Bills: Playoffs or Bust 2019. What must happen?

[freddyjj]

OK, so if you haven't noticed, I am an analytical fan.  Some good posts here today on Josh Allen and Zay Jone metrics.  Got me thinking, what does it take to make the playoffs in the AFC these days.  

 

Some food for thought:

1. The average total points scored for the season by all 2018 qualifying AFC Playoff teams was 442 total points or 28 ppg.  For perspective, the Bills scored 269 total points or 17 ppg in 2018.  In 2017 the Bills scored 302 total points or 19 ppg when they snuck in the back door of the playoffs.
2. The average points surrendered for the season by all 2018 qualifying AFC Playoff teams was 337 total points or 21 ppg.   or perspective, the Bills surrendered 374 total points or 23.5 ppg in 2018.  In 2017 the Bills surrendered 359 total points or 22.5 ppg when they snuck in the back door of the playoffs.  Weird that they made playoffs with a negative scoring differential.
3. While I can see Bills dropping points against in 2019 to the 21 ppg level with improved D in Yr 3 of system and better time of possession on offense, I am not sure Bills can increase scoring by 11 ppg in 2019.  The one playoff team that they could emulate would be Baltimore who scored at a 24.5 ppg rate.  Can the Bills score 400 points or 25 points per game in 2019?  They did in 2016 with Tyrod and Rex!
4. In 2019 if Josh Allen throws 24 TDs and runs for 12 more TDs we are at 252 points.  Throw in 10 Rushing TDs for RBs and we are at 322 points.  26 FGs (his Average) by House Money and we are at 400 Points scored even.  Anything else (ST returns or defensive Scores) is Gravy!
5. Bills have to go 6-2 at home and 4-4 on road top have a shot at wild card in 2019.  They were 6-2 at home in 2017 but have not gone 4-4 on the road since 2014 when they beat Pats in Foxboro in last game of season when Brady was pulled after halftime.  This is the hard part.  Good teams can win on the road.

 

So to summarize in 2019 the Bills will make playoffs if they:

1. Go 10-6 on season.  The AFC North will be tough but PItt and CIN are in chaos.  The NFC East might be the softest division in NFC next year.  And we draw TN and DEN as our extra AFC Games and both are winnable.
2. Score 400 or more points or > 25 PPG.  Offense improving by 8ppg
3. Give up 335 points or less <21 PPG.  Defense improving by 2.5 ppg

 

What are your takes on this?  Do you see offense improving by 8ppg or defense improving by 2.5 ppg?

[TPS]

They averaged almost 25 ppg after the bye, with Allen at QB in all but the first Jets game.  Certainly doable.

If they fix the O-line/running game, they can be a playoff team.

[DBilz2500]

As long as you find a way to score just enough points to win 10 games you don’t need to average 28+ points/game to make playoffs. Even with a tough schedule, a rookie QB, worst O line and worst receivers in the league we still won 6 games and we weren’t far off from 9 wins(Hou, Miami, Jets games). Free agency and 10 higher end draft picks should allow us the opportunity to improve enough to win 10 games plus most rookie QBs make a big jump from year 1 to year 2. Next year should be fun. 

[ProcessYaDigg]

My take on this?  Just get Ws.  Doesn't matter what stats are on the board, just WIN!!!

[EasternOHBillsFan]

1 hour ago, TPS said:

They averaged almost 25 ppg after the bye, with Allen at QB in all but the first Jets game.  Certainly doable.

If they fix the O-line/running game, they can be a playoff team.

 

This is why I would be greatly disturbed if we draft a defensive player in Round 1. We cannot afford NOT to address our offensive holes.

[Ronin]

It's a good question, but to me the bigger question is what will make them competitive in the playoffs.  As we saw, merely "making the playoffs" can happen all but by accident and by backing in.  

 

There's a whole lotta work to do, and unless you're a believer that a franchise QB can lead by running the ball while possessing a near bottom-dwelling, if not bottom-dwelling outright, passing game, then Allen's really gotta make a leap in his short-medium game, aka Red Zone game, in particular.  For those thinking that Allen will run, run, run his way into the history books, there's absolutely no basis for such a belief.  

 

Lots of needs.  Kyle retiring.  Lorax 36 next season and living on borrowed time.  As it is, this is his best stretch since he posted most of his sacks over the first half of the season in his first year here.  In short, can't count on that going forward and as it is, those two were responsible for a third of the team's sacks this season with Hughes as the only other sack-generating player but one that's also inconsistent.  

 

Lorax had 10 of his sacks in his first 9 games in Buffalo, and 5.5 over a 7-game stretch this year, and 6.5 in his other 19 games almost entirely in-between those games.  As it is we finished 26th in sacks. It can't be a good sign when a 35-year old DT on his retirement tour is one of your leading sack getters with the other two being a streaky 35-year old and a DE that'll be 31 next season that's also streaky.  It might be a problem going forward that Lawson and Murphy are your best pass-rushers otherwise. Neither one is much better than average.  

 

While we finished 2nd to Baltimore in yardage D, the scoring D lagged that by 16 spots at 18th, which isn't good.  And frankly, it's about keeping points off the board first and foremost, not yards.  Not sure why yards is the primary indicator.  If you can't keep 'em from scoring in the red zone, and frankly, our yardage D stats are skewed because we were DFL in the league in starting field position allowed.  Which reflects at least somewhat on the offense and special teams, but which masks a lot of problems on D, particularly given our 18th rank just mentioned.  

 

We ranked 30th in Red Zone scoring allowed, so if the D was really so good, why?  

 

Need a whole lot on offense and I'm not convinced that better WRs are going to help Allen as significantly as many seem to think they will.  If he can't hit them, or even find them, it won't matter in the passing game.  

 

How much can/will Allen run next season?  Can he play while structuring the lion's share of his contributions on the ground?  What about the RB(s)?  What role do they then have, merely a support role for a running QB?  Asking seriously here.  

 

If they get a RB and have him run more, what, with Allen's rushing we run the ball 70% of the time?  Would that work?   Or does Allen not run, but then what with his passing game, which is bottom-dwelling right now?  

 

No current WRs on the team that are proven 1/2 WRs, unless you're a believer in Foster, still, he has yet to prove it.  He's gotten a significant amount of yardage, and scores, while being uncovered.  Can't see that lasting. 

 

Having said all that, if the concern is strictly "making the playoffs," we probably have a better chance next season then we've had in a while from a scheduling perspective.  

 

Besides the Pats, who are faltering, we don't play a single one of the six teams that had more than 10 wins.  

 

We play only two playoff teams otherwise in Dallas and Baltimore.  And we play Baltimore, the AFC team, at home.  

 

After that, the only teams with winning records from this year on our schedule, again, apart from the Pats, are Pittsburgh (9-6-1) and Philly (9-7).  

 

So not exactly a tough schedule as of now.  

 

A LOT of work to be done to make the team competitive and just about all of it hinges on Allen making enormous strides in the passing game.  

Edited January 3, 2019 by TaskersGhost

[FearLess Price]

Allen has been great in the red zone historically throughout his career tho.

 

Sure he needs to work on his short and intermediate accuracy but he is money in the red zone.  The guy had so many great throws that our WRs dropped in the end zone they cut 5 TDs offf his stats alone. Its even on YouTube.

[Boatdrinks]

Minimum of ten wins plus a season sweep of NE to entertain any thoughts of a division title ( until Brady is gone)A WC berth would likely require a minimum of nine wins and a 3-3 division record at worst. That mean the Bills would probably have to go 4-2 vs the rest of the AFC to grab  a spot. That’s the road map, more than any offensive / defensive ppg or any other stats really. 

[TPS]

2 hours ago, EasternOHBillsFan said:

 

This is why I would be greatly disturbed if we draft a defensive player in Round 1. We cannot afford NOT to address our offensive holes.

Let’s see what they do in free agency first. 

[ProcessAccepted]

Lot of long posts in this thread. I understand that Bills football is over so it'd time to fill the void but.....

 

7 teams made the playoffs this year that did not make it last year. That's 58.3% new teams. I'm confident with that level of turn over we've got a shot.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

2 hours ago, TPS said:

Let’s see what they do in free agency first. 

 

The available receivers out there are not what we need, with the exception of Adam Humphries. Free agency does offer some good players for the offensive line and tight end though.

[DBilz2500]

4 hours ago, Boatdrinks said:

Minimum of ten wins plus a season sweep of NE to entertain any thoughts of a division title ( until Brady is gone)A WC berth would likely require a minimum of nine wins and a 3-3 division record at worst. That mean the Bills would probably have to go 4-2 vs the rest of the AFC to grab  a spot. That’s the road map, more than any offensive / defensive ppg or any other stats really. 

Playing the third place schedule(vs Denver, titans instead of 2nd place vs colts, chargers) could end up being a huge 2 game swing that could turn an 8-8 season into a 10-6 season. That Clay drop against the Dolphins would’ve actually given us a 7-9 record and a 2nd place schedule next year. Crazy how things turn out sometimes...

[Steve Billieve]

I don't think it will take all that much to be very competitive. 

 

If we don't ***** the bed in free agency, and have an OK draft were on the bubble.  Anything else will get us there: Luck, better in game coaching, some of our younger players taking a big step forward, you name it! 

 

If really unlucky circumstances, like loosing our two best o-line men unexpectedly right after trading away a coveted left tackle, don't happen we should be good.

[freddyjj]

2 hours ago, Steve Billieve said:

I don't think it will take all that much to be very competitive. 

 

If we don't ***** the bed in free agency, and have an OK draft were on the bubble.  Anything else will get us there: Luck, better in game coaching, some of our younger players taking a big step forward, you name it! 

 

If really unlucky circumstances, like loosing our two best o-line men unexpectedly right after trading away a coveted left tackle, don't happen we should be good.

The Glenn trade was made after the Richie and Eric Wood news iirc 

[Ridgewaycynic2013]

Playoff or Bust 2019?

 

’In the hunt’.

 

Until they’re ‘in’, or they’re ‘out’.

 

?

Edited January 4, 2019 by Ridgewaycynic2013

[Johnnycage46]

16 hours ago, freddyjj said:

OK, so if you haven't noticed, I am an analytical fan.  Some good posts here today on Josh Allen and Zay Jone metrics.  Got me thinking, what does it take to make the playoffs in the AFC these days.  

 

Some food for thought:

1. The average total points scored for the season by all 2018 qualifying AFC Playoff teams was 442 total points or 28 ppg.  For perspective, the Bills scored 269 total points or 17 ppg in 2018.  In 2017 the Bills scored 302 total points or 19 ppg when they snuck in the back door of the playoffs.
2. The average points surrendered for the season by all 2018 qualifying AFC Playoff teams was 337 total points or 21 ppg.   or perspective, the Bills surrendered 374 total points or 23.5 ppg in 2018.  In 2017 the Bills surrendered 359 total points or 22.5 ppg when they snuck in the back door of the playoffs.  Weird that they made playoffs with a negative scoring differential.
3. While I can see Bills dropping points against in 2019 to the 21 ppg level with improved D in Yr 3 of system and better time of possession on offense, I am not sure Bills can increase scoring by 11 ppg in 2019.  The one playoff team that they could emulate would be Baltimore who scored at a 24.5 ppg rate.  Can the Bills score 400 points or 25 points per game in 2019?  They did in 2016 with Tyrod and Rex!
4. In 2019 if Josh Allen throws 24 TDs and runs for 12 more TDs we are at 252 points.  Throw in 10 Rushing TDs for RBs and we are at 322 points.  26 FGs (his Average) by House Money and we are at 400 Points scored even.  Anything else (ST returns or defensive Scores) is Gravy!
5. Bills have to go 6-2 at home and 4-4 on road top have a shot at wild card in 2019.  They were 6-2 at home in 2017 but have not gone 4-4 on the road since 2014 when they beat Pats in Foxboro in last game of season when Brady was pulled after halftime.  This is the hard part.  Good teams can win on the road.

 

So to summarize in 2019 the Bills will make playoffs if they:

1. Go 10-6 on season.  The AFC North will be tough but PItt and CIN are in chaos.  The NFC East might be the softest division in NFC next year.  And we draw TN and DEN as our extra AFC Games and both are winnable.
2. Score 400 or more points or > 25 PPG.  Offense improving by 8ppg
3. Give up 335 points or less <21 PPG.  Defense improving by 2.5 ppg

 

What are your takes on this?  Do you see offense improving by 8ppg or defense improving by 2.5 ppg?

 

Wait...teams can sneak into the playoffs through a back door?  Why the hell didn't the Bills do that this year?!?

Edited January 4, 2019 by Johnnycage46

[BuffaloHokie13]

win the division.

[Ronin]

On 1/3/2019 at 6:51 PM, FearLess Price said:

Allen has been great in the red zone historically throughout his career tho.

 

Sure he needs to work on his short and intermediate accuracy but he is money in the red zone.  The guy had so many great throws that our WRs dropped in the end zone they cut 5 TDs offf his stats alone. Its even on YouTube.

 

Really, he's been great historically in the red zone?  

 

Can you cite his collegiate stats to back that up?  

 

In the meantime have you taken a few minutes to look at his red zone numbers in Buffalo?  ... while keeping in mind that about half of the positives therein were from one game against the Fins in week 17, and yet, are still what they are?  Have you then compared them to the rest of the QBs in the league much less to the handful of true franchise QBs in the league, even in their rookie seasons if you want to?  

 

I don't think you've done any of that.  If you have you must've looked up the wrong QB thinking it was Allen.  

 

And please, try not to take this personally, but if you're just going to throw something out there, particularly something that isn't true, and without any basis or substantiation whatsoever, then be prepared to defend it.  If you get upset it's because of that, not because I introduce a whole bunch of actual facts and substantiate an alternative position.  

 

Also very interesting is how narratives are formed simply due to people repeatedly saying things on overly simplified analyses.  I'll give you an example.  

 

Everyone talks about dropped passes in Buffalo as if this is a concept foreign to other teams.  Meanwhile, gone all but entirely unmentioned this season is how the Jets (Darnold), Cards (Rosen), and Ravens (Jackson), and yes, even Cleveland (Mayfield) all had more drops than Buffalo, in fact, at least at one point we were ranked in the top-10 for fewest dropped passes.  I believe we are still in the top-10 for fewest drops (above-average) in finals.  Yet, to whatever extent those other rookie QBS overcame drops, or not, they had more of them than we did.  So if the excuse, as it appears to be, is that unless we have zero drops the bottom-line-data doesn't apply, that's ridiculous.  

 

I'm not trying to compare Allen to the other rookies in this case, but drops can't be part of Allen's excuse because he came out on top there relatively speaking.  As to the rookie QBs, it's not a zero-sum game, all can become franchise QBs, all can also bust.  

 

Hell, I'll even throw in a bonus example;  Everyone talks about how great our Defense is, right?  After all, we're #1 right, or were for a good part of the season until the Ravens passed us late in the season.  But based on what?  They base it on a single indicator, yards.  

 

Because in scoring D we finished the season ranked 18th.  Is that good?  It's below-average.  

In Red Zone defense we finished 29th.  Is that good?  It isn't in my book.  Ehh, maybe it is in everyone else’s as I can’t make that determination for others, but apparently that’s the case given the talk.  … or is it complete ignorance of that fact? 

 

We also wouldn't have ranked 26th in sacks with our three oldest defenders and two that are well past their primes and living on borrowed time and with one of them already having retired logging over 50% of our woeful team sack total.  

 

We also finished the season ranked 8th in 3rd-down%, good but far from #1 or #2 but more importantly asking for a reconciliation between the two, because it's not as if the Bills were the beneficiaries of being allotted a bunch of garbage-time defensively.  In fact, the only three games that even qualify for such a possibility were the first Jets game, the last Fins game, and the Vikes game, but all three of those games had us well-above-average on 3rd-downs rendering our 3rd-down D status even worse over the other 13 games which had no garbage time.  So clearly garbage time was not only a non-factor, but when actually taken into account paints an even worse picture for the rest of the season.  

 

The D wasn't bad for sure, but I'm not sure it was as good as so many claim, if it had been then we'd have won more games like Baltimore who had no better talent offensively than we do, unless one considers Lamar Jackson as being so much better than Allen.  Allen had more Time-to-Throw than any QB in the league according to NFL.com's NextGenStats.   

 

Another part of the false narratives is how the D was on the field so much because the offense "had no weapons" and wasn't good.  Well, there again, the fact of the matter is that the Bills were ranked solidly average in Time-of-Posession, but  more importantly they were ranked 5th in fewest plays allowed, which makes that narrative moot and sees it disintegrate.  (FWIW Cleveland, Arizona, and the Jets all ranked among the worst 5) 

 

Even offensvely one would think, given the talk, that the offense was ranked 30th or so in plays run on offense, but we finished 19th, barely below average.  The Cards (31st) and Jets (26th) ranked well below us.  Yet, the Jets ranked 7 spots ahead of us in points scored with 4 more PPG under Darnold and no better, worse defensively by a long shot, supporting cast than Allen had.  And yet Darnold while posting an OK rookie season was nothing to write home about.  He too will need to make an enormous leap next season.  

 

Ahhh, but I can see the retort already, Darnold played the entire season whereas Allen did not. OK then, it actually increases to a delta of nearly 5 PPG then.  

 

Look, every one of these rookies as in any season will sink and swim on their own.  All five have the opportunity to become franchise QBs, all five have the capability of busting.  But we need to ask, what makes a franchise QB?  The answers are multiple but consistent with the present as well as with modern NFL history. 

 

What IS NOT an integral part of the traits of a "franchise QB," and by "integral I mean what is present in each and every one, is A, running the ball or B, a "strong-arm." 

 

What IS an integral part of a franchise QB is a well-above-average short-medium game, which includes recognizing that sometimes the short dump-off will net you more yards than a 15 or 20 yard pass OTM and typically encompasses less risk, which is why they're called "high-percentage passes."  It also includes, as part of that short-medium game, a well-above-average ability in the Red Zone. 

 

That’s essentially the difference between Allen and Darnold.  Both have 18 TDs but Darnold’s are thru the air (17) whereas Allen’s are split nearly 50/50 and Darnold’s Red Zone performance world’s better than Allen’s is.  Allen’s is near the bottom of the league, by a country mile before that lone Fins game.  

 

Another remarkable thing is that on paper, and according to the vast majority here, the Ravens’ and ours are comparable.  On a per-game basis Allen and Jackson have about the same number of TDs/start, Allen's slightly higher but with Jackson's about the same if we include his non-starting play.  Yet Jackson’s rushing yards/start exceeded Allen’s by nearly 25 yards whereas his passing yards/start lag Allen’s by several yards fewer than that. 

 

Allen’s compl. % is 5 points lower, which is significant because it primarily reflects that short-medium game that he struggles mightily with.  Keep in mind, these numbers are all with a lights-out performance in a rare emotionally-charged home game to benefit Allen, the kind of game that nearly doubled many of his averages.  So the game was a huge outlier statistically.  Whether or not he can play more along those lines than along the lines of his steady-state this season otherwise is the one-million-dollar question.  The other rookie QBs with the possible exception of Rosen, but maybe not even, were all more consistent however.  

 

Also, Jackson’s YPA (7.05) and Adjusted YPA (6.83) were also notably higher than Allen’s.  (6.56, 5.44) for deltas of .49 and more relevantly, 1.39.  So much for the impact of that strong-arm, wouldn't you agree?  Otherwise, reconcile that with data.  

 

But most importantly is their INT%.  Allen ranks dead last of all starting QBs.  In fact, of the rookies, Jackson’s ranks the highest at just ahead Brady, tied with Watson and just behind Wilson and Wentz. 

 

Lastly, and while I’m not a big “wins are the only thing that counts” guy, but many are, many here even, and Jackson’s 6-2 as a starter whereas Allen is 5-6 as a starter. 

 

The big difference in their games is that Jackson is better in the short-medium game and his INT% is less than half of Allen’s.  There’s a reason for that but few people seem to be able to pick up on what that reason is despite the fact that it’s been stated here by a few people repeatedly. 

 

Here’s where I’m having difficulties with narratives, particularly as it pertains to Allen vs. Jackson.  The talk right now of Jackson is highly critical as to whether or not he can be a franchise QB.  “He runs too much” although only slightly more than Allen.  “He’s not a great passer” despite the fact that his short-medium game, which includes the Red Zone game, is better than Allen’s.  For Allen it’s “he’s the next franchise QB in waiting” and he “shoulda been the 1^st overall pick” even.  Really?!  Over Mayfield?  Please.  I’d make that swap in a NY second right now.  Mayfield’s the only one from this draft class at the moment, as well as prior to the draft, that IMO has the best odds for being a franchise QB. 

 

They’ve got comparable overall passing TDs, Allen & Jackson, but Allen’s started over 50% more games and frankly, before the Miami game Allen’s numbers were horrific.  Hence, on a per-game basis, Jackson's better in the passing department, spin it as you may.  

 

So why the disparity between Jackson and Allen in the media, it makes no sense, none whatsoever.  The criticisms that apply to Jackson simply don’t seem apply to Allen, and the props that apply to Allen don’t all seem to apply to Jackson.   Why not?  Because they should if we're going to be fair.  Again, this is simply to demonstrate the power of narratives, whether substaniated or not.  

[Rc2catch]

7 minutes ago, TaskersGhost said:

 

Really, he's been great historically in the red zone?  

 

Can you cite his collegiate stats to back that up?  

 

In the meantime have you taken a few minutes to look at his red zone numbers in Buffalo?  ... while keeping in mind that about half of the positives therein were from one game against the Fins in week 17, and yet, are still what they are?  Have you then compared them to the rest of the QBs in the league much less to the handful of true franchise QBs in the league, even in their rookie seasons if you want to?  

 

I don't think you've done any of that.  If you have you must've looked up the wrong QB thinking it was Allen.  

 

And please, try not to take this personally, but if you're just going to throw something out there, particularly something that isn't true, and without any basis or substantiation whatsoever, then be prepared to defend it.  If you get upset it's because of that, not because I introduce a whole bunch of actual facts and substantiate an alternative position.  

 

Also very interesting is how narratives are formed simply due to people repeatedly saying things on overly simplified analyses.  I'll give you an example.  

 

Everyone talks about dropped passes in Buffalo as if this is a concept foreign to other teams.  Meanwhile, gone all but entirely unmentioned this season is how the Jets (Darnold), Cards (Rosen), and Ravens (Jackson), and yes, even Cleveland (Mayfield) all had more drops than Buffalo, in fact, at least at one point we were ranked in the top-10 for fewest dropped passes.  I believe we are still in the top-10 for fewest drops (above-average) in finals.  Yet, to whatever extent those other rookie QBS overcame drops, or not, they had more of them than we did.  So if the excuse, as it appears to be, is that unless we have zero drops the bottom-line-data doesn't apply, that's ridiculous.  

 

I'm not trying to compare Allen to the other rookies in this case, but drops can't be part of Allen's excuse because he came out on top there relatively speaking.  As to the rookie QBs, it's not a zero-sum game, all can become franchise QBs, all can also bust.  

 

Hell, I'll even throw in a bonus example;  Everyone talks about how great our Defense is, right?  After all, we're #1 right, or were for a good part of the season until the Ravens passed us late in the season.  But based on what?  They base it on a single indicator, yards.  

 

Because in scoring D we finished the season ranked 18th.  Is that good?  It's below-average.  

In Red Zone defense we finished 29th.  Is that good?  It isn't in my book.  Ehh, maybe it is in everyone else’s as I can’t make that determination for others, but apparently that’s the case given the talk.  … or is it complete ignorance of that fact? 

 

We also wouldn't have ranked 26th in sacks with our three oldest defenders and two that are well past their primes and living on borrowed time and with one of them already having retired logging over 50% of our woeful team sack total.  

 

We also finished the season ranked 8th in 3rd-down%, good but far from #1 or #2 but more importantly asking for a reconciliation between the two, because it's not as if the Bills were the beneficiaries of being allotted a bunch of garbage-time defensively.  In fact, the only three games that even qualify for such a possibility were the first Jets game, the last Fins game, and the Vikes game, but all three of those games had us well-above-average on 3rd-downs rendering our 3rd-down D status even worse over the other 13 games which had no garbage time.  So clearly garbage time was not only a non-factor, but when actually taken into account paints an even worse picture for the rest of the season.  

 

The D wasn't bad for sure, but I'm not sure it was as good as so many claim, if it had been then we'd have won more games like Baltimore who had no better talent offensively than we do, unless one considers Lamar Jackson as being so much better than Allen.  Allen had more Time-to-Throw than any QB in the league according to NFL.com's NextGenStats.   

 

Another part of the false narratives is how the D was on the field so much because the offense "had no weapons" and wasn't good.  Well, there again, the fact of the matter is that the Bills were ranked solidly average in Time-of-Posession, but  more importantly they were ranked 5th in fewest plays allowed, which makes that narrative moot and sees it disintegrate.  (FWIW Cleveland, Arizona, and the Jets all ranked among the worst 5) 

 

Even offensvely one would think, given the talk, that the offense was ranked 30th or so in plays run on offense, but we finished 19th, barely below average.  The Cards (31st) and Jets (26th) ranked well below us.  Yet, the Jets ranked 7 spots ahead of us in points scored with 4 more PPG under Darnold and no better, worse defensively by a long shot, supporting cast than Allen had.  And yet Darnold while posting an OK rookie season was nothing to write home about.  He too will need to make an enormous leap next season.  

 

Ahhh, but I can see the retort already, Darnold played the entire season whereas Allen did not. OK then, it actually increases to a delta of nearly 5 PPG then.  

 

Look, every one of these rookies as in any season will sink and swim on their own.  All five have the opportunity to become franchise QBs, all five have the capability of busting.  But we need to ask, what makes a franchise QB?  The answers are multiple but consistent with the present as well as with modern NFL history. 

 

What IS NOT an integral part of the traits of a "franchise QB," and by "integral I mean what is present in each and every one, is A, running the ball or B, a "strong-arm." 

 

What IS an integral part of a franchise QB is a well-above-average short-medium game, which includes recognizing that sometimes the short dump-off will net you more yards than a 15 or 20 yard pass OTM and typically encompasses less risk, which is why they're called "high-percentage passes."  It also includes, as part of that short-medium game, a well-above-average ability in the Red Zone. 

 

That’s essentially the difference between Allen and Darnold.  Both have 18 TDs but Darnold’s are thru the air (17) whereas Allen’s are split nearly 50/50 and Darnold’s Red Zone performance world’s better than Allen’s is.  Allen’s is near the bottom of the league, by a country mile before that lone Fins game.  

 

Another remarkable thing is that on paper, and according to the vast majority here, the Ravens’ and ours are comparable.  On a per-game basis Allen and Jackson have about the same number of TDs/start, Allen's slightly higher but with Jackson's about the same if we include his non-starting play.  Yet Jackson’s rushing yards/start exceeded Allen’s by nearly 25 yards whereas his passing yards/start lag Allen’s by several yards fewer than that. 

 

Allen’s compl. % is 5 points lower, which is significant because it primarily reflects that short-medium game that he struggles mightily with.  Keep in mind, these numbers are all with a lights-out performance in a rare emotionally-charged home game to benefit Allen, the kind of game that nearly doubled many of his averages.  So the game was a huge outlier statistically.  Whether or not he can play more along those lines than along the lines of his steady-state this season otherwise is the one-million-dollar question.  The other rookie QBs with the possible exception of Rosen, but maybe not even, were all more consistent however.  

 

Also, Jackson’s YPA (7.05) and Adjusted YPA (6.83) were also notably higher than Allen’s.  (6.56, 5.44) for deltas of .49 and more relevantly, 1.39.  So much for the impact of that strong-arm, wouldn't you agree?  Otherwise, reconcile that with data.  

 

But most importantly is their INT%.  Allen ranks dead last of all starting QBs.  In fact, of the rookies, Jackson’s ranks the highest at just ahead Brady, tied with Watson and just behind Wilson and Wentz. 

 

Lastly, and while I’m not a big “wins are the only thing that counts” guy, but many are, many here even, and Jackson’s 6-2 as a starter whereas Allen is 5-6 as a starter. 

 

The big difference in their games is that Jackson is better in the short-medium game and his INT% is less than half of Allen’s.  There’s a reason for that but few people seem to be able to pick up on what that reason is despite the fact that it’s been stated here by a few people repeatedly. 

 

Here’s where I’m having difficulties with narratives, particularly as it pertains to Allen vs. Jackson.  The talk right now of Jackson is highly critical as to whether or not he can be a franchise QB.  “He runs too much” although only slightly more than Allen.  “He’s not a great passer” despite the fact that his short-medium game, which includes the Red Zone game, is better than Allen’s.  For Allen it’s “he’s the next franchise QB in waiting” and he “shoulda been the 1^st overall pick” even.  Really?!  Over Mayfield?  Please.  I’d make that swap in a NY second right now.  Mayfield’s the only one from this draft class at the moment, as well as prior to the draft, that IMO has the best odds for being a franchise QB. 

 

They’ve got comparable overall passing TDs, Allen & Jackson, but Allen’s started over 50% more games and frankly, before the Miami game Allen’s numbers were horrific.  Hence, on a per-game basis, Jackson's better in the passing department, spin it as you may.  

 

So why the disparity between Jackson and Allen in the media, it makes no sense, none whatsoever.  The criticisms that apply to Jackson simply don’t seem apply to Allen, and the props that apply to Allen don’t all seem to apply to Jackson.   Why not?  Because they should if we're going to be fair.  Again, this is simply to demonstrate the power of narratives, whether substaniated or not.  

Very long read but well done. That was put together very nicely and makes some serious valid points 

[Ronin]

On 1/3/2019 at 4:50 PM, TPS said:

They averaged almost 25 ppg after the bye, with Allen at QB in all but the first Jets game.  Certainly doable.

If they fix the O-line/running game, they can be a playoff team.

 

22 is now "almost 25"?  

 

After the bye we scored 132 points in 6 games.  22/game.  Check me if I'm wrong.  

 

Before week 17 we were averaging a perfect 18 points/game.  

 

It was only against Miami, a team in disarray, with the 27th-ranked yardage and scoring defense in an emotionally charged home-game that bumped that up to even 22, still below average on its own against season NFL standards.  

 

Fixing the OL is only half the battle, the other half is fixing Allen's short game.  If we improve the OL, a tall order on its own given the plethora of team needs, and even with better WRs, if Allen continues to not see them on his reads then it won't matter.  

 

Here's to hoping that will happen, but until it does the OL isn't going to make nearly as much of a difference as that will.  

On 1/3/2019 at 5:56 PM, Circlethewagon8404 said:

My take on this?  Just get Ws.  Doesn't matter what stats are on the board, just WIN!!!

 

What's your take on why the media is slamming Lamar Jackson who had more rushing yards than Allen, despite starting fewer games, but praising Allen when statistically Jackson's the better short-medium passer and given that Jackson's 6-2 as a starter whereas Allen's 5-6?