Fascinating about Josh Allen’s critics is they never played the position

[oldmanfan]

24 minutes ago, VW82 said:

 

It would really help if all that happened. Again, he's super talented and he needs help. But to this point of the season, and even if we just isolate these last four games, Allen is still near the bottom of the NFL in whatever version of adjusted completion percentage you want to use. Even accounting for the drops, and the throwaways, and the fact he throws downfield more often. He's still much less accurate than most everyone else, at least statistically. It's a fact.

You also continually demonstrate you do not understand what the term accurate means.

[78thealltimegreat]

4 minutes ago, row_33 said:

I can’t make a comment on music or art or large skyscrapers or pro athletes?

 

the OP violates this every hour of the day with judgments 

Did you read my post the National Media who covers the NFL I swear stop eating paint chips 

[formerlyofCtown]

30 minutes ago, The Frankish Reich said:

But .... do your ex-QB commenters ever have anything critical to say about any NFL QB?  Sure, they may be critical of a bad decision here, a poor throw there, etc., but when did a Steve Young or even a Tony Romo ever say of an NFL rookie, "I just don't think this guy has what it takes to make it in this league." Answer: never. It's not the way they see the world, or maybe they're just too used to censoring their thoughts. Example: which former QB ever said that EJ Manuel will never make it as an NFL starter?

I dont know Ill have to pay more attention to that.  Im pretty sure they have.

I imagine they all felt Peterman should remain the Bills starter.

Edited December 18, 2018 by formerlyofCtown

[VW82]

20 minutes ago, oldmanfan said:

Actually he's not.  And I and others have explained numerous things the fallacy of completion percentage as a measure of accuracy.  But you refuse to accept this because it interferes with your bias that he's bad.  

 

No one's saying it's a perfect measure of accuracy. It's still valuable along with Yards, YPA, QB rating, and a bunch of other statistical measurements so we can get a more complete statistical profile of the player for the purposes of comparison. By adjusting for things like drops and throwaways we get even better representations. Either way, he's grading out poorly against his peers. You can question the rubric all you want, but it's the best one we've got. 

 

I'm not even saying he's bad. He was bad. These last four weeks he's been everything from amazing to underwhelming to exciting and everything in between, and the stats back that up.     

Edited December 18, 2018 by VW82

[John from Riverside]

1 hour ago, nedboy7 said:

 

Yes call me a child. You know exactly what I mean buddy. 

Do tell

41 minutes ago, BlueandRed said:

Let’s not put the horse before the Carriage.  

 

Yes. We are excited and what he is showing with no talent help around him. 

 

He needs more time to prove he is a franchise qb. 

 

Id say, be patient until end of next year. The negativity should end then, if he is the real deal. 

When ppl go as far south as some have on the opinion.....your not gonna see a lot of "boy was I wrong" posts.....as much as I respect them.....

 

For some reason ppl dont want to be wrong on the internet...even if what they were wrong about actually benefits their team.   The first time Josh throws a bad pass (and he will throw them....just like EVERY NFL qb....you will hear some of our chosen internet few scurry out of the woodwork like ***** roaches......

 

And as fast as they came....if Josh makes a play....lights it up.....they will be nowhere to be scene

 

 

[Bing Bong]

2 hours ago, Augie said:

(But I think we have plenty of Josh threads already.) 

Omg this board is nothing but right now.

[Thurman#1]

7 hours ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

If you look at Josh’s biggest critics the ones in the media who are most vocal in their dislike of him they are non qbs or people who have never played the game and are just analytics guys..but most of his biggest supporters Dilfer, Miller, Simms, Quinn, Romo etc..are guys who played the position just find interesting that a kid with the insane skill set is this polarizing 

 

 

 

Fascinating thing is that all but nobody has played the position. So of course the critics are mostly guys who haven't played it. So are most of his biggest supporters and most of the more neutral folks besides.

 

Romo, Quinn and Miller aren't supporters. They're guys saying he's doing OK right now for where he is but that he has a long way to go.

 

As to your main point, yeah, ex-QBs probably are a bit more likely to be kind to a QB, and especially one so young. If you listened to those QBs they probably shade positive on Tyrod too.

 

5 hours ago, John from Riverside said:

Do tell

When ppl go as far south as some have on the opinion.....your not gonna see a lot of "boy was I wrong" posts.....as much as I respect them.....

 

For some reason ppl dont want to be wrong on the internet...even if what they were wrong about actually benefits their team.   The first time Josh throws a bad pass (and he will throw them....just like EVERY NFL qb....you will hear some of our chosen internet few scurry out of the woodwork like ***** roaches......

 

And as fast as they came....if Josh makes a play....lights it up.....they will be nowhere to be scene

 

 

 

Yeah, sure, there are a few like that.

 

And probably an awful lot more, especially here in Buffalo, who are just the opposite, howling at the first good play and disappearing when things don't go well.

 

The majority understand, though. It's too early to know.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Thurman#1

[Thurman#1]

6 hours ago, formerlyofCtown said:

Statistics win MVP, ROY and things of that nature.  They dont win Championships.  For example you could argue that the Lions out played us statistically but who got the W..

 

 

 

Statistics don't win championships. But has there ever been a team that won a championship with bad statistics?

 

Statistics reflect what happens. Good teams win championships, and they have good stats.

 

Did the Lions outplay us statistically? Net offensive yards are almost exactly equal, 313 yards vs. 312, though the Lions did it on fewer plays. Can we say they outplayed us on offense? OK. Believe it or not they had far more penalty yards against them than we did, 4 for 81 vs. our 3 for 20. That's unusual and maybe encouraging for us. You could say both defenses were effective overall. Did they outplay us a bit? But how about special teams? The stats show Detroit as 0/1 on field goals. And 1/2 on extra points. That's pretty horrible, and was actually the difference on the day.

 

And on those days when you would say that statistics show that the better team lost, it's likely that watching the game would show the same thing. Sometimes one team gets good bounces and the stats will show that.

 

Where are the championship teams with bad stats? There are a few teams that show poor stats for one unit or sub-unit, like the passing offense of the 2000 Ravens, but that just reflects reality. The Ravens passing offense really was pretty bad. But their defense was one of the all-time greatest and their run game was damn good too. Generally the stats just reflect what happened.

[formerlyofCtown]

12 minutes ago, Thurman#1 said:

 

 

Statistics don't win championships. But has there ever been a team that won a championship with bad statistics?

 

Statistics reflect what happens. Good teams win championships, and they have good stats.

 

Did the Lions outplay us statistically? Net offensive yards are almost exactly equal, 313 yards vs. 312, though the Lions did it on fewer plays. Can we say they outplayed us on offense? OK. Believe it or not they had far more penalty yards against them than we did, 4 for 81 vs. our 3 for 20. That's unusual and maybe encouraging for us. You could say both defenses were effective overall. Did they outplay us a bit? But how about special teams? The stats show Detroit as 0/1 on field goals. And 1/2 on extra points. That's pretty horrible, and was actually the difference on the day.

 

And on those days when you would say that statistics show that the better team lost, it's likely that watching the game would show the same thing. Sometimes one team gets good bounces and the stats will show that.

 

Where are the championship teams with bad stats? There are a few teams that show poor stats for one unit or sub-unit, like the passing offense of the 2000 Ravens, but that just reflects reality. The Ravens passing offense really was pretty bad. But their defense was one of the all-time greatest and their run game was damn good too. Generally the stats just reflect what happened.

Dont think I said teams win championships with bad statistics now did I and why dont you take a look at the all sacred completion percentage of their QB as the context of this whole confersation is Josh Allen or how about we look at their RBs yards per carry as we are talking about individual statistics and not team statistics.  Sorry if I didnt make that clear.

Edited December 18, 2018 by formerlyofCtown

[row_33]

6 hours ago, Phil The Thrill said:

 

I think he’s illustrating the difference between an informed opinion and an uninformed opinion.  He makes a valid point

 

You agree so it’s valid....

 

so only exQBs can make a statement?

 

interesting little Utopia you have there

 

[BullBuchanan]

You don't need to play the position to be a critic or perform good analysis. In fact it's kind of irrelevant.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

28 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

You don't need to play the position to be a critic or perform good analysis. In fact it's kind of irrelevant.

 

Orly

[WhyteDwarf]

49 minutes ago, BullBuchanan said:

You don't need to play the position to be a critic or perform good analysis. In fact it's kind of irrelevant.

 

Agreed.  In fact, most of the color analysts who are ex players are very terrible at analysis. For some reason it is assumed that they will be good at it, but they're usually not.  For every 1 Romo you get 100 Tasker's.

Edited December 18, 2018 by WhyteDwarf

[Phil The Thrill]

53 minutes ago, row_33 said:

 

You agree so it’s valid....

 

so only exQBs can make a statement?

 

interesting little Utopia you have there

 

 

Wrong...just saying that they have a deeper understanding of what is required to successfully play the position on many levels.

 

The Ledyard’s or Barnwell’s of the world do not.  FACT

[BullBuchanan]

4 minutes ago, Joe in Winslow said:

 

Orly

How many films did Roger Ebert direct? How many former chefs hand out Michelin Stars?

Most good critics come from a background that emphasizes consumption of a tremendous amount of content, and deduction skills to properly analyze what they consumed. All Chris Collinsworth knows is "back when I was a wide receiver". 

[TigerJ]

8 hours ago, WhyteDwarf said:

It might have something to do with the last 20 years of trash at the position. Also might have to do with your age.

I'm pretty optimistic and I've been a Bills fan since OJ Simpson was drafted back when I was in high school.  Until he actually is a franchise QB, I'm not ready to say he will be, but I like most of what I'm seeing.

[WhyteDwarf]

Just now, TigerJ said:

I'm pretty optimistic and I've been a Bills fan since OJ Simpson was drafted back when I was in high school.  Until he actually is a franchise QB, I'm not ready to say he will be, but I like most of what I'm seeing.

 

Wow, congratz on being a Bills fan so long.  Hopefully you get to see a winning organization sometime soon.  I lucked out with the 90's Bills, I just started to watch when Kelly got off that plane, mainly because my older brother told me it was time to start paying attention to the Bills.

[Artem Lipatov]

Troy Aikman criticized Josh Allen for inacuracy during pre-draft assesment. I think Buffalo Bills fans must remember this QB. But he also told Rosen could be ready starter and day one. Not looks like he's right. Hope Allen'll prove Aikman's wrong.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Artem Lipatov

[WhyteDwarf]

1 minute ago, Artem Lipatov said:

Troy Aikman criticized Josh Allen. I think Buffalo Bills fans must remember this QB

 

Aikman is usually terrible to listen too, but his accuracy criticisms of Allen were right on target.  The burden of proof is on Allen that he is not inaccurate, not on Aikman.

[JaCrispy]

9 hours ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

If you look at Josh’s biggest critics the ones in the media who are most vocal in their dislike of him they are non qbs or people who have never played the game and are just analytics guys..but most of his biggest supporters Dilfer, Miller, Simms, Quinn, Romo etc..are guys who played the position just find interesting that a kid with the insane skill set is this polarizing 

It’s easy to be a critic of Allen because you don’t have to do any work- it’s all there in the numbers...it’s actually harder to be optimistic about his future success when you take emotion out of it, and just based on the numbers.

[WhyteDwarf]

34 minutes ago, JaCrispy said:

It’s easy to be a critic of Allen because you don’t have to do any work- it’s all there in the numbers...it’s actually harder to be optimistic about his future success when you take emotion out of it, and just based on the numbers.

 

Very well put, nice to see some reasonable fans who can discuss this.  Sports and emotion do go hand in hand, but too much emotion leads to blind devotion, which is not healthy in any situation.  Allen is a hot button issue, and I'm not sure that will ever change!

[The_Dude]

You don’t have to have played football to coach. And you don’t have to have played football to be a critic. 

[Ramza86]

10 hours ago, VW82 said:

Interesting observation. I would counter that most former QBs tend to treat up and coming QBs with kid gloves the same way former coaches tend to do with current coaches. 

 

Instead of Allen critics and Allen supporters, why can't it just be about discussing his play? If you're not able or willing to entertain passing stats as a way to understand and compare QB play that probably says more about you and your ignorance to numbers than it does anything else. There's a reason we've evolved beyond using only the eye test as a form of measurement and analysis. As far as I've heard/read, everyone and every measurement we have all say the same thing: talented but inaccurate.   

 

Most of it is being lazy.

 

Stats work well only if you watch every throw and diagnose every play.

 

Completion % is a waste of everyone's time.

 

Adjusted completion % we can take a look at because that means someone watched every throw and was able to come up with more accurate result.
 

[WhyteDwarf]

5 minutes ago, Ramza86 said:

Adjusted completion % we can take a look at because that means someone watched every throw and was able to come up with more accurate result.

 

There is an objectivity/bias issue with that method that can skew the results in any direction one wants to, especially pertaining to dropped balls.

Edited December 18, 2018 by WhyteDwarf

[Ramza86]

Just now, WhyteDwarf said:

 

There is an objectivity/bias issue with that method that can skew the results in any direction one wants to.

 

And thats the problem with stats.

 

They never tell the whole story. 

 

[WhyteDwarf]

2 minutes ago, Ramza86 said:

 

And thats the problem with stats.

 

They never tell the whole story. 

 

 

Maybe in the future we will have an AGI that can take all the data and spit out something that is irrefutable.  Right after AGI solves all the other worlds problems ofc

Edited December 18, 2018 by WhyteDwarf

[Troll Toll]

Interesting to hear the announcers on MNF talk about how Cam switched this year to higher completion % and lower air yards... and they looked awful. I want Josh to keep playing how he’s playing, I doubt there is a QB playing today that stresses a defense as much as Allen. He has legs and a canon arm that he is going to put to use on every drive. 

 

From a mentality standpoint on defense, you loathe having to defend deep passes and it is demoralizing when they connect. Same goes for when you have everybody covered and the QB rips off a big gain with his legs. A lot of incompletions right now are to guys that aren’t great at tracking and catching deep passes. We get him more reliable guys in that department and we’ll see 400 yard games, not just 300 yard games. If he is throwing for 400 yards at 55-60% I’ll be ecstatic. He’s consistently moving the ball and putting up points, those things trump completion % every time.

[dickleyjones]

10 hours ago, Phil The Thrill said:

This is what Aaron Schatz of Football Outsiders said.  I can agree that the jury is out on Allen, but you can’t argue that his play this season exceeded this very bleak outlook last Spring:

 

“A parody of an NFL quarterback prospect, Allen was abysmal in 2017 en route to not even making an all-Mountain West team. We don't want to say there's absolutely no chance he'll ever be good – he's got a deep ball, he's got some ability to make plays on the run and under pressure – but there is zero empirical evidence to support him becoming a reasonable NFL starting quarterback. And if you thought the excuses for his supporting cast were bad in Wyoming, wait till you see this Bills offense. ... Allen is the battleground that old scouts are going to die on, whether they're right about it or, as all evidence suggests, wrong about it."

 

https://buffalonews.com/2018/07/24/josh-allen-take-football-outsiders-bills-almanac-scouts/

 

 

" Zero emperical evidence." This is the root of the problem. These analytics guys have no idea what statistics actually mean. They use stats to try to sound smart, but they are completely uneducated and draw conclusions without justification. 

[Don Dokken]

1 hour ago, Artem Lipatov said:

But he also told Rosen could be ready starter and day one.

 

Not surprised that Aikman would have loved the guy from UCLA

[mjt328]

I've been following the draft process for years.

 

I find that media experts, Internet sites and general fans seem to rank draft prospects based almost entirely on college stats, game film and highlights.  Basically, they emphasize how good a player is right now, and say that's how good he will always be.

 

NFL scouts and general managers certainly consider a prospect's college performance, but also do their best to factor in physical/mental potential and off-the-field intangibles.  They are trying to figure out how a good a player is going to be, if he can be developed properly.

 

That's why everyone on TV loved Baker Mayfield leading up to the draft process, but hated Josh Allen.  Most were shocked when they started realizing that most NFL teams saw Allen as a Top 10 pick.  It wasn't anything personal against Allen or the Bills.  They just didn't see what the scouts saw, and were going to bash whatever team decided to pick him that high.

 

You can see this process already working its way through the 2019 draft class.  A great example is Houston defensive tackle Ed Oliver.  Early in the season, the media was gushing over him as possibly the #1 pick in the draft.  And no doubt, the guy has been dominant during his college career.  But word is starting to leak about what NFL scouts think, and there are serious concerns about his size.  It's very likely that Oliver drops out of the Top 10 by the spring. 

 

 

[Ed_Formerly_of_Roch]

15 hours ago, Phil The Thrill said:

 

He has a very good point.  The people who are Allen’s loudest critics have never played 1 down of college of NFL football.  Nor have the ever worked in an NFL scouting Department.  This is what I’m saying about having an informed vs uninformed opinion.  

 

- Jon Ledyard

- Joe Marino

- Bill Barnwell

- Cian Fahey

- Mike Schopp (never played any sports)

- Aaron Schatz 

- Jerry Sullivan

- @WhyteDwarf

 

Thought he was a champion at Tidldywinks!

 

Is Menza a sport??

[Phil The Thrill]

5 hours ago, The_Dude said:

You don’t have to have played football to coach. And you don’t have to have played football to be a critic. 

 

To be a critic, no.  But to completely understand what it takes to be a QB and how to run an offense....you do.  

6 hours ago, BullBuchanan said:

How many films did Roger Ebert direct? How many former chefs hand out Michelin Stars?

Most good critics come from a background that emphasizes consumption of a tremendous amount of content, and deduction skills to properly analyze what they consumed. All Chris Collinsworth knows is "back when I was a wide receiver". 

 

You are so wrong.  People like Bill Barnwell, Mike Schopp, or Cian Fahey have no clue what they are talking about.  If you think they are knowledgeable, you are fooling yourself 

[Alphadawg7]

16 hours ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

If you look at Josh’s biggest critics the ones in the media who are most vocal in their dislike of him they are non qbs or people who have never played the game and are just analytics guys..but most of his biggest supporters Dilfer, Miller, Simms, Quinn, Romo etc..are guys who played the position just find interesting that a kid with the insane skill set is this polarizing 

 

There is a reason.  Those media idiots are stat sheet checkers and make conclusions off them when stats never ever in football tell the whole story.  This isn’t like baseball where a batting average tells you exactly how a player is hitting.  Football is a true team dependent game, and every single individual stat is greatly influenced by the people around them and context of games.  And none of these media idiots watch the Bills games every week because Bills aren’t a story that generates clicks, so they half a** their analysis by looking at a couple of plays on twitter and stat sheet checking.  And even when they see some plays, they have no idea how to analyze the footage, just comment on final result while having no real idea what contributed to final result (good or bad).

 

Those ex players acatually watch the kid and compare games to see growth and potential.  And are capable of understanding what they are watching.

Edited December 18, 2018 by Alphadawg7

[The_Dude]

46 minutes ago, Phil The Thrill said:

 

To be a critic, no.  But to completely understand what it takes to be a QB and how to run an offense....you do.  

 

 

Yeah, naw, I disagree. 

[NickelCity]

16 hours ago, VW82 said:

There's a reason we've evolved beyond using only the eye test as a form of measurement and analysis. As far as I've heard/read, everyone and every measurement we have all say the same thing: talented but inaccurate.   

 

I agree with the premise, that numbers do matter. I also think it's perfectly legitimate to question the low completion percentage (and/or have a debate as to what factors play into it), but I have to say, through this whole process I've been surprised at how everyone seems to equate this stat with accuracy. 

 

I don't think Allen is inaccurate. I do think he needs to complete more passes, but I don't think accuracy is the culprit. I think he needs to keep progressing in his understanding of NFL defenses, needs to take the easy yards when they're there, and hopefully have more plays at his disposal that emphasize the short game (it worked quite well with an 80% completion percentage to kickoff the Lions game).

[C.Biscuit97]

My god.  What a silly premise for a thread.  Since I played college football my opinion (it should  ) should count more than people who didn’t?  What a dumb statement.

 

jim kelly  wanted the Bills to draft Tim Tebow.  Michael Jordan is considered one of the worst owners in sports.  Belichick played D 3 football.  Polian played club football.

 

i know it is party time (and I’m happy) that we scored 2 tds to beat the lions.  But it’s amazing some of you don’t get why Allen was criticized as a prospect.  He wasn’t that good at Wyoming and these type of prospects fail all lthe time.  Let’s hope for the best but it’s way too early for a victory lap.  

[Mr. WEO]

17 hours ago, 78thealltimegreat said:

If you look at Josh’s biggest critics the ones in the media who are most vocal in their dislike of him they are non qbs or people who have never played the game and are just analytics guys..but most of his biggest supporters Dilfer, Miller, Simms, Quinn, Romo etc..are guys who played the position just find interesting that a kid with the insane skill set is this polarizing 

 

 

So where should all commentary stop....at everyone but guys "who played the position"?  Or allow for others "who played the game", but only on offense?  What about former QB coaches who never played QB--should they be left off the list of those who can comment?  What about guys who spend their careers scouting QBs, but never played QB or played in the NFL, but maybe had a little D3 time back in the day?  Not them either?

 

This is a very interesting concept.....

[VW82]

40 minutes ago, NickelCity said:

 

I agree with the premise, that numbers do matter. I also think it's perfectly legitimate to question the low completion percentage (and/or have a debate as to what factors play into it), but I have to say, through this whole process I've been surprised at how everyone seems to equate this stat with accuracy. 

 

I don't think Allen is inaccurate. I do think he needs to complete more passes, but I don't think accuracy is the culprit. I think he needs to keep progressing in his understanding of NFL defenses, needs to take the easy yards when they're there, and hopefully have more plays at his disposal that emphasize the short game (it worked quite well with an 80% completion percentage to kickoff the Lions game).

 

All good points. Here's my counter:

 

Allen was probably an above average passer in terms of accuracy in the Lions game, despite his poor completion percentage. He was below average in the Jets game. If you go back to the start of the season and add up all the throws where he made the right decision and just missed the mark, it's going to be a high number compared to the rest of the NFL. So it is partly about decision making, but it's also about sometimes he just isn't accurate. Like the Ivory throw or the Thompson short crossing route against the Jets. Sometimes he just misses.

 

Do I have the one perfect piece of evidence to prove my point and end this debate? No. But when you consider where Allen ranks as a passer in completion percentage (or adjcomp%) and by the eye test he has a bad habit of missing easy throws (though he seems to be trending the right way), and you have numerous scouts, former QBs like Dilfer, etc., that have worked out with him or studied him and have no reason to be biased other than in his favour tht have gone on record saying accuracy is sometimes a bugaboo...at some point the preponderance of evidence is overwhelming, and you conclude it's probably more likely than not that he struggles with accuracy in addition to whatever other problems (Oline, bad wr group, play calling, decision making, etc.) are contributing factors.

Edited December 18, 2018 by VW82

[Dr. K]

17 hours ago, Augie said:

I asked a question. You didn’t answer it. Have a nice night. 

The guy is just trolling. Ignore him. 

[John from Riverside]

8 hours ago, WhyteDwarf said:

 

Agreed.  In fact, most of the color analysts who are ex players are very terrible at analysis. For some reason it is assumed that they will be good at it, but they're usually not.  For every 1 Romo you get 100 Tasker's.

?

 

Romo was a QB

Tasker played special teams

 

Take a lap

7 hours ago, The_Dude said:

You don’t have to have played football to coach. And you don’t have to have played football to be a critic. 

You can totally be a critic.....

 

Just ppl can only take you so seriously when your comments are "this guy sucks"