Please name Josh Allen the starter

[CNY315]

Chris Simms is on The Herd. Says Allen is the most impressive rookie QB so far and should start. For what it's worth

Edited August 20, 2018 by CNY315

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

1 minute ago, CNY315 said:

Chris Simms is on The Herd. Says Allen is the most impressive rookie QB so far and should start. For what it's worth

 

Sims has liked him since day 1.....

[jrober38]

I hope he isn't named starter. 

 

This preseason has been fairly reminiscent of 2013 when we signed Matt Flynn to keep EJ Manuel on the bench, he got hurt and we didn't bother trying to find another QB and we let our unprepared 1st round project on the field far too early. EJ had played relatively well, and we opted to start him even though the scouting reports all said he was a project. 

 

Allen is also a project, and although he's had a decent preseason so far making a couple flashy throws, we need to remember that he's mostly playing vanilla coverages and things will be much more complicated once the regular season begins and the games matter. His completion percentage and particularly his YPA is still very low so we shouldn't be acting like he's lighting the world on fire. What he has done is look the part in terms of demeanour and his control of the huddle, but we shouldn't get carried away. A small sample size of work in the preseason doesn't negate hours of film study which showed Allen as a guy who has a lot of work left to do. 

 

Additionally, Peterman has looked pretty good. I'd rather "trust the process" and play Peterman for as long as we can and stick with the plan to develop Allen. Putting him on the bench for a month or two, and letting him learn to be a pro and watch film on his opponents to see what he'll face in the regular season seems like the best option when thinking long term. 

 

I know the fans want instant gratification, but if the hope is that he'll be our QB for 10 years, I can wait a month, or even the full year if it increases his chances of being successful in the long run. 

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

I hope he isn't named starter. 

 

This preseason has been fairly reminiscent of 2013 when we signed Matt Flynn to keep EJ Manuel on the bench, he got hurt and we didn't bother trying to find another QB and we let our unprepared 1st round project on the field far too early. EJ had played relatively well, and we opted to start him even though the scouting reports all said he was a project. 

 

Allen is also a project, and although he's had a decent preseason so far making a couple flashy throws, we need to remember that he's mostly playing vanilla coverages and things will be much more complicated once the regular season begins and the games matter. His completion percentage and particularly his YPA is still very low so we shouldn't be acting like he's lighting the world on fire. What he has done is look the part in terms of demeanour and his control of the huddle, but we shouldn't get carried away. A small sample size of work in the preseason doesn't negate hours of film study which showed Allen as a guy who has a lot of work left to do. 

 

Additionally, Peterman has looked pretty good. I'd rather "trust the process" and play Peterman for as long as we can and stick with the plan to develop Allen. Putting him on the bench for a month or two, and letting him learn to be a pro and watch film on his opponents to see what he'll face in the regular season seems like the best option when thinking long term. 

 

I know the fans want instant gratification, but if the hope is that he'll be our QB for 10 years, I can wait a month, or even the full year if it increases his chances of being successful in the long run. 

 

It was Kevin Kolb who the Bills signed, but he was done in by a Mat.   At any rate, this is a different scenario.   The best QB should play. 

[jrober38]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

It was Kevin Kolb who the Bills signed, but he was done in by a Mat.   At any rate, this is a different scenario.   The best QB should play. 

 

True.

The best QB so far appears to have been Peterman. 

 

I'd like to see him keep Allen on the bench for at least a month so he can learn what it's like to be a pro and the preparation that needs to go into an NFL game before handing him the reigns. 

 

I'm not comfortable whatsoever giving him the ball week 1 when every scouting report said he was an enormous project. 

[Gugny]

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

I know the fans want instant gratification, but if the hope is that he'll be our QB for 10 years, I can wait a month, or even the full year if it increases his chances of being successful in the long run. 

 

I think most fans want the best QB on the roster to start; I know I do.  Preseason game 3 will tell a lot.  If Allen makes good decisions/throws with the first team (and against a first team D), then I think it's a no-brainer that he's the better of the two (three if you still want to count McCarron).

 

Just put the best QB out there.

 

[GoBills808]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

True.

The best QB so far appears to have been Peterman. 

 

I'd like to see him keep Allen on the bench for at least a month so he can learn what it's like to be a pro and the preparation that needs to go into an NFL game before handing him the reigns. 

 

I'm not comfortable whatsoever giving him the ball week 1 when every scouting report said he was an enormous project. 

Don't you mean we should just cut Allen now and save ourselves the trouble? I mean...

 

On 1/15/2018 at 9:27 AM, jrober38 said:

Guys with his set of "Negatives" never work out in the NFL.

 

[BillsSbSoon]

If the oline wasnt so shaky id be all about it but i feel like this time it might be best to place this one close to the chest and let him sit for a little bit. 

[26CornerBlitz]

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

True.

The best QB so far appears to have been Peterman. 

 

I'd like to see him keep Allen on the bench for at least a month so he can learn what it's like to be a pro and the preparation that needs to go into an NFL game before handing him the reigns. 

 

I'm not comfortable whatsoever giving him the ball week 1 when every scouting report said he was an enormous project. 

 

Not the way I see it.  He looks like the same guy with limitations who'll be exposed by 1st team defenses in regular season game action.

[HeHateMe]

Peterman can't throw an out without everyone holding their breath.  Dude has a jelly arm and it won't be pretty starting him just because we are afraid of failing with Allen.  Allen is our future and the guy who gives us the best chance at winning on day 1.

[jrober38]

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

Don't you mean we should just cut Allen now and save ourselves the trouble? I mean...

 

 

Talk to me in 3 years. 

 

20 preseason passes probably isn't a large enough sample size to see how his career will go or start acting like people who bashed him before the draft should eat crow. 

5 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Not the way I see it.  He looks like the same guy with limitations who'll be exposed by 1st team defenses in regular season game action.

 

Probably. I still don't want Allen on the field though. 

 

In my eyes, the longer Allen  sits the better he'll be for it long term. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, jrober38 said:

Talk to me in 3 years. 

 

20 preseason passes probably isn't a large enough sample size to see how his career will go or start acting like people who bashed him before the draft should eat crow. 

Right, because it makes WAY more sense to write him off before he's even been drafted.

[jrober38]

1 minute ago, GoBills808 said:

Right, because it makes WAY more sense to write him off before he's even been drafted.

 

Again, feel free to talk to me in 3 years. 

 

I don't know what you're expecting me to say right now. None of us have any idea if Josh Allen is going to become a franchise calibre QB in the NFL. 

[GoBills808]

1 minute ago, jrober38 said:

 

Again, feel free to talk to me in 3 years. 

 

I don't know what you're expecting me to say right now. None of us have any idea if Josh Allen is going to become a franchise calibre QB in the NFL. 

It just seems odd that you think having a surefire bust sitting on the bench is going to help him improve. Might as well get the Josh Allen experiment over with after the first drive of the Ravens game, amiright? 

[Mikey152]

6 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Again, feel free to talk to me in 3 years. 

 

I don't know what you're expecting me to say right now. None of us have any idea if Josh Allen is going to become a franchise calibre QB in the NFL. 

 

That's funny, because you seemed pretty sure before...

 

Josh Allen was all set to be the poster child for the analytics crew...I think it's hilarious that he is shaping up to be the exact opposite, basically proving that a lot of those numbers are contextual and can't be compared in a vacuum. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Mikey152

[jrober38]

2 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

It just seems odd that you think having a surefire bust sitting on the bench is going to help him improve. Might as well get the Josh Allen experiment over with after the first drive of the Ravens game, amiright? 

 

You're right.

 

Might as well throw him to the wolves. We'll be looking for a new QB in 3 years anyway. 

[GoBills808]

9 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

You're right.

 

Might as well throw him to the wolves. We'll be looking for a new QB in 3 years anyway. 

 

LOL Can't help myself, here:

 

On 8/2/2018 at 4:29 AM, jrober38 said:

 

I'm just pointing out that in the past 20 years, very few QBs benefited from sitting on the bench. Most good 1st round QBs started as rookies, with maybe a handful of 1st round guys over that span who sat behind an incumbent starter. 

 

Ultimately we're talking about a position where fewer than 50% of the QBs picked in round 1 become successful. If you take away the guys who went #1 overall, that figure drops to a success rate of about 30%. That's the reality we accepted when we picked Josh Allen.

 

That's a lot of schizophrenic fail in just a few posts.

[The Senator]

30 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

I hope he isn't named starter. 

 

This preseason has been fairly reminiscent of 2013 when we signed Matt Flynn to keep EJ Manuel on the bench, he got hurt and we didn't bother trying to find another QB and we let our unprepared 1st round project on the field far too early. EJ had played relatively well, and we opted to start him even though the scouting reports all said he was a project. 

 

Allen is also a project, and although he's had a decent preseason so far making a couple flashy throws, we need to remember that he's mostly playing vanilla coverages and things will be much more complicated once the regular season begins and the games matter. His completion percentage and particularly his YPA is still very low so we shouldn't be acting like he's lighting the world on fire. What he has done is look the part in terms of demeanour and his control of the huddle, but we shouldn't get carried away. A small sample size of work in the preseason doesn't negate hours of film study which showed Allen as a guy who has a lot of work left to do. 

 

Additionally, Peterman has looked pretty good. I'd rather "trust the process" and play Peterman for as long as we can and stick with the plan to develop Allen. Putting him on the bench for a month or two, and letting him learn to be a pro and watch film on his opponents to see what he'll face in the regular season seems like the best option when thinking long term. 

 

I know the fans want instant gratification, but if the hope is that he'll be our QB for 10 years, I can wait a month, or even the full year if it increases his chances of being successful in the long run. 

 

I am so sick and tired of reading that Allen is a “project” that needs to sit, watch, and learn.

 

He’s our best QB, rookie or not.  He needs to play and learn, NOW.

 

He also gives us the best chance of winning, now.

[jrober38]

5 minutes ago, GoBills808 said:

 

LOL Can't help myself, here:

 

 

That's a lot of schizophrenic fail in just a few posts.

 

Nothing you've dug up that I said is wrong.

 

Guys like Allen practically never work out. 

Some guys who sat on the bench for a year or more did work out.

 

The number of guys who sat and were successful is greater than the number of guys who completed less than 57% of their passes in college. 

 

Maybe sitting will help. History clearly shows playing guys like him immediately will end in disaster. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by jrober38

[Mikey152]

Just now, The Senator said:

 

I am so sick and tired of reading that Allen is a “project” that needs to sit, watch, and learn.

 

He’s our best QB, rookie or not.  He needs to play and learn, NOW.

 

He also gives us the best chance of winning, now.

 

People said he was a "project" because they thought he had crappy accuracy and sloppy footwork.  But the reality is he is a smart kid who ran what was quite possibly the  most (or second most behind Rosen) pro-style offense of all the rookies.  Not to mention his physical tools which can mask some of the typical rookie problems.  He had the highest floor, not the lowest...once you got past the narrative that he couldn't hit the broadside of a barn, anyway (bear in mind this sentiment was based almost 100% on his stats and not his actual ability)

[GoBills808]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

Nothing you've dug up that I said is wrong.

 

Guys like Allen practically never work out. 

Some guys who sat on the bench for a year or more did work out.

 

The number of guys who sat and were successful is greater than the number of guys who completed less than 57% of their passes in college. 

 

Maybe sitting will help. History clearly shows playing him immediately will end in disaster. 

Yeh ok so first you yelled up and down predraft how guaranteed awful he was going to be, then you literally just said he needs to sit when just a couple of weeks ago you said sitting doesn't help. You're so wrong so often I can't believe your keyboard hasn't gone on strike.

[Mikey152]

3 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Nothing you've dug up that I said is wrong.

 

Guys like Allen practically never work out. 

Some guys who sat on the bench for a year or more did work out.

 

The number of guys who sat and were successful is greater than the number of guys who completed less than 57% of their passes in college. 

 

Maybe sitting will help. History clearly shows playing guys like him immediately will end in disaster. 

 

What, exactly, is a "guy like him"?

 

This is the problem with your whole argument, in a nutshell.  It has ZERO context.  Low completion percentage = inaccurate.  It doesn't take much to see that narrative was incorrect.

[jrober38]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

Yeh ok so first you yelled up and down predraft how guaranteed awful he was going to be, then you literally just said he needs to sit when just a couple of weeks ago you said sitting doesn't help. You're so wrong so often I can't believe your keyboard hasn't gone on strike.

 

You're reading comprehension skills are obviously quite poor.

 

I didn't say it never helps. I said it's rarely helped, as in a small percentage of the time it has helped. 

 

If you're going to bother saving posts I made 7 months back, try reading them before posting them. 

[GoBills808]

Just now, jrober38 said:

 

You're reading comprehension skills are obviously quite poor.

 

I didn't say it never helps. I said it's rarely helped, as in a small percentage of the time it has helped. 

 

If you're going to bother saving posts I made 7 months back, try reading them before posting them. 

So good.

[jrober38]

3 minutes ago, Mikey152 said:

 

What, exactly, is a "guy like him"?

 

This is the problem with your whole argument, in a nutshell.  It has ZERO context.  Low completion percentage = inaccurate.  It doesn't take much to see that narrative was incorrect.

 

Guys who had accuracy issues coming out of college. Particularly guys who didn't complete fewer than 57% of the throws they attempted at the collegiate level.

 

There's the context. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by jrober38

[26CornerBlitz]

 

 

[Mikey152]

2 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

Guys who had accuracy issues coming out of college. Particularly guys who didn't complete fewer than 57% of the throws they attempted at the collegiate level.

 

There's the context. 

 

Again, completion percentage and accuracy are not the same thing.  That's the whole point.  I mean, do you really think that Joe Flacco is more accurate than Dan Marino?

[26CornerBlitz]

AFC Preseason Grades: Josh Allen, Deshaun Watson Ace Week 2

 

The preseason is a time for jobs to be won, opportunities to be seized and depth charts to be determined. So, while wins and losses might not matter, there's plenty at stake for many players in these exhibition games. To help put these moments into context, Bucky Brooks will provide a grade for one player of interest from every NFL team after each of the first three full weeks of preseason action.

 

Below, see the AFC player grades following Week 2. Grades for the Colts and Ravens, who play on Monday night, will be added later.

 

Buffalo Bills: Josh Allen, QB. The Bills' QB1 of the future showed promise against the Browns. The strong-armed gunslinger was effective playing "small ball" in the team's quick-rhythm offense. Allen connected on a handful of Y-stick routes, hitches and quick outs that helped him get the ball out of his hands quickly. In addition, No. 17 continued to display some "wow" ability as a playmaker, using his athleticism to avoid defenders in the pocket before delivering darts to receivers down the field. Although he finished the night with just 60 passing yards on 9 of 13 passing (one touchdown), Allen looked like he could handle the pressure of being the team's QB1 as a rookie. Grade: A

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

 

I like to think of it as who's protecting him and to whom he's throwing for context's sake:

 

3rd stringers vs Panthers: 47%

 

2nd stringers vs Browns: 69%

[jrober38]

Just now, Mikey152 said:

 

Again, completion percentage and accuracy are not the same thing.  That's the whole point.  I mean, do you really think that Joe Flacco is more accurate than Dan Marino?

 

You're right. They're not the same thing. In fact, I don't know when I said they were.

 

All I said is that QBs who couldn't complete more than 57% of their throws in college have no history of making successful NFL QBs (over the last 20 years). 

 

 

[26CornerBlitz]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

I like to think of it as who's protecting him and to whom he's throwing for context's sake:

 

3rd stringers vs Panthers: 47%

 

2nd stringers vs Browns: 69%

 

Funny, but meaningless coincidence.

[Mikey152]

Just now, GoBills808 said:

I like to think of it as who's protecting him and to whom he's throwing for context's sake:

 

3rd stringers vs Panthers: 47%

 

2nd stringers vs Browns: 69%

 

Types of passes, too...

 

It was nice to see him show he is capable of running an efficient offense against the Browns, where they moved the ball without a bunch of chunk plays.

[GoBills808]

Just now, 26CornerBlitz said:

 

Funny, but meaningless coincidence.

Yeh just ol' Rodak stirring the pot. 

[Mikey152]

6 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

You're right. They're not the same thing. In fact, I don't know when I said they were.

 

All I said is that QBs who couldn't complete more than 57% of their throws in college have no history of making successful NFL QBs (over the last 20 years). 

 

 

 

You literally said "guys that have accuracy issues" then clarified via 57% comp %.  

 

Out of curiosity...how many of those guys were top 10 picks?  My guess is we are talking about less than 5.  Not exactly a huge sample size.

 

So maybe, just maybe...there is some context there that makes him different?  I mean, his numbers on third down, completion % wise, were similar to Darnold and Rosen.

Edited August 20, 2018 by Mikey152

[26CornerBlitz]

18 hours ago, 26CornerBlitz said:

Nice breakdown.

 

NFL Preseason: Josh Allen Touchdown to WR Rod Streater

 

ICYMI

 

 

[GunnerBill]

I was not an Allen fan at draft time, my view on him was well known and was based on tape not on numbers. 

 

I think he is ahead of where I expected him to be at this stage. Game 1 was right there but game 2 he is ahead. I am encouraged by Josh. I think he can play. His improvement since he ended his college career seems to be that the inaccuracy is still there but occurs far more rarely. I still can't pinpoint reasons for the inaccuracy when it comes but it is coming at a far more manageable rate. 

 

I said he should win this job when he was drafted because I didn't have faith in either of the other 2. They both played well in week 1, but at the end of week 2 this looks every inch Josh's job to lose. 8-8 with Josh starting all 16 is like 12-4 in a normal year. 

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by GunnerBill

[jrober38]

3 minutes ago, Mikey152 said:

 

You literally said "guys that have accuracy issues" then clarified via 57% comp %.  

 

Out of curiosity...how many of those guys were top 10 picks?  My guess is we are talking about less than 5.

 

So maybe, just maybe...there is some context there that makes him different?  I mean, his numbers on third down, completion % wise, were similar to Darnold and Rosen.

 

The accuracy issues are from reading several in depth reports that analyzed his ball placement. I'd intended for the two to be separate things. 

 

I agree with you that raw completion percentage and accuracy aren't the exact same thing, ie EJ Manuel has terrible accuracy despite completing a very high percentage of his passes at FSU. 

 

Where we picked Allen has no bearing on whether it was a good decision. Plenty of QBs have been picked in the top 10 who were complete busts. Some had accuracy problems and some had other issues. If I remember correctly, Joey Harrington, Akili Smith and Jake Locker were all top 10 guys with sub 57% completions who were all complete busts. 

Edited August 20, 2018 by jrober38

[Jay_Fixit]

15 minutes ago, Mikey152 said:

 

Again, completion percentage and accuracy are not the same thing.  That's the whole point.  I mean, do you really think that Joe Flacco is more accurate than Dan Marino?

Mikey boyyyy!!!!!

[Mikey152]

17 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

The accuracy issues are from reading several in depth reports that analyzed his ball placement. I'd intended for the two to be separate things. 

 

I agree with you that raw completion percentage and accuracy aren't the exact same thing, ie EJ Manuel has terrible accuracy despite completing a very high percentage of his passes at FSU. 

 

Where we picked Allen has no bearing on whether it was a good decision. Plenty of QBs have been picked in the top 10 who were complete busts. Some had accuracy problems and some had other issues. If I remember correctly, Joey Harrington, Akili Smith and Jake Locker were all top 10 guys with sub 57% completions who were all complete busts. 

 

You're completely missing the point about being drafted in the top 10.  Guys don't wind up there by accident.

 

Some dude drafted in the third round with a sub 57% completion percentage might have unfixable issues.  But a guy drafted in the top 10 either has a trump card or, upon further scrutiny, his stats weren't a true reflection of his ability. Maybe both.

 

 

Edited August 20, 2018 by Mikey152

[Paulus]

18 minutes ago, jrober38 said:

 

You're right. They're not the same thing. In fact, I don't know when I said they were.

 

All I said is that QBs who couldn't complete more than 57% of their throws in college have no history of making successful NFL QBs (over the last 20 years). 

 

 

Funny thing about stats, is the NFL has a way of crapping all over them and the people who know nothing more. Cling to your false profits (sic) of analytics.

 

Allen has been pretty accurate from the tape, like it or not. Maybe, you should watch the tape. Or, you can watch the cherry picked stats and worship to your false masters.