“How” to throw a football, anyone that has played QB or thrown enough footballs knows that midthrow your brain shouldn’t be trying to communicate with your arm on how you need to release this thing. EJ and Bortles both do it at times, it’s some weird mental block. Relate it to another sport? Sorta similar to what Knoblauch went through in baseball? Different because for years Chuck was fine but once he started thinking instead of throwing the results were horrific. 

 

In short, don’t dismiss Allen because of EJ’s fatal flaw. 

[jrober38]

4 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

From an analytics perspective, do you think that using the 2nd overall pick in the draft on a player that has a 61.9% chance of being a bust make sense to you?

 

For like the 5th time, I don't put any stock in the guys with a score between 0 and 800 because there are too many hits and misses. 

 

That isn't the case with guys who score negatively. They've all been terrible. 

[C.Biscuit97]

3 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

From an analytics perspective, do you think that using the 2nd overall pick in the draft on a player that has a 61.9% chance of being a bust make sense to you?

Greg Robinson

Luke Jieckel

RG3

Jason Smith

Robert Gallery 

charles Rodgers

Ryan Leaf

Leonard Davis 

Kevin Hardy

 

[jrober38]

Just now, Commonsense said:

Go back and look at EJ at FSU, watch him deciding “how” to throw the football. That was never going to change. Allen is a natural thrower, if he can handle the mental part of the game and function presnap he will be a good one. 

 

“How” to throw a football, anyone that has played QB or thrown enough footballs knows that midthrow your brain shouldn’t be trying to communicate with your arm on how you need to release this thing. EJ and Bortles both do it at times, it’s some weird mental block. Relate it to another sport? Sorta similar to what Knoblauch went through in baseball? Different because for years Chuck was fine but once he started thinking instead of throwing the results were horrific. 

 

In short, don’t dismiss Allen because of EJ’s fatal flaw. 

 

It isn't just about EJ. 

 

Inaccurate college QBs have no real history of becoming accurate NFL QBs. 

 

There are dozens of examples of guys with sub 59% completion percentages who failed in the NFL, and only a couple examples of them succeeding (and hardly any come from the past 25 years). 

[Sky Diver]

4 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

For like the 5th time, I don't put any stock in the guys with a score between 0 and 800 because there are too many hits and misses. 

 

That isn't the case with guys who score negatively. They've all been terrible. 

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

 

Based on QBASE's assessment that Carson Wentz had a 61.9% of being a bust. From an analytics perspective, was it a wise move by the Eagles to trade up for Wentz?

[eball]

10 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Inaccurate college QBs have no real history of becoming accurate NFL QBs. 

 

 

People who use completion percentage in college -- in a vacuum, without further analysis -- as evidence of accuracy or inaccuracy aren't really doing a thorough job of analysis.  But I'm sure you knew that.

[jrober38]

2 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

You didn't answer my question.

 

 

Based on QBASE's assessment that Carson Wentz had a 61.9% of being a bust. From an analytics perspective, was it a wise move by the Eagles to trade up for Wentz?

 

Yes. It was obviously a wise decision. QBASE's reliability when looking at players with scores of 0-800 is not enough to solely base a decision on. There have been way too many hits and misses to say you can solely make a draft decision based off QBASE. 

 

I get it. You don't want to admit that Allen likely won't work out, but that's the reality we face. Trying to discredit QBASE, even though it's projection for players with a negative score has been almost flawless isn't the right approach.

 

No one is saying QBASE as an overall study is perfect. However, based off who they've given negative scores to and the fact that none of them have become franchise QBs makes that segment of their study very valuable. 

[GunnerBill]

32 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

I gave up on EJ after the San Diego game in his second season. He showed no improvement from year 1 to year 2, was missing wide open receivers and seemed to have regressed. I defended him pretty thoroughly as a rookie, but after 4 games as a sophomore I felt his benching was completely justified. He looked completely lost. 

 

I bought into the idea he was a raw player with lots of upside and I overlooked all of his deficiencies as a passer. I won't do that again this year. 

 

Similar in that I defended him as a rookie.  Sadly his best games for the Bills all came in his first 5 or 6 starts.  Equally I will defend Josh Allen as a rookie when inevitably people try and write him off after less than a full season of NFL action. But my long term prognostics for him are still not great. 

Edited July 25, 2018 by GunnerBill

[Sky Diver]

3 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Yes. It was obviously a wise decision. QBASE's reliability when looking at players with scores of 0-800 is not enough to solely base a decision on. There have been way too many hits and misses to say you can solely make a draft decision based off QBASE. 

 

I get it. You don't want to admit that Allen likely won't work out, but that's the reality we face. Trying to discredit QBASE, even though it's projection for players with a negative score has been almost flawless isn't the right approach.

 

No one is saying QBASE as an overall study is perfect. However, based off who they've given negative scores to and the fact that none of them have become franchise QBs makes that segment of their study very valuable. 

 

They were wrong on Wentz and perhaps they are wrong on Allen. Maybe they will have to tweak their model when Allen becomes a superstar.

 

QBASE is fallible.

Edited July 25, 2018 by Sky Diver

[jrober38]

Just now, Sky Diver said:

 

They were wrong on Wentz and perhaps they are wrong on Allen. Maybe they will have to tweak their mottle when Allen becomes a superstar.

 

Maybe. 

 

But history and 30 years of data suggests their methodology for players with a negative score is just fine. 

[FeelingOnYouboty]

I was probably the biggest Josh Allen hater during the process but I'm a sucker and I've bought in. You dance with the one who brought ya. I want him to succeed not just because he's our guy now but man I want the media who've gone overboard with their analysis to really eat it. 

 

Some of the analysis is bordering on mean lol

 

Plus like most NFL execs I'm a size queen. Just look at Josh Allen. That's 6'5 235 pounds of California beef. The boy can fill out a uniform and he has the best arm in the NFL. Cool number. I'm all in man. Hope he's good.

Edited July 25, 2018 by FeelingOnYouboty

[CommonCents]

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

It isn't just about EJ. 

 

Inaccurate college QBs have no real history of becoming accurate NFL QBs. 

 

There are dozens of examples of guys with sub 59% completion percentages who failed in the NFL, and only a couple examples of them succeeding (and hardly any come from the past 25 years). 

I understand why some fans cling to the completion percentage and keep their expectations low. I see something different when watching Allen, maybe for me it’s because he does the things that EJ couldn’t and it’s a personal victory of sorts. I hope that’s not true but it may prove so. 

 

The thing I have a hard time with is the group of fans that supported EJ and his obvious flaw but are unable to get behind Allen. EJ had a 67% career completion percentage while at FSU. The guy shotputs passes, aims others like he is playing darts, flicks some, it’s painful to watch. I’d venture a guess he had more easy completions than Allen did. 

[Sky Diver]

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

Maybe. 

 

But history and 30 years of data suggests their methodology for players with a negative score is just fine. 

 

They haven’t changed their model in 30 years? I find that hard to believe.

 

You obviously put more faith in QBASE than I do.

 

Fortunately for the Eagles they took QBASE with a grain of salt.

[Dr. Who]

21 minutes ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

I think the odds of me dating Yanet Garcia (google her) is probably 60-40 but the likelihood of me meeting her is under 10%.  But I guess there’s a chance and now I feel better about Allen’s chances.

She's lovely.

 

Folks can think and say what they want. I personally believe Allen has a decent chance to be very good, but I am not a pure analytics kinda guy. I find it tiresome when some posters appear most interested in registering their skepticism/dislike of the pick. If you're a Bills' fan, why not try to evince at least the hope that the fella is the player OBD thinks he is? This ought to be a fun time where hope abounds, not the reiteration of doubts and anger that a preferred qb wasn't picked. There will be plenty of time for recrimination if things don't work out, but constant negativity, especially at this stage, just drains the joy out of anticipating a new season.

[Bangarang]

4 minutes ago, Sky Diver said:

 

They were wrong on Wentz and perhaps they are wrong on Allen. Maybe they will have to tweak their model when Allen becomes a superstar.

 

QBASE is fallible.

 

Obviously you have concluded that Allen will be a superstar so you are going to reject anything that may say otherwise.

 

I wonder what your opinion of Allen would be if the Jets drafted him instead..

[Royale with Cheese]

Just now, Bangarang said:

 

Obviously you have concluded that Allen will be a superstar so you are going to reject anything that may say otherwise.

 

I wonder what your opinion of Allen would be if the Jets drafted him instead..

 

Or if he said anything, anything negative at all towards Alabama.  

[CommonCents]

Just now, Bangarang said:

 

Obviously you have concluded that Allen will be a superstar so you are going to reject anything that may say otherwise.

 

I wonder what your opinion of Allen would be if the Jets drafted him instead..

FWIW prior to the draft I said my biggest fear was the Pats trading up and getting Allen.

[jrober38]

2 minutes ago, Commonsense said:

I understand why some fans cling to the completion percentage and keep their expectations low. I see something different when watching Allen, maybe for me it’s because he does the things that EJ couldn’t and it’s a personal victory of sorts. I hope that’s not true but it may prove so. 

 

The thing I have a hard time with is the group of fans that supported EJ and his obvious flaw but are unable to get behind Allen. EJ had a 67% career completion percentage while at FSU. The guy shotputs passes, aims others like he is playing darts, flicks some, it’s painful to watch. I’d venture a guess he had more easy completions than Allen did. 

 

I don't see why you'd have a hard time with it. 

 

Any logical person should see pretty easily that the excuses they made about EJ's inability to properly play the QB position were wrong, and that making the same excuses for a new player with a similar set of problems doesn't make any sense. 

 

All I know is that inaccurate college QBs don't become successful NFL QBs. Matt Stafford is the only guy in 25 years with a career completion percentage below 58% who went onto become a good pro. On the flip side, there are numerous examples of guys who wound up being complete busts because they never improved their accuracy. 

 

Completion percentage isn't the only thing you need to look at. I read several highly detailed analytical studies, and they all thing Allen is going to be a huge bust. Hopefully for our sake they're all wrong. 

[BuffaloHokie13]

3 minutes ago, Royale with Cheese said:

 

Or if he said anything, anything negative at all towards Alabama.  

Well he didn't go there, despite Alabama's incredibly generous scholarship program. I think that speaks volumes!